Tough Times For Terrorists

[budanski]

TOUGH TIMES FOR TERRORISTS
New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/14815.htm)
Ralph Peters

December 31, 2003 -- EVEN if terrorists attack our homeland before the stroke of midnight, 2003 will still have been a year of remarkable progress on every front in the global War on Terror - and the greatest year for freedom since the Soviet Union's collapse.

A decisive government in Washington, backed by the courage and common sense of the American people, worked with allies around the world to carry the fight to the terrorists' home ground. We continued to seize the strategic initiative from the most implacable enemies America has ever faced.

Unless we choose to defeat ourselves, there is no chance of a final terrorist victory.

In 2003, a new generation of enemies learned that America not only fights ferociously, but follows through with tremendous residual power. In one of history's great paradoxes, the provocation of 9/11 - intended to humble us - unleashed our dormant might and rejuvenated the historical trend toward liberty. The Twin Towers fell, but two years later America towers over the world as never before.

The autumn of 2001 saw our initial counterattacks, while 2002 broadened the international struggle and improved our domestic preparedness. But 2003 was our breakthrough year - 12 months of successes that changed the course of history.

Consider just a few of our achievements:

* We deposed and captured one of the world's worst tyrants, liberating 25 million people and demonstrating the inherent weakness of dictatorships.

In doing so, we destroyed a regime that had terrorized its own people and the region. We drew an unmistakable line between America's reinvigorated support for the liberation of the oppressed and "old Europe's" cynical defense of the status quo.

* The stunning campaign that took our troops to Baghdad in just three weeks made it clear to the world that no other state or combination of powers can oppose us militarily and left us with the most experienced, combat-proven forces of our time.

* Our president's courageous decision to target Saddam himself while sparing innocent Iraqis upset the traditional rules of warfare, according to which the draftees die while the ruler survives by signing a peace treaty.

Even though our attempted "decapitation strikes" failed, the message sent to the world's dictators and sponsors of terror had far more force than Western pundits yet realize. And our ultimate, humiliating capture of Saddam left every remaining tyrant worried that he might topple next.

* As a result, Libya has opened its nuclear facilities for inspection, while Iran hastened to strike a no-nukes deal with European governments anxious to save face after their support of Saddam backfired disastrously. North Korea has grown remarkably subdued. Syria treads cautiously. No tyrant wants G.I. Joe as his houseguest.

* Even Saudi Arabia, the great incubator of terror, has become newly cooperative, both because the terrorists - predictably - bit the many hands that fed them and because Riyadh's relative importance has declined precipitously with G.I. Jane in Baghdad.

* We've continued to kill and capture terrorists by the thousands, dismantling their networks, seizing their assets and destroying their bases. Terrorism won't disappear in our lifetimes, but its reach and capabilities have been powerfully reduced.

* Our president had the sound instincts to realize that you can't treat the deep cancer of terrorism with a topical salve. Apprehending terrorists isn't enough. Meaningful treatment of this long-untended disease requires radical surgery and great risk.

Those naive or disingenuous voices insisting that our liberation of Iraq was a diversion from the War on Terror refuse to accept that the problem isn't a few deadly fanatics but a suffocating civilization.

The administration's resolve to force change in the Middle East was as crucial as it was courageous. We can't force Iraqis - or anyone else - to succeed, but we've done what no others have dared: We've given tens of millions of long-oppressed human beings a chance to live in freedom.

Much of this century will be shaped by what they make of that great chance.

* Most vitally for Americans, our government kept our country remarkably safe. Terrorists yearned to strike us massively, to punish us for our successes, while proving that they remain a potent force. Instead, our federal, state and local authorities achieved new, if still imperfect, levels of cooperation and blocked each terrorist attempt to wound us.

Politically motivated critics charge that the War on Terror has been a failure, despite the obvious proof to the contrary: Our enemies have been unable to harm our homeland. And while we will be struck again eventually - no defense is perfect - every day of safety is a victory.

Two Thousand Three was a year that changed the world. For the better. The reverberations will echo for decades.

Not every result will please us. We will not turn broken states into little Americas overnight. Each culture has its own strengths and weaknesses. But we're making a noble effort to help the wretched of the earth make their societies better.

Perfection belongs to God. Progress is the best that humans can do.

Whether facing down Taliban remnants in Afghanistan or shaming the rest of the world into providing more assistance to Africa's struggle against AIDS, we've made an epochal break with the tradition of wealthy states embracing easy short-term solutions instead of engaging long-term problems. Future historians will regard 2003 as one of the dates when history made a great turn, as a global 1776.

Yet 2004 is going to be a year of decision in the War on Terror. As our presidential election approaches, the terrorists remaining at large will sacrifice their last reserves in an effort to dislodge President Bush, freedom's great crusader, from the White House.

The terrorists will seek to convince American voters that the War on Terror is failing, paving the way for the electoral victory of a weakling and allowing them to surge back into vacuums created by an American retreat.

Their last, desperate hope will be to hit us so hard that we elect a coward in place of a hero.

I'm betting on American guts. And glory.

Another excellent editorial from Ralph Peters. :D

[Uncle Sam]

I'm betting on American guts. And glory.

Dam SKIPPY....

[ST4]

This sounds like a Republican Ad for President Bush. In addition, it sounds like propaganda:

Politically motivated critics charge that the War on Terror has been a failure, despite the obvious proof to the contrary: Our enemies have been unable to harm our homeland

Terrorists would be able to attack Amercia so easily, just look at the 60 Minutes show were they exposed the weakness of chemical plants. A terrorist could place an explosive decive near a chemical supply, and the results would be horrific.

[Pojo]

Yep many of our facilities are still open to attack. Thats a choice the amercian public has made, to have libery we have to give up some of the protection. More importantly if something really "bad" happens again the retaliation will be even greater. No country will be safe from the evil amercians walking all over it looking for terrorists.

:bash:

[usa320]

Good article.

And ST4, i respectfully disagree with you.

If it was so easy for terrorists to get the funding, means, equipment and manpower to strike the US again, they would have months ago.

As far as our security at home, sure it could be better, but thanks to our hard work abroad and the hardwork of other agencies around the world, it is safe to say that terrorists just dont have the funding or resources to pull another significant attack on the US.

[budanski]

Its logistically impossible to secure every building, landmark, power plants, etc. from terrorist attacks. You're better off taking a proactive stance and thats what Bush has done, taking the battle to the terrorists than to sit and wait for the next attack.

[usa320]

indeed, hit them before they can hit us.

[stephane from Paris]

NYtimes=Fox news= Murdock the boss, who is close friend to Bush
These are just close supporters of Bush, nothing more! This guy is just the new spin doctor of Bush campaign!

1 thing is true, sadam was a tyran and his people will be better without him (like 100 countries should be better without their locals tyranies).

The future of Irak is or civil war, or shiit radicals islamists government (remove a non religious tyran and let in place an integrist government i'm sure that we'll have surprises in the 10next years).

Lybia??? One year ago they contacted us about their WMD program which is just at the beginning! Says that it's the currents events who gave this result is incorrect, and Lybia is under embargo since a long time (like Iran) so it's interresting to knows if they didn't built a WMD program just for have something to exchange to ending it!!!
Btw Khadafi is still the same bastard who supported terrorists (sorry his service did it) who downed 2 cilvilians planes.

US forces in Irak arrested THOUSANDS (!!!?????) of terrorists if i read correctly, this good joke is due to the Irak's ex-minister of misinformation????????????? Next week perhaps that this.....journalist will says MILLIONS of terrorists?

Irak's never had the goal to attack your homeland, so it's not better now!
And i'm sure that Al quaida don't need to do that, because they can go in Irak (fact that they can't do before) to put their war against Christians evils. It's easier for them because since the loose of Afganistan they aren't abble to attack your homeland!

The agressive words used by this poor guy are in the 30's fascists rethoric: "we are under menace (when people are affraid they always votes for ultra conservatives)/we have the best military/we can attack every ones/we are the goods, they are evils......."

This little brain will have the result of this politic in the future years, like 09/11 was the result of 20 years of westerns politics

[Tane Angle]

I hate to say it, budanski, but President Bush has not taken a very proactive stance on terrorism. The recruitment hotspots were never in Afghanistan. The recruitment hostpots like Africa and the more Arab parts of the Middle East are still very much in operation. Training camps were there, yes. But others around the world are still out there, even some ones new since Enduring Freedom started. South America and sub-Saharan Africa are entirely too overlooked, I am sorry to say. And President Bush made his decision clear about Africa. Forget WMD, he did lie in his State of the Union Address about aid to Africa. Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[stephane from Paris]

and.....
Musharaf escaped 2 attacks these last 2 weeks, if terrorists kills him you'll see where is the problem:
a country with 100 millions of muslims where most of them supported intregrists and with NUCLEAR CAPACITIES, submarines, more modern tanks and planes than Irak (the tiger in paper).

[ST4]

I hate to say it, budanski, but President Bush has not taken a very proactive stance on terrorism. The recruitment hotspots were never in Afghanistan. The recruitment hostpots like Africa and the more Arab parts of the Middle East are still very much in operation. Training camps were there, yes. But others around the world are still out there, even some ones new since Enduring Freedom started. South America and sub-Saharan Africa are entirely too overlooked, I am sorry to say. And President Bush made his decision clear about Africa. Forget WMD, he did lie in his State of the Union Address about aid to Africa. Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

I completely AGREE with you... Im glad there is someone else on this site who says that President Bush LIED in his State of the Union Address. FACE IT PEOPLE, WE STILL HAVE NOT FOUND WMD IN IRAQ. That was the reason we went into Iraq.

Dont go with the excuse that he was a brutal dicator to justify the war in Iraq. Everyone knows that, but PRESIDENT BUSH SAID THAT WE WENT TO WAR WITH IRAQ BECAUSE HE WAS A THREAT TO THE US AND HAD WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. And we still have not found any WMDs. How does that justify having over 400 US servicemen killed?

I DONT CARE IF I SOUND LIKE A LIBERAL PROTESTER... IT IS THE F***ING TRUTH!!!

[James]

Hey hey, Tane isn't the only one who thnks along those lines... I think he just had more patience for repeating his thoughts than I do. ;)

[Pojo]

I though we went to iraq to try to slowly convert the entire region? To keep the oil flowing for the next 50 years and attemp to make the region more friendly to the west. WMD was put forward as an excuses for the stupid masses and I dont really know anyone that bought into it.

Now everyone is just waiting for the next big attack on the US at home so that we have another excuse to take over a few more countries. Sorry I mean to liberate some oil and all that. :oops:

rofl

[budanski]

gay[/b] Paris]NYtimes=Fox news= Murdock the boss, who is close friend to Bush
These are just close supporters of Bush, nothing more! This guy is just the new spin doctor of Bush campaign!
New York Times and New York Post are two different publications.


gay[/b] Paris]Lybia??? One year ago they contacted us about their WMD program which is just at the beginning! Says that it's the currents events who gave this result is incorrect, and Lybia is under embargo since a long time (like Iran) so it's interresting to knows if they didn't built a WMD program just for have something to exchange to ending it!!!
Btw Khadafi is still the same bastard who supported terrorists (sorry his service did it) who downed 2 cilvilians planes.
Bitter are we? (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/23/wlibya23.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/12/23/ixportal.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=15030) or are you just blind for your "Dreams of an American Defeat"? (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/01/wfran01.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/01/01/ixworld.html)


gay[/b] Paris]Irak's never had the goal to attack your homeland, so it's not better now!
And i'm sure that Al quaida don't need to do that, because they can go in Irak (fact that they can't do before) to put their war against Christians evils. It's easier for them because since the loose of Afganistan they aren't abble to attack your homeland!

The agressive words used by this poor guy are in the 30's fascists rethoric: "we are under menace (when people are affraid they always votes for ultra conservatives)/we have the best military/we can attack every ones/we are the goods, they are evils......."

This little brain will have the result of this politic in the future years, like 09/11 was the result of 20 years of westerns politics
Nice take. Too little too late.

Well well well. For all their taunts about our nation's system not adequetly representing all points of view in the political process, look what your arab allies have to say... (http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=37053&d=26&m=12&y=2003)

Its not normal that France should be the only major democracy in which the prime minister and his Cabinet and the Parliament, not to mention the political parties and the media, have virtually no say in shaping foreign policy. The cliché about foreign policy being “the domain of the president” is an insult to democracy.

Had France had the debates over Iraq that other democracies, notably the United States and Britain, organized at all levels, especially in their respective legislatures, it is more than possible that Chirac would not have been able to impose a pro-Saddam strategy that was clearly doomed to failure.


I hate to say it, budanski, but President Bush has not taken a very proactive stance on terrorism. The recruitment hotspots were never in Afghanistan. The recruitment hostpots like Africa and the more Arab parts of the Middle East are still very much in operation. Training camps were there, yes. But others around the world are still out there, even some ones new since Enduring Freedom started. South America and sub-Saharan Africa are entirely too overlooked, I am sorry to say. And President Bush made his decision clear about Africa. Forget WMD, he did lie in his State of the Union Address about aid to Africa. Have a good one, and just some thoughts...
Besides overlooking to what Bush has accomplished as stated in the article, which AID to Africa are you speaking of?

Bush vows to keep terrorists from using Africa as base (http://www.hollandsentinel.com/stories/071303/new_071303043.shtml)
Inside the U.S. Force Fighting Terrorism in the Horn of Africa (http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAI4TBWIOD.html)
Bush signs law on anti-AIDS plan for Africa, Carribean (http://www.inq7.net/wnw/2003/may/29/wnw_6-1.htm)
President Bush Receives Cool Reception in South Africa (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A32833-2003Jul9&notFound=true)
Pretty ungrateful seeing that the U.S. spending $15 billion on them to fight AIDS? Why exactly is the president insisting on spending my tax dollars on these ungrateful wretches is beyond me. :roll:


I completely AGREE with you... Im glad there is someone else on this site who says that President Bush LIED in his State of the Union Address. FACE IT PEOPLE, WE STILL HAVE NOT FOUND WMD IN IRAQ. That was the reason we went into Iraq.

Dont go with the excuse that he was a brutal dicator to justify the war in Iraq. Everyone knows that, but PRESIDENT BUSH SAID THAT WE WENT TO WAR WITH IRAQ BECAUSE HE WAS A THREAT TO THE US AND HAD WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. And we still have not found any WMDs. How does that justify having over 400 US servicemen killed.

I DONT CARE IF I SOUND LIKE A LIBERAL PROTESTER... IT IS THE F***ING TRUE!!!

:roll: God, I feel like Bill Murray in Ground Hog's Day.

Take your pick:
1. Reasons for War was not exclusive to WMDs.
• Iraq failed to honor their 1991 ceasefire agreement
• Iraq's failure to honor and intentional violation of all UNSC resolutions requiring their compliance
• Saddam's refusal to disclose complete and accurate info
• Iraq's support for international terrorists such as hezbollah, islamic jihad, hamas and others
• Iraq's continued engagement of coalition forces in the no fly zones
• Removing a threat to the region...

2. Please point out where Bush 'Lied' in his State of the Union Address:
"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."
SOTU (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-22.html)

[Zach R.]

Well said Budanski. woot

[Falco]

This is something that the press often forgets

[Shake n Bake]

I DONT CARE IF I SOUND LIKE A LIBERAL PROTESTER... IT IS THE F***ING TRUTH!!!


No, You sound more like a moron.. :roll:

[Tane Angle]

Well, I wasn't even talking about WMD, but I guess that's the way the cookie crumbles.

This is what I was talking about:

Today, on the continent of Africa, nearly 30 million people have the AIDS virus -- including 3 million children under the age 15. There are whole countries in Africa where more than one-third of the adult population carries the infection. More than 4 million require immediate drug treatment. Yet across that continent, only 50,000 AIDS victims -- only 50,000 -- are receiving the medicine they need.

Because the AIDS diagnosis is considered a death sentence, many do not seek treatment. Almost all who do are turned away. A doctor in rural South Africa describes his frustration. He says, "We have no medicines. Many hospitals tell people, you've got AIDS, we can't help you. Go home and die." In an age of miraculous medicines, no person should have to hear those words. (Applause.)

AIDS can be prevented. Anti-retroviral drugs can extend life for many years. And the cost of those drugs has dropped from $12,000 a year to under $300 a year -- which places a tremendous possibility within our grasp. Ladies and gentlemen, seldom has history offered a greater opportunity to do so much for so many.

We have confronted, and will continue to confront, HIV/AIDS in our own country. And to meet a severe and urgent crisis abroad, tonight I propose the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief -- a work of mercy beyond all current international efforts to help the people of Africa. This comprehensive plan will prevent 7 million new AIDS infections, treat at least 2 million people with life-extending drugs, and provide humane care for millions of people suffering from AIDS, and for children orphaned by AIDS. (Applause.)

I ask the Congress to commit $15 billion over the next five years, including nearly $10 billion in new money, to turn the tide against AIDS in the most afflicted nations of Africa and the Caribbean. (Applause.)

This nation can lead the world in sparing innocent people from a plague of nature. And this nation is leading the world in confronting and defeating the man-made evil of international terrorism. (Applause.)

The money was cut because one of seven major aid groups in Africa tallked about condoms in a *** ed class in China. :roll: The Senators who voted against that money are not the ones who normally vote against the President. Rather, they are the ones who are his ardent supporters. Looks like it was a hollow request? That's politics for you, I guess. Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[budanski]

Well, I wasn't even talking about WMD, but I guess that's the way the cookie crumbles.

This is what I was talking about:

Today, on the continent of Africa, nearly 30 million people have the AIDS virus -- including 3 million children under the age 15. There are whole countries in Africa where more than one-third of the adult population carries the infection. More than 4 million require immediate drug treatment. Yet across that continent, only 50,000 AIDS victims -- only 50,000 -- are receiving the medicine they need.

Because the AIDS diagnosis is considered a death sentence, many do not seek treatment. Almost all who do are turned away. A doctor in rural South Africa describes his frustration. He says, "We have no medicines. Many hospitals tell people, you've got AIDS, we can't help you. Go home and die." In an age of miraculous medicines, no person should have to hear those words. (Applause.)

AIDS can be prevented. Anti-retroviral drugs can extend life for many years. And the cost of those drugs has dropped from $12,000 a year to under $300 a year -- which places a tremendous possibility within our grasp. Ladies and gentlemen, seldom has history offered a greater opportunity to do so much for so many.

We have confronted, and will continue to confront, HIV/AIDS in our own country. And to meet a severe and urgent crisis abroad, tonight I propose the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief -- a work of mercy beyond all current international efforts to help the people of Africa. This comprehensive plan will prevent 7 million new AIDS infections, treat at least 2 million people with life-extending drugs, and provide humane care for millions of people suffering from AIDS, and for children orphaned by AIDS. (Applause.)

I ask the Congress to commit $15 billion over the next five years, including nearly $10 billion in new money, to turn the tide against AIDS in the most afflicted nations of Africa and the Caribbean. (Applause.)

This nation can lead the world in sparing innocent people from a plague of nature. And this nation is leading the world in confronting and defeating the man-made evil of international terrorism. (Applause.)

The money was cut because one of seven major aid groups in Africa tallked about condoms in a *** ed class in China. :roll: The Senators who voted against that money are not the ones who normally vote against the President. Rather, they are the ones who are his ardent supporters. Looks like it was a hollow request? That's politics for you, I guess. Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

Tane, unless I missed something here, please explain where Bush hadnt followed through with his pledge. Did you check out the links I provided?

Bush signs law on anti-AIDS plan for Africa, Carribean (http://www.inq7.net/wnw/2003/may/29/wnw_6-1.htm)
President Bush Receives Cool Reception in South Africa (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A32833-2003Jul9=true)

...in case you overlook these two again, I'll provide a few more ;)
Bush vows to help Africa fight AIDS despite cutback on Hill (http://dynamic.washtimes.com/print_story.cfm?StoryID=20030711-121215-1655r)
and as recent as this past october, Senate boosts spending to combat AIDS in Africa (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/10/30/national2213EST0873.DTL)
What? more than what was originally planned? The nerve of them...

What more do you want the guy to do? Administer the drugs himself?

[stephane from Paris]

Budanski like always you repeat what you read in your biased press!

We don't wan't USA loose, we didn't want they goes in a war that will done more problems!!!!!
The result of this war is that, now terrorists are in Irak, muslims integrists are view like freedom fighters by most of muslims, in the future we could see islamists close to their Iran brothers for new boss in a rich country like Irak! The Israel/palestinians problem isn't revolved!

You didn't reply to another thread about the fact that US are in process to sell to privates the Iraki's state oil companies!!!!!! Is that the interrests Irak????

The reals goals of this war was:
1- put under menace the Saudi's where the king Fadh is old!!! Since 09/11 and US comments about them, Saudi's said that they will change their link with USA (lesser friendly).
2-put under menace Iran
3- controlled Oil that will need the 2 future economic giant : China and India
4- Protect Israel
5- put some units in Irak and leave Saudi where Christians aren't wellcome!

In 2001, Powell went to UN and said that the embargo worked and that Irak hadn't the capacities to attack anyone!!! Several month later, in september the same guy change all he said and WMD appears!!!!
People like Bush needs an ennemy for masked the fact that USA have unprecedent deficit!!!! USA was after every wars the economic winner!!

Bush lied on WMD (the best example is the Uranium sold by Niger which is a CIA falcified proof), on the link between Al qaida and Irak!!!
Sadam's said he support Palestinians like 99,99% muslims supports them!

It's funny that guys like you budanski was certainly agree that US taxers paid millions of dollards to know if Clinton was a liar in a so funny affairs!!!!
But when your president lies in a so bad way for put in war your country you are OK!!!!!!!????????? Strange view of democracy!!

Please don't speak about our democracy, you don't read french, you certainly never read our newspaper or understand our TV so stay in your biased medias point of view!!!
There were tons of debate here (specialy because a part of Chirac party was for the war) but we can have the point of view of every side not like you!!!!

[Tane Angle]

The administration, in its budget request for 2003, sought $2 billion for global AIDS programs, drawing criticism from AIDS advocates who demanded the full $3 billion allowable under the five-year program. Administration officials argued that $2 billion was appropriate for the first year of the initiative, and they would live up to the promises made in the AIDS legislation.

That's from your source. All I'm saying is that the money is there now. I know one of the guys who worked on the budget figuring for our AIDS in Africa policy. He said that while everyone's talking the talk, no one's walking the walk. If the money actually shows up in Africa, and the full amount, then great. Until then, I'm still unconvinced, sorry.

By the way, $15B isn't enough. $50B might still not be enough. We need every cent we can get for fighting AIDS, so there is no reason to do less than the maximum. Though even that is not nearly enough.

Thanks for the links though. have a good one, and just some thoughts...