non-debate - discussion thread 01

[ARTelevision]

I'd like to pursue a few questions that I see as integral to how we are governed. I have some views on all of this, of course, but I get a feeling that we often polarize ourselves with positions that seem to be absolute differences when, upon examination, they really are differences of degree.

Governments execute security and defense and they also manage vast resources toward some social aim. Those tasks are carried out by all governments. It seems we differ on details on the manner of execution and not on their basic organizational necessity.

For example, the rhetorical phrase, "redistribution of wealth" is one of the issues toward which people often have extreme responses. Yet, every civilized society in history has exercized some form of taxation for the purpose of communalizing certain resources. So it does seem to me that questions of taxation and the purposes to which paid taxes are put are really differences of degree.

In general, I don't see a need to make a big issue out of many details of how we are governed because I realize I am a single citizen involved in a representative process. Some participation and even activism is advisable from citizens but I don't see that being a particularly nasty business no matter what our individual persuasion may be. We're talking about realistically influencing a titanic superstructure and it doesn't seem sensible to simply tilt at windmills because it gives us an ego boost to do so.


That being said, I'm interested in hearing from folks regarding the role of government today as regards social programs and also as regards national security. Please don't repeat the standard rhetoric here. As stated elsewhere, I'm interested in non-confrontational cooperative discourse and I'm not at all interested in debate for its own sake.

For example, here's a major concern I have - what the heck can we do to reduce the threat of terrorism to us all? Really, it seems we are all on the same side here. If there is any polarization it would be between the terrorists and the rest of the civilized world.

Note: please don't reply here with the shibboleth about the similarities between terrorists and freedom fighters, etc. If you don't agree on the terms of this discussion, you're certainly free to create threads and posts at will elsewhere. But you are a smart bunch and I think we know the difference between flame-baiting and mutually respectful cooperative discourse. I'd really like to see if, in this thread, we can discuss our common human concerns regarding security and prosperity. Perhaps we are not so far apart as we often pump ourselves up to believe.

[Bookman]

I believe in order to decrease terrorism the USA must take more concern with the populations of countries we do business in/with. The removal and/or creations of governments in countries whose natural resources are of value to us is a prime example. Furthermore, our congress, administration and military is proxied all the time and people hate us not for our freedoms but our allies around the globe. You want honest and neutral but it must be said that our allies in the Middle East if benefitting from the aid of the USA should take more care and heed with their actions.
Terrorism seems to be more than just fear..it is a last attempt in desperation to fight back and/or to make statements. Some nations (cultures) have no behemoth such as the USA behind them, they cannot fight conventional wars. Our economic policies must change...does this mean we will all be poor?? Who know but we cannot continue to trounce all over the world so we can drive SUVs; this is why they hate us.

A bit more care and consideration should be practiced be the so called Democrat leader in this world. If not possible then just come out straight and claim our actions are Imperialistic.

[Superbelt]

I think to reduce the threat of (middle-eastern) terrorism to us all we need to start pouring a massive amount of funding into alternative, renewable fuels now. That is the single biggest issue we need to pursue. And I mean to the tune of increasing research by 100 billion dollars. The factor in getting the technology is financial, not time. The tech is there, we just need to minaturize it, combine it, or fund those who can distribute it nationwide. The faster we are able to reduce ours, and the rest of the worlds dependence on oil, the better for the civilized world.

The problem as I see it is that we need to protect our interests. So when problems arise in the middle east we have to intervene to protect our economy. When we no longer need to import oil we will not bother to get involved in disputes in that region. That removes the perception that we are conquers in the muslim lands.
I think then we would also have to sponsor economic development in the arab world after their raw goods based economy collapses. (And with the money we would save through tossing off oil as an energy source, and licensing it to the world, this should be easy enough.) This support, if done right would go a long way towards repairing our image throughout the region.

[ARTelevision]

OK, so far I see you're saying we need to take some responsibility for why we may be hated by Middle-Eastern populations (besides Israeli, of course). I'm willing to concede that our policy vis-a-vis the Arabs and the Israelis has been out of balance. That's something that needs to be better understood by those, like myself, who advocate strong military tactics in the Terror War that we're engaged in.

Thanks.

As for energy needs, it does seem to be a very long-term solution to change our oil-based economy. Unfortunately, we are in a precipitous calamity in the present. I believe we can agree on the need for increased non-oil-based energy initiatives.

[Bookman]

Originally posted by ARTelevision
. I believe we can agree on the need for increased non-oil-based energy initiatives.

Agreed.
If we can (I doubt it) maintain our economic situation without muscling people for oil we would be OK.
The scary part is that our economy is bad enough already and our nation is loaded with debt..as in CREDIT.

[Charlatan]

Yes, they are long term(ish) goals. The problem is that most governments don't convern themselves with anything that is long term.

They look for the quick fix and this is a problem. The quick fix can boost your poll ratings at key moments but it does nothing to speak to the longevity of a nation as a whole.

[onetime2]

There needs to be a combined short and long term strategy to combat terrorism. In the short term we need to use military, economic, and political influence to destabilize the terrorist structure that has been allowed to grow unabated for the last 30 or so years. While these terrorist cells and their infrastructure are off balance we need to modify our relationships with countries in the Middle East, Africa, the South Pacific, and former Soviet Republics. By improving quality of life for potential terrorist recruits without pushing our ideals on them we will deeply cut into terrorism's ability to produce "holy warriors".

I would love to move away from our reliance on oil, but that in itself will not halt terrorism, it won't even impact it IMO. Oil is only a small part of the issue. Militant Islam is more concerned about our culture "polluting" their beliefs and cultures than they are about our oil appetite.

[Pacifier]

I don't think that the "strong military tactics" have resulted in a soution so far, or even sbrought us near to a solution. So far these tactics just made the Iraq a melting pot for terrorists and united a lot of smaller groups under the al kaida.
It is quite clear that there is no such thing ascomplete protection. What we canachieve is some sort of peacful coexistence. And this is also the solution most islamists prefer, if you look at Bin Laden statements, what he wants is the west to stay away for he islamistic culture.
This would certainly be a defeat for our "universalism", not Survival of the Fittest, competition and contest would be the major rules. It would be tolerance and acceptance of cultural differences.
I think what makes a lot of people in the middle east angry about us is our consant involvment, not only by having bases there, but also a constant involvment in their culture. We want them to tell how they have to live, that our way has also be their way. This is a source of constant humilation and defiance for those people. Constantly we are telling them that they are backwardly, thst they are still living in some sort of medivael times. If you try to look at us from their point of view you will see that we look very arrogant and decadent to them.

So, I think one of the reasons for terror is, that they feel pushed into some direction they don't want. I also think that will be difficult to solve, we connot simply let them alone. that would also result in massive violence, but I think the west should play a different role. Raqther them forcing them into something we should play the role of a mentor. If the want help we give them, but not unquestioned, not the way we did it so far. At the end they will sell their oil anyway because they can't drink their oil.

I'm most certainly not sure if this way would work, but I think it would be worth trying, we've tried to other way for too long without real success.

(small note: these are not completly my ideas. I used a germen article which i read this week as inspiration, so I'm also not entirely sure this would work.)

[ARTelevision]

Well, here's where I must express extreme concern and caution you that your position may bring us dangerous consequences. Are you willing to consider this?

The historical lesson when dealing with ruthless enemies, with suicidal intent, is not to appease them in any way. The world had to learn this the hard way in WW2. I'm not offering this as a refutation of your proposal but as a very serious concern that I have with it. And it is a crucial historical lesson. I simply can not abide by your proposal for this reason. I believe it is crucial that we continue to discuss this in a cooperative and respectful way as it is at the heart of this matter and our mutual survival is at stake.

[lordjeebus]

I don't think it's possible for any course of action to eliminate all occurances of terrorism. Terrorism is a means selected for various ends and as long as there is someone who wants something badly enough, or angry enough, they may choose terrorism as their means.

The important question then, as I see it, is what proposal best reduces the quantity of terrorist attacks and their lethality, while causing the least social detriment in other areas (economically, civil rights, etc.).

The problem with the hard-line approach is that it can serve as a motivator for others to turn to terrorism (eg. someone whose civilian parents are killed by US military action). The problem with the soft-line approach is that it serves as positive reinforcement for the use of the terrorist method.

I believe that when people act, they weigh the expected costs and benefits. These expectations may be distorted by emotions like anger.

Effective policy must increase the costs, decrease the benefits, and pacify the emotions.

I think that the context of a discussion of terrorism must consider, then:

How can we make terrorism more costly to the terrorist, who is already willing to sacrifice his self?

How can we decrease the benefits to the terrorist?

How can we reduce anger in potential terrorists?

How can we achieve this in the short-term without our means serving as a motivator for terrorists in the more distant future?

What is the risk of terrorism posed to society, and how much should we be willing to give up to reduce this risk?

[ARTelevision]

Yes, the appeal from psychology is valuable in terms of understanding human motivation and behavior - your points must be taken into account.

I'd submit, however that what we are experiencing today is an organized terrorism and not simply personal and somewhat random acts. When a pattern of organization is revealed, it can be attacked and destroyed according to traditional methods, strategy, and tactics of warfare. Destroying the funding apparatus, the command and control apparatus, and the organizational structure of an inimical group is within the realm of probability here. If this is so, is it worth doing?

[HarmlessRabbit]

Originally posted by ARTelevision
I'd submit, however that what we are experiencing today is an organized terrorism and not simply personal and somewhat random acts. When a pattern of organization is revealed, it can be attacked and destroyed according to traditional methods, strategy, and tactics of warfare. Destroying the funding apparatus, the command and control apparatus, and the organizational structure of an inimical group is within the realm of probability here. If this is so, is it worth doing?

Art,

There is a Taoist principle that one extreme makes way for another. When you swing the pendulum one direction, it swings back the other way just as hard. In other words, extremism in defense of good creates extremism in defense of evil.

I believe that is what the current administration is doing. In pursuit of what they see to be good goals, we are invading other countries, killing civilians, torturing prisoners, jailing people indefinitely without charges, and hurting our reputation with our former allies. I believe our actions in the USA are setting the stage for much larger acts of terrorism in the future. My greatest fear is nuclear terrorism. Between North Korea, Iran, the disintegration of russia and the aggression of Israel, I think a nuclear attack in our lifetime is a real possibility.

I don't think an ideology can be uprooted by force. Was Judaism wiped out by the Inquisition, or World War 2? No, in each case it the philosophies were preserved, and the traditions came back even stronger. I fear that is what we are doing with radical islam.

[ARTelevision]

Well, extremism is a judgement call - a matter of degree. Our tactics in WW2 could have been classified as extreme, I suppose. The historical judgement on the very tough calls that were made then is that they preserved relatively good philosophies by effectively dismantling relatively evil ones - Nazism and Japanese imperialism. They were certainly rendered powerless in their attempts at world domination.

Anyway, these are matters of degree - we can attempt to move toward each other's position a bit rather than use them to polarize our mutual interest in survival, security, and prosperity, HarmlessRabbit.

I'd call attention to your stated "fear." I have fear too. I'm not sure it's the best way to craft a future. I appreciate the intensity of your committment to your views. I'm requesting more than an impassioned restatement of them.

I'm really looking for common ground between us. Can we try a little harder to create that here?

[jwoody]

A vast proportion of our enemies' funding comes from the illegal drug trade. Moroccan hashsish generates an estimated $3,000,000,000 per year, you can buy a hell of a lot of semtex with that sort of money, and that's the conservative estimate.

Same story in afghanistan where an estimated 3,600 tonnes of opium was cultivated last year, worth an estimated $2,300,000,000.


What we can do is stop buying illegal drugs, and encourage others to do the same.

[HarmlessRabbit]

Originally posted by ARTelevision
I'd call attention to your stated "fear." I have fear too. I'm not sure it's the best way to craft a future. I appreciate the intensity of your committment to your views. I'm requesting more than an impassioned restatement of them.

I'm really looking for common ground between us. Can we try a little harder to create that here?

Sure! What common ground did you see in my post of my views with your views? What I have seen from you in this forum (i'm likely guilty of this too) is a failure to acknowledge the opposing viewpoint without a qualifier. For example, the the post above, you said "I have fear too, but...". I think true respect for others starts when you leave off the "but".

Change is good. You go first.

[ARTelevision]

HarmlessRabbit, upon reading your post again, I think we need to discuss some things about the nature of war itself.

Am I correct in ascertaining a certain pacifism in your position? I'm reading your comments regarding what we are doing in the business of conducting the War on Terrorism that seem to imply that those things are somehow not part and parcel of engaging in warfare.

If that's how you see it, you may object to waging war against the terrorist organizations and the states that support them in principle. That limits the options we can discuss, doesn't it?

[HarmlessRabbit]

Originally posted by ARTelevision
Am I correct in ascertaining a certain pacifism in your position? I'm reading your comments regarding what we are doing in the business of conducting the War on Terrorism that seem to imply that those things are somehow not part and parcel of engaging in warfare.

If that's how you see it, you may object to waging war against the terrorist organizations and the states that support them in principle. That limits the options we can discuss, doesn't it?

I don't object, in principle, to conducting war on terrorists. I do object to a War On Terrorism, which may as well be a War On The Color Blue. I don't believe you can conduct a war on an ideology that crosses cultures and countries.

What are we fighting in the War On Terrorism? I believe Bush would say we are fighting:
- against brutal dictatorships
- against the proliferation of nuclear weapons
- against the proliferation of biological weapons
- for the spread of democracy and freedom
- for equal justice for all

We have conducted this war by:
- supporting dictators in pakistan and other counties
- looking the other way as pakistan proliferated nuclear technology
- reducing the freedom of USA citizens with the patriot act
- ignoring democratic processes in the United Nations
- torturing afghan and iraqi prisoners
- imprisoning USA citizens without giving them their rights
- imprisoning foreign soldiers without giving them their rights
- installing a non-democratic USA-picked operating government in Iraq
- installing a non-democratic USA-picked operating government in Afghanistan

I don't believe this is the proper way to conduct war. Look at our conduct in World War II. We joined with a group of allies against a common foe. We followed the geneva conventions to show respect for that foe. We conducted public trials for the prisoners of war. We helped germany and japan reconstruct themselves. It's quite a different process.

I am not a pacifist, but I believe that the USA's example in the conduct of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will not increase the ideals of freedom and democracy in the world today.

What common ground do you find with what I just said?

[ARTelevision]

I find a lot of rhetorical one-sidedness in what you just said - a lot of polemic, a lot of speechifying.

I think I'll stop responding for a while.

Thanks.

[HarmlessRabbit]

Originally posted by ARTelevision
I find a lot of rhetorical one-sidedness in what you just said - a lot of polemic, a lot of speechifying.

Huh? You asked my opinion and I gave it. I mean, of course it's one-sided, it's my opinion!

Ok, Art, I'll start with the reconciliation that you seem to want.

Art, I honestly respect your passion for freedom. I believe you are truly committed to the founding father's ideas of "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and you certainly seem to live that ideal.

I appreciate your contributions here, and I understand that helping run things here is likely a thankless job much of the time.

[ARTelevision]

Thanks.

Yes. I am looking for a non-confrontational way to discuss things here. Obviously we both have to work toward that sort of thing, if that's what we want.

I think we are on the same side in our desire to see our way of life continue. We'll need to figure out ways to defend that from those who would destroy it and who would destroy us for exactly the reason that they hate our way of life.

[pan6467]

I don't believe that people who come here and experience "our way of life" hates it. I believe it is governments and religions that teach their undereducated that the way we live is evil. And they teach their people that we go to war and take over their lands to destroy their religion.

North Korea teaches their kids at every level that we are the enemy and must be destroyed. Diplomatically, that is hard to overcome on both sides. How can their leader deal with us in peace if we are the Giant evil he paints us to be? However, this is a country that is starving and starvation promotes hatred. If we were to open peaceful diplomatic relations and offered help and educated their people that we were trying to help it would destroy that myth their government preaches.

After watching Bush and Co. backpedal and deny and change reasons for Iraq, I can see part of the problem. Had Bush given 1 reason and never wavered from that reason I truly believe people in ALL COUNTRIES would have more respect for us.

I am not Bush bashing just pointing out I can see why other countries would hate us.

Also, from the outside looking in, we do seem to have a country that is greedy and selfish and believes the world is ours. However, once inside and meeting the people of this country they would find that myth is wrong. That the US is filled with a loving, caring population.

We're the kid on the block that has all the toys and everything the other kids desire. So they are envious. The only way to deter envy is to educate and show that they also can be kids who have everything. One way of doing this is to make sure that companies exploiting their labor PAY the same wages they do here.

It is my belief that if you can get every country to be self sufficient and to be equal then we would have peace. Yes, it would take time and effort to get countries like Ethiopia water and farming BUT we have the technology, we just use the old adage "wouldn't be cost effective".

Which is more cost effective though? Teaching a country irrigation and how to farm and bringing them the technology to use water effectively or have them hate us and train terrorists to hate and kill us?

I'm just saying education and enlightenment is the way to peace, not hatred and bullying and exploitation, which is what we have shown through policy over the last 50 years.

[HarmlessRabbit]

Originally posted by ARTelevision
We'll need to figure out ways to defend that from those who would destroy it and who would destroy us for exactly the reason that they hate our way of life.

I think it's important to understand that even Islamic Fundamentalists have valid criticisms of the USA way of life, and that even those that hate us exist on a continuum. There are muslims who love the USA, dislike the USA but would never harm anyone, dislike the USA and are politically active, dislike the USA and sponsor terrorism, and dislike the USA and *are* terrorists.

This isn't a pacifist statement. There are people who want to kill americans, and we need to defend ourselves from that. But what we're largely talking about is the largest religion in the world waging a war of ideology with the 2nd largest. Most people on both sides don't hate the other side enough to kill them.

I think if you substitute liberal/conservative for christian/muslim in the above statement, it also applies to this message board.

[ARTelevision]

Responding here to the post by pan6467:

Yes. A very valid long term solution.
I'm concerned however that there is an already existing globally organized army of terror operatives who are acting violently against our populations because of their already-formed hard-line hate.

If we continue conducting the campaign of combat, intelligence, and enforcement against them in the immediate term, I'd be all for implementing the constructive suggestions above for the long term.

My understanding is that humanitarian and educational efforts of the sort described by pan6467 are underway in Afghanistan and Iraq now.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

I think we are dicked pretty good on the oil issue regardless of if we are able to find a source of renewable energy. Isn't like 80% of America's processed materials derived from petro-chemicals? And on the other end of the spectrum even if our oil dependency does go down that still leaves other countries. Now for better or worse the Wolfowitz doctrine is basically the reason that we are in Iraq. Our presence their regulates other countries military roles and military size, if we are doing the dirty work they don't have too. As it goes we only get about 20-25% of our oil from the Mideast (mainly Iraq at 5% and Saudi Arabia 20+/-), so I don't really see what the issue is there. It's other countries like China, Japan and the EU that get their oil there.

Onto Terrorism. Basically it isn't the poor that hates us. For the most part we get snot-nosed ass hat rich educated boys like OBL that got indoctrinated with Islamo-hate back in the 70's. Right now you got the crazy Wahabi's in Saudi Arabia preaching hate against the west, not to mention that branch of Islam is one of the most prolifec(sp) outside of the Mideast and has a growing number of schools around the world. Scary enough it is also one of the biggest growing idealogies being taught in Indonesia the Worlds largest muslim country. The taliban is still very popular in both Afganistan and Pakistan, not to mention Pakistan is becoming one of the most militant Islamic countries on the face of the planet. Perhaps the biggest issue of all though, and what it all may come down to is the culture's that Islam is practiced in, and the mentality's of the therein. For the most part we are dealing people who haven't really changed their way of life since written history has began. They are still largely tribal, largely patriarichly(sp), and extremely immune to change and progress (I'm not knocking them on that, its just an issue when we have to deal with them).

Basically due to the aforementioned reasons we are screwed, there is not a whole hell lot we can do. The lines have already been drawn in the sand and things keep getting worse. Western Civilization (namely America) keeps getting alienated and Islam's influence (especially its "radical" core) keeps getting bigger. I'm fearful on the whole world becoming a carbon copy of the situation in Israel. All we can do now is bring the fight to people like OBL and Al Qeada, and hope to curb what they are hoping to accomplish. Concessions and talking "level headedly" (is that a word?) won't work with these people, you go to shake their hand, they bust a cap. They are sociopaths and there is no talking to them. What's worse is when we try and paint a nicer more Arab-Islamic friendly image to them they are quick to spin it as the Great Satan is trying change Allah and disgrace and enslave all his people's type rhetoric.

Bottom line on Terrorism, don't give an inch. If they wish a fight we should help them meet Allah faster, on our terms and not theirs.

[pan6467]

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
I think we are dicked pretty good on the oil issue regardless of if we are able to find a source of renewable energy. Isn't like 80% of America's processed materials derived from petro-chemicals? And on the other end of the spectrum even if our oil dependency does go down that still leaves other countries. Now for better or worse the Wolfowitz doctrine is basically the reason that we are in Iraq. Our presence their regulates other countries military roles and military size, if we are doing the dirty work they don't have too. As it goes we only get about 20-25% of our oil from the Mideast (mainly Iraq at 5% and Saudi Arabia 20+/-), so I don't really see what the issue is there. It's other countries like China, Japan and the EU that get their oil there.

Onto Terrorism. Basically it isn't the poor that hates us. For the most part we get snot-nosed ass hat rich educated boys like OBL that got indoctrinated with Islamo-hate back in the 70's. Right now you got the crazy Wahabi's in Saudi Arabia preaching hate against the west, not to mention that branch of Islam is one of the most prolifec(sp) outside of the Mideast and has a growing number of schools around the world. Scary enough it is also one of the biggest growing idealogies being taught in Indonesia the Worlds largest muslim country. The taliban is still very popular in both Afganistan and Pakistan, not to mention Pakistan is becoming one of the most militant Islamic countries on the face of the planet. Perhaps the biggest issue of all though, and what it all may come down to is the culture's that Islam is practiced in, and the mentality's of the therein. For the most part we are dealing people who haven't really changed their way of life since written history has began. They are still largely tribal, largely patriarichly(sp), and extremely immune to change and progress (I'm not knocking them on that, its just an issue when we have to deal with them).

Basically due to the aforementioned reasons we are screwed, there is not a whole hell lot we can do. The lines have already been drawn in the sand and things keep getting worse. Western Civilization (namely America) keeps getting alienated and Islam's influence (especially its "radical" core) keeps getting bigger. I'm fearful on the whole world becoming a carbon copy of the situation in Israel. All we can do now is bring the fight to people like OBL and Al Qeada, and hope to curb what they are hoping to accomplish. Concessions and talking "level headedly" (is that a word?) won't work with these people, you go to shake their hand, they bust a cap. They are sociopaths and there is no talking to them. What's worse is when we try and paint a nicer more Arab-Islamic friendly image to them they are quick to spin it as the Great Satan is trying change Allah and disgrace and enslave all his people's type rhetoric.

Bottom line on Terrorism, don't give an inch. If they wish a fight we should help them meet Allah faster, on our terms and not theirs.

I have to respectfully disagree on the "rich snot nosed kids" like OBL hating us. What keeps in power these people is the fear, blame and hatred their leaders perpetrate onto us. To the OBL and Saud families it's about power, and hatred and poverty keeps them in power.

What happens is the same in our cities' projects. The poor see these rich guys and want to get there quickly instead of through proper channels. OBL and others of that kind sit there and say, " yo homeys, you ain't got much, and you are hungry, I got the solution. You strap this bomb on, go into that building and pull the pin. When you die you get to heaven, Allah, he'll give you anything you want. Look over at Salami's family there he did that and now his family has food and a little money and prominence. You do as I say your family will too."

That maybe a tad overboard but close to the truth and that mentality is hard to fight.

[smooth]

According to the texts I have read regarding terrorism, terrorists are not from the poverty classes. They are actually coming from what is equivalent to our middle class. Just like our middle class is sliding into the working poor, their middle classes are experiencing the same thing.

The interesting thing is that, while we have an ideology that rewards and respects the upper class, looks down on individuals who don't "make it," and perpetuates global capitalism, the middle class in the Middle East doesn't share such beliefs. They view global capitalism as one of the main sources of their nations' problems--not our "lifestyle" in terms of freedom or technology.

These are military actions--not religious ones. Often times these military actions can be draped in relgious ideology, because that is a powerful tools for the masses. But that doesn't mean it's rooted in relgious ideology. If one begins to look at these actions through this paradigm, recent events begin to make sense.

That is, the actions of 9-11 weren't random targeting of innocent civilians. An economic power structue was intentionally targetted by a military group. A military group that has no centralized nation, and consequently, isn't recognized as an army by Western nation-states (I don't know the stance of Eastern nation-states). But it is a military group nonetheless--and it is acting rationally--not sociopathically. For five decades international monetary organizations, guided by Western powers, have carved up and subjugated previously powerful nations. They handed power over to elites aligned with their interests and gave them military and economic support--mainly in exchange for access to oil. With global communication and transportation, grassroots organizations have swelled up and organized themselves.

This global organization of individuals should be viewed as a natural response to international corporations, neo-colonialism (characterized by economic force rather than military), and global trade pacts among nation-states. I'm not saying I support terrorists killing my fellow citizens and anyone who takes this in that way really ought to think about respecting their fellow countrypersons more, but I am saying that this is something that was natural, predicted, and essentially unheeded by the public. I don't doubt our administration is up to par on this--they just think they can stop it differently than academics who share my view. Academics who share their view think we can with this with military and economic might. We think, however, that our country doesn't have the resources to pull us through such a long battle. Besides, the toll is too great, to our view. We think there are other ways to stop this aggression that I won't go into during this post. But appeasement is very different from working a truce or agreement. It's also never been tried before--so no one sitting here reading this now can say that "appeasement doesn't work." You can type it, actually, but it isn't particularly relevent or accurate.

I will say this, however, the Western powers stomped on a lot of people to get where they are today. It wasn't through intelligence or innovation--but military force. It remains to be seen whether we've reached our peak yet. If we have, though, and we are beginning our decline, we have to meet all thoe people we subjected on the way back down. Whatever you take from my post, at least understand this: no matter what tactic we take, the coming events are going to exact a very heavy toll on us both in terms of casualties sustained and the freedoms we have historically held paramount to other considerations.

[onetime2]

No matter which "class" the terrorists come from they are typically from areas which see a great divide between rich and poor. Additionally the countries they come from are viewed as "second class" on the world stage. Poverty and the image of middle eastern countries play a big role in the popularity of terrorist causes.

[smooth]

Originally posted by onetime2
No matter which "class" the terrorists come from they are typically from areas which see a great divide between rich and poor. Additionally the countries they come from are viewed as "second class" on the world stage. Poverty and the image of middle eastern countries play a big role in the popularity of terrorist causes.

The important thing to remember is that the terrorists are the rich ones--not the poor people in these nations. It's a very important distinction. It's important because the way you framed poverty as a driving force of terrorism is inaccurate. The way I framed it, in terms of the wealthy enlisting in military causes to stop global capitalism, is more accurate, according to scholars, and gives us better insight into the motivations for these acts than thinking poor, backwards people are pissed at our ideology and wealth.

[HarmlessRabbit]

Originally posted by smooth
The important thing to remember is that the terrorists are the rich ones--not the poor people in these nations.

That's certainly not true in the case of the Palestiniant terrorists, who come from the poverty of refugee camps.

"terrorism" comes from many causes and many castes. Look at Timothy McVeigh, for example. That's why a War On Terrorism is, in my opinion, like a War On The Color Blue.

[smooth]

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
That's certainly not true in the case of the Palestiniant terrorists, who come from the poverty of refugee camps.

"terrorism" comes from many causes and many castes. Look at Timothy McVeigh, for example. That's why a War On Terrorism is, in my opinion, like a War On The Color Blue.

I was actually referring to terrorists who were attacking our nation. I realize that I may not have made it clear in my original post, but I was responding within the context of the thread.

While poor people certainly are capable of committing acts of terrorism, poverty isn't the reason. For example, there are many more poor Palestinians who don't commit terrorism than those who do. The scholarly view is that some Palestinians feel politcally oppressed and that's the root of their terrorism.

I was suprised to learn that terrorists aren't coming from the poorest levels of their respective societies. I don't want to turn this into a debate thread, I can PM some titles to those who want to read more about this position. I don't know of any people, right or left, who have done research and come up with a different understanding of the socio-economic positions of terrorists. If anyone has a text that contradicts my claim, please send me the title.

[smooth]

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
"terrorism" comes from many causes and many castes. Look at Timothy McVeigh, for example. That's why a War On Terrorism is, in my opinion, like a War On The Color Blue.

I don't understand the reference to McVeigh.

I don't agree that terrorism is analogous to the color blue. Terrorism is something that can be addressed and changed, unlike the color blue. While it may have many causes, the two that most clearly stand out are political impotence and poverty; the latter seems to be a point of contention between us, but it's possible that an interaction occurs between the two*. Both of those issues can be addressed, but in both instances, the dominant group will have to relinquish claim to limited resources, whether that's political power or access to riches. Right now it appears the dominant group wants to violently suppress reactions to global hemogeny. I don't know for certain that such reactions will fail. I just disagree that it's the best method since it will be so costly.

*In statistical analysis, a main effect is caused by an independent variable (in this case, politics or poverty). There could be no statistically significant main effect due to one or both independent variable(s) and still be a statistically significant effect due to the interaction between the two independent variables. If that occurs, we interpret the interaction instead of the main effect or lack thereof.

[ARTelevision]

The declared enemy at the moment is globally organized Radical Islamic Terrorism. I would have thought that obvious. Nevertheless, it's the case in question.

[onetime2]

Poverty is a key part of the situation no matter how you want to define it. While those leading the terror networks come from wealthier families, the rank and file are heavily influenced by the poverty they are exposed to and in many cases have lived through. You want an example, take a look at Afghanistan.

[Pacifier]

Originally posted by ARTelevision
Well, here's where I must express extreme concern and caution you that your position may bring us dangerous consequences. Are you willing to consider this?

yep
Like I said, I don't think that my solution is the one, but from what I see now, from what we do now and was we did in the past I don't belive that our current way is a way that could bring us peace and saftey.

Originally posted by ARTelevision
The historical lesson when dealing with ruthless enemies, with suicidal intent, is not to appease them in any way. The world had to learn this the hard way in WW2.

Hitler was a madman, it is not very easy and mostly not very clever to take him as example for everything. It was also at the beginning of the war, everyone thought the war could be avoided. But in the middle east we are already in the middle of a war. I belive most (with the exeption of some very few) islamists just want to be left alone, they want to live their life in Peace. The middle east never had some sort of peace, it had always some sort of massive western influence, be it by colonial forces or industrial power. There was always someone who told them how to live. In this region there is a "war of cultures" that has not just started with 911, the roots of this conflict are much older.

The Roots of Jihad - Part One
The Roots of Jihad - Part Two

Leaving this region "alone", like I suggested in my first post, would not be a sign of appeasement, it would by a sign of "policy of peace". That we are willing to find a peaceful solution, that we are actually willing to end this conflict and to let them live in a way they want to, without the west bossing them around. To fight on seems to be a sign of blind rage and I think peace would also be much cheaper Violence just produces more violence and I don't think that bombing that whole area to shreds is a valid solution. That would be a genocide.

[animosity]

i hate to post without reading the thread of is entirety but i dont have the time....

as far as "terrorism" or "freedome fighting" goes i think we had it coming... if they had people all the time down our throats telling us what to do, sending military and the occational bomb our way i can guarantee you that i would have been the first guy on those planes to bomb the hell outta us... if we want to get out of this trouble we need to formally apologise for 50+ years of meddling in other countries affiars & pull out all of our troops. we were once a great neutral country, but we are to easily agitated and once WWI happend it was hard for us to get back into our own affairs and go about our normal lives.
its not a problem hard to fix... just one that is hard to admit...

[lurkette]

ART, going back to your original post, I think you're absolutely right in some respects that the various "positions" on issues of national security and social policy are not so far apart as one would think.

One thing that I find hard to resist is splitting the positions on these issues into two sides. Opinion on things fall along a spectrum, and I'm not sure how we always seem to come down to two positions, but it happens. So for the sake of simplicity (which is probably at the root of this binarizing (?) problem to start with) I'm just going to play along with the "two sides" assumption.

In terms of social policy, I think everyone wants to see a certain number of things happen, ideally:

1. everyone should have their basic needs met: food, shelter, water, health, etc.
2. everyone should have the ability to express themselves freely
3. everyone should have the opportunity to live a successful and fulfilling life
4. the environment should be healthy enough for human habitation
5. a stable society is in everyone's best interests

I'm sure we could think of more basic principles that everyone can agree on.

Where the disagreement seems to arise is in:
1. the prioritization of these ideals (e.g., enabling everyone to live a successful and fulfilled life is more important than the protection of the environment; social stability is more important than self-expression)
2. the method by which these ideals are best attained (e.g., government should ensure that basic needs are met, vs. individuals should be responsible for ensuring that their own needs are met)
3. the ability of individuals/corporations to make wise decisions in service of these ideals
4. the extent to which these ideals apply to all people vs just "our" people
Etc.

It's in these "methodological" issues that real, substative differences arise. I think part of the problem is that some of these issues are too complex to be examined empirically: it's impossible, in any kind of short time frame, to determine which way is "best" for meeting these ideals. So we fall back on ideology and dogma, or on what we think is going to be best for us personally.

I think we run up against some of the same issues when dealing with national security. I don't think anybody actually believes that either political party in this country supports terrorism. Nobody with a brain or a moral compass approves of the tactics used by these radical Islamists. We all want to be safe.

The problems arise in thinking about how best to achieve that safety without sacrificing other ideals - and there's the rub: we don't all agree on the value of these other ideals, such as the identity of the U.S. and its role in the world, the relative value of civil liberties, respect for the rights of other countries' citizens, the best way for the U.S. to protect itself, etc.

I guess all I've done is re-stated the nature of the usual disagreements. The problem is that I'm not sure these issues are tractable, unless we can agree on the basic ideals and then agree, further, to work together regardless of our ideological assumptions to find the best way to serve those ideals. The problem is that when dealing with ideology, you're dealing with something akin to religion. People's identities are deeply wrapped up in their ideological opinions, because they need to be shored up due to the lack of evidence. People have made a leap of faith that their way is best, and it's hard to "un-make" that leap, to step back and admit that the leap was, probably, artibrary or at least founded on suspect assumptions.

I guess what I think would be useful is some more discussion about the basic principles and less agreement about the ways to achieve those principles. Unless we figure out the first as a foundation to stand on, I can't see finding agreement about the second.

[ARTelevision]

There are some new members here and new contributors to this forum. Perhaps some of us veteran menbers have new thoughts on this topic.

In any event, I'd like to see us put our heads together on this one again. The problem isn't going away.

[cthulu23]

The Middle East has some of the worst poverty on the planet. Regardless of how you think it could be best helped, I thnk that we can all agree that if you remove people from misery they stop complaining quite so much. Historically, violent dissent tends to go down when the standard of living goes up. Also, I think that abandoning our military bases in the Middle East would probably help calm the situation down, but that is unlikely to happen because of the oil supply.

[ARTelevision]

Yes it is unlikely to happen also because the Saudis and other nations want us there. They are as concerned about radical fundamentalism within their nations and around the world as are we. Our entanglements there are not easily untangled. This includes our relationships with Israel, of course.

I'm interested in the dialog about this and I have also posted a thread in which I discuss some of the significant reasons why we are hated by Muslim fundamentalists and others.

So yes, we do need to look at things this way more than we seem willing to do.

[cthulu23]

The US pulled the vast majority of US troops out of Saudi Arabia last year in recognition of the unpopularity of their presence there, but you are correct in saying that the Saudi Royals are comforted by US military might. However, anyone who remembers the fall of the Shah of Iran should understand how precarious a position the Princes are in. They are in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" type of situation. Maybe that explains why they didn't allow US planes to flyover their territory during the invasion of Iraq.

Israel is a another matter. Both sides have too many bad memories...optimism and compromise seem to have disappeared.