What should we do to free our planet from terrorism?

[CyberMonkey]

Originally Posted by jetsetter

It works better on more industrialized societies such as Germany and Japan.

Yeah that works in an open war, country-to-country, with a central governement and central governed army. It's utterly useless against separated, underground terrorists.

[Goose+]

If decent paying jobs didn't exist then people wouldn't be such a big target on their way to work or in offices.

[ruuman]

Unfortunately only answer is to eradicate mankind, where there is more than one person in the world, there will always be a disagreement. It's human nature to not want to live and let live.

On a more constructive level and discussing the current conflicts, erm not sure, there are no easy answers. Only short term I see is pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan and let them tear themselves apart, changing foreign policy to not get involved with any one and hide head in the sand for 100years hoping it was just a bad dream.

But that's not a great plan either. Should have never gone to Iraq in my opinion.

[nomix]

Iraq has oil. Oil is nice.

But to my mind, what it comes down to, is that the largest body of terrorism is based in countries with hunger, poverty, thirst and opression.

There might be nut cases in all countries - the bigger country, the more nut cases, Britain vs. Norway is a good casing point - but to be honest, the big threat is not there. Well, not that there's too much of a realistic threat from the large body of terrorism in it self, even though there's human tragedies, one must remember that the strategic value of terrorism does not lay in the destruction, the killings, not in anything related physically to the attack, appart from theoretical attacks on targets that will cause big problems all over a large country like the US (Powerplants, dams, so on). The strategic value of terrorism is fear. And we're so scared for terrorists we nearly won't go out to have a pint.

And the fact that we give up our liberties to combat the threat, means the bastards are winning.

[Blind_Io]

I say we nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

[KaJuN]

Originally Posted by ruuman

On a more constructive level and discussing the current conflicts, erm not sure, there are no easy answers. Only short term I see is pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan and let them tear themselves apart, changing foreign policy to not get involved with any one and hide head in the sand for 100years hoping it was just a bad dream.

Should have never gone to Iraq in my opinion.

Pulling out might not be such a bad idea. Just sit back and let the herd thin itself out.

I also agree that going to Iraq was a mistake. Afghanistan, yes, good move. Iraq, no, we have no real reason to be there and it's just pissing them off even more. I think that's the real reason for the large-scale terrorism we see today; waving our military genital size around by getting into all these little conflicts we have no reason to be in.

Originally Posted by nomix

And the fact that we give up our liberties to combat the threat, means the bastards are winning.

You hit the nail right on the head. To the terrorists, all the (largely ineffective) extra security at airports and citizens possibly being spyed on by their own government is just as effective as bombs and hijackings. When the government does that stuff, it's like they're doing the terrorists' dirty work for them.

[nomix]

Originally Posted by KaJuN

You hit the nail right on the head. To the terrorists, all the (largely ineffective) extra security at airports and citizens possibly being spyed on by their own government is just as effective as bombs and hijackings. When the government does that stuff, it's like they're doing the terrorists' dirty work for them.

I totally agree. Not to forget that you might motivate a nutter to blow up something in frustration, and anger.

It is largely ineffective in terms of fighting terrorism. But in the way of controlling the public, it's quite interesting. Quite effective, actually. I don't know how many of you have read 1984, but there is made a very good point, the fact that the war can't die, because the society depends on it, having someone to hate, having fear. It does not matter who sends the rocket into the housing areas, if you can imagine the public that the enemy did it, as Orwell describes it.

Micheal Moore might not be in the same league as a writer, and I agree that he is quite partial, and quite extreme in some of his statements, but he pointed out how fear for terrorism is used to gain political power.

As I have allready said, the extra "security" in airports and in general, works quite well in the effect that much power is lifted into the hands of for instance the President. If I've understood the new legislation correctly, few Presidents have had so much actual power, as the current POTUS.

[zenkidori]

build spaceships.

[epp_b]

How about taking care of your own country first (which is kind of, well y'know, the government's job), not bullying other countries around for oil, not screwing over neighboring countries with "equal" deals....

*dons flame-retardant suit*

[jetsetter]

Originally Posted by epp_b

bullying other countries around for oil,screwing over neighboring countries with "equal" deals....

That is protecting the country buddy. It's the way it is done. And if you are from really any Western European country you can't say much on this issue because your country has gone much further than the United States with these situations.

[cvrefugee]

Originally Posted by jetsetter

That is protecting the country buddy. It's the way it is done. And if you are from really any Western European country you can't say much on this issue because your country has gone much further than the United States with these situations.

I think he's so they don't know much about real war

[KaJuN]

Originally Posted by epp_b

How about taking care of your own country first (which is kind of, well y'know, the government's job), not bullying other countries around for oil, not screwing over neighboring countries with "equal" deals....

*dons flame-retardant suit*

Actually I think he's onto something here. Just look at how last year's terrorist plot was thwarted. Were the terrorists found by a large military force in some 3rd world country? Nope. They were found by government intelligence in England.

That said, going into Afghanistan with a large force was the right thing to do. But Iraq? Come on. A 3rd world country half a world away with a leader that just about every country in the region hated. All the while there are little terrorist groups planning attacks against the US. What seems to be the logical priority?

Going off on a tangent now...Remember a few years ago we kept hearing about how close the military was getting to capturing bin Laden? What ever happened to that? As soon as went into Iraq the media dropped Afghanistan like a hot rock. Nowadays you have to look hard to find any news about the fight against the people behind 9/11. Pretty pathetic if you ask me.

[nomix]

Originally Posted by jetsetter

That is protecting the country buddy. It's the way it is done. And if you are from really any Western European country you can't say much on this issue because your country has gone much further than the United States with these situations.

Protecting the country? Please, that is UTTER rubbish. It was oil, please don't try to convince me otherwise.

Your Government didn't care about the people, they didn't think Iraq had WOMD, they did however know that Iraq might have even bigger resources of oil than Saudi Arabia. When Attlee got Israel to attack Egypt in the Suez Criziz, your president was so reluctant to support a "colonial war", he didn't.

[jetsetter]

Originally Posted by nomix

Protecting the country? Please, that is UTTER rubbish. It was oil, please don't try to convince me otherwise.

Your Government didn't care about the people, they didn't think Iraq had WOMD, they did however know that Iraq might have even bigger resources of oil than Saudi Arabia. When Attlee got Israel to attack Egypt in the Suez Criziz, your president was so reluctant to support a "colonial war", he didn't.

Obtaining oil is a form of protection. The gathering of resources these days with China sending its people around the world is even more important. Though this war is really not just about oil. If it was a larger amount would be flowing than there is now.

[nomix]

Well, the fact that Iraq is under civil war at the moment should be regarded as a quite signifigant factor in an assessment relating to why there is not flowing more oil out of Iraq.

Obtaining oil is not a form of protection. Apart from the fact that it has made the US of A less safe than before, the war is not for protection, it's an attempt to make a type of protectorat of Iraq.

The fact of the matter is, that the war in Iraq was a mistake, on a strategic, tactical and human viewpoint.

At least the attack on Pearl Harbour was a tactical victory..

[jetsetter]

Originally Posted by nomix

Well, the fact that Iraq is under civil war at the moment should be regarded as a quite signifigant factor in an assessment relating to why there is not flowing more oil out of Iraq.

Obtaining oil is not a form of protection. Apart from the fact that it has made the US of A less safe than before, the war is not for protection, it's an attempt to make a type of protectorat of Iraq.

The fact of the matter is, that the war in Iraq was a mistake, on a strategic, tactical and human viewpoint.

At least the attack on Pearl Harbour was a tactical victory..

I've always considered the Iraqi war far from over since it began. Iraq was under Saddam's rule for decades, why should it stabilize and adopt a new form of government in only a few years? Though even then it will have trouble. The British drew up the boundry line throughout the Middle East. They were the ones who put seperate tribes and ethnic groups in one country. But Iraq is not the only one, Yemen is also in a similiar situation at the moment. Because of the tribal and ethnic differences the central government can't control the whole country.

[Firecat]

I don't believe oil was the primary motive for going into Iraq. There is a ton of more money in defense/weapons etc.

Now....if you had to pick between attacking country "A" or country "B"....and one of those was sitting on a ton of black gold, then it's a no-brainer.

[epp_b]

That is protecting the country buddy. It's the way it is done. And if you are from really any Western European country you can't say much on this issue because your country has gone much further than the United States with these situations.

I'm talking about NAFTA and softwood lumber. Canada was totally screwed over by the US on these things.

[nomix]

Originally Posted by jetsetter

I've always considered the Iraqi war far from over since it began. Iraq was under Saddam's rule for decades, why should it stabilize and adopt a new form of government in only a few years? Though even then it will have trouble. The British drew up the boundry line throughout the Middle East. They were the ones who put seperate tribes and ethnic groups in one country. But Iraq is not the only one, Yemen is also in a similiar situation at the moment. Because of the tribal and ethnic differences the central government can't control the whole country.

I agree. There are still problems with the herritage of colonism, both in Asia, the Middle East, and in Africa. Allthough Africa was a joint venture between the colonial powers (Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Holland, Belgium, Italy).

But I still maintain, Bush didn't attack Iraq because he had strong feelings of love to the Iraqi people and their freedom.

[zenkidori]

Originally Posted by epp_b

I'm talking about NAFTA and softwood lumber. Canada was totally screwed over by the US on these things.

that's cause the US rules and you suck.

USA FTW.