peace on terror

i'm declaring peace on terror. we could say, "there are a bunch of people in the world that hate us, they hate us so much that they want us to die, they would be willing to kill us, they want to kill us, they would even be willing to sacrifice their lives to harm us. how can we stop this? i know, let's go over to where they are, and kill them! that way, they won't be able to hate us any more, because they'll be dead. problem solved."

i would like to make a different statement. it may start out the same way (although it would probably explain certain elements a little more clearly), but it would drastically different after "how can we stop this?" i might go something like this, "i know, let's go over to where they are, and help them! that way, they won't hate us anymore. instead of spending our money on destroying that which they cherish, let us provide for them. let us teach them how to provide for themselves, such that they will no longer be at the mercy of hunger and poverty."

while the first response may be called "waging a war on terror", the second may be called "waging a peace on terror." somebody must have thought of this before. it seems like it would be pretty easy to get the UN to approve such a waging. further, it seems even some of the more radical dictators would be hard-pressed to forbid other countries from providing aid (they all do already, to my knowledge). so, some practical concerns seem relatively easy to deal with. building love is a pretty easy thing to do: determine the needs of the other, and satisfy those needs, while simultaneously helping the other to satisfy those needs without the help of others. let's do it...