Help
Do you truly believe the World is in a World War on Terrorism and do you think it is crucial that YOU win it?
I use the word WAR in the sense as it was used in WW1 and WW11 not just as a police action or battle or skirmish.
If you answer NO to either question then what the USA is doing must seem close to insane or genocide?
If you answer YES to both questions that at least personalizes the issue.
Does anyone intend to see the movie next week Flight 93?
World War on Terrorism? Or not?
#1
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 16,817
- Joined: 2003-October-07
- Gender:Male
Posted 2006-April-20, 09:57
#2
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 272
- Joined: 2005-May-17
Posted 2006-April-20, 10:04
No way. Last week or the week before they played the tapes of phone calls from people stuck in the towers. I kept waking up crying and had to carefully avoid the news like the plague. I don't think I can handle the movie.
http://badmonsters.blogspot.com probably will not change your life.
#3
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,080
- Joined: 2005-May-16
- Gender:Male
Posted 2006-April-20, 10:29
Badmonster, on Apr 20 2006, 11:04 AM, said:
No way. Last week or the week before they played the tapes of phone calls from people stuck in the towers. I kept waking up crying and had to carefully avoid the news like the plague. I don't think I can handle the movie.
Can you imagine the other people with similar affinities for the victims of ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia (1mm) or Kruschev's Ukraine purification (3mm) or the Holocaust (6mm) or Stalin's pogroms (10mm) or Mao Tse Tung's purges (30mm) or any other genocidal activities of war or politics or religion (Richard the Lionheart's slaughter of 3,000 muslims in Accra during the crusades for instance still burns in the hearts of Palestinian muslims I am sure.)
Humanity will have to learn to deal with it's inhumane nature.
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
#4
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 5,577
- Joined: 2005-March-01
- Gender:Male
- Location:Erlangen, Germany
-
Interests:Astronomy, Mathematics
Nuclear power
Posted 2006-April-20, 10:36
Quote
If you answer NO to either question then what the USA is doing must seem close to insane or genocide?
Is this one of these "you are either with us or against us" questions? I suggest you pose the question more neutrally. It's not a black and white question, you know.
Just because I disapprove terrorism doesn't mean I approve everything that the US government does on this topic.
BTW I prefer "Fight against Terrorism" over "War on Terror".
#5
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,153
- Joined: 2003-February-28
Posted 2006-April-20, 10:39
"Do you truly believe the World is in a World War on Terrorism "
No. Terrorism is a technique used by the militarily weaker side. This goes back thousands of years. The American revolutionaries slaughtered British families in their beds. The British, of course, considerd them savages. The U.S. funded, armed, and trained Al Quaeda in Afghansistan, when the Russians invaded. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
"If you answer NO to either question then what the USA is doing must seem close to insane or genocide?"
Yes. Insane.
"Does anyone intend to see the movie next week Flight 93?"
Depends on the reviews. I'm open to it, but if it is a standard Hollywood disaster movie, then I have no interest.
Peter
No. Terrorism is a technique used by the militarily weaker side. This goes back thousands of years. The American revolutionaries slaughtered British families in their beds. The British, of course, considerd them savages. The U.S. funded, armed, and trained Al Quaeda in Afghansistan, when the Russians invaded. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
"If you answer NO to either question then what the USA is doing must seem close to insane or genocide?"
Yes. Insane.
"Does anyone intend to see the movie next week Flight 93?"
Depends on the reviews. I'm open to it, but if it is a standard Hollywood disaster movie, then I have no interest.
Peter
#6
- The Abbess
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,197
- Joined: 2004-April-22
- Gender:Female
- Location:UK
Posted 2006-April-20, 11:14
Whether "The World" is in war with terrorism .... the armies of various countries are fighting terrorists in Afganistan and a few other countries, but I do not consider "The World" a single entity except when discussing celistical mechanics.
Whether it's crucial that I win the war ..... I'm not planning to participate in any war so I can't answer that question.
Whether the US government is commiting genocide.... no, AFAIK the only genocide going on for the moment is in Darfur.
Whether "what the USA is doing is close to insane" ... yes, I think the top of the government is insane but no, fortunately US is still a by and large reasonably healthy society. Don't see how this is related to the other questions, btw.
Whether I'm going to watch Flight 93 .... no idea what that movie is about and I'll probably keep it that way
Whether it's crucial that I win the war ..... I'm not planning to participate in any war so I can't answer that question.
Whether the US government is commiting genocide.... no, AFAIK the only genocide going on for the moment is in Darfur.
Whether "what the USA is doing is close to insane" ... yes, I think the top of the government is insane but no, fortunately US is still a by and large reasonably healthy society. Don't see how this is related to the other questions, btw.
Whether I'm going to watch Flight 93 .... no idea what that movie is about and I'll probably keep it that way
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
#7
- Axxx Axx Axx Axx
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,976
- Joined: 2003-August-31
- Gender:Male
Posted 2006-April-20, 12:23
mike777, on Apr 20 2006, 05:57 PM, said:
Do you truly believe the World is in a World War on Terrorism and do you think it is crucial that YOU win it?
I use the word WAR in the sense as it was used in WW1 and WW11 not just as a police action or battle or skirmish.
I use the word WAR in the sense as it was used in WW1 and WW11 not just as a police action or battle or skirmish.
I don't think this wording is wise.
Some mentally instable people are seduced to do criminial acts and even to kill themselves by a few people with lust for power. They falsely claim, to do this in an holy war.
Instead of telling everybody what they really are:
criminal mass murderer, some mentally disturbed
this fact is diguised by calling them terrorists.
The use of the term "war" can create the wrong impression that there is a holy war going on.
Additionally giving up basic western principles (e.g. about torture, being arrested without a warrent, innocent until proven guilty, privacy ...) can be understood in a way that such acts of violence can actually change something.
I wish the news in Iraq and worldwide would reference their reports to "mass murders where the murderer killed himself", and "destroying property of the iraqi people worth xxx" or whatever people and money involved. Don't you think that this kind of "advertising" might at least seed some doubt in those, who are now supporting these criminals.
#8
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 5,577
- Joined: 2005-March-01
- Gender:Male
- Location:Erlangen, Germany
-
Interests:Astronomy, Mathematics
Nuclear power
Posted 2006-April-20, 12:44
Quote
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Yes this is certainly true.
Quote
Whether it's crucial that I win the war ..... I'm not planning to participate in any war so I can't answer that question.
Me neither.
#9
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,082
- Joined: 2006-January-23
Posted 2006-April-20, 14:42
I have lots to say on this topic, but you will have to wait for my book for me to cover it all 
In my previous job ("Senior Scientist, Terrorism Risk Assessment, ARES Corporation"), I developed software to identify security vulnerabilities, and assess security implementations (the probability of an intruder breaching security and getting to or damaging a target of interest via the most successful path) as well as performing a number of terrorism risk assessements at commercial and military complexes. I attended many conferences, and interacted with many people who thought a great deal about the terrorism problem (this doesn't mean that my thoughts are more valid than others are, just that I have spend a good time thinking about these issues...).
So here are some of my thoughts:
First as a preliminary:
Risk is a measure of the "value" of a particular bad consequence * the probability that that consequence occurs.
There are many risks in the world. We can die from a disease. Get hit by a truck. Lose our job and not be able to find another one. We can get nuked by another country. We can spend all our resources protecting ourselves from getting nuked, and it turns out to be a waste of money (since no one tried to nuke us).
There is also a game theoretic aspect to risks, since, for human caused risks, the probability of the risk occuring depends in part on the consequences. (E.G. One would not bother to break into a bank, if the bank didn't keep much money there for you to steal). If I spend all my money protecting myself from one type of threat, and nothing vs another type of threat, how do you think will my enemy will choose to attack me?
In bridge, we do probabilistic risk assessment all the time (see Kit Woolsey's great book matchpoints for a detailed discussion), so most of you are familiar with this way of thinking.
So having said all this, is terrorism a risk? Certainly. There are people out there who would like to harm others, and disrupt others way of life.
Is it a war? Not in any traditional sense. A war usually involves a well defined (and sovereign?) enemy, and a sustained conflict, even if its not a militarily sustained conflict (a cold war?). Fighting terrorism is more like fighting crime in that:
a. there is not just one well defined group of people involved
b. the set of people involved changes
c. the terrorists targets are not restricted to things that increase a military advantage, but can be anything that scares the public (An Anthrax scare, without any actual anthrax involved can be an effective terrorist act.)
d. while some of the terorists are Organised (like with crime), there are many different "cells" and "organizations"
e. the threat is primarily from all around us
Yes all of this bares some similarity with a Gorilla war (e.g. vietnam), but even in such a war there is a great deal more co-ordination between the relevent "cells" than what you see in terrorism. It bares more similarity to fighting "the mob" or the KKK, with terrorists being even less monlithic, and thus harder to counter-attack.
Is terrorism a serious threat? Its probably not as serious as cancer, or maybe things like large scale climate change, but its certainly serious. The recent elections in palestine, for instance, indicates to me that while perhaps the majority of people would not actually perform terrorist acts, many support the causes promulgated by terrorist groups, so these are far from globally isolated fringe groups. (This is not to say the the majority of palestinians favour violence, but they are certainly not oppossed enough to it to opposse someone who does favour violence). Similarly, the funding for terroism coming from places like saudi arabia indicates that the threat is much more widespread than those who are actually comitting the violent acts.
What can be done about terrorism?
As with most risks there are two sides of the coin:
a. you can reduce the liklihood that an attack occurs
b. you can reduce the consequences (or the probability of success)
Now, protecting everything is an expensive proposition, both in terms of money and in terms of how that would impact the way we live our lives from day to day. Those are both serious matters, and one has to really think that the terrorism risks are more severe than the risks casued by fighting terroism.
So what can be done. Well some things on the b side, are just good public policy.
Improving or public health infrastructure would improve our detection of a bio-terror attack (as well as a naturally occuring disease outbreak), and would improve our responsivenees both to natural and intentional large scale disasters.
Improving safety at potential terrosit targets like chemical or nuclear plants, limits the effectiveness of using these sites as weapons, in addition to protecting us from accidents (Bopal? Chernobel?).
Improving security and tracking containers better at ports not only helps prevent weapons being smuggled into our country, but helps protect us from other forms of smuggling, drug trafficing, etc.
Improving funding for basic public safety, like the numbers of police on the street, has many other benefits other than just against terrorism.
Having said that, in many ways the a side is more important. Improving the western world's relationships with the non-west, in theory should make terrorists more isolated, and more limited in numbers. How exactly to impliment that is another question.
Improving our intellegence so that attacks can be stopped before they start (or the terroists groups effective ability to plan and communicate is disrupted) should help, but may, in the long term, cause even more anti-western or anti-american hatred.
Israel's solution, of old, was to attack the terroists directly, but this strategy is being less and less effective, as the terroists are not just in one place, and there is no "central node" to attack that distroys there effectiveness. And sometimes such attacks only furthers anti-western or anti-american (or israeli or whatever) feelings and increases the violence.
Well, maybe there is a central "node", which is the source of money for the terrorists, but we will have to kick our collective addiction to oil to have any hope of putting an end to their funding.
Anyway, thats enough of a ramble for today... Just trying to kick start the discussion.
In my previous job ("Senior Scientist, Terrorism Risk Assessment, ARES Corporation"), I developed software to identify security vulnerabilities, and assess security implementations (the probability of an intruder breaching security and getting to or damaging a target of interest via the most successful path) as well as performing a number of terrorism risk assessements at commercial and military complexes. I attended many conferences, and interacted with many people who thought a great deal about the terrorism problem (this doesn't mean that my thoughts are more valid than others are, just that I have spend a good time thinking about these issues...).
So here are some of my thoughts:
First as a preliminary:
Risk is a measure of the "value" of a particular bad consequence * the probability that that consequence occurs.
There are many risks in the world. We can die from a disease. Get hit by a truck. Lose our job and not be able to find another one. We can get nuked by another country. We can spend all our resources protecting ourselves from getting nuked, and it turns out to be a waste of money (since no one tried to nuke us).
There is also a game theoretic aspect to risks, since, for human caused risks, the probability of the risk occuring depends in part on the consequences. (E.G. One would not bother to break into a bank, if the bank didn't keep much money there for you to steal). If I spend all my money protecting myself from one type of threat, and nothing vs another type of threat, how do you think will my enemy will choose to attack me?
In bridge, we do probabilistic risk assessment all the time (see Kit Woolsey's great book matchpoints for a detailed discussion), so most of you are familiar with this way of thinking.
So having said all this, is terrorism a risk? Certainly. There are people out there who would like to harm others, and disrupt others way of life.
Is it a war? Not in any traditional sense. A war usually involves a well defined (and sovereign?) enemy, and a sustained conflict, even if its not a militarily sustained conflict (a cold war?). Fighting terrorism is more like fighting crime in that:
a. there is not just one well defined group of people involved
b. the set of people involved changes
c. the terrorists targets are not restricted to things that increase a military advantage, but can be anything that scares the public (An Anthrax scare, without any actual anthrax involved can be an effective terrorist act.)
d. while some of the terorists are Organised (like with crime), there are many different "cells" and "organizations"
e. the threat is primarily from all around us
Yes all of this bares some similarity with a Gorilla war (e.g. vietnam), but even in such a war there is a great deal more co-ordination between the relevent "cells" than what you see in terrorism. It bares more similarity to fighting "the mob" or the KKK, with terrorists being even less monlithic, and thus harder to counter-attack.
Is terrorism a serious threat? Its probably not as serious as cancer, or maybe things like large scale climate change, but its certainly serious. The recent elections in palestine, for instance, indicates to me that while perhaps the majority of people would not actually perform terrorist acts, many support the causes promulgated by terrorist groups, so these are far from globally isolated fringe groups. (This is not to say the the majority of palestinians favour violence, but they are certainly not oppossed enough to it to opposse someone who does favour violence). Similarly, the funding for terroism coming from places like saudi arabia indicates that the threat is much more widespread than those who are actually comitting the violent acts.
What can be done about terrorism?
As with most risks there are two sides of the coin:
a. you can reduce the liklihood that an attack occurs
b. you can reduce the consequences (or the probability of success)
Now, protecting everything is an expensive proposition, both in terms of money and in terms of how that would impact the way we live our lives from day to day. Those are both serious matters, and one has to really think that the terrorism risks are more severe than the risks casued by fighting terroism.
So what can be done. Well some things on the b side, are just good public policy.
Improving or public health infrastructure would improve our detection of a bio-terror attack (as well as a naturally occuring disease outbreak), and would improve our responsivenees both to natural and intentional large scale disasters.
Improving safety at potential terrosit targets like chemical or nuclear plants, limits the effectiveness of using these sites as weapons, in addition to protecting us from accidents (Bopal? Chernobel?).
Improving security and tracking containers better at ports not only helps prevent weapons being smuggled into our country, but helps protect us from other forms of smuggling, drug trafficing, etc.
Improving funding for basic public safety, like the numbers of police on the street, has many other benefits other than just against terrorism.
Having said that, in many ways the a side is more important. Improving the western world's relationships with the non-west, in theory should make terrorists more isolated, and more limited in numbers. How exactly to impliment that is another question.
Improving our intellegence so that attacks can be stopped before they start (or the terroists groups effective ability to plan and communicate is disrupted) should help, but may, in the long term, cause even more anti-western or anti-american hatred.
Israel's solution, of old, was to attack the terroists directly, but this strategy is being less and less effective, as the terroists are not just in one place, and there is no "central node" to attack that distroys there effectiveness. And sometimes such attacks only furthers anti-western or anti-american (or israeli or whatever) feelings and increases the violence.
Well, maybe there is a central "node", which is the source of money for the terrorists, but we will have to kick our collective addiction to oil to have any hope of putting an end to their funding.
Anyway, thats enough of a ramble for today... Just trying to kick start the discussion.
#10
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 16,817
- Joined: 2003-October-07
- Gender:Male
Posted 2006-April-20, 16:23
Thanks for the comments.
As you can see what a split we here in the USA let alone the rest of the world see in the terrorist issue.
Many see it as a police action of some sort. Many want to ignore it and ride the Subway. Some want better police, some fight a war and some will never fight a war or say there is no war. It is hard to do anything if most of us are so strongly split on just how serious or nonserious the threat is.
Many including the President call it a War, a real, full blown war.
I can only assume since he was reelected, but barely, that at least 51% considered it a real full War but if some huge minority disagrees it will be a huge mess to fight. Some say talk do not fight and others say we are just fighting stupid.
These posts really reflect this confusion on just what the threat is and how serious it is or is not. Again thanks for comments, please keep them coming.
As you can see what a split we here in the USA let alone the rest of the world see in the terrorist issue.
Many see it as a police action of some sort. Many want to ignore it and ride the Subway. Some want better police, some fight a war and some will never fight a war or say there is no war. It is hard to do anything if most of us are so strongly split on just how serious or nonserious the threat is.
Many including the President call it a War, a real, full blown war.
I can only assume since he was reelected, but barely, that at least 51% considered it a real full War but if some huge minority disagrees it will be a huge mess to fight. Some say talk do not fight and others say we are just fighting stupid.
These posts really reflect this confusion on just what the threat is and how serious it is or is not.
Again thanks for comments, please keep them coming.
#11
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,153
- Joined: 2003-February-28
Posted 2006-April-20, 16:29
"I can only assume since he was reelected, but barely, that at least 51% considered it a real full War"
1. You are only talking about the U.S.
2. Read the polls lately?
Peter
1. You are only talking about the U.S.
2. Read the polls lately?
Peter
#12
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 16,817
- Joined: 2003-October-07
- Gender:Male
Posted 2006-April-20, 16:33
pbleighton, on Apr 20 2006, 05:29 PM, said:
"I can only assume since he was reelected, but barely, that at least 51% considered it a real full War"
1. You are only talking about the U.S.
2. Read the polls lately?
Peter
1. You are only talking about the U.S.
2. Read the polls lately?
Peter
No to be honest I have not seen any good polls on this question in the USA. I see many on Iraq or how people hate Bush but none on the general question I first posted regarding War and is it critical we win it or not. Can you post any?
#13
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,153
- Joined: 2003-February-28
Posted 2006-April-20, 17:10
"No to be honest I have not seen any good polls on this question in the USA. I see many on Iraq or how people hate Bush but none on the general question I first posted regarding War and is it critical we win it or not. Can you post any?"
You wrote "Many including the President call it a War, a real, full blown war.
I can only assume since he was reelected, but barely, that at least 51% considered it a real full War "
In other words, you used Bush' reelection (popularity) as a proxy for whether people "considered it a real full War". It was in that context that I reminded you that Bush' popularity has gone way down.
Additionally, the "war on terror", if there is one, is in real terms primarily Iraq (according to Bush anyway), and the polls I have seen show solid majorities now believe that the Iraq war has made us less safe, not more safe.
But to answer your question, no, I have not seen any polls where your direct question was asked.
Peter
You wrote "Many including the President call it a War, a real, full blown war.
I can only assume since he was reelected, but barely, that at least 51% considered it a real full War "
In other words, you used Bush' reelection (popularity) as a proxy for whether people "considered it a real full War". It was in that context that I reminded you that Bush' popularity has gone way down.
Additionally, the "war on terror", if there is one, is in real terms primarily Iraq (according to Bush anyway), and the polls I have seen show solid majorities now believe that the Iraq war has made us less safe, not more safe.
But to answer your question, no, I have not seen any polls where your direct question was asked.
Peter
#14
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 470
- Joined: 2006-January-20
Posted 2006-April-20, 17:59
joshs, on Apr 20 2006, 09:42 PM, said:
I have lots to say on this topic, but you will have to wait for my book for me to cover it all
First of all let me thank you for your interesting article. I'm looking forward to read that book ;-).
Quote
Is terrorism a serious threat? Its probably not as serious as cancer, or maybe things like large scale climate change, but its certainly serious.
The main threat coming from terrorism is not the possibility to get harmed in an actual terrorist attack (I personally feel the probability to die from a terrorist act in my case is pretty close to zero). The real problem is the collateral damage caused to prime values of the western societies, mainly freedom! Ironically this damage is caused by our own administrations and not directly by the terrorists themselves. Now we have to leave fingerprints when visiting the US, innocent people end up on ridiculous no-fly lists and even in Germany (so far unharmed by major fundamentalist action) highly questionable legislation is about to be passed in the name of fighting terrorism. These things are which are severely influencing our way of life. Sadly its often only realized after it's too late...
Quote
Having said that, in many ways the a side is more important. Improving the western world's relationships with the non-west, in theory should make terrorists more isolated, and more limited in numbers. How exactly to impliment that is another question.
Why are you the first one to mention this fact here? I think you should have done it even more clearly. Fighting the symptoms is not going to solve the problem. The "war on terror" (I'm not fond of that phrase, see below) means that our governments have to find ways to weaken the terrorists through a sensible policy. We (and especially US americans) must realize why certain groups of people hate us so much. A lot of informed and sensible analysis of the possible causes have been published, only it is not recognized enough by the general public. The people are being misguided to believe that hard and fast retaliation and measures which really cut into our own freedom are ultimately solving the problem. This is mainly because those "solutions" are easier to grasp than understanding complex relationships between societies. It makes me despair sometimes.
Finally a few words on the dreaded terminology of "war on terror(ism)". I think that this term was clearly coined by the media post 911 because it sounds so dramatic and makes for great action news. I've never heard it before the twin tower attacks (for example applied to IRA, ETA or RAF terrorism). Unfortunately, very unfortunately, now everybody is using it as if we're talking about a real war here. People, get real. This is not a war, it is struggling with a social phenomenon that has been around forever and is presently surfacing at a dangerous level. Another problem with talking about a "war" is that all kinds of associated terminology and practices come to mind and suddenly start to sound reasonable (because we assume the context of a real war), like the neutron bomb plans Jimmy has mentioned and "POW camps" such as Guantanamo and other unfortunate developments.
--Sigi
#15
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,153
- Joined: 2003-February-28
Posted 2006-April-20, 18:53
"Fighting the symptoms is not going to solve the problem"
Well put.
Peter
Well put.
Peter
#16
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,373
- Joined: 2003-March-15
- Location:Hamburg, Germany
- Interests:games and sports, esp. bridge,chess and (beach-)volleyball
Posted 2006-April-21, 00:35
mike777, on Apr 21 2006, 12:57 AM, said:
Do you truly believe the World is in a World War on Terrorism and do you think it is crucial that YOU win it?
I use the word WAR in the sense as it was used in WW1 and WW11 not just as a police action or battle or skirmish.
If you answer NO to either question then what the USA is doing must seem close to insane or genocide?
If you answer YES to both questions that at least personalizes the issue.
Does anyone intend to see the movie next week Flight 93?
I use the word WAR in the sense as it was used in WW1 and WW11 not just as a police action or battle or skirmish.
If you answer NO to either question then what the USA is doing must seem close to insane or genocide?
If you answer YES to both questions that at least personalizes the issue.
Does anyone intend to see the movie next week Flight 93?
A little late but:
No, there is no war.
Yes, the USA is doing something very intelligent.
As a result of 9/11, the USA (and most of the rest of the world) occupied Afghanistan. The soldiers went their to fight the evil terrorists and the Taliban. As a result, the western world now has the control of one of the most important conutries in that area. The russians tried the same some 20 years ago, for the same reasons.
Some years later. The USA and some allies occupied Iraq. Iraq is one of the countries with the highest amount of oil.
So, during the "war" against terror, the USA won much influence in two countries, where their influence had been quite low before.
In this way, they did something very intelligent.
Do I think, that this is right or ethical? You did not ask
Do I think, that this will end terrorism? Of course not, it cannot and that was not the goal at all.
We had "our" terrorists here in western europe too: The IRA, the ETA, the brigade rossi, the RAF. Most of these are history. But none of them stopped because of a war against them. It stopped -or at least lost importance- after the opposing governments acceepted them and gave them and their supporters rights.
(Please correct me, if my memory about ETA/IRA serves me wrong)
So, aask the English, how they stopped (at least 99 %) the terror of the IRA.
They learned it and succeeded at last- after years of war without much success.
Kind Regards
Roland
Sanity Check: Failure (Fluffy)
More system is not the answer...
Roland
Sanity Check: Failure (Fluffy)
More system is not the answer...
#17
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 16,817
- Joined: 2003-October-07
- Gender:Male
Posted 2006-April-21, 07:01
"We had "our" terrorists here in western europe too: The IRA, the ETA, the brigade rossi, the RAF. Most of these are history. But none of them stopped because of a war against them. It stopped -or at least lost importance- after the opposing governments acceepted them and gave them and their supporters rights.
(Please correct me, if my memory about ETA/IRA serves me wrong)"
Interesting that Europe feels that terroism is not a critical and important threat in Europe. I guess this post has the answer, accept them and their supporters rights.
Just not sure why the USA does not do the same and solve this issue rather than send young boys and girls all over the world to fight and die. We can get all the oil we need from Canada a few hundred miles away in the tar sands so Oil cannot be the issue, what are we doing and why?
(Please correct me, if my memory about ETA/IRA serves me wrong)"
Interesting that Europe feels that terroism is not a critical and important threat in Europe. I guess this post has the answer, accept them and their supporters rights.
Just not sure why the USA does not do the same and solve this issue rather than send young boys and girls all over the world to fight and die. We can get all the oil we need from Canada a few hundred miles away in the tar sands so Oil cannot be the issue, what are we doing and why?
#18
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,373
- Joined: 2003-March-15
- Location:Hamburg, Germany
- Interests:games and sports, esp. bridge,chess and (beach-)volleyball
Posted 2006-April-21, 08:12
Hi Mike,
at least I do not think, that "terror is not a critical threat in Europe."
But the shock in your land was much bigger when 9/11 happened, then it was elsewhere- after all it was in your country and it was one of your "symbols".
I cannot remember, that "you" took terrorists so serious after the Oklahoma Bomber did his work or after the bombing of your embassy in Nigeria or the first attack of the WTC. Nor did your country felt in panic after Munich 72 or the Theatre drama in Russia or after thousands of other terrorists attacks.
It was just this single and well documented event, which changed your point of view.
And of course, Oil is a very big theme. All our economies need oil to survive. If you just take the oil from canada, it will be finished much earlier then it will be, if you take the oil from the arabs, too.
And: There is a lot of money to earn with oil. This is much easier if you are in a occupied state then in an enemy state. So, just look, who may benefit from the war against hussein? The people in Iraq? Hopefully, but surely not all. Else, tehre woud be less riots.
The rebuilding companies, the oil companies and the weapon producers? Surely, they take the benefit, they are the winners of this war.
So, just look, which companies makes the most business with the rebuilding of the Iraq? Which companies gets better contracts?
Oil surely is a big business. Ask your president, he will know.
In case of al- Quiada, your/our war in Afghanistan had been no success. They still live and are a dangerous. Maybe and hopefully we had made live much more difficult for them then before.
In case of Iraq, the war did not end the biological, chemical and nuclear weapon building in Iraq. This ended long before. There are reasons for these wars, but I believe, these reasons are different from the reasons they tell us..
Quote
Just not sure why the USA does not do the same and solve this issue rather than send young boys and girls all over the world to fight and die. We can get all the oil we need from Canada a few hundred miles away in the tar sands so Oil cannot be the issue, what are we doing and why?
at least I do not think, that "terror is not a critical threat in Europe."
But the shock in your land was much bigger when 9/11 happened, then it was elsewhere- after all it was in your country and it was one of your "symbols".
I cannot remember, that "you" took terrorists so serious after the Oklahoma Bomber did his work or after the bombing of your embassy in Nigeria or the first attack of the WTC. Nor did your country felt in panic after Munich 72 or the Theatre drama in Russia or after thousands of other terrorists attacks.
It was just this single and well documented event, which changed your point of view.
And of course, Oil is a very big theme. All our economies need oil to survive. If you just take the oil from canada, it will be finished much earlier then it will be, if you take the oil from the arabs, too.
And: There is a lot of money to earn with oil. This is much easier if you are in a occupied state then in an enemy state. So, just look, who may benefit from the war against hussein? The people in Iraq? Hopefully, but surely not all. Else, tehre woud be less riots.
The rebuilding companies, the oil companies and the weapon producers? Surely, they take the benefit, they are the winners of this war.
So, just look, which companies makes the most business with the rebuilding of the Iraq? Which companies gets better contracts?
Oil surely is a big business. Ask your president, he will know.
In case of al- Quiada, your/our war in Afghanistan had been no success. They still live and are a dangerous. Maybe and hopefully we had made live much more difficult for them then before.
In case of Iraq, the war did not end the biological, chemical and nuclear weapon building in Iraq. This ended long before. There are reasons for these wars, but I believe, these reasons are different from the reasons they tell us..
Kind Regards
Roland
Sanity Check: Failure (Fluffy)
More system is not the answer...
Roland
Sanity Check: Failure (Fluffy)
More system is not the answer...
#19
- The Abbess
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,197
- Joined: 2004-April-22
- Gender:Female
- Location:UK
Posted 2006-April-21, 09:47
I don't know if Europeans are more or less concerned about terrorism than are Americans. But terrorrism is on the front page of the newspapers nearly everyday.
Í don't think you should say that "we" (the Americans) do this and that - I would prefer to say that the Bush administration is doing this and that since it may not allways have the support of all Americans. And it's possible (not certain, of course, what do I know) that the war in Iraq has more to do with the interests of the Bush administration than with the interests of the US as a whole.
But generally, American governments seem to be more willing to participate in war than are European governments. This is nothing specific for Iraq and Afganistan but a general trend. Some possible reasons:
- The American constituition gives the president a lot of freedom to act, either without the approvement of the congress or with fast procedures for aprovement. In the EU, it takes years of bureaucratic blablabla to decide on anything. So the EU is not suited for warfare and the same is true for some European countries (I remember a discussion in Denmark about sending a single warship to the Persian Golf. It took half a year of negotitions).
- The French and the British usually take opposing sides in international conflicts, making it natural for the EU to stay neutral.
- Germany and Austria (and Italy?) are especially reluctant towards warfare for obvious historical reasons. Sweden has a long tradition of neutrality which has served the country well, and in some countries (Spain, Greece, possibly some Central European countries as well) the popularity of the army is low because of its historical role in politics.
- Many European countries are too small to build an army that could be taken seriously. There is such a thing as a Danish and a Dutch patriotism but the army plays absolutely no role in that patriotism, presumably because the Dutch and the Danes have no military ambitions on hehalf of their country. I guess the same to be true in Ireland, Slovenia etc. The EU, on the other hand, has no army and there is no such thing as an EU patriotism.
Í don't think you should say that "we" (the Americans) do this and that - I would prefer to say that the Bush administration is doing this and that since it may not allways have the support of all Americans. And it's possible (not certain, of course, what do I know) that the war in Iraq has more to do with the interests of the Bush administration than with the interests of the US as a whole.
But generally, American governments seem to be more willing to participate in war than are European governments. This is nothing specific for Iraq and Afganistan but a general trend. Some possible reasons:
- The American constituition gives the president a lot of freedom to act, either without the approvement of the congress or with fast procedures for aprovement. In the EU, it takes years of bureaucratic blablabla to decide on anything. So the EU is not suited for warfare and the same is true for some European countries (I remember a discussion in Denmark about sending a single warship to the Persian Golf. It took half a year of negotitions).
- The French and the British usually take opposing sides in international conflicts, making it natural for the EU to stay neutral.
- Germany and Austria (and Italy?) are especially reluctant towards warfare for obvious historical reasons. Sweden has a long tradition of neutrality which has served the country well, and in some countries (Spain, Greece, possibly some Central European countries as well) the popularity of the army is low because of its historical role in politics.
- Many European countries are too small to build an army that could be taken seriously. There is such a thing as a Danish and a Dutch patriotism but the army plays absolutely no role in that patriotism, presumably because the Dutch and the Danes have no military ambitions on hehalf of their country. I guess the same to be true in Ireland, Slovenia etc. The EU, on the other hand, has no army and there is no such thing as an EU patriotism.
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
#20
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,153
- Joined: 2003-February-28
Posted 2006-April-21, 11:17
Helene, another reason:
We have not experienced a war on our soil in 140 years. Most European countries experienced far greater harm from the world wars than we did. I think that, in general, Europeans are more knowlegeable about the dreadful realities of war than are Americans. In the first Gulf War, I knew people who couldn't wait to rush home from work so that they could see the "cool" news. It was as if they were watching a movie with great special effects. They were good people. They just
didn't connect the news with what was actually happening on the ground.
We are in general a good nation (in some respects a very good one), but great military power and naivete are a bad combination. Maybe Iraq will teach us a lesson, and maybe it will stick for a while.
Peter
We have not experienced a war on our soil in 140 years. Most European countries experienced far greater harm from the world wars than we did. I think that, in general, Europeans are more knowlegeable about the dreadful realities of war than are Americans. In the first Gulf War, I knew people who couldn't wait to rush home from work so that they could see the "cool" news. It was as if they were watching a movie with great special effects. They were good people. They just
didn't connect the news with what was actually happening on the ground.
We are in general a good nation (in some respects a very good one), but great military power and naivete are a bad combination. Maybe Iraq will teach us a lesson, and maybe it will stick for a while.
Peter