On Sun, Mar 03, 2002 at 11:19:45PM -0500, Gautam Mukunda wrote: > Your correlation doesn't work. Poor people aren't terrorists. And > terrorists aren't poor.
Not my correlation. I didn't make any of those claims (in fact, I said almost the opposite). What I suggested was that in some circumstances, poverty could make it more likely that terrorists would emerge, and that reducing poverty could make terrorism less prevalent. I didn't say that the terrorists were poor people. Although many suicide bombers appear to be. Also, I suggested that if there were less poverty, perhaps the terrorists would feel they had more to lose in a war. > Me: No, I'm saying that Amanullah is just making an excuse for what > he wants to do - destroy the infidel. The poverty, all of that, > that's just an excuse. What he wants to do is destroy India. If > you want to fix poverty, you fix poverty - you don't spend tens of > billions of dollars building useless nuclear weapons and killing tens > of thousands of innocent people in Kashmir. When you do that, I for > one think that maybe it's not poverty that concerns you. Their system is definitely broken. And it IS stupid to spend your resources on weapons and war instead of productive capital and better living conditions for your people. And after you do these stupid things, you begin to despair for your people. And rather than blame yourself, it is easier to put the blame on others. Fighting and killing is easier than working together and building something new and better. But fighting will make things worse. > Me: They have nuclear weapons. At the moment, the Pakistani > government is relatively secular, and not immediately dangerous to us. > If the Pakistani government fell, then we should destroy the nuclear > weapons. It's well within the capacity of the American government. > You don't think we had plans to do exactly that? I'm quite certain > that we did Do we know where all the nuclear weapons are? Do they have any in hidden, radiation-shielded underground bunkers that we don't know about? Do they have any biological weapons? > What would you do if Bin Laden got them, ask him very nicely not to > put them in New York? Try to avoid him and those like him from wanting to use them in New York. Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan either have or will soon have nuclear and biological weapons. It is just a matter of time before a crazy terrorist gets their hands on some of them. We still can't keep tons of illegal drugs from getting into the country. Can we stop weapons of mass destruction from being taken in by people who are willing to die to deliver them? > Me: > Erik, if you know how to develop Pakistan, there's a fairly prestigious > award handed out in Sweden waiting for you. Good luck. I didn't say it was easy, or that I had all the answers. But it is certainly more likely than keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of every terrorist that will spring up over the next 20 years. THAT would be deserving of a lot more than a Nobel. > Me: > But that's not a victory condition for them. That happens and the Middle > East starts glowing in the dark. So what? They will live in bliss in the afterlife. And they have a lot less to lose than the U.S. Blow up a few U.S. cities and that takes out so much more, symbolically and economically, than destroying all of the people in the Middle East. > We have the capacity to do that, and if enough nuclear weapons went > off in Western cities, we would, in the end. And this is a victory for whom? > But we can do everything possible to keep nuclear weapons out of the > hands of these people. And we should. But I doubt that we will succeed in keeping them out of the hands of EVERY one of these people. > Me: > Erik, did you see what happened in Afghanistan? Did that look like > MAD to you? Toppling the Taliban was a good thing, even if it weren't for the terrorists. It was a good thing that we accomplished. However, as the recent 10,000 Arab poll showed, it didn't make the Arabs any less hostile to the US. It probably made the hostility worse, as far as I can tell. Bin Laden and Omar are still at large, and the Taliban/al Qaeda seem to be holding out well near the Pakistan border. I surely hope Pakistan has all of their nuclear weapons secure from both outsiders and radical insiders. > Me: > Who is more powerful in Syria, us or the Syrian government? I mean we > _can't_. I seriously doubt that. If we persistently offered assistance, using all methods of persuasion at our disposal, we could surely get them to accept some. As far as the details of how to improve the conditions for the poor, that is obviously very diffcult. But I think that getting our foot in the door in a friendly way is more likely to lead to a long term peaceful solution than posturing, threatening, and killing. > Only terrorists with a place of refuge, with logistical support, > with funding, with places to train without disruption, only they are > dangerous. _We can take those away_. We must. We can't even take those things away from terrorists in our own country (Oklahoma City, for example). Do you really claim that we can take them away from all potential terrorists, everywhere in the world? Of course we should try to do it when we can. But we shouldn't base our strategy on being able to get every one. We should use force when necessary and advisable. But if we plan to put off more friendly tactics such as economic assistance (and anything else we come up with once we get our foot in the door that way) until force has entirely "won" the war, then we will never get anywhere, because this is a war that we can never entirely win. > Me: Don't you think if Bin Laden already had weapons of mass > destruction he might have used them? Yes. And if he gets them, he will use them. We are at the point where all we can do is try to forcefully prevent him from getting them. I hope that we succeed. But it is not by any means assured. It is a roll of the dice, it seems. Suppose we win this time. What about the next Bin Laden? Maybe we won't be so lucky next time. > You keep saying we're fighting those who have nuclear weapons. I meant that in the not too distant future, if things continue as they are, we are quite likely to face terrorists with nuclear weapons. And I don't think we can prevent that from happening with force alone. I'm not arguing that we should not use sticks now, rather that we should also use carrots now. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.com/
