KRC Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 I have a pretty cynical outlook on the current world - I don't feel there is a solution, at least not currently. The best solution I can offer you for a short-term resolution of the US' terrorism problems is to continue to increase homeland security without giving up too many freedoms and liberties. I say this because I don't think that spreading democracy into the middle east will stamp out terrorism. The deep hated rooted in their souls, combined with the terrorists' intelligence, organization, mobility, and elusiveness provides them a very good set of terrorist warfare tactics. This means that simply turning these countries into democracies will not do the job - it will take decades, maybe even centuries before the middle east countries recover from all the wars, and then develop enough to have the funds to build strong technological intelligence forces as well as the staffing and security to commence such a plan, IF all these countries stay pro-west over the test of time. I don't believe that we have the resources, especially after having to go through several wars in that region, to step in and provide temporary intelligence for the whole region, as well as the security forces needed to stamp out terrorism. This is why its going to have to be a long-term solution, with increased security measures taken at home first. Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations, had a great article in Foreign Affairs magazine this issue. http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050501faes...-at-the-un.html Here's the summary from FA: "Dealing with today's threats requires broad, deep, and sustained global cooperation. Thus the states of the world must create a collective security system to prevent terrorism, strengthen nonproliferation, and bring peace to war-torn areas, while also promoting human rights, democracy, and development. And the UN must go through its most radical overhaul yet." I agree with a lot of that. The only way to completely eliminate terrorism is to strengthen the UN. I don't think that this can be UN-led though, it has to be US-led. The corruption, the apathy, the powerlessness of the UN needs to be driven out of it. This is why I think Bolton is a good nominee - he seems to be a man who is going to take these measures. After the strengthening of the defenses at home, and the UN as a whole, then its time to play offense. I don't subscribe to the theory that a good offense is a good defense, in the war on terrorism or football. The only solution to terrorism is a complete overhaul of the way the world fundamentally works - a strengthening of the world working together for a common goal: promoting human rights, democracy, and development as the solution for terrorism, through whatever means possible. 347106[/snapback] You had me until you brought in the UN thingy. Until a MAJOR overhaul is accomplished in the UN, the UN needs to stay as far away from this as possible. Hell, after 13 (yes THIRTEEN) resolutions, they finaly got around to defining what terrorism is. Any rational person would have concentrated on defining terrorism first so that it can be properly addressed, but the UN needed 12 additional resolutions before they even addressed this very basic concept. They obviously have no clue how to address issues of this magnitude (just look at the latest NPT review conference for additional evidence) and should stick to humanitarian aid projects. They can't handle that either, but it is a start. They can then work their way up to smaller conflicts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 True. That would kill any chance Bush had of being re-elected in '08, wouldn't it? 347335[/snapback] <sigh> Big picture, Chris. Big picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 You had me until you brought in the UN thingy. Until a MAJOR overhaul is accomplished in the UN, the UN needs to stay as far away from this as possible. Hell, after 13 (yes THIRTEEN) resolutions, they finaly got around to defining what terrorism is. Any rational person would have concentrated on defining terrorism first so that it can be properly addressed, but the UN needed 12 additional resolutions before they even addressed this very basic concept. They obviously have no clue how to address issues of this magnitude (just look at the latest NPT review conference for additional evidence) and should stick to humanitarian aid projects. They can't handle that either, but it is a start. They can then work their way up to smaller conflicts. 347992[/snapback] I agree and I tried to say that the UN needs total reform, or it needs to be a similar type organization to do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 The UN needs to be razed and have Trump put condos on the prime riverfront property! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts