Destroying training camps does not prevent future terrorism. And yet, its pretty damn hard to stop terrorism if you let them have training camps. No one said that the bombing was going to solve all our problems. I saw a poll (not a great cite, I know, but) that said 93% of Americans understand that there is going to be a lot more to this than just bombing.
And um, about the aid packages… let’s see, you’re an Afghani, you’re starving to death, everything you have is taken by your oppressive government of foreign extraction and if you complain they shoot you. Then someone gives you food and starts bombing your government. You’re unhappy about either of these things? The actual Afghanis are too busy dying to give a fuck about bombing.
I agree with you, but, ummm… well, you know the US response seems to be pretty well reasoned. I wish there was some other way, but compared to the blind rage “We need ta show them who’s boss”[sub]actual quote from an ignant redneck[/sub] response that so many seem to want it is incredibly reasoned.
I can’t count the number of people I spoke to last week who would complain that the US wasn’t doing enough.
You say bombing isn’t a solution, but surely you’ll agree that inaction would be an even worse response.
I would say that the “bombs and snacks” response is a pretty good idea, certainly better than I would’ve come up with.
You raise a very valid point here. Getting rid of those who are currently terrorizing the world is only going to solve this temporarily (if at all). Someone has to figure out a way to stop the people who want to do this terroristic things (and let’s face it, there will always be someone with the desire to do them) and keep them from having the power and means to do so.
Do I think that will ever happen? No, not really. The closest way would be if every nation had a government that was set up in such a way as to confine it. And even our government doesn’t do THAT great a job of it (as was well proven by the Oklahoma City bombing).
We can quiet things down for a while, but eventually there will be another Bin Laden/Hitler/Saddam Hussein. All anyone can do is try to make things as peaceful as possible for as long as possible.
“Bombs and snacks” for some reason reminds me of those old Hostess snack cake ads you used to see in comics. Batman could give Osama a Ding Dong and resolve the whole mess. “I only blew up the WTC because I was jealous of your yummy american snack cakes.”
First off coosa, I know I’m no Bill Hicks (or Jonathon Swift, for that matter), but was it really necessary to for me to explain I was going for some level of sarcasm in the OP? If so, I’d advise you to stay as far away from those posters you spoke of as possible.
Anyhow, Yue Han, I do think the humanitarian drops were a good idea and that from what I’ve heard most of the Afghani people are much too concerned with day-to-day survival to be worried about bombs that aren’t being directed at them. grendel72, I never said we shouldn’t be taking action, I just don’t think this is the correct action. But like SmeelMeel says, we can only hope to contain it as much as possible. I’d also say that we should try to make the lives of all people better, in order to prevent them from becoming terrorists in the first place. Yes, this is a simplistic solution to a very difficult problem, but this is not the thread for that discussion. Finally, I’d like to say that men have always persecuted other men, and to assume we can ever be rid of such behavior is ridiculous. For Bush to imply, that although it may take a few years, we can win the war on terrorism, is just crazy.
The meals being dropped are only part of an aid effort. There are more serious efforts to provide refugee camps with food. The airdropped packages are just highly visible and so they are drawing a lot of attention from people who never read newspaper article past the “continued on page A6” line.
I think it is also important to note that it is still the first week of the campaign and our efforts will develop in capability and focus as it progresses. I further think it is important to note that while this particular airdrop is not yet fully functioning, airdrops of food by the US have worked in the past (Berlin Airlift ring any bells?). I also would like to point out that airdropped food and bulk shipments of food to refugee camps from the US is a lot more than the Taliban is doing for its own people.
And finally (finally), the Taliban does not have a lot of credibility among the Afghan people. It has not followed through on a lot of promises and has alienated huge segments of the population. I think the current campaign sends an important message that this is a war with the Taliban, not the everday people of Afghanistan and I think that message is finding resonance.
I just wanted to add one more thing here, and then I’ll call it a night. For a very interesting analyis of the the relationship between America and the Muslim world, check out this: http://www.msnbc.com/news/639057.asp
Make of it what you will in relation to the way the Bush administration and the seemingly overwhelming majority of Americans want to try to solve the problem of terrorism, and whether this path can ever be successful.
Apparently I wasn’t alone, as the first 12 responses seem to indicate. As a matter of fact, you didn’t get a serious response until you came back and clarified.
There must be 20 virtually identical discussions going on over in GD right now. Which, IMO, is where this belongs if you actually expected serious responses.
shrug Doesn’t matter to me - I was reading this for the laughs provided by the Dopers in the first replies.
As the first to respond, and possibly set the tone that resulted in some mild mocking of the OP, I’d like to clarify: I did note that the OP was being sarcastic, but still felt his point was overly simplified to such an extent as to be ludicrous.
Most certainly those who planned the military action know that destroying weapons, buildings, even the capture or killing of the terrorists themselves does not ‘solve’ the problem. The goal, and I’m sure I’ve heard officials state exactly this, is to disrupt their ability to conduct their terrorist activities. It is a short-term solution, nothing more, nothing less.
A permanent solution, if there is ever to be one, will be forged by the Muslim world itself. They will have to abandon old hatreds, and fight (with violence if necessary) those that who would corrupt their teachings to further their own evil vision.
I’m glad to see there is another Marx Brothers fan here. As far as a cite for bombing Syria and Philippines, in the Oct. 10 NY Times on page one, these plans were mentioned. In fact, I should have put Malaysia on the list, and not Syria. My mistake. And yes, the OP was oversimplified, and I do in fact believe that if the bombing can somehow contribute the fall of the Taliban, that might lead to a better gov’t in Afghanistan. I was just exasperated at the Bush administration’s seemingly total fixation on their current plan of action, with little if any mention of what will be needed after the bombs have all been dropped. Hopefully they recognize what others have mentioned, that it will take much more than bombs to solve this problem.
Little if any mention??? C’mon, every single time Bush talks about this stuff, he says that the military actions are only one part of the effort. Diplomacy, Finance, and Intelligence, are critical parts of this war, and have been mentioned over and over.
I’m sorry that CNN can’t give you a nice picture of a bank account being closed, or a spy getting information, but these things are happening.
He is not “totally fixated” on the military, it’s just that military strikes are good copy for the news outlets.