BF2S Forums The War on Terror is a Success

So Muslims blowing themselves up? GG. One reason I believe there is such a large amount of terrorist attacks is because of poverty. Poverty is a breeding ground for terrorism, since the people are desperate for support etc.

ELITE-UK wrote:

Because Muslims like those are lame ass motherfuckers with absolutely rediculous beliefs and ideals.

Dezerteagal5 wrote:

ELITE-UK wrote:

Because Muslims like those are lame ass motherfuckers with absolutely rediculous beliefs and ideals.

Ok, you still didn't say how you would deal with those Muslims.

Pre-9/11 most were unaware of the severity of the problem. So even if we were having success it would not be fair to compare how we felt before and now. I think the only real way to measure success would be based on our psychological state. Pre-9/11 the news was not dominated everyday by the thought of terrorism. So of course it is on our minds more now.

BALTINS wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

No nukes involved please.

Chemical, Biological Weapons of Mass destruction!

but cyborg is right, but how to fight poverty there? and how to show them that the west actually try's to help them?

IMO, maybe the EU should accept Turkey, the first step to show that the West is not anti-Islamic..

QUESTION: The question of the implementation of the Millennium Development Goal of the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger.
Delegation: Norway

There are more than 1.2 billion people in the world today live in poverty, and most of these people are located in Asia and Africa. The Norwegian government strongly believes that eradicating poverty is greatest challenge of our time. The profound gap between the rich and the poor is making the world more insecure. Social need and injustice are indissolubly linked with challenges in areas such as peace and security, democracy and good governance, human rights and the environment. Norway wishes to continue to be the leading player in the development plan.

Organizations such as UNICEF have been created to deal with poverty. There has been aid going to places such as Somalia via the Red Cross, and rural parts of Africa also receive a lot of aid from organizations such as the Red Cross and UNICEF. There have also been richer nations canceling poorer nations debt, this helps those nations with problems with poverty develop economically more effectively. Peace keeping forces such as the UN Peace keeping forces and NATO has made sure that the aid sent by nations reach to the people in poverty.

Norway believes that development assistance is inadequate. It must be increased substantially. Debt relief arrangements must also be improved in order to eradicate poverty. Development and poverty eradication are impossible without peace and security of life and property. Conflict is an obstacle to ordinary economic and social activity in a society, among other things because it undermines opportunities for long-term investment. If poverty does not directly lead to conflict, war and terror, it helps create a breeding ground for it and an increased risk of its breaking out. Thus, poor countries can easily become the source of problems that spread to other parts of the world. Economic growth also must be increased in order to eradicate poverty. In many countries economic growth is below population growth, which leads to hunger. To correct this development assistance, but first and foremost private investment, is needed. In many poor countries the primary industries are essential for development.

Norway strongly believes that the international community must listen more carefully to the voice of the developing countries. Rich countries dominate the international economic cooperation organizations: the World Bank, the IMF, the WTO, the OECD and so on. The voting systems largely follow the size of members’ capital contributions. These organizations work and have advantages that should be retained, not least as regards ensuring access to capital for developing countries. Norway also strongly suggests installing a peace keeping force in rural nations may help eradicate poverty.

/Mun Policy statement.

sergeriver wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Pre-9/11 most were unaware of the severity of the problem. So even if we were having success it would not be fair to compare how we felt before and now. I think the only real way to measure success would be based on our psychological state. Pre-9/11 the news was not dominated everyday by the thought of terrorism. So of course it is on our minds more now.

I'm not talking about the news and the state of paranoia.  I'm talking about the terrorism itself.  Do you think the situation is better now?

In terms of attacks? What would the opposing argument be? In terms of non attacks?

Kmarion wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Pre-9/11 most were unaware of the severity of the problem. So even if we were having success it would not be fair to compare how we felt before and now. I think the only real way to measure success would be based on our psychological state. Pre-9/11 the news was not dominated everyday by the thought of terrorism. So of course it is on our minds more now.

I'm not talking about the news and the state of paranoia.  I'm talking about the terrorism itself.  Do you think the situation is better now?

In terms of attacks? What would the opposing argument be? In terms of non attacks?

In terms of treats and instability mostly in the Middle East and Africa.

sergeriver wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

I'm not talking about the news and the state of paranoia.  I'm talking about the terrorism itself.  Do you think the situation is better now?

In terms of attacks? What would the opposing argument be? In terms of non attacks?

In terms of treats and instability mostly in the Middle East and Africa.

Africa was already instable.

Kmarion wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

In terms of attacks? What would the opposing argument be? In terms of non attacks?

In terms of treats and instability mostly in the Middle East and Africa.

The obvious response would be to point out historically that region has rarely seen stability. But I see what you are getting at. Our plan for attacking the abstract idea of terrorism is pretty limited at best. We have left ourselves with few options. Resentment and hate can not simply be pounded into submission.

And there comes the question: how do you deal with these extremists without hurting innocent people?

education and the rise of a middle class through employment.  build up the infrastructure in these degraded societies and increase employment through public works.  behind it all there is gonna be one underlying fact as to why these people blow themselves up in the name of allah.  poverty.  give em something to live for in the present life so they wont worry so much about the afterlife.  thats my solution.

I am going to ask my dad if he felt Safer before December 7th 1941.


Add your own examples.

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

I am going to ask my dad if he felt Safer before December 7th 1941.

Add your own examples.

Hooray for diabolically poor and inappropriate analogies!!!! W00T!

a) Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan were clearly defined enemies, Islamic fundamentalists are not.

b) The attack by Japan on America was an almost totally unexpected surprise. The threat from Islamic Fundamentalists is known about, can be prevented through intelligence operations and most western nations know that an attack is inevitable - i.e., won't be a surprise.

c) One cannot defeat Islamic Fundamentalists like one might defeat Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany (i.e., by utterly crushing them militarily) because one cannot readily identify who the enemy is and because modern western society is extremely cosmopolitan now. One cannot select a country to 'defeat militarily' that would lead to Islamic Fundamentalism being crushed.

A policy of containment and root cause elimination is the only way. Realism ftw.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-04-11 15:27:40)