Main      Site Guide    
Message Forum
Re: US foreign policies
Posted By: wintermute, on host
Date: Tuesday, September 25, 2001, at 06:54:17
In Reply To: Re: US foreign policies posted by julian on Tuesday, September 25, 2001, at 06:36:41:

> > > I think diplomacy was doing just fine in the present case until the soldiers barged in. But what do I know...
> >
> > Hmmm... So if we take ETA as an example (fighting to make the Basque region of Spain a separate country), taking away their reason to fight would mean what? Nuking the territory they're fighting for?
> What reason do they have to want to seperate them from Spain? If they see enough benefits with staying, I think their reason has been removed. But again: Does Spain want to offer the ETA what they want, or would they rather live with them fooling around (!) in the backyard (double !).

Do you suggest that Spain adopt a communist government, or that they give up a sizeable chunk of land (inhabited by people who want to remain within Spain) to appease ETA, on the grounds that the terrorists would then settle down and become peaceful?

Do a little research into the history on FARC in Colombia to see what the likely outcome of the latter would be.

> > And, of course, we would only need to destroy America to take away bin Laden's reason.
> >
> Subtle difference: I don't think that bin Laden is fighting the existence of USA (he may say so, but that will be demagogical), but rather he is fighting what USA stands for - in some respect in his mind. The question is, whether USA will want to change, or whether they want to be at war.
> Er, actually, the question is whether USA can get hold of bin Laden for a trial. I think that is the greatest problem with terrorists with "international scope" (see other posts): Who should punish them? Personally, I think that they should be punished by the laws of the country which has been harmed by their activity, but this goes against the sanctity of citizenship. So there is a strong case for some kind of international court, which, on the other hand, I bet many victims and prosecuted will have difficulties accepting.

I've argued much the same point in other posts. Terrorism has to be fought on a global scale, but that approach is fraught with problems as you will never get enough countries to agree to one set of procedures without feeling that their individual requirements have not been heard.

> > These people are not interested in compromise, or settlement and (believe it or not) offering such a settlement is only taken as proof that terrorism works. Then they redouble their efforts.
> I can't think to formulate my answer to this right now. All I can say is that you're probably right, but even extremists need a wider support, and the people comprising this support can certainly be swayed.

I am right. But I wish I wasn't.

> > I challenge you to name one terrorist organisation that has been successfully dealt with diplomatically, and has stopped committing acts of terrorism.
> >
> > winter"I can't think of any"mute
> I can't either. In fact, at the moment, I can't think of any terror organizations that have been dealt with succesfully at all. Maybe if you count the SS. Hmmm.
> jul"Have I missed something?"ian

I'm not sure that it's fair to describe the SS as terrorists. As they were an arm of government, "tyrants" fits better, I think.