Justin I totally respect your ideas of not wanting to be involved with war or killing. There is nothing wrong with that. Just out of curiosity, if you were running the country how would you deal with the world terrorism issue? I am interested in what you have to say. –joel

If I could include my opinion in your question as well Joel, I am a Canadian and so much of the terrorism (though there is some) does not effect me personally. However, it seems that a war escalates into a HUGE problem only after an outside force interferes. Granted, this is a fight that the US has every right to be involved in at the moment, but for the most part, if I had rule over the country, I would let other countries fight their own battles. –michael

that is such a great question Joel but I can't answer it for the simple fact that I have no clue what I would do I would be lost, I know that much” –justin

You mention Michael
"I would let other countries fight their own battles"
I totally agree with you here. A foreign policy of interference in other people's buisness only leads to people disliking you. As long as we don't go the other way and have isolationism. Didn't work before World War II and I can't see it being very good now. –joel

Think about this, the first act of terror against a U.S. citizen by Al Queda happened back in 1984 in another country. If something had been done back then maybe things wouldn't have gotten as bad as they are now. It took an act of terror on U.S. soil to get people to say, "hmmm....maybe we should do something about this."
I think the entire world needs to be at war against terrorism. Not just Al Queda, but all terrorist networks in the world. It may cost us some money, but did you see what happened to the world's economy after 9/11? Every major monetary system in the world dropped to new lows. If terrorism is allowed to continue then the economy of all nations will continue to drop anyway so let's just spend the money and try to stop it.
Even though Bin Laden is probably already dead (the man has kidney disease and needs dialysis which I'm sure is hard to come by whilst hiding in caves) this doesn't mean that his organization will just cease to exist. "Garsh, Binny's dead let's just abandon all we believe in." Face it, that's just not gonna happen, the world needs to stop them. –sandee

Joel you wrote:
"Just out of curiosity, if you were running the country how would you deal with the world terrorism issue? I am interested in what you have to say."
I realize you weren't talking specifically to me, but...... First, I would go to the countries with known terrorist cells and tell them they had X amount of time to take care of the situation themselves. If they failed to do so I would say, "OK, you now have 6 months to take care of it and furthermore we cut off all financial aid to your coutry for that amount of time." If they still hadn't solved the situation for themselves in the time frame I would send in troops to use military force to shut down the terrorist cell, if the country's military got involved they would need to be handled also, but hopefully the country's government would stay out of the way and let us do what we were there to do. I think Bush was right in sending troops to Afghanistan when he did though because after the events of 9/11 retaliation was needed immediately to show that terrorism will no longer be tolerated. –sandee

Sandee, you are very passionate abut this That's good. I think that you are right in saying that just because Bin Laden gets killed it won't end. Like I said, I doubt it will ever end. I do think that it would be a huge moral booster for the world to see this guy and others like him nabbed and have done to them whatever is done to people that murder tens of thousands of people. –joel

First of all, I want to say that I think that this is a really tough issue to address. There're always two sides of a coin to such topics and there is no clear cut solution, if only there were. Anyway, I agree that even if Bin Laden gets killed, such acts of terror will never end. If and when he does, there will be more that will rise up and take his place and moreover he'll be matyred. However, we can't just let it go as well because if we never deal with problems, they won't just disappear, but will simply escalate into bigger ones. We should do our part and not condone such actions. As for whether the war against terrorism is sound for the economy or not, I think that it may not be for our economy, but if we don't try and do our part to reduce terrorism everywhere, the global economy will be unable to function properly. Also, people who live in places that are in constant turmoil due to terrorism are unable to enjoy peace and a better quality of life, let alone worry about the economy. The first step for them to lead better lives is if we make an attempt to weed out terrorism from their midst. However, all that I've just said are pretty much hypothetical, we never know how things will turn out if we choose to do something, but we just have to hope that it is the right course of action. Personally if I had to make decisions regarding this issue, I don't think I could ever do that. –li

Just to make sure that the point of this discussion doen't get lost...
"Is the war against terrorism financially sound for the world economy or is it injust spending too much money on unnecessary military power? Is it justified in having troops die in Afghanistan to fight a war against a government and group that isn't even recognized as sovereign?"
Speaking from my point of veiw and addressing the questions asked directly within the paragraph above... I think that there are many more things that the world as a whole should be worrying about at this time. The only reason that the recent terrorist attacks have been of huge concern is because it was a shot to the United State's superpower ego! The point has been made! Many people have died because of this and it is all for nothing! The group in question is undoubtedly the Taliban. I say that there are more than enough people in Afghanistan as well as many effected neighbouring countries to organize a revolt. The people were being controlled because they were allowing themselves to be. By having the USA coming to their defence, all it promotes is dependancy on American money, security, man-power etc. –michael

Michael said:
"Speaking from my point of veiw and addressing the questions asked directly within the paragraph above... I think that there are many more things that the world as a whole should be worrying about at this time. The only reason that the recent terrorist attacks have been of huge concern is because it was a shot to the United State's superpower ego! The point has been made! Many people have died because of this and it is all for nothing!"
Yes there are tons of things that the world should be worrying about, and your words about the USA's superpower ego are spoken like a true Canadian! *High5* Ahem ok anyways...
I do think that even though there are tons of issues that need to be focused on, this is one that has been largely ignored in the past. As I mentioned earlier, places like Israel and Britain/Ireland experience this stuff on a constant basis but because it isn't happening here we act as if suddenly this problem appeared. But I guess that is our Western attitude here.
Again though I say that the point has not been made yet, too address the question is it worth losing the lives of soldiers to die in other countries to fight terrorism? Yes I think it is, although when it becomes apparant that the situation has become stabalized somewhat then I think the US needs to reevaluate. When will the situation be stabalized? Not sure, glad I don't make that decision, but I would argue it hasn't yet since Omar and Bin Laden are still around as well as others.
To address your other point Michael about countries taking care of their own problems, I also agree, but since they are not doing so, and we are being affected then I don't think we have a choce but to use force ourselves (well not ourselves since as a Canadian we are not doing a heck of a lot, but you know what I mean).
You also mention that it is all for nothing. Right now it seems that way, but I truly believe that in the end we are going to see benefits from the war against terrorism (or whatever you want to call it) –joel

yes Joel, this war on Terroism maybe benefial in the future, but the keyword is maybe there are a lot of people out there who have a disliking for each other that has lasted for centuries its not going to stop just because some Americans come in and bomb then and try and stop them They are very smart people and they are always going to find ways to get done what they need to get done and we Americans need to realise that –justin

You also have to realize that it is not only an American problem. They are not the only ones battling terrorism. This is undoubtedly a world issue and the actions of one country, both financially and also in terms of international defence will affect the world as a whole. Let's try to drop the US attacks and simply address the issue of terrorism. Maybe we'll get somewhere with this discussion.
In general, terrorism must be stopped, but it must be done in a way where the economic welfare and security of the world's countries as a whole is not comprimised. –michael

Unfortunately, this topic hits way to close to home for me, therefore, my answers reflect how I am feeling personally. What happened on 9/11/01 was an act of hatred. but our response is wrong too. evil begets evil. never is it a good thing to kill innocent people. no matter what country they live in. –mysty

Michael the reason I think many of us Americans are addressing America a lot is for the fact that none of us ever experienced anything like that before and it was a huge wake up call for us i know that other countries deal with a lot more than us and we need to do something for all the countries that have to deal with this, just not America but its America, and we think the world revolves around us(which is dumb) and we feel like we have to take care of the problem that happened to us, not really caring about those other countires who have to deal with it daily. like, why don't we go and help out Israel much more than we have tried? lots of problems there –justin

Michael said:
"You also have to realize that it is not only an American problem. They are not the only ones battling terrorism. This is undoubtedly a world issue and the actions of one country, both financially and also in terms of international defence will affect the world as a whole. Let's try to drop the US attacks and simply address the issue of terrorism. Maybe we'll get somewhere with this discussion"
I agree that it is not only an American problem as well, but who else has the financial resources to carry out a task like this? Maybe a couple other countries like China, or something but China isn't going to do anything, they are as messed up, or more so than Afghanastan. Ever checked out their human rights record. Sad Sad Sad. Sure other countries can help but only in token ways. Even Britain can't do what the US can do. That's why this issue is focused on the US.
I wonder what a country like Canada could do? Not a heck of a lot. Send over some peacekeepers to get killed? Granted Canada has some of the best peacekeepers in the world, but dealing with Terrorist activities is not for them. And Canada is just one example of this. We spend our money on other things, and a decent military is not one of them. Israel has a great army if they wouldn't have to keep using against Palestine and other hostile forces. Anyways, I don't know what I am talking about....lol –joel

War no longer helps the world economy...in the past, yes....but fortunately the sophisticated equipment that we use nowadays ensures that resources (planes, tanks, copters, etc...) are not destroyed as often. It is not like in WW2 where there were massive air-raids with massive destruction of the attacking force. If the bottom dollar is what we are suppose to be talking about then I would have to say ‘No, it is not financially sound to partake in war.’ –jeff

Jeff, you said: "If the bottom dollar is what we are suppose to be talking about then I would have to say 'No, it is not financially sound to partake in war.'"
Your post still doesn't address the issue for me. You explained that the economy is not dependent on war to survive as it once was, and I agree with that, the economy always went up in war time because all of the factories making planes and shells and equipment. So, no, the economy is not dependent on war to survive anymore, but why exactly do you think it is not financially sound to be in a war? Do you believe that being in this war will actually make the economy drop? If so, why? –sandee

So much money has been spent on this operation already. When is it enough? All the money is doing is paying for people to die in a war that shouldn't have begun in the first place! –michael

I am not saying that war will make the economy drop either....and it may be that after this whole ordeal is over, economists will say that the war is what helped stabilize this "recession" we are supposedly in.
"Don't know much about the economy,
Don't know much biology,
don't much about science books,
don't know about the French I took."
Sorry....couldn't help it.....stupid song fell into my brain....probably not the right lyrics anyway. –jeff

Okay, so we've pretty much talked ourselves out of the economic effects of therrorism, but what about the other half of the question? Is is right to send troops to fight a war in a country that isn't even soverign in the first place?
Personally I would say yes. Even though I believe that the United States has spent way too much money to deal with one specific act of terrorism, I would hope that the actions of the entire world (even though mostly the States) would prove to future terrorists, or acting terrorists that such acts will not be taken lightly.
I would hope that by sending innocent troops to fight a war and to lose their lives would actually send a message to other dictators, terrorist groups, or whatever, that terrorism will not be tolerated and will be dealt with. –michael

Michael, your sweet, but I have to disagree. Terrorists will always be with us, as long as humans can think, distort, misinterpret, destroy. It is the nature of humanity. It is impossible to stop fanatacism. Just as good exists there will always be evil. –mysty

I have to disagree to Michael Terroist don't like the US they could probably careless that Americans are dying however sad it is it will always exist. it shouldn't, it would be great to get rid of, but it will always be there –justin

You all are misunderstanding me. I am saying that the response that the world has given to this problem, should have an effect on future attacks. Because the world has banned together against terrorism, a message against terrorism should have been delivered. –michael

Ok so now that we have talked about the two issues of money and 'is it right' separately, how about together. I realize that some of you feel that too much money was spent, but that it is still right to have people die fighting terror. So how do we reconcile this? Is there a way of achieving the same goal right now without spending as much money? –joel

I have nothing else to say and am annotating such. –jeff

Michael wrote:
"You all are misunderstanding me. I am saying that the response that the world has given to this problem, should have an effect on future attacks. Because the world has banned together against terrorism, a message against terrorism should have been delivered."
I haven't misunderstood you, darlin'. I understand and I agree. –sandee

it would have been nice before you posted the new topic in the roundtable that you might taken into account that some of us were adversely, tragically effected by 9/11 - having to see that question and the carelessness that it was asked and the coldhearted way that it has been answered has been intolerable. –mysty (confessional)

prev|ep2chapters|next

home|episodes|contestants|info|opinions|communication|links

this website is not an official website of abc's the mole or any of the mole televised shows. this website does not reflect the opinions or thoughts of the producers of the televised shows. all content (words and images) on this website is owned and copyrighted to cybeteur productions. no images on http://thecybermole2.tripod.com have been borrowed except for the ads (obviously). if you find any problem (legal or technical) with this website, please email the webmaster and explain the problem.

copyright 2002.