world trade center

Charlie_Iliff · Sep 15, 2001

Re: US Response to Terrorism

Bird:
I composed a reply, but apparently accidentally blew it away. I hope this isn't a dupe.
I am sure that Heather isn't naive enough to think that mere talk, or bluster, will accomplish anything. Part of the assumed in her post is that the alternative to her peaceful proposals is the use of US force. She refers to that as the unattracticve alternative for the Taliban. The offer they can't refuse is in the Godfather sense.
Underlying her proposal are the dual requirements that I know you dealt with throughout your career as a police officer. There is no doubt of the need for the availability of and the use of force to stop crime. There is also no doubt of the need for society to offer potential criminals some alternative to the hopelessness that they see as driving them to crime. Force isn't enough by itself, and Heather's main point is that we can't solve the ultimate problem by killing a bunch of people. Although you and I probably disagree with her about what immediate military action should be taken, as a longer term consistent alternative to that action, her approach is necessary as well. The world can't prevent the occurrence of genuinely evil people. And Heather has seen evil in those who ordered attacks on the relief convoys to Sarajevo. Her point is that perhaps a genuine coalition of people and nations can be forged to reduce the pool of followers of those evil few, and to make them more subject to the rule of law. Enforcement of the law always will be necessary.
Perhaps it is unfair to her for me to circulate her draft proposal. She knew that we already understood the limitations on what she proposed, so she didn't have to explain them in detail. Her concern is that there has been little public mention of other than an armed response. That, by itself, may satisy our need for revenge, but would be better in the future as the unused alternative.
No magic wands anywhere.

Charlie Iliff

Bird · Sep 15, 2001

Re: US Response to Terrorism

I think I understand, Charlie. Of course, this is too complex a topic for Heather (or anyone else in the world) to adequately discuss in any message we could post here. As I said, I wish diplomatic solutions could be found, and I fully expect efforts in that arena to to continue, but not to succeed by themselves. And of course, Heather mentioned re-construction of Afghanistan, using funds that would have been used for war. How many times have we tried to "buy" friends, and how well has that worked? The leaders of our nation have some tough decisions to make, we have to support them and hope for the best, and maybe even discussions such as this will help.

Bird

Charlie_Iliff · Sep 15, 2001

Re: US Response to Terrorism

In addition to Heather, who has worked in international relief efforts for a decade, I have another niece scheduled to leave early in the week for Africa, for a two-year Peace Corps stint. Maybe people like that won't come up with the "answer", but from the US those people far outnumber the terrorists.
I hope our leaders can reach the right mix of my inclination to bomb the bastards and their commitment to make things better without killing anyone.

Charlie Iliff

Bird · Sep 15, 2001

Re: US Response to Terrorism

Charlie, people like your nieces get some valuable experience and a different perspective from the rest of us. Depending on what they see, hear, and learn (and what they don't see, hear, or learn about) while they're over there, I guess their perspective can be either good or bad, but whatever it is, their opinions and observations are worth listening to and considering. And like you, I just hope our leaders find the right combination.

Bird

toddler · Sep 15, 2001

Hi PaulT,
I can understand your desire for a solution, but the fact that I can't develope one simple enough to post on this board, with the limitted information we as a primarily civilian group has access to, doesn't mean I can't argue against other propositions. I am actually quite happy with the tactics our government is currently utilizing, and if they deem a military strike advisable, I will most likely support that as well. Our government, unlike several posters on this board, does not appear to believe levelling a country sized target is advisable, reasonable, or useful.

Many here seem very willing to sacrifice innocent lives, are they as ready to sacrifice some of their rights? It's not a different world today than it was Monday, it's simply that the illusion that we are safe is gone. Have the terrorists won by shattering an illusion, no. Will our true sacrifices be lives or financial costs, no. It will be in freedoms.

I'm am perfectly willing to have my fingerprints and iris scan on a federal computer. I will happily show up at the airport a couple of hours early to go through more security checks. If they want to search my luggage, that's fine with me. Tap my phone? I'll live so long as there are limits to the invasions of privacy the government deems necessary. There are several sacrifices we're going to be asked to make, to make terrorism in our country more difficult. I'm willing to make them. They cost me, not some poor kid in Afganistan who doesn't know New York from Tokyo. So nope, I don't have a proposed course of action, except to support an international effort against terrorist activity, with <font color=red>directed</font color=red> lethal force for proven terrorists, and a willingness to make sacrifices that are needed.

I've a question for the rest of you. We know that the people who pulled this off came from several places, Hamburg Germany, Canada, Florida, the Middle East... If you want to eliminate terrorist, does that mean you want to ban radical groups who might perpetrate terrorism in our country? Because if you do, then as well as the radical islamic groups, you may have to consider banning the KKK, white supremacists, or other groups that would support actions against citizens of this country. Kind of cuts into our freedoms. Are you willing to make those sacrifices? And preemtively, no, doing so won't mean the terrorists have won, because that's not their goal. So think about it before you blast me/w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif.
Todd

Phred · Sep 15, 2001

Re: US Response to Terrorism

Charlie,

I agree with the other guys; nice but naive.

The more I think about this problem I have come to the conclusion that the on going civil war in Afghanistan is the key. Do you think the opposition to the taliban would mind if we help a little?

These guys have been at it since the Russians adventure in that part of the world, and the taliban has been winning. I understand that a portion of the population is not happy about this. Perhaps we could tip that scale just a wee bit.

Also the taliban has caused a lot of trouble for their neighbors, Russia, iran, etc.. It appears that no one will miss them.

This is possible it just takes resolve. Remeber that this is a much weaker force than iraq. Granted they will hide in caves and the land is rough but it is possible. We as a country just need to be strong and resolute.

Fred

jdkid · Sep 15, 2001

Re: I ECHO your sentiments!

Hi ya
yep hitting the cash flow might be a way but i heard a report that Bin Laden has not been useing bank accounts .on a side note rebuilding town is how Bin Laden got his money in the frist place ie his fam where big building contractors in the middle east .
take care
JD Kid

Charlie_Iliff · Sep 15, 2001

Re: US Response to Terrorism

Fred:
Certainly nice, but please read it carefully: not so naive, perhaps. Unfortunately, we've already been helping the Northern Coalition, although not so much as to have been successful -- yet. CNN showed some missiles around Kabul, that we undoubtedly gave the rebels. Unfurtunately, the AA fire was probably stuff we gave the Taliban when it was Russia's opponent. The draft proposal isn't to abandon military power. It is to take a run at putting together a coalition of people who can effectively make one or the other of the proposed alternatives preferable to The Taliban.
Naive? Only if proposed as sure to succeed. That isn't in the cards. Worth a try? I think so in conjunction with a retaliatory strike, not as a substitute. I have no idea if I would feel the same way if I had the benefit of the details of available intelligence, but right now I think our best shot at locating a target to hit is to get someone in Afghanistan to tell us what to hit, in the hope that we won't blow up his bedroom.

Charlie Iliff

Kelvin · Sep 15, 2001

Re: Kelvin--Know this

Sorry, I didn't necessarily mean to sound negative. In an earlier post someone complained about the potential loss of military life that we were about to face; I was trying to point out the fact that all of the military members that I know of are ready and willing to proceed with the mission regardless of the danger ahead.

America has been put into a situation that forces the military to respond in a way that will put military lives in jeopardy. To not respond would be even worse.

I relate the terrorist act to a shark that has tasted blood. The terrorist will attempt to draw American blood with even greater intensity now that they have had major success; this will happen regardless of the American military response, at least until the military response eliminates their ability to attack.

Kelvin