War on Terror-why arn't we winning ?

spot on!:2thumbsup:

 

This. By giving the illusion that we are "under attack", they can take our rights from us and keep us in a constant state of fear, terror, and paralyzing anxiety so they can take advantage of us and the country.

This is the same reason I am against the death penalty. If you hurt my loved one, will I want to hurt you? Sure, but that's not my place.

This as well. As wrong as revenge is, you can't terribly blame the boy, it's human nature.

 

Then the thing do is to stop the bombing by the occupying force, and why is it occupying in the first place?

We then come to the problem of cause and effect, here is a very, very simplistic step along such a line of thought.

Let us take the occupation of Afghanistan by US and coalition forces.

Why did that happen?

It was a direct result of 9/11

What had Afghanistan to do with 9/11?

It was where al Qaeda had bases under a sympathetic Taliban ‘government’.

Why was the Taliban in power?

It goes back to the war to stop the Russian occupation.

Why?

The US supported Islamist groups (some hardliner, fundamentalist groups), when they won there was a civil war that ended with the Taliban in charge.

Why did the US support such islamists.

It was fighting a cold war with Soviet Russia

Why?

Because of ideological difference, that saw a US foreign policy opposed to many left wing governments, which many Americans saw as ‘communist’.

Why were so many Americans opposed to left wing ideas?

And so on...

*

The thing is that that some would argue that there are ‘hidden’ consequences of actions, and so some things can’t be predicted, and that can be true but many things can be foreseen or at least hinted at. There were warnings about the type of people (warlords, fundamentalists) US

There were warnings about the type of people (warlords, fundamentalists) the US was helping. Once the soviets got kicked out of Afghanistan US (and the west’s) interest in it waned and they did very little to stop its Saudi and Pakistani allies from helping destabilise the country, I remember this being pointed out at the time.

The problem in Afghanistan today is in large amount due to the US policies at the time, there were warnings about the type of people (warlords) that they were helping into power and losing interest when the Taliban were overthrown so they could concentrate on Iraq. By the time they had pulled out of Iraq and once more turned their attention to Afghanistan the damage was done. It is very likely that the result of the western forces pull out will be another civil war.

More suffering, more bombs, more hate.

 

US foreign policy is not a model of consistency. As Balbus points out, we generally act very shortsightedly and pursue our short-term interests with very little concern for the consequences.

Balbus' analysis fails, in my view, in that it takes the reasons given for US actions at their face value. War publicity is often designed to obscure the true reason for waging war.

The Al Qaeda connection to Afghanistan did exist, but was more tenuous than we were led to believe. Afghanistan is a highly important region in terms of geostrategic US interests and the war aims can be interpreted in a much more cynical way. Likewise our conflict with Russia was not necessarily "ideological" and our fear of left-wing governments had more to do with US interests' fear of populism and nationalism within its neo-colonial domains than it did with the putative Soviet associations.

Nevertheless the basic facts Balbus points out are correct, and one striking element of the US propaganda/media system is that such facts are rarely if ever brought to light. The Hussein regime the US toppled in Iraq was supported strongly by them throughout the 80s. The Taliban the US deposed in Afghanistan were propped up by them in the 80s. The news media NEVER remind us of this.

It is kind of assumed subconsciously that the world is the US's chessboard, to play with as it will. Consistency is not valued, and "allies" are discarded when they stop doing what we want them to.

 

Sorry but I do not accept that at all , nor roamy is it 'spot on'. Lets look at this 'understandable' or 'justifiable' revenge against the oppresive Brits or the USA . Ask yourself , were this crimes of passion or the actions of Freedom Fighters?

Shankhill Road Fish & Chips shop bombing . Nine civilians in a queue, two of them little girls aged 7 & 13 , waiting to buy fish & chips for their evening meals. One of the IRAs Heroes throws a bomb into the shop killing all nine.

1987, Enniskillen Rememberence Day Massacre. Eleven killed 63 injured. Most of the dead were over 60s, commemerating comrades, husbands, brothers ,sons killed in the two world wars . Worthy targets?

Howabout the Omagh car bomb 15 August 1998 , a protest against the 'Good Friday Agreement' by the 'brave lads' of the Real Irish Republican Army. 29 civilians in a shopping center killed , 220 injured. The dead & injured included Catholics & Protestants. Six childen died , six teenagers , two Spanish tourists were killed and a woman pregnat with twins.

Then theres 9/11 , 7/7, and the latest Boston outrage in which no 'motive' is known! Please don't grace these acts with justifications like revenge ,or fighting for freedom or a united state . They are what they are-acts of calculated indiscriminate ,typically cowardly, murder of innoscent people.

 

Raga

As I said it was very, very simplistic, millions of words could be spent on going into detail and that wasn’t my purpose.

*

I’d agree, but here comes some more generalisation - US post WWII was dominated by the fear of ‘communism’ (the left) both domestically and abroad, and that coloured its viewpoint, for example the nationalist movement in Vietnam was shunned in favour of the French because it was seen as ‘communist’, the government of Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh was overthrown because its nationalisation of the oilfields was seen as ‘communism’, the US propped up many dictators because they were seen as ‘anti-communist’. US economic interests were often served by this because it worked against governments that wanted to reform things to improve people’s lives through the redistribution of wealth.

But to many Americans ‘redistribution of wealth’ was ‘communism’ (and for Communism read any left wing thought) to them it ran counter to the ‘American way’ , capitalism, individualism, pulling yourself up by your own hard work, property and profit, the ‘free market’ and apple pie.

American companies and interests were served but many of the people directing those were also ideologically opposed to left wing ideas.

 

Summerhill

But what is the better reaction - talk or war?

Northern Ireland seems to me better than it was - due to talks, but saying that to me lack of reconciliation, economic problems and continued segregation are going to store up problems for the future.

9/11 lead to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, when most of the plotters were Saudis, and Iraq had nothing to do with it - do you think that was the best course to take?

[edit] And wouldn't it be better to have the talk before the terrorism started?

 

U.S. foreign policy created Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. U.S. foreign policy created Hamas, the Islamic Jihad, and the Palestinian resistance. Without an enemy we can't have war. Without war our economy goes into recession. We have a war based economy. We spend a Trillion dollars a year on war. Without war, all those bomb makers, jet fighter makers, gun makers, tank makers, bullet makers and on and on, go unemployed. We spend more on war every year than Russia, China, Iran, Israel, the U.K, France, Germany, plus ten more countries all added together. We create enemies faster than we can kill them. And then we try to convince countries like Iraq, that we are killing them for their own good. And the rest of the world goes along with this sick shit, because we give them foreign aid, to be our friends. George W. Bush convinced most of the world to follow him into invading Iraq. And now he has a Library to brag about it.

 

No it was merely an excuse to establish control in an oil rich area & as a show of strength to Russia & other rising economic powers,as well as Iran.

Throughout this thread patterns or a pattern emerges . You can see how certain actions by a given government is gona trigger conflict,resentment in the population concerned. 'We need to do this for the greater good',(invade a country that 'hosts' terrorists,or deliberately increase a loyalist population to lay claim to the land & marginalise the natives ,ect) is a typical excuse.

Problem is that we have allowed the poitical class to rule in our 'best interests too long . 'Our' best interests has to include the ordinary folk,like us,in the countries we 'allow' our leaders to interfere with. We complain too that within our democracys we are ignored,alienated even,while our elected members TELL US what the priorities are . Thus we each have blood on our hands too !

I suspect the problem has become too big , too complex, for any one country to make a significant differance-even if one existed that trully wished to. The USA & the western governing establishment cannot change because they economicly depend upon war. They're also convinced they're the good guys. How can they admit otherwise-whos gona come out & say say so first?

Our only hope I'd suggest we have is in moving the definition of terrorism from local to an international issue , moved from an authority (ie Government) issue to a people centerd one . The aim in this is to look at terrorism in alls its definitions objectively & dispassionately,State terror and Civilian terror.

Terrorism exists that does not involved governments ,for example between religious groups or rival cultural groups within a society. Traditional hostilities , vendettas, pass down the generations.

A solution in seeking an unbiased,independent examination of the causal reasons for terror would have to include open access of ordinary people from any Nation effected . The only body that fits the bill would be the United Nations itself. Can you imagine the resistance the USA,Russia ect would put up to the very idea that the UN might sit in judgement of their foriegn policy decisions WITH witness evidence of their excesses?

Perhaps a more realistic alternative to that ideal would be a combining of internationally based humanitarian organisations (eg Liberty, Save the Children,The Red Cross/Crescent,ect) affiliated as a Group to the UN with the specific aim of reporting to the General Assembly all aspects of terrorism including likely and actual effects of members actions upon populations & groups within given counties , as a qualifying prelude to UN giving authority for a Government to take any action (eg, to locate weapons of MD,ect).

 

I see what you are saying but I think the causal relationship went the other way. US economic interests (primarily the desires of large private capital) are the driving force behind US foreign policy. It is giving the state too much credit to say it had an ideological interest. I believe anti-communism was the flag flown to justify actions that were REALLY about defending the power of American companies. Yes the American population had a real interest in real anti-communism (mostly because the populace was quite well-brainwashed), but the decision makers at the top were more cynical.

So for instance, the nationalist movement in Vietnam wasn't disfavored "because it was seen as communist" but rather because it was an effort to nationalize the country's wealth and remove it from the hands of the foreign investors who had stakes in it. It was called an anti-communist effort but that was propaganda. In fact it was a forceful attempt to retain control of Vietnam's economy for private gain.

 

What is terror? I find the definition, "extreme fear" to be quite sufficient.

A person or persons can become terrorized simply by being put into a position in which they are incapable of dealing with, the causes of which can be natural or human created.

Terrorism is put to use to achieve goals which would be difficult, if not impossible by any other means, and is simply actions of violent or intimidating nature which can be seen to heighten the fears of others who would oppose the goals you wish to achieve, and as a result bring about changes or compromises which are seen as helpful in eventually accomplishing those goals.

Rahm Emanuel, in 2009 as Obama's Chief of staff, stated it quite clearly when he said "“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste — and what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you didn’t think you could do before.”

Essentially, you are left to fight battles, some of which may be claimed to have been won, but never allowing for a claim that the "war' has been won.

 

New Thread started today...War on Terror(2) what could WE do to 'win'?

 

spot on! :2thumbsup:

I'd say you summed it well: "winning" would require change but the western government establishment "cannot change" because it economically depends upon war.

As others have pointed out:

Also, the question "War on Terror-why arn't we winning?" is loaded. It assumes the terrorists are "the other guys." But since as you point out "we each have blood on our hands" so your assumption is not so sure.

That leaves us begging the question: who are the terrorists?

It also assumes "winning" the war on terror is even definable. What is a "war on terror?" Is it like a "war on evil?"

"Freedom Fighters" would be a good term for those rebelling against "oppressive Brits or the USA." Tell me, what is the appropriate response to British or US oppression?

(Bold mine)

If no 'motive' is known, how can you make the assertion "they are-acts of calculated indiscriminate, typically cowardly, murder" ?

In the world where I live, people do things for reasons, unless they're insane; that no motive is known does not mean there is no motive.

Btw, corporate media tells us only those things that further its economic agenda. I guess corporate media didn't feel it was profitable to broadcast the other side of the story; they would be seen as sympathizers and no friend of the Queen.

I wish I could stop the bombing but they don't consult me. It's been doing this my whole lifetime. How can I make them stop?

I'd say it's occupying Afghanistan for the same reasons it has military presence in other parts of the globe; the American economic elite (top 1%), US companies and global economic interests are being served.

Spoken like a true believer.

Summerhill:

Why should the innocent boy be obligated to forgive his terrorizers?

 

So...Americans who voted against Bush are just as responsible for his actions as those who voted for him? That doesn't make any sense. Is a life-long American pacifist as responsible for our military actions as a bloodthirsty, heartless warmonger?

For the record, I'm not a pacifist, but I don't see any good reason for us to still be in Afghanistan.

People act on what they believe to be true, whether it is true or not. If a suicide bomber is 100% convinced he is going to be greeted in heaven by 72 virgins, the reality that it may not be true isn't going to influence his behavior.

If President Bush ordered an air strike on a village and the US Air Force carried it out, when the boy in your example grows up, why should he want to kill random people on a sidewalk in a random American city? Why would that make him feel better? Some of his victims might be Islamic moderates who don't wear traditional clothing, and some may be folks who donated time and money to the campaigns of Al Gore and John Kerry.

I'm not saying it would be right for him to carry out an attack on the US government or military, but at least I can understand why somebody in his position might want to do it. That fits the definition of revenge.

 

I believe our moral entanglement goes beyond simply voting. E.g. you are using a home computer and the internet: technologies that were created by subsidies to high-tech industry in the military industrial complex. You enjoy a standard of living that rests on our entire society's wealth and largesse. Unless you live in the woods off the grid and never buy clothes, food, imported technology, or consume petroleum products, you are morally entangled with the actions of US corporations and the government.

 

Bullshit. That's just a convenient rationalization for angry people who don't want to deal with complexity.

 

Spot on! Obviously; it's so easy to just lump everything together, black and white. It shows a clear lack of understanding. Not everyone is a part of the war machine....

 

You're right, it doesn't make sense and I don't remember stating that it did.

The quote "we each have blood on our hands" did not originate from me but I agree with it.

No, the pacifist is not as responsible for our military actions as a bloodthirsty, heartless warmonger; there are degrees of culpability.

For evil to flourish it only requires humanity to do nothing.

I was making the point that just because media did not report on "the terrorist's motives" does not mean there was no "terrorist motive." (People generally do things for reasons). The media has no compelling reason to be an "unpatriotic" mouth-piece for "the terrorists" and give their side of the story.

Because he was innocent and did not deserve to be terrorized when he was a boy. Hence the phrase "we're making more terrorists than we're killing."

Terrorized people don't always necessarily act in moral or rational ways.

Why do you require the boy to forgive his terrorizers?

It's also strange how we westerners excuse western violence and call those who react to it "terrorists."

 

I'm not angry and I'm not trying to rationalize anything. I wasn't supporting the actions of a terrorist, to be clear. Killing people who happen to be from the country your persecutors came from makes no sense, I agree.

On the other hand if you think "I didn't vote for Bush" means you are totally absolved of responsibility for our nation's actions, it is YOU who are failing to understand complexity, and it is on YOU that I call bullshit.

We ARE all part of the war machine in this country. Not one of us is outside its web. Our whole lifestyle is founded on it. That is why the burden is on us to oppose and protest it.

 

Hey all you terrorists out there: