interesting
 

I fond this article and found it interesting, it pretty much sums up why the war on terror has been going so badly and also why they hate us. Considering it was written a week after September eleventh it is almost frighteningly insightful.

This may be controversial but please don’t just flame this.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/s...553693,00.html

Robot Jesus O_O Whoa. I thought I invented you in the #bobandgeorge Chatroom, talkin' about how a lot of the Bosses in Megaman Zero were robotic versions of Gods, and I thought how funny it'd be if Robotic Jesus was in it.

Times out tryin' to connect to the article ;_;

The article's sentiments appeal to me.

But he is talking about the Afghanistan War, which was completely justified, and wrote in such a vague way that it now reads as if it were about the Iraq War.

Adamark: While the article was certainly written shortly before the Afghanistan War (not during, I don't believe), I think his point was more to critique the United State's "out-for-blood" mindset.

Besides, how do you define "justified" in terms of war? Perhaps what he considers justified and what you consider justified are two very different things? Perhaps for him nothing justifies war?

Just some ideas.

no, nobody likes to say that something justifies war. 'specially not in these days as more civilians will almost certainly die in such a conflict than military personel (sp)

The question, methinks, would rather be, why do wars happen anyway?

if nothing justifies war for him, i find that unjustifiable. This was publish sept 18th, 2001 and the author was disappointed that people were supporting america and not criticizing it the day after Sept 11th. He says America's "voice is deeply dumb"

but besides all his Anti-American talk, he doesnt believe there should be a war against terrorism. he sees it as a law enforcement thing. and i cant disagree more. we did the whole law enforcement thing for the whole of the 1990's. we arrested a little over a handful of people for the first WTC bombings (one of the guys got away and hid out in Iraq), and did that stop terrorism? the embassy bombings and attack on the USS Cole, (and 9-11) would seem to say it did little. Bin Laden himself said he was emboldened by the US's inaction. Basically you cant deter people that are willing to die to kill as many innocents as possible by locking them up in jail.

The war on terror is about stopping it before it happens. You find where the terrorists are and capture them or kill them if they arent willing to surrender. If a state is giving support and shelter to terrorists like the Taliban in Afghanistan did, then they must go to.

I personally agree with the idea that there's no good war (that nothing justifies it), even when it's necessary, when it is thrust upon one, because when it is thrust upon one, war isn't chosen, and thus doesn't have to be justified in itself. Of course then when is war thrust upon one is entierely up for debate.

I don't think the "war on terror" is a better solution, long term, than the "legal" approach; both are actually shortcuts that avoid the engines of international terrorism.
You can't just go and kill a supposedly finite number of terrorists, and expect everything to remain well and good. States and organisations are what use the violent impulses of terrorism, orienting it and articulating it, but it's not what mainly feed it. The "war on terror" would have to be permanent (like the "legal" type of action), and I don't think that's sustainable. As long as the populations remain, and as long as the things that make the terrorist ideologies attractive to those population remain...

I suppose it's more attractive than admitting wrong can be done by America, which is why I was also disappointed by the post WTC reaction, which proved to be easy to use.

Thats why the actions in Iraq and Afghansitan include rebuilding efforts and the democratization of the countries.

I think the cultural change is probably more important then anyhting else.

Judgment call here on my part... but I think that does repair a few of the issues, but also creates new ones. The democratization isn't well received by all (if you're not broadly meaning the removal of tyranny), and I personally think the way it's being done infringes on aspects of national sovereignty. Also, Afganistan's latest election isn't that big of a success, as far as I can tell.

Rebuilding repairs some, but not all of the loss. Occupation seems to take away the ability to cope with what remains.

I agree that it's a question of cultural change, but that can't be dictated.

But what if these countries don’t want to be democracies a lot of people would rather have a theocracy. An outcome the bush administration won’t even think about. and before you say it Afghanistan is only as democratic as the warlords let it be. At the moment it’s a feudal system with a little democracy. With a lot of work and blood it might change.