Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
OK, since the world is in a situation I, personally, think could be avoided in first place, I'll give two answers. First, how it should have been in the first place:
* The United Nations would invite leaders from all over the world in order to propose changes in their systems. Conutries with dictators would change into parlamentarist systems with free elections for prime-minister, and the dictator or emperor or king would remain at his office and represent the country but with no real powers. Other democratic countries would remain as they are. There would be no weapons of mass destruction, and weapons factories would be torn down. There would be a full list of regulamentations in order to keep peace, such as investing in education and irradicating any religious thoughts that favored violence and killing, by taking the children out of this pseudo-terrorist cells and getting them into some educational program. No country would invade each other. No country would interfere with political business. If any country disagreed and didn't comply, there would be financial sanctions, the country would be excluded from the rest of the world, and the population would be encouraged to perform peaceful disobedience like Ghandi. If this didn't work, THEN a United Nations troup, mostly unnarmed, would interfere, but negotiations would be the first step. There would be no terrorist acts as no country would be seen as the "enemy". There would have never been any dictatorships in south america and iran if there was no interference. There would be no weapons of mass destruction, no political crisis...
That sounds nice althought the irradication of religious thought scares me, I can easily see that going too far. Also, dictators are not going to give up power that easily. We tried sactions with Sadam and and also with Castro. It hasn't worked, Sadam hung on until he was taken out by force and Castro despite years of sactions, is still in power. And do you really think any of that would work with China? with Korea? Unfortunatly, I doublt it. I do however wish things could have gone that way.
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
... but since people don't tend to think like that, here's what is needed to do now:
* Abort any international interferences. Slowly abandon Iraq but keep UN troops in there. Impose sanctions to countries which are home of religiously-based terrorist cells. Map those terrorist cells and try to impose peaceful resolutions to it. Propose asylum for those who are under the claws of those religious groups. Invest money in education in thrid-world countries, so that terrorists cells are not grown in first place. Do not invest in weapons or in the army, invest in education proposes. Throw BOOKS out of planes, not bombs. Peaceful resolutions ARE possible, since this is not a WW2 kinda war, the goal is not conquer territory, there is no need for violence.
Somehow I just do think any of that will get rid of Bin Laden. For one thing, we no idea where he is, so how can we impose sactions on a country if we don't know what country he and other terrorist are in? Dropping books doesn't seem like bad idea. But I still think bombs are somtimes necessary. How about dropping both when and where they are necessary? What if we find a terrorist cell hiding in a country and that country is protecting them and while we try sactions(which can a long time to work), the terrorist cell carries out another attack. What do we say to the families of those killed in the attack which could have been prevented if we had bombed the cell instead of using sactions?