01-27-2004, 03:31 AM
i disagree a little bit with tak's notion that we are the chief target of their hatred because of their (islamic zealots) fundamentalist agenda. that agenda is an effect rather than a cause brought on by a u.s. presence in the region. bin laden grew up seeing u.s. marines stationed in his native saudi arabia. if we are to believe in the sovereignty of nation states, then it is in our best interest to uphold that principle and not treat the world as our playground. garbage in, garbage out.
having said this, i support the military action that is ongoing in afghanistan...and i'm also in favor of using intelligent means to bring bin laden to justice. the united states showed patience and good judgement regarding taliban-led afghanistan in my best judgement. foreign policy is not something you can turn on and off like a switch...it always follows some precedent. so saying that we should just change our foreign policy immediately is akin to holding up your hand to protect yourself from the onslought of water when the dam bursts. staying with this analogy, you can argue that we could have done more to secure the structure of the dam, but guess what?; it has already burst and this kind of insight, while possibly illuminating, is impractical at this juncture.
american foreign policy does need substantial work and i hope we can get on track and develop strategies that respect the sovereignty of nation states as well as measures to protect their autonomy. a good start would be to completely pull out troops from japan, germany, south korea, saudi arabia, the phillipines as well as others. no, i didn't mention iraq because now that we've placed ourselves in this grave position, great care must be taken to ensure that the transition of authority goes smoothly and with a minimum of fear, intimidation and violence from baath hooligans and the like. iraq must be treated similarly like other post-war nations. however, i don't think a long term united states or western presence would be desired or necessary.
you say with a hearty thumb up that we shouldn't debate 9-11. given the gravity of the 'example', i find that an unwelcome request. as far as pointing fingers, it has been believed for quite a while prior to the event that bin laden was largely responsible for the african embassy bombings as well as the first wtc bombing during clinton's administration. why were fingers sharply pointed at islamic funamentalists right after the fbi building in oklahoma was bombed by explosive nitrate? probably because islamic fundamentalists have a long history of being involved in terrorist attacks. i should add that of course i found the beatings of innocent muslim-american people deplorable, inexcusable and prosecutable but i pointed fingers at islamic zealots as well after the bombing. but i'm not sorry because, at the time, it seemed that they were the most viable culprits. homegrown u.s. militias simply had not orchestrated an attack of that nature before. the rhetoric was always there perhaps but that is all they really had other than the assassinations of individuals and small time bank robberies.
yes, the media plays too big a role in shaping the opinions and stereotypes of people but it is a defensive mechanism inate in all of us that leads us to 'points fingers' and make off-the-cuff accusations. while you should never let the direction that your finger points dictate your actions, hunches in themselves are not a bad thing. as a narcotics officer, you may use these hunches to develop leads in cases and possibly later gather sufficient evidence to either exonerate or indite your suspects. mainstream media is biased because it is run by people like you and like me. and just like us, they have to eat, pay bills and please wealthier individuals. the underground media is also biased because to attract attention, it often feels it has to combat the biases of the mainstream media with their own. otherwise, there truly is no point and information would just be rehashed.
well, i don't know if gave you the suggestions you were asking for but there ya have it.:thumb:
having said this, i support the military action that is ongoing in afghanistan...and i'm also in favor of using intelligent means to bring bin laden to justice. the united states showed patience and good judgement regarding taliban-led afghanistan in my best judgement. foreign policy is not something you can turn on and off like a switch...it always follows some precedent. so saying that we should just change our foreign policy immediately is akin to holding up your hand to protect yourself from the onslought of water when the dam bursts. staying with this analogy, you can argue that we could have done more to secure the structure of the dam, but guess what?; it has already burst and this kind of insight, while possibly illuminating, is impractical at this juncture.
american foreign policy does need substantial work and i hope we can get on track and develop strategies that respect the sovereignty of nation states as well as measures to protect their autonomy. a good start would be to completely pull out troops from japan, germany, south korea, saudi arabia, the phillipines as well as others. no, i didn't mention iraq because now that we've placed ourselves in this grave position, great care must be taken to ensure that the transition of authority goes smoothly and with a minimum of fear, intimidation and violence from baath hooligans and the like. iraq must be treated similarly like other post-war nations. however, i don't think a long term united states or western presence would be desired or necessary.
you say with a hearty thumb up that we shouldn't debate 9-11. given the gravity of the 'example', i find that an unwelcome request. as far as pointing fingers, it has been believed for quite a while prior to the event that bin laden was largely responsible for the african embassy bombings as well as the first wtc bombing during clinton's administration. why were fingers sharply pointed at islamic funamentalists right after the fbi building in oklahoma was bombed by explosive nitrate? probably because islamic fundamentalists have a long history of being involved in terrorist attacks. i should add that of course i found the beatings of innocent muslim-american people deplorable, inexcusable and prosecutable but i pointed fingers at islamic zealots as well after the bombing. but i'm not sorry because, at the time, it seemed that they were the most viable culprits. homegrown u.s. militias simply had not orchestrated an attack of that nature before. the rhetoric was always there perhaps but that is all they really had other than the assassinations of individuals and small time bank robberies.
yes, the media plays too big a role in shaping the opinions and stereotypes of people but it is a defensive mechanism inate in all of us that leads us to 'points fingers' and make off-the-cuff accusations. while you should never let the direction that your finger points dictate your actions, hunches in themselves are not a bad thing. as a narcotics officer, you may use these hunches to develop leads in cases and possibly later gather sufficient evidence to either exonerate or indite your suspects. mainstream media is biased because it is run by people like you and like me. and just like us, they have to eat, pay bills and please wealthier individuals. the underground media is also biased because to attract attention, it often feels it has to combat the biases of the mainstream media with their own. otherwise, there truly is no point and information would just be rehashed.
well, i don't know if gave you the suggestions you were asking for but there ya have it.:thumb: