Originally posted by marcD
Saudi Arabia is a disgrace to mankind. But again, it is just the royal family for the most part. Unfortunately, the way of life there breeds the kind of contempt that gives birth to terrorists.
There is just too much hatred in the world. The only real way to overcome it in these backward 3rd world countries is with education, money and a cessation of kissing up to the leaders of these corrupt regimes because of oil.
There are no easy answers. Hatred is obviously an irrational emotion that can be exploited by leaders everywhere. Look here at home in the US. Guys like Smokey and Dotslash and Max are our equivalent of the kind of fanatics we worry about over there. Luckily for us, they are contained here by our society. We must figure out a way to enlighten the populace of the middle east so that the hatred will subside. It is a tough chore to accomplish in lands where so many have so little. And so few have so much. They need to be led out of the 8th century. Education and money are the keys, but implementing strategy is very complex. This is why we really need to evolve our tactics. When bombing doesn't work; when conventional warfare becomes counterproductive, it means taking the time to figure out how to successfully achieve our goals.
MD
right, well put.
unfortunately common sense, decency and the necessary backbone needed for far sighted and effective problem solving seem to be in exceedingly short supply among most us
politicians in the current, alas also many former, administrations, not however many officials from the military, diplomatic and intelligence services.
the method of choice for said politicians seems to be gunslinging and warmonging, mere counterproductive showmanship that is actually little more than a largely futile attempt at fiddling with symptoms, and whose chief effect is an aggravation of the underlying problem.
keeping democracy and commensurate human rights and basic freedom at bay in oil sheikhdoms by propping up incredibly corrupt and evil regimes is not an incredibly effective or even remotely comprehensible method to convince the populations of those countries that we stand for democracy and want to be their friends.
let's not forget the extremely narrow context of the whole artificial debate coming mainly from those in washington without combat experience, as indeed many in the military, diplomatic and intelligence communities are not in favor of an armed attack against saddam.
the conflict has to be seen in the context of a larger question: does this intervention break, or at least impede, the cycle of violence in which terrorism is only the latest turn? or, by affirming the inevitability of violence, does this war prepare the ground for the next one? by unleashing such massive firepower, do we make potential enemies even more likely to try to match it with the very weapons of mass destruction we so dread? alas, the answer is, as ever, clear. just witness the vicious cycle the israelis and palestinians have been engaging in for decades, violence that does not address underlying causes just begets fresh violence.
an ''overwhelming' exercise of us power is merely a crude reinforcement of the worst impulse of human history - but this is the nuclear age, and that impulse simply must be checked. this old style us warmonging is unwise in the extreme, and if other nations - pakistan, india, israel, russia, et al? - begin to play according to the rules of ''dead or alive,'' the true ramboesque and counterproductive to the extreme nature of the "model" being touted by a small circle of of political warmongers in washington becomes ever more evident and self-explanatory.
The Guardian
White House 'exaggerating Iraqi threat'
Bush's televised address attacked by US intelligence
President Bush's case against Saddam Hussein, outlined in a televised address to the nation on Monday night, relied on a slanted and sometimes entirely false reading of the available US intelligence, government officials and analysts claimed yesterday.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,807286,00.html
---------------------------------------
The New York Times
C.I.A. Warns That a U.S. Attack May Ignite Terror
...But a new element was injected into the debate by a C.I.A. assessment that Saddam Hussein, while now stopping short of an attack, could become "much less constrained" if faced with an American-led force.
The judgment was contained in a letter signed by the deputy C.I.A. director, John McLaughlin, on behalf of George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence. It was alluded to in a hearing of a Congressional panel investigating the Sept. 11 attacks and then released tonight, after the House opened its debate on Iraq.
The letter said "Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks" with conventional or chemical or biological weapons against the United States.
"Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist action," it continued. It noted that Mr. Hussein could use either conventional terrorism or a weapon of mass destruction as "his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/09/international/middleeast/09IRAQ.html
------------------------------------------------
brent scowcroft, national security advisor to presidents gerald ford & george bush senior:
Don't Attack Saddam
It would undermine our antiterror efforts
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002133