Do you think that CHANGING AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY will significantly REDUCE the threat of future TERRORISM?

Question

Terrorist organisations such as Al Qaida have always based the motives of their terrorist attacks on America and her allies on what they feel are unjust American Foreign Policies.

Do you feel that if America were to change it's policies towards foreign countries from the current rather (not completely) imperialistic policies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialistic - first sentence is a good basic definition) to a less aggressive and pacifist role, the threat of future terrorism against her would be reduced.

Please take into account:

1) Radicalisation usually occurs when people want a means of fighting against what they see as injust.
2) The (apparantly claimed) aims of terrorist orgaisations.
3) Without political ammunition against America, terrorist organisations would find it harder to recruit bombers etc.

I realise the blurb gives away what I feel about the situation, but I am very interested in all balanced and intelligent answers.

4) Terrorism is not a physical entity. It is an idea. You cannot destroy an idea with bombs, only with words and thought. If you destroy the reason, you can destroy an idea.

Answer 1

Personally I do believe that the change in foreign relations would usher in better understanding of the global politico/religious matters and avoid the creation of further anger/hatred. jealousy and radical thinking. WE have lost the mantle of purity of thoughts and actiuon by our ill-timed ill-planned and undefined attacks over Iraq and Afghanistan, whihc have further eroded our wolrdly stands and our erstwhile standards. Let us accept that economic might alone , will not bring forth easily understandable mutual respect and a sense of tolerance. We have also to be partially blamed for the abject self interests and gloating over "western" values, which pit the radicals in most religions.
It is not enough to broadcast democratic thoughts, while we senselessly and brutally kill so many innocents, civilians and property. Gone are the days of "power comes from the barrel of the gun". The world have over 6 billion folks, and we are not even 5 % of the total demanding and using 25% of all available resources, and this casues sore and hurt feelings. Although we are paying for the same, the riches do not reach the most deserved, and the religious power brokers, mullahs, priests, leaders and their ilk would only throw in hot cinders and oil on angrier mobs. Hence, the urgent NEED for a total revamp of the practice of shoot first and ask later. Humility is not in our blood stream or in collective psyche. But we can start slowly appreciating other value systems, and this will usher in better chance of peaceful co-existence, albeit, with flaring anger, seething under, but manageable, without causing revolts.

Answer 2

This is a really tough one to answer. If I'm a politician, the first thing I would have done was to learn how to duck this type of serious, hard to answer questions, which they all do. I am not an educatornor a politician. But what you learned in school and read in the media should really help people, especially, one like myself disregarding all the biased opinions and what I see analytically and critically, but not self righteous. To me, imperialism is an in-borned policy that would be truly impossible for our politicians to change no matter how powerful or rich a person is. But you are right, though, it would help everyone else all around the world. There would be less hatred against the white races for one thing. This policy was screwed up in the first place. A policy to dominate the world economically by self righteous and via power hunger as we see it only cause headaches, wars, killings, hatred, and classes skewedly favor the rich and powerful. One of the real problem with our foreign (US) policy is shoving domestic policy of human rights on foreigners. It truly makes no sense to me at all, suffice to mentioned that the foreign countries who has no concept of what human rights really mean. Imperialism, therefore, seems to make no sense at all when the two policies are put forth on the table. Because it gives you a sort of oxymoron type of face value deal with foreigners who try to make sense of them. In other words, it's all about control, control, control...... It's like saying if we can't control you folks with our ideals and at the same time taking advantage of you folks economically, then we feel like you are spitting on our best policies written by our top highly educated people. And being a captalist that we are, tossing this away or make it more soften just won't work. Capitalism would cease to function. As you would already see, as well as myself, capitalism and imperialism goes hand in hand. Without the other, neither would work. That's my take on the understanding or try to make sense of all these.

Answer 3

No. The terrorist's have a GLOBAL agenda, and would seek to destroy or convert us regardless of policy. Our policy isn't important to them, theirs is.

Answer 4

No, because they think that by bringing down the worlds last great superpower, it will make it easier for them to get other countries to knuckle under.

Answer 5

i think a much better forgein policy than the one we have now, which is basically non-existent - is better than anything at this point.

we definitely need a better foregin policy and a better leader to not be so embarrassed of.

Answer 6

God's great rule of thumb:

When you love thy neighbor, thy neighbour *has no choice left* but to love you back. Try it. It has never failed me.

Answer 7

That would be a logical conclusion!