Jed Rothwell wrote:
Edmund Storms wrote:
I don't think this approach will work under present conditions. In
the process of denying funding, the people will get even more
improvised and desperate.
There are 2 billion people in the world living in desperate conditions
on the edge of starvation. They are not attacking us. All of the 9/11
plotters and all leading members of Al Qaeda are educated, middle-class
people, or extremely wealthy people. Terrorism is not caused by poor and
desperate people.
OK, what do you think causes terrorism? Why would an educated person
give up their life to blow up an airplane? These people are not insane
or without love of life, and the 72 virgins reason is pure propaganda.
Of course, starving and ignorant people will not and can not cause much
damage, unless as a mob. The effective terrorist acts are well planned
and carried out as a military operation. This means the people are smart
and view the act as being more important than their own life, just as
all solders are taught. Why do you think they would come to this
conclusion? If a person is smart and educated, they could normally get a
good job and live a happy life. What makes these people so angry they
would give this up and want to kill us? I don't believe they hate our
freedom and our good life as we are encouraged to believe. I believe we
have done and continue to do things any rational person would find
upsetting if these same things were done to us. Of course, the
situation has now gone beyond just being nice now and expect a change.
We have to defend against the poison that has been created, but we can
avoid making more in the future. To avoid making more , we need to know
what went wrong and not continue to make the same mistake. This
requires knowledge on our part, not propaganda and get even response.
Funding can not be cut fast enough to stop the growing desperation.
Of course it could. If the US had launched a massive World War II style
effort to fix the problem starting in 2001, oil would be worth
practically nothing today.
Yes, and if the government gave everyone 1 million dollars, we would all
be rich. But like this silly example, such things will not be done and
if they were, other worse consequences would result. Solutions have to
involve what can happen and then not produce worse situations. Some
people would like us to nuke the whole region as a solution, but it is
easy to predict this would result in a very much worse situation.
If the administration wanted to solve the problems, a few useful things
could be done. For example, tax breaks for the oil industry could be
reduced and these applied to other energy sources at a level sufficient
to cause rapid change. A tax break could be applied to buying small
cars rather than big ones. Bush could lower the tension by talking to
the "bad" guys rather than taking a superior approach. People who have
some knowledge about their jobs, rather than party loyalty, could be
placed in important positions. However, all of these suggestions will
be ignored because this is not the style of our present government.
Ed
In January 1942 the US government closed down
the entire automobile industry, confiscated every last assemble vehicle
and spare part, and banned the sale of cars to civilians for the
duration of the war (except to doctors and a few others). If we had
taken similar bold action in 2001, and ordered the entire automobile
industry to begin manufacturing plug-in hybrids only, we would be well
on our way to reducing oil consumption by a factor of 10. Ford and
General Motors would dominate the international market and would be
selling tens of millions of ultra-efficient cars to China and other
countries. Oil would be selling for $10 a barrel, and even at that price
sales would be dropping. Saddam Hussein, the Saudi and Iranian
governments would be bankrupt and probably overthrown by now.
All this and more could have been done . . . but nothing was done.
- Jed
