Some of us are vehemently anti-war, however do we have any solutions to our current problems? Yes, we created many of our problems, yet they must be dealt with.

We hate the bombing of innocents, we have deeply felt ideologies, we know there is a better way for humankind, but what would it be?

I would like the world, especially the US, to work on a new paradigm. I dont want my whole lifespan to be about wars, which it has been so far as an american born citizen. I think this uneccessary, yet what would be an alternate strategy?

I have seen no reasons to go to war in three decades, yet we do now have threats from terrorists, past miscalculations, and the future to deal with. We are supposedly a superpower, yet we suffer domestically while we make war and 'liberate' others to the tune of billions. Uneccessary wars and growing strife in the US.

How would you deal with a growing terrorist threat?

Sanctions dont work and only impoverish the people, not those in power.

We know bombs, wars, invasions dont really work overall, besides being ultimately cruel and stupid on all accounts.

Question for debate: What is your paradigm? Your most ideological scenario,/world view, but also your solution to the problems you feel are important to us right now?

How would you change the world from an anti-war point of view?

What shall we do, what can we offer other than critisizm?

Well, I'm not convinced many of us are anti-war versus anti-invadingandoccupyingcountriesthathavenothingtodowithinternationalterrorism.

I think the Bush doctrine was correct after 9/11. Muslim extremists wanted us dead. Anybody supporting or harboring Muslim extremists wanting us dead is our enemy.

When Bush took us to Afghanistan, we had the world support because we retaliated against an enemy that attacked us. This did not incite more terrorist activity because that would have been too hypocritical for even terrorists. Supposedly, terrorists murder innocents for a cause no matter how twisted the methods are.

The problem is, we should have began targeting known suppliers of WMD (Korea, Russia, Libya, and Iran - according to the CIA, Iraq has never even been on the radar) and began to lean HEAVILY on known supporters of international terrorism (not the local Palestinian problem that every Arab nation supports) such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, and Libya.

We should have told those countries up-front, that if they did not vigorously combat terrorism and we were attacked, we would destroy them.

I would tell Mexico and Canada that if they do not take steps to protect our borders (i.e. Vincente Fox thinking illegals sneaking in to our country is doing us a favor), they are with the enemy. Before you laugh that premise off, it doesn't matter what we do if anybody can walk in and do whatever damage they want. This is about survival - not friendship.

The notion that we can avoid another 9/11 is both absurd and disingenuous. I would like to prevent the deaths of another several thousand of our Americans as much as anybody else, but I don't see anybody falling off the deep end for the 50,000 people a year killed by violent crime or drunk driving. Somehow, with the "war" on terrorism, these lives appear to be valued less. We do not take the steps Bush's war on terror takes to prevent those deaths. We don't have a department of drunk driving as a cabinet position.

My point is, with terrorism, we need to take reasonable steps to protect ourselves and force countries in the world to do their part. If they don't and we get attacked, it's game over for them. We have a target and have an enemy. There is no speculation. There is no interpreting intelligence. We simply have no choice but to retaliate against attacks. Unfortunately, Americans will die. But as stated earlier, unless you are changing the world order to eliminate drunk driving deaths and other preventable deaths, it's hypocritical to do the same for for deaths that have not even happened yet.

If I were king, I would pull all our troops out from all countries we're actively involved in. I would then put out the ultimatum to every country in the world. I would tell them our intelligence indicates they are a threat and they need to begin cleaning up their own mess. I would tell them that if they fail to enforce policy to fight terrorism, fail to use and share intelligence, fail to react/retaliate against terrorist entities, or basically, thumb their noses at us, it will be at their peril. If our people die because of their inaction, we destroy them without ever putting even one set of American boots on the ground overseas. If we get attacked with WMD, we respond with WMD.

Is it fair to the innocents that will die? Of course not. But it is no less fair to OUR innocents that will die. Our innocent loss of life is not less then an enemy country's people loss of life. Selfishly, I wouldn't sacrifice one American life for an entire country worth of Muslims, but that's me. Realistically, we can't do that.

Terrorists and the states that harbor them rely on our sense of good will and morality to protect them. We respect human life while many Muslim extremists (face it, there is no such thing as a Norwegian terrorist) don't. But that is our weakness and they exploit that.

This whole notion that we can send troops all over the world to "fight terrorism" is too absurd for words. There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world and even if only 10% of them became active against us, they far outnumber us.

We need the world's help and the sooner Bush recognizes that, the better. Unfortunately, he won't. So, come November, vote somebody in that has a different plan - no matter what it is. Because Bush's plan will certainly get more of us killed with no solution even in sight.

I thought Bush would close our borders instead of granting illegals amnesty. I thought Bush would follow his doctrine before he gave Saudi Arabia and North Korea a pass and started negotiating with people like Arafat and invading countries because we hated the leader.

Now, we have no credibility (nobody could seriously consider our intelligence credible), no friends (France, Germany, and many other countries can't distinguish us from the "real" bad guys), and a rapidly rising hatred of America unprecedented in any other time in history.

That makes us safer?

Very nice Daytonrocker I could not have said it better myself .

That is one of the problems we have in the world we always need to help everyone in the world out with what ever it is because we are the superpower, but later on it always comes to bite us back for being the cop on the block. And that is another reasons why different people around the world hate our government, because sometimes we back some country cause it benefits us even though they have been enemies to us in the past as well in the present. Just look at Iraq with Saddam we supported him back in the 80's with weapon technologies and materials for them so that they could win the war with Iran. Look what he did with the technology gas his own people and then invaded Kuwait which of course we had to go be the cop on the block. I am not saying we should be isolationist, but rather we need to pick our battles and our generosity much better.

I'm not a pacifist, Artemise. There are numerous times when it is right and moral to use force and cause death and suffering. World War II was a noble cause. To repel Saddam Hussein's aggressive expansionist agenda in the Middle East, history has shown it was the right thing to fight Iraq and save Kuwait. The U.S. invasion in Afghanistan was a reasoned response to a threat. Korea, Vietnam and the second war in Iraq are a bit blurrier and contentious in their causes and effects.

My paradigm is to get over these man-made concepts of nations, flags, borders, religions and patriotism. People are born in this world. They eat in this world. They need means provided to buy the food to eat in this world in which they were born. Or to put it simpler: Value human beings over property and profit.

Thursday evening I watched a two-hour program on FRONTLINE called "Ghosts of Rwanda" about the war between the Hutus and Tutsi which left 800,000 people dead in a matter of months. The U.S. and the international community turned their backs and let the genocide go on unchecked.

"With the perspective of time, the Rwandan crisis can be seen as a crucial test of the international system and its values -- a clash between the ideals of humanitarianism and the cold logic of realism and national interest," says FRONTLINE producer Greg Barker.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ghosts/

In one of the more chilling moments a Rwandan diplomat goes to America to plead for the U.S. to intercede and is told in a rare moment of candor by a congressman, "The United States doesn't have friends, it has interests. There's no interest in sending the Marines to die in Rwanda."

Chilling, but unfortunately true. Unless there's oil in the ground or money to be made the U.S. and other nations around the world, don't spend a lot of time on Third World basket case countries. There's no profit in it.

There should be a basic human right to food, clothing, shelter and work. That doesn't mean socialism or a radical redistribution of wealth. Taking away the money of all the billionaires in the world won't rid us of poverty, illiteracy, health issues or the need for clean water and work that pays liveable wages.

One way to end war and terrorism is to fight the diseases that cause them. Not merely trying to treat the symptoms when it is too late.

I am skeptical that there is the desire among the people or the direction coming from the leaders to ever place people first over property.

So further we go into the abyss...

Sorry...I don't get that statement. Terrorism isn't about reparations and equal rights.

It's about uncivilized behavior from an uncivilized people.

How do we fight a "disease" who's religious doctrine suggest they kill all infidels? These people have been killing each other since killing was discovered. "Middle East" and "Peace" are two words that have never, in all of history, ever fit together. Just like "military" and "intelligence".

Do we all turn into Muslims? That may "cure the disease". Aside from that, I wouldn't even know where to start.

Please elaborate.

I would take issue with that.

When a huge percentage of the world was under Communist rule? Vietnam War? Even today's most ardent anti-war activists pale in comparison to Vietnam protestors.

Question for debate: What is your paradigm? Your most ideological scenario,/world view, but also your solution to the problems you feel are important to us right now?

Firstly, the most important thing to do is to restage this terrorist threat to the US from one of Apocalyptic danger to that which it really is. A minor annoyance. Let's look at the reality. Some terrorist group or another was gonna succeed in hijacking some internal flights before long. They were so insecure, all it took was a small amount of imagination and a handful of suicide pilots. Very few resources and very few specialist skills (except piloting).

Aside from 9/11 every single terror attack has been on soft target countries. But then again, internal flights were the softest of US targets anywhere. It really was only a matter of time. But if you look at what al Qaeda is, it really isn't a threat that can wipe out America or destroy civilization. Al Qaeda is as unlikely to "beat" America as Saddam was to attack the US and neither are related.

Both Saddam and Bin Laden have been hyped up beyond all reality. I can bet my entire salary that more people in the US will die every year from poor workplace safety, Drunk Driving and fire arm misuse than will ever be killed by al Qaeda. Al Qaeda hasn't even made home made dirty bombs, far less has any proper WMDs otherwise it would have used something other than fertilizer bombs and suicide bombers.

In fact, and this is astonishingly ironic, more Americans will die from crimes connect to (or being killed by) the heroin imported from the, ahem, "liberated" Afghanistan in the next few years than 9/11. Afghanistan almost entirely stopped growing heroin under the Taliban but now it is far and away the world's #1 source of this filth once again. This is entirely because the war lords who run most of the country (again) have no one to stop them anymore.

Do we see set piece speeches about those threats? To me the whole "fear" thing should be guided at the most deadly threats to civilians and they are Heart Disease, junk food, murder, cancer, pollution, bad medical drugs, corporate irresponsibility, drunk driving and violent crime. Am I wrong? Can anyone confidently tell me that any American civilian will be killed on US soil in the next 6 months (given that no one has died or even been injured in the last 3 years and none were killed prior to 9/11)? Well, can anyone confidently tell me me that no one will be killed by the latter non-terrorist threats?

Exactly. So let's concentrate on them. And let's get everyone in the world to help, if possible.

That is not to say ignore al Qaeda. No, we must sort out Palestine and any other obvious injustice to cut off their recruiting context. We must treat them as criminals and not dignify them with a "war".

How would you change the world from an anti-war point of view?

Well, again, let's hand the Israeli/Palestinian issue to the UN and get some movement. The US cannot be involved even if they cut off the billions in aid from Israel. The US is now far too tainted in Arab eyes.

Let's change America so that it is not dead last in aid contributions (as a percentage of GDP) in the Western world. Let's focus the aid on education and infrastructure in poor countries. Let's persuade the EU to jointly (with the US) cut all farming subsidies so that the 3rd world can compete on a fair basis (or is capitalism only good as long as America benefits?). Did you know that the EU spends $600m a year on subsidizing tobacco growing in the EU? This is four times (per farmer) the subsidy on other types of farming!

This will go a long way to changing the world. It will involve a reduction in the quality of life for the US but at the benefit of the 189 other countries in the world harmed by current policies. The US has been hugely wasteful. Having gas that's cheaper than milk. Using a quarter of the world's natural resources while having only 5% of the population. The US uses almost twice the water per head that the EU does and vehicle fuel economy is barely a third of that in EU countries. This sort of thing is not sustainable.

What shall we do, what can we offer other than criticism?

We can offer a bit of sanity, frankly. This hyped up fear by the media and government over terrorism is so irrational that it's hard to argue against. Other than by saying, "get a grip!". There does not have to be a "war" on terror. We just have to make all necessary steps to prevent and catch terrorists. Like we always have done.

Most steps are diplomatic (like not being friends with dictators like Musharaf) and looking at Palestine carefully. Some are security, like co-operation with all countries' security services and allocating correct resources (we have seen in the 9/11 inquiry how badly resourced the FBI was in regard to terrorism).

The CIA is constitutionally required to provide accounts to the Congress. It never does. Let's change that. Let's see what can be done better and what does not need to be done.

It's not brain surgery, it fairly basic common sense.

Interesting. The US chose Communism (no matter who or what that was) as an enemy. It was Truman's decision, partly to help the US economy by being on some war footing or another for as long as possible. At no point was Russia ever anything like a threat to the US.

No one protested about going into Vietnam before it happened. Only the invasion of Iraq was protested against by 10 million people around the world before a shot was fired. Nothing like that happened before Vietnam.

This link is interesting: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3613217.stm

I don't believe that criticism should be dismissed outright. A large part of our problem, is our refusal to look at problems squarely and take the blame. I would compare it to a dysfunctional family that doesn't want to dsicuss the fact that dad is an alcoholic or that the crazy aunt is in the basement. Likewise, we fail to realize that diplomatic negotiations in Africa are unfruitful when at the same time, we are busy selling to fifty-two African nations through the international arms trade. When we don't stop this kind of proliferation, the end result is a karmic reaction. The other point of self-observation is the skill of learning patience. Listening to others deeply and thoughtfully obviously wasn't practiced before the invasino of Iraq. A more thoughtful and sagacious president wouldn't have gotten us bogged down where we are now. By not trying to institute policies with mindfulness, we are now going out of our minds trying to get a hold of the reigns.

That's true, but after the Vietnam war started, we saw quite a few heated protests ("Ho, ho, Ho Chi Minh; the Viet Cong is gonna win!" "Hey, hey, L.B.J., how many kids did you kill today?") that, to the best of my knowledge, haven't been repeated with QUITE the same fervor in the case of Iraq. Then again, maybe I just don't get out enough.

Thanks for answering. I think Ive pretty much discussed what I wanted to do in this thread in the Pacifism post here

Schoolboy, I agree that they blew the terrorist threat way out of porportion after the fact, but WTC was a major event. It wasnt just the lives lost but the overwheming immensity of the attack. Now with the Iraq war I think we have unleashed the gates of hell and will certainely see more attacks around the world. However, I dont believe we can catch terrorists by blowing up the world, there has to be measured and intelligent response. Not likely.

Nebraska, I believe in spreading the word! I just dont think we can say, no stop the wars! but not ask ourselves the serious questions of how to handle the world if we did.

As you speak of arms proliferation to Africa, I was also talking about poverty there in another thread. These two put together are going to cause us a lot of problems in the near future. Long term plans are not possible when short term money is to be made. It takes an idiot not to know that you shouldnt sell arms to sick, starving populations, but who cares?
Next, when we have to go to war in Africa, people like you and I will be saying," but you armed them!", and the others will be saying, "Oh thats water under the bridge, too late now," just like Saddam Hussein and off we go to another war.

Next is the probelm of nationalism. They shall say," well yes we sold them arms but they are a threat and theres nothing we can do about it, we have to kill them, we are good , they are not. We had good intentions etc, the US does the right thing most of the time", which is just ignorance of an ongoing problem and detrimental to us in evey way, except the profits wherever they go.

However, I dont know what to do about this. I dont see the US quitting the arms business all too soon.