War on Terror - Winnable? by Arawaen

Human nature is what it is, people well make war for many resons most not very good ones or they may look good from were they are standing and if there is war for a good reson by the end who remembers what that was?there may be hope. where their is change their is hope. just not in my life time.Human nature needs lots of time to change. Lets hope in the long run we wake up befor the time runs out.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 2, 2004 5:16 AM

KEVIN

Well said!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 2, 2004 5:42 AM

Quote:
there may be hope. where their is change their is hope. just not in my life time.Human nature needs lots of time to change. Lets hope in the long run we wake up befor the time runs out.

I have been reading Aristotle lately (Nichomachean Ethics and Politics), it seems to me the same human nature problems he talks about at 325 B.C. (approx.) are the same ones we have today. Can't say I see a lot of progress in almost 2500 years which is a little depressing.

I am starting Plutarch next, who is some 350 years later, initial observation seems to have similar problems and solutions (though I haven't looked at enough to really say).

Arawaen

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 2, 2004 5:54 AM

SGTGUMP

Just like the 'War on Drugs', the 'War on Poverty', the 'War on AIDS', the 'War on Illiteracy', or the 'War on Obesity', the 'War on Terror' has too much money value for the people that make our policy. Besides it gives the Government an excuse to enact new laws, like the Patriot Act, that will eat away at our freedoms. The Patriot act, like many other laws passed during a state of crisis, was sold to us with the guise that it will protect us, and that it is temporary.

That is just ONE of the reasons that I will be voting Libertarian again this election.

www.lp.org
www.badnarik.org
Vote Libertarian.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 2, 2004 6:02 AM

like i said a LLLLong time. 2500 years is just a drop in the bucket of time.So it seams I wasn't to far off by saying not in my life time.Maybe not in my Kids kids kids kids lifetime.I still have hope. The best we can do is see the eivl and know its here with us every day be awear of it,then inbrace the good in all we do. that is were the hope for change is. just my opinnon.

Not from book learnen just life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 2, 2004 6:39 AM

DECKROID

Wow. What a topic for political rhetoric.

On the one hand, you could make an argument that this is a winnable war: albeit you have to change your view on 'winnable'. It can no longer mean to completely crush your enemy, to see your enemy driven before you and hear the lamentation of their women. The new definition would be along the lines of "beating the crap out of your oppenent until he is no longer able to preform acts of terror on you or your country."

This stance would mean that we continue along the lines we have been going for the past 3 years: stepped up security at home and on bases abroad, pre-emptive strikes on training facilities, and continued hunting of terrorist organizations.

On the other hand, you can posit that no war is winnable, no matter how much fighting is done. That this is a political ruse of an administration that needs a diversion from precieved domestic, as well as forgein, policy that is failing.

This position requires us to have more knowledge than is known to the common person. While the media is well informed, it cannot be as informed as those behind the scenes. It is not that hard to glean more information from government sources than is readily given by the media. This is only because Doom and Gloom sells. (The GOA offers a nice supply of info). So, with the fore knowledge that is not given to most everyone via the internet or news media, we can then make educated guesses as to why the government is doing what it is and to see through the normal politcal rhetoric.

Now, seeing as how I was once 'in the trenches', so to speak, in the War on Drugs, I can only speak from that perspective.

When you find yourself standing in the middle of a cocoa field, buring a plantation down that was burned down just 45 days before, you begin to ask yourself questions that have no answers. You have to change your point of view and look at things from askew. You need to see the overall picture instead of a daily nit-picking.

It was all too easy for me to look around at the wet, green landscape (with wet feet, wet BDUs, wet everything) and complain that there has to be a better way. But from a Big Picture stand, my war on drugs worked. Sure, there were probably hundreds of more fields like that one. But when you stop and think that 35,000 acres of cocain bearing fruit plants were stopped in 90 days, it pleases you to know that that much coke wont be killing anyone on my watch.

So, to all those who are fighting terror on G.W.'s watch: Go get them, and tell them that I said hello.

That's my view. I am sure that most others will disagree. That is the beauty of this and other free countries around the world. We can speak our minds and not have the secret militia burst into our homes and shoot us in the head in front of our families.

Next?

I call her "Vera"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 2, 2004 6:42 AM

TIGER

In addition to what's already been correctly stated... when al qaeda is gone (or in deep hiding) there will be palestinian terrorists. When they're gone there will be IRA terrorists, and when they're gone there will be anarchist terrorists, then eco-terrorists, anti-business terrorists, and so on. And if all of those have been quiet for a while, there will always be the common criminal "terrorists" like the belt-way snipers to keep the government on some sort of high-alert-freedoms-restricted status.

Once the people in charge see how much power they've gained thanks to the terrorists, they're not going to give it up. Especially if all it takes to keep it is to propagate fear and xenophobia.

I happen to be rereading "1984" right now. Anyone who hasn't read it should. Still apropos for our time.

And I second SGTGUMP.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 2, 2004 7:14 AM

Megness, I gather from your statement,

Quote:
Not from book learnen just life

that you mean ethics should be learned and developed from personal experience and not taught. Why not do away with all schooling and learn everything (science, medicine, architecture, etc.) from personal experience? Why should ethics be different?

Not all science is correct, when we find something to be wrong we change it, but we don't discard all of science. The same should be true of ethics, we should build upon the experiences of the people that came before us.

I suppose the aversion to ethics as a discipline is that too often it has been reduced to a mere list of prohibitions rather than as a system of thinking that allows a person to arrive at their own conclusion. I don't know if this came about because of people's dislike of thinking or the establishment's desire to control (without knowing the question it is hard to refute an answer).

Regardless of how much we disagree on the means of obtaining the knowledge, I agree with you that that knowledge must be actualized by the individual to be of any real use,

Quote:
The best we can do is see the eivl and know its here with us every day be awear of it,then inbrace the good in all we do.

I am also envious of your hope. I believe it to be a good thing to have hope.

Arawaen

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 2, 2004 8:26 AM

where to start; I agree with you.
obtaining knowledge is the importan part. All i ment was i'am not much for books that tell me how i should act with my fellow beings. So my opinnon has no back up so to say. Just what i have learned by looking at what is going on around me.
Don't get me wrong books are great just not my thing. what works for you may not be what works for others.
We all have chocies to make every day, and we make the best ones possible with what we have.
Right or Wrong, hindsite is always 20/20.
knowledge is power how we use that power is the problem. Back to human nature.
nasty creatures that we are if you look for evil thats what you find.
Just don't forget that there is good to be had.
i'am not going to say don't worry be happy.
Or just sit back and do nothing it well all work out.
All evil needs to win is for good men to do nothing. Don't recall who said that right now.
The war on terror is bigger then just whats going on right now.Can it be won? For that to happen we would need world peace. That means avery person on this plant has to be willing to fight their human nature.

study the past, think on the future, live in the present.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 2, 2004 10:14 AM

Don't forget the KKK, white supremacists and various militia groups nor the abortion clinic bombers.

Arawaen

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 2, 2004 10:36 AM

Don't want to get off topic.
But there is the hole zen thing.
Yin vs Yan
Good vs Evil
light vs dark

One can't be without the other.
There has to be balance.

Now what do we do with all the gray stuff??

just say n

the world is not black & white and the gray suff won't fill all the cracks.

does that make sents

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 2, 2004 1:23 PM

HJERMSTED

"You cannot win a war on terrorism... it's like having a war on jealousy."

-comedian David Cross

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 2, 2004 1:28 PM

HKCAVALIER

This whole "war on" concept is a lie. Wars are fought against people, not ideas or commodities, but people, mostly poor people. We call wars a lot of things to avoid that fact. That way, we're not simply killing tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, oh no, we're having one of our "wars on."

When perpetrating a "war on" it seems to be important to remember that the ism or drug or state of being we're fighting only happens in foreign places (or the "inner city."--same thing). We don't terrorize anyone or do drugs or impoverish people.

Of course that's a load of b.s. What is the real difference between an "act of terror" and an "act of war" besides the budget?

A real war on terrorism would be directed at removing the root causes of terrorism: hatred and marginalization. Over the next 20 years the government could fund a massive cultural exchange with the Middle East. Teach Arabic and Farsee in schools. Do anything but destroy whole peoples and extort obedience out of the survivors and wonder why they don't love us.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 2, 2004 3:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:

I have been reading Aristotle lately (Nichomachean Ethics and Politics), it seems to me the same human nature problems he talks about at 325 B.C. (approx.) are the same ones we have today. Can't say I see a lot of progress in almost 2500 years which is a little depressing.

I am starting Plutarch next, who is some 350 years later, initial observation seems to have similar problems and solutions (though I haven't looked at enough to really say).

In there day destruction was quite limited. There weaponry hadn't evolved to the point where one could easily level a town, city, state/province, etc.

But, I do think that Albert Einstein said it best:

"It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has surpassed our humanity."

A war on terror can not be won solely by the sword. That'll just create a self perpetuating escalating cycle of violence.

We must stop and think about the root cause of this sort of thing and move to correct that instead of killing and killing and killing...

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 2, 2004 6:19 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Bush's 'war on terror' is mostly a handy cattle-prod for the US psyche. It'll keep people focused where they're 'supposed' to be focused, and make them cooperative. And probably get Bush re-elected to boot.

The way it's being done - isolated from true global cooperation and using military means - it isn't winnable. Look at Israel. They've been trying it for how many decades? Does the Iraeli government actually think that there was just one generation of terrorists and once they kill them, it'll be over?

But even if Bush's 'war on terror' were done better, to the point where he could win, some wars you shouldn't win. Maybe there really are irrational cultures - cultures of reavers. But mostly I think there is rebellion against injustice.

BTW - about 'human nature'. It's a big topic of discussion where I work. (Odd that an assemblage of chemists, engineers and biologists should be debating this particular topic.) While I don't think it is infinitely pliable, I'm convinced that how people behave and how a society is structured is pretty much determined by the myths they believe. So just think - the US is the land of opportunity, ruthless competition, relentless grasping for ever more stuff, and the gaping maw of financial disaster always behind. I guess this IS the best of all possible worlds.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 3, 2004 2:13 AM

SERGEANTX

This war on terror BS is directly related to a shell game that has been used to con us into supporting their dirty little wars for many, many years. I'm talking about the notion that we aren't going to war with another nation but only with evil elements that happen to be co-located. We try to convince ourselves we aren't going to war with the people of Afghanistan but with the Taliban or al-Queda - not with the people of Iraq, but with Saddam Hussein (one man?). This sales gimmick seems to be designed to counter the inevitable peaceniks' claim that they (our enemies) are people too.... and that they are nice people who just have an evil government. It's up to us to save us from their oppressors. Whatever.

The truth behind this nonsense is that these 'evil elements', whether they be duly elected representatives of the people, tyannical despots, or loose terror rings, do not exist in a vacuum. The require a support structure of some kind. They might enjoy the enthusiastic support of the population, or just resigned cooperation, but they don't and can't maintain their operations if the people they are feeding off of refuse to suppport them.

Perhaps a more rational alternative would be to confront these nations directly. Tell them, "Listen, your [leaders, terrorists, businesses, whatever...] are doing something we find intolerable. If you don't make them quit we will have to consider you our enemies and do whatever it takes to make this stop. If we attack you, we aren't going to tip-toe about asking each and every one of you whose side you're on. We are going to destroy the infrastucture these evil elements are relying on. Yes, that means 'innocent' people will die. So get off your asses and take some responsibility for the actions of those you are supporting before this gets ugly."

Now, some of you may have noticed that this logic may also be used against us. If our military or our corporations are committing evil in our name overseas, we are culpable for our support of these actions. The people and countries that feel they are being abused will consider us their enemies - not just our government or military or our corporations, but US, the people who prop up the institutions. That's why its so dreadfully important that we reign in the rampant arrogance currently guiding our foreign policy.

I think most nations understand the self correcting nature of American democracy and will give us a lot of leeway because of it. But if we refuse to use that process to correct our mistakes, if we stay home in front of the TV drinking beer rather than moving to stop some of the crap being done in our names we will ulitimately be the ones who pay for it.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 3, 2004 5:45 AM

I have never agreed much with western dualism.

Good and evil can be seen as opposites, but evil can also be seen as the absence of good.
Light and darkness can be seen as opposites, but darkness can also be seen as the absence of light.

The Taoist philosophy of Yin and Yang is more valid, as eastern dualism is more complicated than mere opposites, though it is often reduced to such when introduced to the west. An atom needs both it positive and negative components but they are not necessarily opposite. Society needs male and female, but they are not necessarily opposite. Two different but complimentary forces can find a balance, but opposites tend to neutralize each other.

Arawaen

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 3, 2004 7:34 AM

DeckRoid, I hope you understood that I wasn't implying the war on 'x' to be not worth fighting. A valid government is obligated to work for the common good of its citizens and in the case of the terrorist attacks of late that required defensive action (the best defense sometimes being a good offense).

What I was trying to get at is not that no war is winnable (though I suppose when one figures the costs of war, nobody really wins, which is why they should never be entered into lightly) but that a war against a concept is not winnable. You cannot shoot or kill a concept, it exists in the minds of men.

That said, I was troubled at your solution:

Quote:
The new definition would be along the lines of "beating the crap out of your oppenent until he is no longer able to preform acts of terror on you or your country."

It assumes easy identification of the opponent, something I am skeptical of. It also fails to address why people engage in terrorism. I don't buy the line that the Palestinian/Israeli conflict isn't relevant to terrorists' issue with America. I surely don't buy the line that they are simply jealous of our freedom and way of life. Bin Laden could have lived like a king, with freedom and a standard of living far exceeding the majority of Americans.

America is a very powerful nation, both military and economically, easily the most powerful on the planet. She is capable of influencing other nations with these two weapons, even to the point of getting their leaders to act contrary to the will of their people. The belief that some people so marginalized and with no capacity to retaliate openly (either through force or legal means) might be driven to insane violence is branded heresy, for apparantly impotence in the face of overwhelming power must result in submission. Now it is not that I think America is wrong to press its interests, it is not, every nation has the obligation to seek the best position in the international realm, but I do think the disparity of power might be a major component in aberration that is the terrorist mindset.

I think this disparity of power also explains the desire of many nations to acquire nuclear weapons, we created them for security, they want that security too. The problem with nukes is that while they provide you with security, the more people that have them the greater chance that somebody will use them and hence security goes down.

The other problem with the disparity of power is that taking away an enemies ability to fight is not the same as defeating them. When one side doesn't have the ability to respond to a method of attack, one cannot truly saying the two sides are fighting, rather one side is simply being killed by the other. At the same time nobody would willingly send their soldiers into harms way needlessly.

I don't see any simple solutions to the problem of disparity of power. Either one side is suppose to voluntarily give up the advantage or the other is suppose to voluntarily submit. I see terrorism as a social disease that springs out of this dilemna. The use of military or economic force to stop it strikes me as having the unfortunate effect of exacerbating the problem and at the same time to choose not to respond to terrorism with either would make any government irresponsible.

I hope that I have been clear and not overly offensive. I don't want to demonize either side, but to see the issue as objectively as possible. I recognize that I am still limited by my own subjectivity (but I desire objectivity) and that some people prefer to be partisan about things (though I can't quite fathom why that is).

Arawaen

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 3, 2004 9:58 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Hey- everybody agrees on this thread! Where's Hero, Jasonzz, Doran, Wulfhawk, Auraptor, Drakon, ConnorFlynn and all the other that make these threads so interesting?

Well, I can't match them for gung-ho-ism, but since this thread is just too darn agreeable, I'll play devil's advocate for a bit.

Just because the "war" on terrorism isn't a war and isn't "winnable" doesn't mean that we shouldn't fight it. Game theory and observation of human behavior tells me that when someone does something that you don't like, you have to apply some sort of negative consequence to their behavior or they will repeat it.

Let's take Chechnya as an example- one where the USA doesn't have any specific vested interest. As I understand it, the Chechnyan separatists don't enjoy the support of the majority. It actually doesn't take an exceptionally large minority to support ONGOING acts of terrorism, and single acts of terrorism can be accomplished by just a very few people.

So we have a group of people that believes in targeting and killing civilians to attain a political goal that may be supported by as few as 15% of the population and opposed by the remainder. From the viewpoint of this minority, even if the current government is tyrannical, a new democratic government is not going to solve their problem.

What to do? You have to control people who are intent on imposing their will on others through non-democratic means, even if it means becoming something of an autocrat yourself.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 3, 2004 10:33 AM

As I understand it the majority of colonists favored England during the American Revolution.

As I understand it the majority of women were opposed to voting during the suffragette movement.

That said you are right that

Quote:
It actually doesn't take an exceptionally large minority to support ONGOING acts of terrorism, and single acts of terrorism can be accomplished by just a very few people.

. A single individual can be a terrorist (such as the unabomber).

I am no expert on Chechnya but didn't they attempt to secede from Russia and get crushed militarily before some resorted to terrorism? How popular is the movement for independence? I would assume that more people want independence than are willing to use terrorism to achieve it. It must strike some Chechnyans as odd that Lithuania, Estonia, Georgia, Ukraine, etc. get their independence but they don't.

Quote:
Game theory and observation of human behavior tells me that when someone does something that you don't like, you have to apply some sort of negative consequence to their behavior or they will repeat it.

So what should I do about reality tv? I really want to stop that behavior.

Quote:
You have to control people who are intent on imposing their will on others through non-democratic means, even if it means becoming something of an autocrat yourself.

I don't think it is democratic or non-democratic means, but the rule of law that is important. One of the American ideals is that the minority has rights even against the majority. Plus, I think the pronouns in this statement are all wrong, I don't get to control people who impose their will by any means, I don't know about you. My option is always, "take it or leave it," offered with a cruel smirk.

Arawaen

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 3, 2004 2:55 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Looking specifically at the hostage school, what should be done about instances like that, if anything?

Or, to put it another way, if you see a bully on the playground beating up on another kid, do you try to beat the crap out of him? If he and his buddies gang up on you and beat the crap out of you, do you go away and let him continue to beat up other kids? Or, alternatively, what if you ARE the biggest kid on the playground and you've defeated the bully- Does this mean that you are also a bully and not a victim?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 3, 2004 3:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Or, to put it another way, if you see a bully on the playground beating up on another kid, do you try to beat the crap out of him?

No, you go about it in a non-violent way. Pull the bully off the kid, with your friends backing you up, so that no further violence is committed.

If you aren't big enough and/or don't have access to enough friends, go get someone who does.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Or, alternatively, what if you ARE the biggest kid on the playground and you've defeated the bully- Does this mean that you are also a bully and not a victim?

Clearly by defeated you mean by violence. This is not always the case. In fact violence in only one out of many possible solutions. Quite frankly I don't find violence a solution until it is the absolutly last resort.

This question is also doesn't take into consideration the complexity of life. ie What did the bully actually do? Did it require such a strong response? Do you actually know what happened or are you just seeing the end product (ie the bully you see could actually be the good guy defending him/her-self)? How much bigger are you than that other bully? Did that other bully have superior number? I could go on at length but I think you get the point.

QUESTION: Why do all of your "solutions" involve violence as a first resort?

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 3, 2004 3:33 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I'm going to grab one concept and start thinking on-line because it's pretty jumbled for me.

I read somewhere trolling the internet that it takes about 10-15% tacit support for a viable guerilla war. I presume the same goes for terrorism.* That's a small minority. One might think that a minority has no right to oppose an overwhelming majority. Something must be 'not right' with the minority position if so few people go along with it.

I can think of one example where the majority is in the wrong, and that is when the majority enslaves or takes other advantage of the minority. And of course the majority would like to retain their advantages, while the minority opposes them. So it isn't necessarily true that the majority opinion, by virtue of being the majority position, is the best one.

From the other side, what would induce such a small minority to go against overwhelming numbers? Technology makes a lopsided fight easier, and is in itself a factor. But it isn't the cause. There must be a reason to fight. I don't think it can be the quest for power, since it's unlikely a small group will be able to seize and hold power in relation to a larger (organized and armed) group. The best a small group can hope for is concessions or reprieve from the larger group. The fact that a small number acts against a larger number is to me ipso facto proof of a minority grievance against that group.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban (with Pakistan and US backing) 'won' against the USSR - not by conquering it, but by ejecting them from the country. What would be a 'win' for the insurgents in Iraq? Getting the US out. I don't know if they've made any claims about wanting to run Iraq, which would be contrary to my supposition. If they have, maybe someone could let me know.

Once started, how does a war end? It can end with mutual peace, or have a win/lose ending.

I have read that war can start at the perception of an instability in the peace; but once started (even for spurious reasons), when people deal death, outrage and loss, it positively feeds back. And then the intention to war continues as long as both sides think they can win.

An example of the death of a war is one of the protracted wars in Africa which came to an end when both sides realized they couldn't win; and they were tired of the mutual bludgeoning. They were both truly ready for peace, and the UN predicts it will be a lasting one.

Wars with military victories sometimes give rise to long-held hatreds, and any appearance of peace is merely an illusion, waiting to be broken at the proper opportunity.

What about terrorism? The larger group of course assumes it can win (militarily), given enough time. But for the smaller group, a 'win' must consist of something other than military conquest. Can concessions be made to the smaller group to give them a type 'victory' and stop the war? Has it been tried? I'd like to hear from anyone who knows about this.

So when it comes to the 'war on terrorism', I have to say first of all that dubya's version is really all about conjuring an enemy to garner internal power. It can't work the way he's doing it. But as someone once mentioned to me, the G8 has considerable resources and power. If it put its intelligence and economic resources together, I think it could actually stifle dissent anywhere in the world. The question is, should it? My answer would have to be no. It has to do with the old saw about absolute power.

When it comes to game theory, I haven't read anywhere about how it applies to players with vastly disparate power to determine the 'outcome' of the game. Tit-for-tat might end up like "plink SMASH plink SMASH". And I know far too little to be able to come up with a rule for that scenario.

*Unfortunately, like many obscure things I stumble across, I can't find it again. It was written by a navy expert ? for the military to outline strategies in general. If anyone can find it or knows what I'm referring to, I'd like to hear from them.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 6, 2004 6:12 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

It was written by a counter-insurgency expert who was deployed in Iraq. Captain somebody or other. I saw the same article which I (naturally) can't find, but I think it was in the LA Times.

[quoteI don't think it can be the quest for power, since it's unlikely a small group will be able to seize and hold power in relation to a larger (organized and armed) group. The best a small group can hope for is concessions or reprieve from the larger group. The fact that a small number acts against a larger number is to me ipso facto proof of a minority grievance against that group.

As I understand it, the general feeling in Iraq is to eject the US military. They may quibble about the timetable, the means, and the endpoint but you would be hard-pressed to find Iraqis who say "I want the US military to stay for a long time." I would guess that the situation is the same for the Palestinians. They have a long list of very understandable grievances that affects virtually all of their population.

On the other hand, it IS possible to have a small population determined to remake their world by any means possible. As I understand Chechnya, 70% of the people see themselves as part of the Russian federation, and while most of them are Sufis they do not want to see Sharia law instituted. The current head of the "independence" movement is bucking the majority on both counts. I could point to similar militancy by Muslims in Myanmar, to the neocons in the Administration and the ultra-rich worldwide whose "any means possible" enable them to impose their will on the vast majority.

So being a terrorist does not mean ipso facto that you have a legititmate grievance.

Quote:
Clearly by defeated you mean by violence. This is not always the case. In fact violence in only one out of many possible solutions. Quite frankly I don't find violence a solution until it is the absolutely last resort.

This question is also doesn't take into consideration the complexity of life. ie What did the bully actually do? Did it require such a strong response? Do you actually know what happened or are you just seeing the end product (ie the bully you see could actually be the good guy defending him/her-self)? How much bigger are you than that other bully? Did that other bully have superior number? I could go on at length but I think you get the point.

QUESTION: Why do all of your "solutions" involve violence as a first resort?

I was thinking that the bully was a habitual miscreant who was known for taking away lunch money, and that all of the usual playground dynamics were involved: he had one or two friends, that there were three or four favorite victims and that the other kids didn't get involved because they were happy that it wasn't them. I also assume that there was some "assault and battery" going on- threats of violence, shoving, and some punching (but not to the face).

If you'll assume that with me, I'd rather address your other points.

Your response leave me with a lot of thoughts.

The first is that force is often the only response that is quick enough for intervention. Ideally, the force is so overwhelming that it doesn't need to apply damage- but when overwhelming force isn't an option then violence is a good substitute.

The second is that assuming you can handle the situation in a non-violent way (humor, running way, negotiation, overwhelming force) where is the "negative reinforcment" that would keep this bully from doing the same thing again? It seems to me that bullies actually really only understand violence and fear- maybe from parental example- so how do you get through to this kind of kid? (or, how do you get through to someone like Milosevic?)

The third thought is that, in the long term, perhaps one can go to the root cause of bullying and eliminate it as much as possible.

And finally, it's interesting that neither one of us thought that the kid who intervened was a HERO, (the "good agressor") which would be another characterization that could be applied. Just goes to show how badly I do this devil's advocate thing. So, belatedly, I toss HERO out as a characterization, along with VICTIM and AGGRESSOR. Perhaps one of the problems that we a society (and a species?) have is the fascination with HERO- the individual who saves us from evil. What I see in most of the posters who belive that we are doing good in Iraq is the desire to be a hero. Is that hero/aggressor- victim dynamic part of the problem? If so, how do we change it?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 6, 2004 8:16 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

You ran across it too? I read so many publications and run across so many things. At least I now know I wasn't dreaming. I tried so hard to find it again, but it was as if it never existed.

Quote:
On the other hand, it IS possible to have a small population determined to remake their world by any means possible. ... So being a terrorist does not mean ipso facto that you have a legitimate grievance.

It is possible for a VERY small group to dominate a country. It can happen if that country is not well armed or organized (colonies), or (if the country is armed) in a coup, or (if it is well organized and armed) where small groups runs the entire power structure such as the US oligarchy. But small groups outside of an existing (organized and armed) power structure face different problems. So I tried to specify what situation requires terrorism.

30% is a substantial minority and I think falls outside of this realm. (In my 'how does this eyeball on the street' measure, it is between one in every three to four people you meet. I think a minority that large, especially if they are concentrated in a few areas, might have aims that go beyond relief from a larger group.) The solution I think needs to take the historic particulars into account. Africa is a good example of how NOT to create countries. (Colonies were deliberately formed incorporating conflicting groups to prevent armed insurrection. Then the ruling gvts favored one side - usually the minority - over the other to divide people further. On independence in the 1960s, the borders were unfortunately retained, giving rise to 'internal' strife.) If there was an ill-conceived historic incorporation, perhaps it needs to be undone. Or, if they were a very small minority that grew in-place, an internal policy needs to address it. I don't have the time to fully discuss this (I'd like to at some other time), but I think there is a fine but VERY clear line in democratic majority/minority relations. One is that the minority should never dominate the majority. That needs to be clearly spelled out, as well as the penalties for minority insurrection (including armed response). On the other hand, the freedoms of the minority should not be abridged either. And freedoms should be considered in their broadest sense, in that they are guaranteed in relation to national, regional and local government, to business or other private groups, and to individuals, until specific laws place restrictions. (Unlike the US where freedoms are interpreted to be applicable only to individual/federal relations.)
As to bullies, as individuals I think I remember reading they respond in the long-term to group shunning. I have no idea how this might translate to nations.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 6, 2004 1:05 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Ummm... why are we excluding a 30% minority from the discussion?

It seems to me that targeting civilian populations to gain political (or military) ends falls under the defintion of "terrorism" no matter how large or small the group of perpetrators. For example, since Israel bulldozes the family homes of "suspected" terrorists (no trial, no conviction, but the entire family is punished) that falls under the realm of terrorism as far as I'm concerned.

Is it because the assumption is that terrorists resort to terrorism because they have no other options, being a small group facing a well-organized and well-funded oppressor? But the problem is that terrorism is engaged in by ALL groups at all levels of organization for purposes of oppression as well as for liberation.

I'd like to explore the bully analogy furhter, too. While direct analogies between individuals and organizations ultimately break down, don't think the analogy has broken down yet. The analog of "shunning" might be "embargo", or it may be something that has not been thought of yet.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 6, 2004 3:09 PM

DIETCOKE

Well, we may have lost the war...but I'm still not sure we were on the wrong side. We must keep fighting the good fight because it's not about the end result or winning....it's about doing what is right.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 6, 2004 7:02 PM

Sorry if this is just a ramble, I was in a hurry and had little time to re-edit before posting.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I was thinking that the bully was a habitual miscreant who was known for taking away lunch money, and that all of the usual playground dynamics were involved: he had one or two friends, that there were three or four favorite victims and that the other kids didn't get involved because they were happy that it wasn't them. I also assume that there was some "assault and battery" going on- threats of violence, shoving, and some punching (but not to the face).

If you'll assume that with me, I'd rather address your other points.

Your response leave me with a lot of thoughts.

The first is that force is often the only response that is quick enough for intervention. Ideally, the force is so overwhelming that it doesn't need to apply damage- but when overwhelming force isn't an option then violence is a good substitute.

What I would condone if the bully was actually beating on the "little one" is for our "hero" to come up behind the bully, grab him from behind (no hitting) and remove him from the child. This would hopefully only toss the bully a number of feet back and maybe in an extreme case to the ground. Continuing from there (see next):

If it's just a intimidation thing then getting inbetween shouldn't be difficult as negotiation would be a viable alternative. And with how much these children now adays trash talk, I gather that the window for this solution is fairly large.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The second is that assuming you can handle the situation in a non-violent way (humor, running way, negotiation, overwhelming force) where is the "negative reinforcment" that would keep this bully from doing the same thing again? It seems to me that bullies actually really only understand violence and fear- maybe from parental example- so how do you get through to this kind of kid? (or, how do you get through to someone like Milosevic?)

Most bully (all in my experience) are actually cowards. They back off as soon as something doesn't add up in there little minds. And now an example from my life.

When I was in grade 12, I was ~5'11'' 130 lbs. One day I stood up to a bully (it's sad that he existed at that level). He was 6'2 ~265 lbs. How'd I do it. I went toe to toe with him and stared him down. I would gather that the psychology here is that he didn't know why this little guy knew so he backed off (not a punch thrown). Didn't have any problems from him anymore.

As for the negative reinforcment. I'd think that the embaressment (if people are around, which is most of the time. after all bullies usually play to an audience) would be a good one. If the teacher found out then there would be some from that. It all depends on the situation.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The third thought is that, in the long term, perhaps one can go to the root cause of bullying and eliminate it as much as possible.

My thinking (an other child psychologists as well) is that these bullies are just acting out because of some other thing going on in there life. Whether it's bad at math, parents getting a divorce, etc it's usually something. I've only seen a small number of cases that it wasn't something like this.

It's also my understanding that bullying (as much as we have today or at least how violent) is a fairly new occurence. I'd conjecture a link between the parents that don't really parent and this phenomenon ie cry for attention. And since the parents don't really teach proper morals, social behaviour, etc anymore, how are our kids supposed to act properly.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And finally, it's interesting that neither one of us thought that the kid who intervened was a HERO, (the "good agressor") which would be another characterization that could be applied.

I didn't forget because I don't view the person who intervened a hero. (S)he is just doing what is right. Quite frankly, I would find it disturbing if people are found to be heros just for doing what's right. What does that say about our society? I would think that we should all be doing this or at least promoting it.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Is that hero/aggressor- victim dynamic part of the problem? If so, how do we change it?

I would think that it is. If we removed the idea of hero for doing what's right, and taught that the deed is it's own reward, then the world would be a better place. Just imagine people helping eachother just because they can, not needing a reason.

I'll stop now because I've gotten *way* off topic here and that discussion won't end soon. Plus I *really* have to go.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 7, 2004 9:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Looking specifically at the hostage school, what should be done about instances like that, if anything?

Or, to put it another way, if you see a bully on the playground beating up on another kid, do you try to beat the crap out of him? If he and his buddies gang up on you and beat the crap out of you, do you go away and let him continue to beat up other kids? Or, alternatively, what if you ARE the biggest kid on the playground and you've defeated the bully- Does this mean that you are also a bully and not a victim?

The short term and long term response can be different. When violence occurs a great deal has gone wrong. Somebody wasn't paying attention and not just in the moments leading up to the attack. Bullies, terrorists, wars don't just spring up suddenly. WWII was decades in the making for example.

However, just because somebody dropped the ball, doesn't mean we are excused from action when the proverbial sh

t hits the fan. It might be necessary to intervene with the bully, it might be necessary to shoot down a hijacked plane, it might be necessary to restrain a suicidal individual, or even invade a nation that is actively harboring terrorists or committing genocide.

In the aftermath though, using one example, one can decide to focus on making sure suicidal people don't have access to implements that can harm them or one can decide to focus on dealing with depression.

Arawaen

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 7, 2004 9:38 AM

Violence should be a last resort, but it is possible that a situation has deteriorated to the point where violence is necessary. I believe that this means people have been negligent up to that point in letting the situation get out of hand, but action to save lives may require immediate violence, usually when violence is already in progress.

Arawaen

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 7, 2004 9:50 AM

sigmaNunki wrote,

I would have to really strongly disagree with this. Bullying is not a new occurence. I think it is part of primate/animal makeup, a need to establish 'dominance' in the tribe. If anything is new is that with the advent of public schooling we have 'tribes' of peers trying to establish a hierarchy within their new environemnt which is distinct from that of their family structure.

I will find some historical episodes of bullying and update this. I don't have any reference with me and would rather be specific than generalize.

Arawaen

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 8, 2004 6:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:
sigmaNunki wrote,

It's also my understanding that bullying (as much as we have today or at least how violent) is a fairly new occurence. I'd conjecture a link between the parents that don't really parent and this phenomenon ie cry for attention. And since the parents don't really teach proper morals, social behaviour, etc anymore, how are our kids supposed to act properly.

I would have to really strongly disagree with this. Bullying is not a new occurence. I think it is part of primate/animal makeup, a need to establish 'dominance' in the tribe. If anything is new is that with the advent of public schooling we have 'tribes' of peers trying to establish a hierarchy within their new environemnt which is distinct from that of their family structure.

I will find some historical episodes of bullying and update this. I don't have any reference with me and would rather be specific than generalize.

Arawaen

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

Um, I'll quote myself:

"as much as we have today or at least how violent"

So, unless you can specify another era of human history that has has such a rash of school shootings or such violence among the youth I'm going to have to stick with my opinion.

And there have *always* been heirarchies. It's human nature to make a pecking order. You see this even in the *very* young on the playground. It's definitely nothing new.

And people *always* want more power in the group. Whether that means geting listened to more or something else, attention is the key. Since in todays society we have 2 income families where the parents come home to there childrend too tired to parent because they just worked a 10 - 12 hr day, it's no wounder that these 'tribes' are so prevelent. And without basic guidence from parents as to what is acceptable behavious, it's no wounder that these 'tribes' tend to violence.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 8, 2004 6:07 PM