Wirt writ:
> But it isn't going to be rocket motors that are going to change the world
in
> our -- or anyone else's -- favor. It's going to be our avoidance of again
> making the mistake of supporting the most radical movements. The Afghani
> people have no desire to have the Taliban in power, any more than Iranians
> wished for the repressive fundamentalist regime that replaced the
repressive
> Shah. If we really want to rid the world of terrorism, we're simply going
to
> have to start paying more attention to the wants and needs of a
significant
> portion of the world's population without greatly interferring in their
> internal affairs.

I find your thesis unconvincing.  I almost said something last week when you
wrote that there was no defense against terrorism other than rooting out the
core cause.  In that case it's hopeless, because the core cause is human
free will.  Yes, we may reduce terrorism by making the world a more pleasant
place, but no matter how free or rich it is, there will always be
disatisfied people willing to kill.  We have had our own Symbionese
Liberation Army, Unabomber, and Tim McVeigh.  Europe, its Red Brigades and
Basque separatists.  Japan has had the even scarier Aum Shinrikyo,
sophisticated enough to make  nerve gas and was working on biological and
nuclear weapons.  Reducing motivation is no substitute for security
measures.

I also am not convinced that the Taliban are a problem "of our own making."
Yes, we supported Muslim radicals against the Soviet invasion, including bin
Laden, but would these groups not have existed without our support?  Islamic
fundamentalism was a growing movement before that, having already gained
controlled of Iran, certainly without our help.  Other than appeasing the
Soviets, what choice did we really have?

It's not really clear to me what, in this particular case, "paying more
attention to the wants and needs" would even be, much less accomplish.
Osama bin Laden is mad because (at least by his own statements) we have an
army in Saudi Arabia, have continued sanctions against Iraq, and support
Israel.   I suppose we could have avoided "interferring" by letting Saddam
Hussein keep Kuwait.  By now he would have had nuclear weapons and would
have dominance over the Persian Gulf and Middle East (or perhaps Israel
would have nuked him).  The sanctions, I admit, have been ineffective and
have been used by Saddam as a great proganda source.  The goal is to prevent
his building weapons of mass destruction without our actually having to
invade and occupy Iraq.  Oh well.

I guess if we wanted to give in to the wants of the masses, we should stop
supporting Israel.  Perhaps they would be satisfied with a small Palestinian
state, but by all appearances the fanatics who bombed the WTC are extremists
who wouldn't be satisfied unless Israel is destroyed.  Is that what you mean
by "paying more attention to the wants and needs"?  Probably not.    The
main problem is that what one person wants is often diametrically opposed to
what someone else wants.  C'est la vie.

Ken

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *