Yes, much of the world is not a pretty place ajuarbe, and in many senses it is not improving very fast. But it never will unless we rise above gut level reaction, and try to look at the big picture. Reducing terrorism and conflict will take a multidimensional approach.

Fear is a big motivator. This is only human nature. When something is threatening there is the urge to circle the wagons and a want to strike back, but when these emotions are harnessed on an industrial scale, the results can be catastrophic. We have seen this over and over in history. Often in conflict there is not a nice clear-cut division of right and wrong. And sometimes it is little more than absurdity. Marguerite McMillan wrote about this topic in The March of Folly.

The First World War is still often referred to as a fight for freedom, but a closer reading shows it as no such thing. People were arguably as “free” in Germany at the time as they were in other countries. It started with the fear that Germany was a rising power, and how would that play out in the world? Generals schemed battle plans, diplomats formed allegiances, and events took on a life of their own. The war started through ineptitude, lack of foresight, empathy or understanding of other points of view. All those dead for essentially nothing, and likely some were tortured along the way, as it would have been thought unavoidable at the time.

In the 1960s the fear was communism. Some supposed a worldwide conspiracy to take over, and Vietnam was on the hit list. Well, we know what happened here. Ten years later, there were about one million Vietnamese, and over fifty thousand Americans dead. In later years, even some of the major players admitted that the reasons for intervention in that country were not well founded, and the true issues were not really understood, even at the highest levels. The Vietnamese saw it as one more colonial war; first they had the French, next the US. One of the first things that happened after the end of the war was a border conflict between Vietnam and their supposed fellow conspirators, China. And the folly marches on today.

Do people really know what they are getting into when they take up arms? My guess is most do not. Traditionally armies have tried to recruit amongst the young, because it is easier to persuade those relatively less traveled or more naïve. Many that have fought in past wars have been in their teens, or not much older. In the First World War, recruits from the British Empire were told they were fighting for freedom, when they were doing no such thing. In Vietnam, the mantra was stopping the spread of a monolithic form of communism. Clearly, it was not. I remember a TV interview from the last Iraq war, where a young solder was being interviewed. He said he was over there so that his “children or grandchildren would not have to do the job.” A noble and selfless statement, to be sure, but one that didn’t fit with reality. Iraq at that time was down and out, under UN sanctions, its airspace controlled, and crawling with inspectors checking for weapons; no threat to anyone. I would be willing to bet that many of the people set to perpetrate an atrocity, or join an armed group today have only the foggiest notions of history in general, their cause in particular, or the workings of human nature, if they have any idea at all.

A lot of terrorism originates in the Middle East today. One big reason is because they have oil, and many in the world are anxious to secure their supplies, by underhanded means if necessary. There have been numerous interventions in countries in the region over the years, ranging from installing or propping up authoritarian governments, to outright military invasion. Many resent locals this. We probably would too if other countries were continually sticking their fingers in to get first dibs on a resource we happened to sit on. Another reason for resentment is, since the Nixon administration, ongoing US support for Israel. The view in the region is that the state of Israel is an illegitimate land grab that displaced the original inhabitants of the country.

These are issues that do not lend themselves to a simplistic division between right and wrong, good and evil. At some point, they will have to be settled in some way. Much better IMO, to start now and come to a workable solution, than to claim the moral high ground, and argue the necessity of torture, or military intervention. I think it is likely that terrorist incidents would drop significantly if this could be resolved.

You said, ajuarbe, that you should put yourselves first. The problem with this is that others in the world who think they are right will then put themselves first also, to the extent that they can. The cycle of violence will then continue. You can either have accommodation of some sort, or continued conflict. In places like Northern Ireland, and South Africa, accommodation has been found. This is not to say that there are still some guilty parties in those places, that in a perfect world would be locked away in prison. But they have found that the only way to lower the levels of fear and conflict were to start talking, and also start listening with an open mind.

Frank 013 wrote:I will say this as far as harsh interrogation methods goes… they have already worked in numerous situations saving both American lives and lives of our allies in Great Britain.

This is documented and proven.

So knowing that they do work, the only question left to ask is this…

Is the transitory suffering of one evil man worth the lives of countless innocents?

Later

Do you have a relevant site link you could share?

ajuarbe wrote:etudiant, there are people that do things for this Country the average person could never do.

There are of course also people who do things in the name of the Country that the average person would never do.

You need people like these because the world is not a nice place.

Is there really a question that can be answered if only others would realize that the world isn't a nice place? The suggestion seems to be that we can rationalize our way to victory. America is not a nice place. If we were to all realize this perhaps there would be fewer rapes and fewer murders and fewer hungry people living in it. The world is not a nice place is not an idea that leads, necessarily, to the conclusion that America must make itself even less nice in order to ward off the un-nice people which threaten it. So, why say it? The most likely reason I can think of, and this is by way of similarity, is that it is the expression of exasperation one has when dealing with an immature, naive child. If you only understood the situation you'd realize that we have to torture. If you only understood that your teeth will rot if we don't take you to the dentist you wouldn't fuss so. It's the absolute certainty that comes when you know you're right and you know they're wrong. It's Bring it on! in diapers and zap! pow! shazam! in its depth. It's the culmination of the American Dream, most likely. I am beginning to think that the terrorists have won a victory you can't torture out of us. But no, no amount of the realization of the un-niceness in the USA will in itself lead to any one solution.

Kevin wrote:
Is there really a question that can be answered if only others would realize that the world isn't a nice place? The suggestion seems to be that we can rationalize our way to victory. America is not a nice place. If we were to all realize this perhaps there would be fewer rapes and fewer murders and fewer hungry people living in it.

That's the sad truth. The only reason America is half-decent is because all of the other countries and provinces have stooped really low. It's like they're trying to. If America didn't have as much crime, or war, it would be one of the few decent countries.

---

Kevin wrote: The world is not a nice place is not an idea that leads, necessarily, to the conclusion that America must make itself even less nice in order to ward off the un-nice people which threaten it. So, why say it? The most likely reason I can think of, and this is by way of similarity, is that it is the expression of exasperation one has when dealing with an immature, naive child. If you only understood the situation you'd realize that we have to torture. If you only understood that your teeth will rot if we don't take you to the dentist you wouldn't fuss so. It's the absolute certainty that comes when you know you're right and you know they're wrong. It's Bring it on! in diapers and zap! pow! shazam! in its depth. It's the culmination of the American Dream, most likely. I am beginning to think that the terrorists have won a victory you can't torture out of us. But no, no amount of the realization of the un-niceness in the USA will in itself lead to any one solution.

Bravo! What you said makes a good point, I stress the fact that we have set the bar low without realizing it, and have brought ourselves down earth. It's too late for us to come back, as we have let greedy and controlling people blind us and take control of our society, and they have brought us down. We do need torture, because we are so naive and stubborn.

At least we aren't the Romans or Byzantines. We have a clear way to succeed a previous leader

harsh interrogation is terror.

The US should not use torture. Call it harsh interrogation if you like Mr. Cheney, it is torture.

Of course, no one should use torture. But especially not the country that wants to hold itself out as a model of enlightened behavior to the international community.

Besides, it doesn't work!

There is a fine line between harsh interrogation and torture, gary. It depends on how the act of "harsh interrogation" is deemed. I agree only with mental interrogation...but physical (slapping, or even worse techniques) is absolutely outrageous. Just because we have millions of criminals in the world doesn't give the 'good guys' the ability to physically abuse them.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201006300069

From the early 1930's until the modern story broke in 2004, the newspapers that covered waterboarding almost uniformly called the practice torture or implied it was torture: The New York Times characterized it thus in 81.5% (44 of 54) of articles on the subject and The Los Angeles Times did so in 96.3% of articles (26 of 27). By contrast, from 2002-2008, the studied newspapers almost never referred to waterboarding as torture. The New York Times called waterboarding torture or implied it was torture in just 2 of 143 articles (1.4%). The Los Angeles Times did so in 4.8% of articles (3 of 63). The Wall Street Journal characterized the practice as torture in just 1 of 63 articles (1.6%). USA Today never called waterboarding torture or implied it was torture.

Until 2004, after the arrival of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and their criminal notions of "enhanced interrogations." For four years -- in what would have to be the bizarro-world version of "speaking truth to power," waterboarding was almost never torture on U.S. newsprint. Then waterboarding-as-torture nearly made a mild comeback in journo-world, until perpetrators like Cheney and Inquirer op-ed columnist John Yoo began the big pushback, when American newspapers bravely turned their tails and fled.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/t ... to.html?=5

When the use of a certain word makes us seem to support one side of an argument, we don't use it.

... So you stop calling torture "torture"?

Did you think there would be a time when our allies are fearful of transfering prisoners into our system because they are not satisfied that the prisoners would be treated humanely?

Right now they are blocking an extradition to the united states until it can be made clear that we don't intend to torture the man.

What the hell? Has that really become our country?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/0 ... sitsironic