Jul 312016
 
 July 31, 2016  Posted by at 10:13 pm Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , ,


Vincent van Gogh Branches Of An Almond Tree In Blossom in Red 1890

Think about it for a second: If America -and UK, France- were to announce today that they would immediately cease bombing Syria, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, would the US be any less safe? Would Europe?

How about if we’d promise to spend all the billions saved by not throwing bombs on them, to help rebuild these countries? Would that make us less safe, from terrorists, from anyone at all? Do you think ‘they’ would ‘hate’ us for that?

It becomes a pretty stupid non-discussion pretty fast, doesn’t it?

 

 

Home Forums What Would Make Us Safe?

This topic contains 4 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by  TonyPrep 3 years, 1 month ago.

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #29646

    Vincent van Gogh Branches Of An Almond Tree In Blossom in Red 1890 Think about it for a second: If America -and UK, France- were to announce today tha
    [See the full post at: What Would Make Us Safe?]

    #29647

    V. Arnold
    Participant

    Yes, I’ve thought about it for far longer than a second; but (there’s always a but) it seems whirled peas is not the desired outcome.
    The hegemon would have to use diplomacy and might not get its way, thus losing its hold on absolute power (a myth worth busting).
    At 71, I do not see a world at peace in my life time. Even self exiling could not erase my profound sadness at the world today, led by my government, gone insane.
    It’s at times like this I think of “The Day the Earth Stood Still”; if only…

    #29648

    Nassim
    Participant

    I don’t think the 51 “diplomats” would agree.

    “51 U.S. Diplomats Urge Strikes Against Assad in Syria”

    #29667

    Joe Clarkson
    Participant

    Mr Meijer,

    Neither Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan nor Libya were being bombed in 2001, therefore everyone was as safe as possible that year, right?

    Sarcasm aside, how about a more nuanced approach to terrorism other than “blame the victims”. There is no good and simple approach; certainly “send money, receive peace” is not one.

    Sometimes, when terrorism is state-sponsored, bombing helps. Consider the Balkans for example, or perhaps the Gulf war when Iraq “terrorized” Kuwait. And do you seriously think that if we had quietly left Bin Laden and the Taliban alone in Afghanistan after 9/11, Al Qaeda would have attempted no more attacks, that the US and Europe would have been just as safe?

    Other times military intervention can be counterproductive. Vietnam, Iraq and Libya are prime examples of such foolishness. US drone strikes are so information-opaque that it is hard to know about them. Someone is a terrorist, but is it the drone striker or the struck?

    Sometimes terrorism arises out of purely political or religious motivation, absent any recent violence at all and even in the face of general economic prosperity. See the Battle of Algiers movie for a horrifying account of purely political terrorist activity. Or consider the motivation(s) for all the terrorist bombs set by the IRA. Who is to be blamed for all the terrorism in the Philippines and Indonesia? Could the Moro Liberation Front be “bought off” by development aid?

    It’s not always easy to know the best response to terrorism, or even to know the difference between a “terrorist” and a “freedom fighter”. Which label would you give to the Irgun? Which label to George Washington?

    I think your commentary today is an actual example of a “stupid non-discussion”. Please think more deeply about this issue.

    #29674

    TonyPrep
    Participant

    Not sure if Syria, etc., could be rebuilt in the midst of civil war, even without US involvement.

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.