« BACK TO FORUM
 Author |
 Post
|
 |
|
Grant Price
Joined: Jul 3, 2001
Posts: 45 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male & 28
Country: Australia
Province/State: New South Wales
City: Sydney
|
Alternatives
October 15, 2001 - 09:49 AM
|
|
Im posting this in my updates, because I don't seem to be able to post a discussion...Login issues
***********************************
It seems many people, especially uni students believe the U.S. should have not retaliated in any sense to the events of September 11.
Assuming the U.S. government really does have strong evidence attesting to the guilt of Bin Laden (Don't Doubt that I think they do, I just don't wanna be naive nor a conspiracy theorist - No evidence has been presented to the public) was the military action against the Taliban appropriate?
Or should alternatives have been considered?
Economic Sanctions
Other negotiations
Other Alternatives
Would other approaches have worked? Why?
Should these other approaches have been backed up by the military?
And just as importantly will the current offensive work? Or is the U.S. wasting their resources and sewing the seeds of hatred?
<hr>
I feel the no-retaliation view to be absolutely ridiculous, and don't understand how people can hold it.
Although I believe they would have probably failed, Negotiations with the Taliban should not have been completely ruled out, but the continued hardline military action was probably a necessary pressure to be placed upon them, to force leaders to offer reasonable solutions (ie: The proposal of an unspecified third country was probably unreasonable - Are there any truly neutral countries in this situation? Or would there be an automatic bias?).
Your thoughts?
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Mike
Joined: Aug 31, 2001
Posts: 369 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 25
Country: Australia
Province/State: Western Australia
City: Perth
|
grant.
October 16, 2001 - 08:15 AM
|
|
Economic Sanctions - errr, are you REALLY sure you want to do that?
Other negotiations - Americans dont want to logically, deal with people (the taliban) who are irrational, unreasonable and basically unorganised as well as corrupt.
Other Alternatives - doesnt matter. yankees are always trigger happy.
note the last point. although yanks are typically trigger happy - there are the loyal few who are not. so im just setting myself straight in that respect.
also noting the last point. did americans want peace considering they were thirsty for blood after the 11th?
they may not had wanted peace, for sure - but did they want war? probably not. they just cant decide whether it is a war or simply another 'peace mission'
america doesnt have a lot to gain from destroying afghanistan. no-one does, for that reason, this is one of the few examples where america is not joining/conceiving/participating in a military effort to rid the world of tyranny with a secret document outlining the benefits for american politicians and oil companies.
i want people to think long and hard then, about why they are even using the air strikes that they are using, when ground troops would be much more effective in removing terrorists, and terrorist camps - along with taliban strongholds.
now - while afghanistan has bad bad bad terrain. the soviets were the ones who were forced to fight in the treacherous hills of afghanistan so they could secure the routes into the townships.
america has helicopters. troop transports and c-5b glaxy aircraft.
so, why not just dissolve the government. and let the UN take over?
simple. because once the UN has it, americans give up.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Jarra McGrath
Joined: Oct 27, 2000
Posts: 106 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 28
Country: Australia
|
Re: Alternatives
October 16, 2001 - 09:34 AM
|
|
"note the last point. although yanks are typically trigger happy - there are the loyal few who are not. so im just setting myself straight in that respect."
Loyal yanks... wouldn't they be the ones with the finger itches...
Um...
What is the difference between a UN Soldier and an American UN Soldier...
thoughts...
:/
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Vanessa Currie
Joined: Feb 28, 2001
Posts: 5 (view all)
Poster Rank:
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female, 35
Country: Canada
Province/State: British Columbia
City: Vancouver
|
Re: Alternatives
October 16, 2001 - 11:11 AM
|
|
sanctions....a positive alternative to war?
yes the UN uses sanctions, and yes if employed at the proper time with considerable thought and in an arena with many other diplomatic activities they can work to force a government to comply with international standards.
BUT if you look at the way the US has used them in the past, sanctions have targeted citizens and reduced the poor to the desolate and left the rich untouched. US sanctions, for example in Iraq, have been ineffective, to say the least, unless you consider targeting woman and children, and disabling the health care and education systems effective.
US foreign policy, has been less than exemplary and should not be used as an example for the way the international community should move forward.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Grant Price
Joined: Jul 3, 2001
Posts: 45 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 28
Country: Australia
Province/State: New South Wales
City: Sydney
|
Re: Alternatives
October 17, 2001 - 01:02 AM
|
|
Pred: why not just dissolve the government
How is this to be done?
"Excuse me Mr Taliban Leader, would you please order your Government to be dissolved and let the U.N. do their thang?"
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
MJ
Joined: Nov 11, 2000
Posts: 33 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Country: Canada
|
Politics of Middle East
October 17, 2001 - 02:52 AM
|
|
David, thank you for your reply, I will use it in educating myself on the current events, as it is very useful while trying to scramble through media rubble.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Nicole Corriero
Joined: Nov 15, 2000
Posts: 9 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female, 28
Country: Canada
Province/State: Ontario
City: Windsor
|
Trigger Happy ?
October 17, 2001 - 02:58 AM
|
|
Comments on who is trigger happy.
Did you happen to see the little boy, riding on the tank, with a rifle. He had to be 8 or 9. I haven’t seen a 9 year old American child on a US tank parading through New York City.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Mike
Joined: Aug 31, 2001
Posts: 369 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 25
Country: Australia
Province/State: Western Australia
City: Perth
|
Re: Alternatives
October 17, 2001 - 05:41 AM
|
|
grant - i was hoping someone would avoid asking me that question. it just seemed the right thing to say. its not easy of course, but anythings possible when you put everything into it.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
MJ
Joined: Nov 11, 2000
Posts: 33 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Country: Canada
|
Re: Alternatives
October 17, 2001 - 12:59 PM
|
|
By the sounds of it, the Taliban are not even Afganistan, they are Pakistan. They will be ousted eventually and the Northern Alliance who are Afganies, will take over, most likely. And then who knows what they will be like, only the women will know as they are the real ones being oppressed. There is rumor that Northern Alliance are just as oppressive and ruthless as the Taliban.
Don't you really think the bottom line with these Talibans is Money, Drugs & Power over the Middle Eastern World.
Do you think they really care about Islam ?
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Julie Baker
Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 3 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Gender: Female
Country: Australia
Province/State: New South Wales
City: Kiama
|
Re: Alternatives
October 29, 2001 - 06:31 AM
|
|
"My name is hyperbola...marvel at my asymptotic behaviour, lust for my limits which approach infinity"
owww...I like that!! Hyperbolas, very intrieging little functions I must say.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Umi A.
Joined: Sep 22, 2001
Posts: 46 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 26
Country: Canada
Province/State: Ontario
City: Mississauga
|
Hmmm...
October 30, 2001 - 05:54 AM
|
|
Hi y'all this is my first discussion post. The reason I write is this:
I think the actions of United States were based simplistically on human impulse. Their response to the tragedy was that of the majority: anger, violence, and inflicted pain. Even though there are possibly many other comparatively positive actions that could be taken, they might not have been feasible on the premise of this situation.
Firstly, if sanctions were imposed the general public would be furious. Reflect on their bloodthirst and sense of revenge for a second to realize that the politicians were given an ultimatum, the retaliation being the only safe solution politically.
Secondly, the economic sanctions, for example, would take longer to impose and also effect US with the economic downfall. The quickest solution was to attack, attack, attack. This way they made a "point" (understatement of the year) to the Taliban of their power and influence, while not directly or indirectly allowing the consequences to reflect on North America or its allies.
Think about it!!! 
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Grant Price
Joined: Jul 3, 2001
Posts: 45 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 28
Country: Australia
Province/State: New South Wales
City: Sydney
|
Re: Alternatives
October 30, 2001 - 06:21 AM
|
|
hmm - i really dont see sanctioning against the taliban (and regrettably probably Afghanistan as a whole) would effect the US economy. Afghanistan is not an influential economic player...
I still can not think of an effective and workable solution for the US to take.
The military action is simply angering those with Terrorist sympathies...It really can not be seen as a long term solution, as the problems are so wide spread...Realistically we will at no time in the near future rid the world of these dangerous people...
The only solution (extremely vague) is to attack the Terrorists at the core of their ideology...And then we would be guilty of what Osama Bin Laden so ridiculously claims...That the infidels are intolerant people, aiming to rid the world of people with their beliefs...
In case some of you thought I was saying that Economic Sanctions were the answer...Believe me I am not. Although perhaps used in conjunction with other action (don't ask me what, I'm not a political strategist) it could be an effective tool...
I leave you with a quote from Speed<hr>POP QUIZ ASSHOLE...what do you do? what do you do?
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Daniel A Pino
Joined: Mar 24, 2003
Posts: 1 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Country: United States
Province/State: California
City: Sacramento
|
bin Laden
March 24, 2003 - 11:13 AM
|
|
Today is the 24th of March, 2003. The towers fell about a year-and-a-half ago. What has happened in that time? Well, very early on in the investigation the public knew, or was fairly certain who was responsible for the act. Other than the collection of some scattered operatives, a military operation in Afghanistan, and a war in Iraq, what have we really accomplished in a year-and-a-half? This should've been resolved by now. The time frame and the results suggest several things.
So where is he? Nobody knows? It's still a mystery? If it is a mystery, then what does that say about the competence of our foreign intelligence? And if they do know where he is, then what does that say about our foreign intelligence, or our entire foreign policy for that matter? And even if we knew his exact whereabouts, could we do anything about it? Remember early on in the hunt, many believed him already dead, buried deep underneath some rubble? What happened to that opinion? I haven't heard that one lately. How come?
When a big murder happens here at home, anywhere on American turf, what's usually the protocol? Well normally a bureau gets in motion, and early on some suspects are detained, some leads are pursued, sometimes mistakes are made, but usually the positives outweigh those actions, and within a very short timeframe there is a conclusion. The media attaches itself to the event and most often the story doesn't have a chance to get old. And then the legal system steps in, and the rest is left to history. We're talking hours, days, and weeks here, not years. Who's best at investigating a crime?
So who's in charge of this investigation? Give the FBI a green light to act and it's of a very high probability that this whole matter would've been resolved by now. We have to ask ourselves:
"How bad do we really want this guy?"
We could speculate that even if we get him there's a dozen just like him ready to take his place, but that's not accurate. He's unique in many ways. He's already established himself to a high prominence, and he comes with an impressive resume, reasons not to linger on matters and to move quickly despite the social and religious fall-out. None of that should be a problem if he's sitting in an obscure cave somewhere, or if he's traveling desert roads by caravan, or is disguised as a Bedouin nomad, or is well insulated within the deep protections of armed personnel in Northern Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Iran, or Yemen. None of that should have a bearing on the willingness to move against him. The world is a big place, but given the technology of this era, and what intelligence should be doing, then the whole situation should've been concluded already. There should be no shortage of leads especially as they point to a location, or series of movements. So if he's not dead, where could he be given the time frame we're now sitting on? Again, the time frame suggests several things, if not incompetence in the field, then what? One thing it demonstrates, we're foreigners in a foreign land even though we've made it our business for decades to meddle in the affairs of the Middle East, but now are unable to solve a singular matter, something that many Americans are screaming for.
Suppose he's insulated in a country. Is it worth it? It's war isn't it? One of the things about the declaration of war, you follow that thing you're after until it's done. If that means crossing a border to get whatever you're after, if you know something is there, you retrieve or destroy it, then you move on until the whole mission is accomplished.
If that state says: "Get out of our country!"
Then you say: "What are you doing with these guys, why are they allowed to do what they do against us? We're at war, we've told the whole world that we are now at war, and if you're not careful, you will be too. Give them up, or we'll do whatever we choose to do. That's war brother. And by the way, we have the most sophisticated military on the planet; nobody's going to come to your aid if you make the wrong decision. If you can't help us, then we don't give a %&#$ about you. Well? You better be careful what you say. This isn't intimidation, it's just life or death."
If an established government does the wrong thing, you temporarily move within its borders until this matter is put to rest. It doesn't matter which one it is. If it's Arabia, then Arabia should have a major problem on its hands. If you know where he is, you communicate it to the world through the media, you make your move, and then you clean it all up later. Of course the risk is how much of the Muslim World will rally in response to the move, or how much of an effect it will have on the economic climate.
But do we really want him? How much are we willing to risk in order to put out part of a fire? Is it worth further destabilization of the Middle East? Or is it worth the possibility of a new shift in power with states moving away from neutrality? Is it worth gasoline doubling in price? How much power does this guy really have?
As Jerusalem is to Jews, Mecca and Medina are to Muslims. Arabia is the heart of Islam. It's not Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, nor Egypt. It's much more, and even though its oil reserves are vast, its wealth is only a small part of its power and influence over the rest of the Arab World. Remember something, America has some type of modified alliance with this country. Not only does Saudi Arabia have significant tangible wealth that much of the mechanized world is dependent upon, but it's also a holy land to a large percentage of the global population. And now, a rogue member from one of its royal families has declared war against the West. Bin Laden is Arabian. How the established government there views him isn't important, if the money is being traced to Arabia, then we have a big problem. Until the matter of enabling al-Qaida is resolved by whatever means, this so-called alliance will continue to be a sham with both sides playing a two-faced game. The roots of destruction on this one originally comes from palatial realms. We can try to freeze all of the cash we want. That doesn't address the problem, nor does it stop pumps from pumping. And it doesn't slow down the religious momentum building up in the Middle East.
Essentially, what Bin Laden is saying is this:
Okay Islam, your rest is over. It's time to get at it again with the Western World. You have a duty to protect your faith; we need to drive out those people who don't belong in our backyard. We'll take any measure available to do so. Are you with us or not?
Not only is he well funded, but the Muslim media gives him access to much of the Arab World. But again, we don't know where he is, right? Even if we did know, what could we do about it, especially if he is operating in a place that we can't enter, for whatever reason? Even if he's only the leader of a small faction that operates within the Muslim community, if he's able to move freely past borders without impediment, then what's really happening?
We're at war. Correct? War is the ultimate game. And It's On, whether any of us want to admit it or not. And in war, sides take it to the limit in order to crush eminent dangers, unless they're not really at war. And if not, then they shouldn't be using the language of war. That's playing politics, and buffaloing the people.
If we have to disrespect the borders of a so-called ally in order to begin the hunt of big game, then we should get on with it. If the social ramifications are too great, then we shouldn't displace that sentiment and become unbalanced with other unrelated endeavors elsewhere in order to make ourselves feel better, to satisfy a hunger, even if it is unresolved business. Take care of the big game before it gets away from us entirely. Did Afghanistan yield anything? Will Iraq?
Our foreign policy is a joke, at some point we have to admit it. That in no way refers to the behavior of the United Nations, rather it has everything to do with how we've come to be defined by the global community, our consumptions, our business behavior, and our relationships with respect to aiding regimes and supplying them arms. We went for Afghanistan. Iraq looks to be next. After that, who knows? But unless it's solving The Problem, all of it might be a waste of time, energy, and most of all focus.
There's a monster on the horizon.
His mission is to be the next Caliph.
The time frame suggests a stalemate.
end
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
|
Display posts from:
|
|
Home
Community
