| Username |
Post |
| sanman |
Posted
on 20-Sep-01 10:15 AM
As leaders of the world await breathlessly to see how the US will react to the terrorist attack upon their soil, George Bush is in a tough spot.
If the US attacks afganistan with any use of force that kills innocent people, doesn't this whole thing be plain taking "the law in your own hand" by the US? US has shown itself to be the biggest proponent of democracy, equality, freedom; and opponent of racism, discrimination and inequality.
Today is the time of test for the US to actually show what they believe in. The world community is like one single county with many different divisions such as races/color/religion etc. These different divisions have problems among themselves. If, let's say for example's sake, in the US, this following incident took place:
A rich 'white' man's family member was killed by a poor 'black' man on racial hatred which was practiced by both to some extent. Just because the rich man's family now has the means to wipe out the entire 'black' population from this country, does not mean that they can TAKE LAW INTO THEIR OWN HANDS!
One of the major constituencies of a 'Democratic & Liberal' country is the LAW. The LAW is the foundation upon which freedom and equality and above all Democracy are built. Now with the movement of warplanes to unspecified locations in the Afganistan region, it seems like this very foundation that holds the statue of liberty up is crumbling just like the WTC buildings.
America cannot be weak at this time. This is the time when America needs to show to the world what they are made of. This attack is not in the US alone, this attack symbolized the degree of terrorists' hold in this planet, earth as a whole. The sadness that is felt by the people here and the uncertainty of the 'daily luxury of being' that is being felt here is shared by most of the developed nations, to all of whom this message 'We can mess you up' have been chalked into their hearts with the recent attack into the heart of US. This is time to be a leader and lead the rest of the world to becoming the champions of democracy, instead of being the big bully that has all this high values and morals written down in theories, but when it comes down to practice, the big bully is just a punk!
Having said that, it's a very sad time for the people of the US, their sense of national pride has been shaken. If I can so love my country Nepal which is one of the most messed up places in the world, why wouldn't the Americans' national pride be hurt? A very rational emotion - this patriotism.
I've been in the US for 9 years and I've never met any americans who have been nasty/unfair/mean to me. So it does not take me too long to believe that Americans can overcome their grief and deal with the current situation in a more matured way which is from the human heart as opposed to the animal's instinct by not killing innocent people.
Not only that but also, as we all know, after the attack, the economy of US is seeing the biggest slump since whenever. Even big name analysts have been unable to cast their thoughts on how the US economy is going to be after one year.
In addition to the hit of this economy, the US population will have to face the backlash tax the cost of exploding billions of dollars worth of fireworks as it will be done if someone does not think on time to stop it. Who know's the US might be sparking off the 3rd world war, and very possibly most of the world might be destroyed along with the US if that happens
|
| sanman |
Posted
on 20-Sep-01 10:19 AM
Nice food for thought:
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: "Do we, holding that gods exist, deceive ourselves with unsubstantiated dreams, and lies, while random careless chance and change alone rule the world?"
|
| Bostonian |
Posted
on 20-Sep-01 03:17 PM
War against terrorism cannot be won by firing missiles on any country. I am there with you.
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 21-Sep-01 06:41 AM
Thanks to the globalization of this 'growing' war (i.e. with the whole world
watching closely), George W Bush cannot retaliate alone in killing innocent
Afgani civilians. He too is accountable -- more so than the terrorists -- to the
world comunity at large.
Bush needs to have international support on his side, and it's good that
Colin Powell is right there with him, shoring up international support, and
arguing with Bush's other hardliners (Rice, Wolfowitzs and Rumsfeld) that
America needs to lead a long-term international coalition and not go at it
alone.
As a Nepali citizen who once worked for Bush's presidential rival's campaign, I
fully support George W. Bush's decision to defend the US and rid the world of
this terrible scourge of terrorism once and for all, though, I fear, by the latter, Bush is setting himself up for an impossibly difficult goal. The decision to
declare war on Afganistan, where a SUSPECTED terrorist lives, is a good
one for the security of the US, where citizens of more than 80 countries
were killed in that by 9/11 ko terrorist attacks.
The Talibans had been given more than enough time to hand over Osama Bin Laden and thus avoid the war. Pakistan's leader, at great risks to his own political future, did his best to negotiate a sensible outcome with the Talibans before deciding in the interests of his own country.
That the Talibans did not and do not hand over Osama Bin Laden is their fault,
and they alone should be held responsible if innocent Afgani civilians start dying because of this war. International laws say that suspected criminals are to be handed over so that trials against can take place. We all remember how
SUSPECTED former Nazi criminals were found in countries like Brazil and Australia and Argentina years later and were subsequently handed over to authorities in Europe for trials.
Sure, one can argue that since Talibans are not recognized by the US, they need not have done the handing over. If so, then, why did the Talibans decided not to remain isolated and instead asked to be included back in the community of nations by having sanctions against them lifted? These people even do NOT care about their own people ENOUGH.
Let's face it. No one likes war. On some level, it's like getting a divorce. It's messy, costly and innocent people get caught in the middle, having to choose sides. But it is also sometimes necessary for peace.
Of course, EVERYTHING, I mean, EVERYTHING must be done first to avoid it. And it's good that the US has taken more than a week -- weighing all its options and exerising diplomatic channels and all that -- before finally deploying troops to Afganistan.
For those who, to cite one example, callously destroyed the century-old statues of Bamiyan Buddhas early this spring, let the lessons of peace be taught through an act of war.
oohi
ashu
ktm, nepal
|
| MAHESH |
Posted
on 21-Sep-01 12:10 PM
Those of you who heard the state of the union address yesterday, it is quite clear where the US stands on thje issues that you are discussing here. George made it clear that he has nothing against Afgani citizens, but if the taliban decides not to hand over Mr laden, they will face the consequence. And Alqueda Laaden's organization is the culprit here.
Waging a war against terrorism is not like a conventional war. When the enemy is not visible its hard to say that there willl be no civillian casualities. Just like they (terrorists) would not play a fair game(like victimizing innocent people) of course US will have to dirty their hands as well. Otherwise it will not be fair.
I would hold the govt. of afganisthan responsible if there is civillian casualities. For example if Sri Lanka is the training ground for Nepali Mao rebels, should the govt of Nepal hold the govt of Sri Lanka responsible... My answer is yes. If we don't hold them accountable then tose people are going to keep coming to Nepal and disrupt the daily lives of the civillians.
Terrorists that target innocent civillians have no human rights. They deserve to die. That goes for all suciede bombers. It is not fair. be it IRA, Hammas, Red Army, Chechens. that is no way to solve any problem.. it will only escalate them. Just like Mr laden who is on the run now. The main question here is that did the wtc bombing solve Ben Laaden's problem ? Of course no. It made it even worse. And now they are going to be wiped out. AS lord Buddha said violence can never be solution to any problem. It will only make it worse.
|
| Namita |
Posted
on 21-Sep-01 01:18 PM
What to do? Strike? Where, How?
Restrain? Upto what point? For how long?
Hit the country with mortar and artillary? What about the innocent civilian?
Just hit the guierilla base? Is it possible?
Not act? Will look like USA chickened out.
Again Act? But, which front? Cultural, Economical, Military?
How long will it take? Who knows.
Is it easy to fight Terrorist? Definitely no. Look at France, England, Spain, Shri Lanka, Israel.
The Balance. But how to find that balance?
Choice is not a gift; sometimes it is a curse.
To be the keeper of Democracy is not an easy task. It is a Herculean Task. Expectation runs high.
I am glad I don't have to make a choice for my countrymen. I feel sorry for Bush. And I feel sorry for Pakistan.
|
| ass.hole |
Posted
on 22-Sep-01 12:37 AM
Economcial or economic? Going by the sequence of your adjectives, I think you go it wrong.
|
