The Logic Off Topic list

You could have not said it any better, totally agree, I am against terrorism
in any means but on the same hand one has to question the reasons, its not
an action Hollywood movie gang, its not between "the Evil and the Good",
"wanted dead or alive", "they hate us because we are free"....... Its about
economics, policing the source of wealth, indirect colonization of
others....let me be clear,
1-I hate Bin Laden and his ideologies, but I am still not very convinced
that he is the engineer behind all this, so far the media has done a good
job of blowing him out of proportion,  what happened to "innocent until
proven guilty", I don¹t buy that the prove is only offered to the leaders in
the west.....

2- I think American troops should leave the Gulf and I can understand why
some Saudis are angry "not there government"
3- I think its time to solve the big problems in the middle east not bomb
some country and cause millions of refugees to leave there homes in acts of
revenge.
4-I think its pointless to place an embargo in Iraq, Saddam is happy
drinking the finest whisky "that¹s what he likes BTW" while the children of
Iraq are dieing everyday because of lack of food and medicine.....You are
doing Saddam a favor and its stupid, things where starting to get better at
the end of the Clinton era, but now baby Bush wants to copy his Dady....

4-Again we should ask "WHY" and look at the source of the problems, Bush's
answers are just plain pathetic.

> 
> Hi gang,
> 
> This is what I started to write to Dennis, but it got pretty offtopic for
> the thread, so here it is with its own.
> 
> Being the idealist-pacifict that I am, I used to think that we wouldn't
> have any of these problems if we adopted a neutral, hands-off,
> friendly-to-all foreign policy.  You don't have to know a whole lot about
> what's going on to suppose that you'd have fewer enemies with legitimate
> gripes if you never took sides and never hurt anyone.  I think that's
> valid, but unrealistic.  I can't say that's the way the people you're
> referring to think, but that's certainly how I felt when I thought about
> it... before I realized that you can't just stop all these ancient human
> forces so easily.  Loyalties, ideologies, alliances and conflicts have
> been splashing around between civilizations for generations, losing a
> little more clarity and sanity with each.  You can't stop a swinging
> pendulum by slapping it as hard as you can in the opposite direction (take
> THAT, evil bastards!), as it will just swing around and hit you in the
> ass.  You have to neutralize it by applying a well-timed equal and
> opposite force.  What's the opposite of fear, anger, hatred, and
> retaliation?
> 
> What would be the Muslim world's response if we stopped bombing
> Afghanistan, pulled troops out of Saudi Arabia (after talking to the king
> about it of course), met with Islamic leaders to tell them that we'll end
> the Iraqi embargo as soon as we capture Saddam (and then send in special
> operatives to carry this out-- nobody likes Saddam :-), explain our
> motives for each military action they cite as part of our war on Islam,
> deliver a few eloquently translated speeches along with huge amounts of
> aid to Afghanistan and post-Saddam Iraq, and strike a deal that includes
> an end to global terrorism in exchange for a defended state of Palestine?
> 
> All we have to do is keep reasonable peace and comfort for at least a
> generation... long enough to suppress the anger and install a few nice
> gardens and fountains.  Nice stuff that it would be a shame if the US had
> to bomb because they violated something in our 2002 peace agreement...
> 
> I'll anticipate the response of critics... let's see...
> 
> 1.  Osama will cooperate long enough to betray us once our naive trust has
>   made us once again vulnerable.
> 
> 2.  Meeting any demands will reinforce the effectiveness of terrorism as a
>   political means, thus legitimizing it, and encouraging its future use.
> 
> 3.  We can't reconcile our alliances with the comprimises this policy
>   would require. (Israel)
> 
> 4.  We will appear as (and feel like) cowards for caving into demands
>   against what we supposedly believed in the moment our security and
>   lifestyles were threatened.
> 
> 5.  The current demands of the militant fundamentalist Muslims are just
>   the tip of the iceberg.  They will continue to employ these tactics
>   until they achieve a list of goals far less reasonable than a mere
>   withdrawal of the meddlesome West from the affairs of the Islamic
>   world.
> 
> Feel free to ridicule my silly naive peacenik pot-smoking tie-dyed
> idealistic ideas, but ONLY when you explain to me why they're bad ones.
> Not saying they're not, but I sincerely want to know.
> 
> What would happen?
> 
> -Denizen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
>