Debate the war on terror with me.

[WARPIG]

Just for the sake of argument… I would like to take a position on Bush’s war against terrorism. Just a theory and not an attempt to defend him or anything along that line. I would really like to see what intelligent arguments against my theory come about and what discussions may arise.

Terrorism against the US. The first bombing of the World Trade Center, the USS Cole, Embassy bombings, events of 9-11, to name a few. George W. Bush is left with the responsibility to safeguard our country against more attacks, find those responsible, and exact justice. Which is the most important of those tasks? The most immediate and visible of those is to find the responsible party and exact justice. But, it's not the most important. Preventing further attacks is an immense undertaking. Anti-terrorism seems to be nothing more than a money pit. The only reasonable protective measures infringe the very freedoms we seek to protect. By hardening our National Security, we grant the terrorist exactly what they seek… fear. What else can we do? Go out and eliminate the threat?

Where is that threat? Afghanistan? Iraq? Saudi Arabia? Iran? The answer??...All of them. No, not the countries themselves of course. Not the people themselves either. It is like a cancer that dwells in that area of the world. No not the only place. There are terrorists in every part of the world. This area seems to be the concentration of the threat to the US. So how do we handle it? How does George W. handle it? Imagine, Al queda is a hired killer. Someone used "Al" to put a hit on the US. So how do we handle it? Eliminate Al queda? Kind of hard since they are everywhere… but not impossible. Kill their leadership and ability to operate and the rest of it dies too. We hope. What about who hired them? Is it Saddam? No. Laughable question. Or, is it? We tend to simplify things in our minds to try and make them more palatable. I am not saying Saddam is the root of terror of course. My belief is that Islamic extremism is the cause. The region (the middle east) has a high concentration of Islamic extremists and they have had a choke hold on most of the Middle East’s people for a very long time. Can we possibly battle all of them? How do we tell the extremists from the devoted? Can we honestly wage battle against a religion? Hell no! We can make our country more acceptable to that region of the world though.

How do we do that? Go to war. :cantbeli:

No really...By removing Saddam, we create an opportunity for Iraq to prosper without oppresion. If it works. The US will have a positive presence in the Middle East. No, terrorism won’t vanish… but terrorism against the US will not be something that happens to someone else. (I predict a love/hate relationship like with France and Europe.) They might love to insult and criticise us but wishing us dead won’t be in their thoughts. Again, if it works.

Why not in Afghanistan then? That is where Al queda and the Taliban are. Well, there too. Not really the easiest or most ideal place to accomplish this. Besides, it looks like "an eye-for-an-eye" kind of reckoning. Saudi Arabia would be the best place to establish a positive US presence. But, we dropped that ball a decade ago. Saudi may support us but there are peopel there still in bed with terrorists. Saudi Arabia and Iraq have that one thing that other terrorist infected states do not. Oil. Wait... war for oil? Yeah.. who is going to pay to fund the war and rebuild the country? It took several generations for the US to do that in WWII. Think we can afford that now? With most of the world not supporting us in Iraq and a sinking economy.. I doubt we would have the ability to maintain the military action that we have so far. Oil will help Iraq pay for it’s own rebuilding, and if you think the US won’t try and recoup the losses we take by going to war…well keep kidding yourself.

What the hell is the connection to Iraq with terrorism? Maybe none, but we all know better. Saddam has only been proven to threaten, murder and oppresss his own people in general. But, I don’t see too many middle eastern countries that miss his reign. A few countries have opted to disarm their WMD. Out of fear of the US or because they don’t really need to arm themselves now that the bully is gone? Granted much of the terrorism going on in Iraq is because the US is there. Well, more accurately, because the US has given Iraq the opportunity to become a democracy.

Bush and the US are often viewed as the bully of the world. Yet as much disapproval as there is about the War in Iraq, look at how Spain was seen as cowards recently for their reaction to terror. Not by just the US but internationally.

So, is the US safer? Not yet. But, taking the steps we have, and finding the cause of terrorism instead of focusing on avenging deaths is what this is all about. Making a positive presence in the middle east is how we eliminate the demand for it.
It took decades to bring Europe back to prosperity after WWII. Even with the contrasting differences that are obvious between the US and Europe today… we don’t fear war, terror, or anything more than political rhetoric between us. South Korea even becomes more and more independent of the US and naturally, the people have begun to try and distance themselves from us. It is a role the US has been expected to fill in the past and is doing so again. Bush has a war to fight. Not with a visible evil, nor a place on a map to show were the true enemy lies. But a war no less than the wars that America has fought in the past. Diplomacy has it’s place in the fight against terror, apathy does not.

Just an opinion based theory that I think makes some sense. Please base your support and opposition in the same. I don’t want to argue on details and sound bytes. Just argue your perspective.

[Ruutiukko]

My opinion of the war on terrorism is simple: I do not think that it will achieve its goals and I would like to explain why. In my opinion terrorism is more of a sympton than the cause and terrorists are often people who think or know that they have nothing to loose and that by dying for their cause they can achieve something. For exapmle, the suicide bombers that have performed their attacks against Israeli civilians are, at least as far as I know, mostly religious fanatics who have been promised a straight trip to paradise if they blow themselves and some bystanders into pieces. In my opinion, there are three reasons why someone would kill themselves and mavy others without hesitation: (Note: this whole post and everything in it are my personal opinions, not an attempt to ignite a flamewar, I do not mean to insult anyone or their beliefs)

1. Indoctrination. They believe that what they do is the right thing and will not hesitate to kill themselves and many others they do not know because they have been told that it is the will of god. Zealots like this will go smiling and without hesitation to their deaths.

2. Fanatism. For whatever reason, religious or not, a person is ready to kill for a cause, be it religion, a foreign invasion or something else. People like may not have been told by an authority to do anything, an act of terrorism may be their own personal decision.

3. Sacrificial mentality. In some cases in palestine potential suicide-bomber candidates have been attracted by promising to pay hteir relatives large sums of money (thousands of dollars). In the conditions that these people live, some might give their lives to quarantee the survival of their families.

In my opinion the "war on terorism" has done little to remove these reasons. The there are still lots of desperate peiople and outright fanatics who will risk their lives to hurt innocent civilians for whatever reason. I think, that unless the miserble living conditions in many arabic countries are made more humane. I do not beleive that terrorism can be culle dby a military campaign, no matter how large one the campaign is. I think that by attacking Iraq and Afghanistan USA and its presindetn are shooting themselves in the foot, especially since there seems to be little proof of WMD's found in Iraq. This was my 2 cents, I hope I did not offend anybody, if I did, too bad, but I was asked for opinions and so I gave them.

P.S. My first native lanquege is Finnish, not English, so I apoligize for any spelling mistakes or other errors in this text.

[WARPIG]

Great opinion Ruut but I think you missed my point.
Using Iraq as the platform to create a more humane, democratic, and stable country for those people to live is what I think the goal is. Granted that War is not exactly the first thing you think of when it comes to making friends. Taking Saddam out, and creating the opportunity for Iraq to prosper without depression is one step. If Iraq becomes a stable and democratic country, people will have a choice in their lives. The majority of terrorists are simply lost souls. Influenced by the hatred of those extreme Islamic Zealots, they find a purpose. It isn't hard to influence adolescent, homeless boys that are given a sense of belonging, faith, and mentorship. If your mentors aspire to die in the name of Jihad.. so do you. I think we agree on this. My position is that if we give the Middle eastern people a choice, give them the opportunity.. most will not choose terrorism. The mistake is that we seem to assume that once free.. people will immediately flock to a western democracy. That is where we shoot ouselves in the foot. Arabs of every faith have seen the US as infidels or unholy people for generations. What do you think they feel when they are liberated by such people? Pride is likely to be in short supply in Iraq these days. When Iraqi's are put in power.. maybe that will change. If the internal conflict between the various tribes in Iraq don't tear the country apart.. there is a good chance that we will see a prosperous Iraq in a few years. As that country prospers, I beleive terrorism will continue but the need for it will taper steadily off.

[TALOS]

Very thought provoking , both of the above posts.
I too will state that the following is strictly my opinion and not meant to offend.
I agree with both of you really. The war has to be waged, thats not a choice, for any of the apologists, if the US doesnt fight this war the terrorists wont stop.
So the lesser of the two evils is to go to war to try and stem at least some of the violence.
But, I agree that the most effective way would be to raise the standards of living for those people who are in despair and therefore easier to recruit into the hate filled regimes.
The US has a hard row to hoe in re Iraq but the first steps have to be somewhere. The vast majority of the Iraqis want peace, not necessarily under US rule but certainly without Saddam. If they can be helped to rebuild and create a good solid foundation of government (yes I know, where does such a thing exist :roll: ) they stand a better chance of prosperity and healing than if the US pulls out now.
A-stan is a whole different horse but the allies are doing as good a job as can be expected, with new roads and schools and hopefully a strong infrastructure.
Giving people hope is the answer IMHO, everywhere, including the US the UK and other western countries. If we see that the M E nations are interested in peace with us then we will be more tolerant of the efforts to rebuild relationships and economic friendships (lets face it, money makes the world go round thats a fact that will never change)

[Trident-za]

Interesting thread, with some good points made. It's good to see that intelligent life exists here :)

For what its worth, I agree with all the above posts. The worst way to deal with terrorism is to approach it with a "revenge at all costs" mindset. Killing terrorists is usually necessary, but there are times where it might be counter-productive (I'm assuming that the point of anti-terror ops is to reduce the likelihood of being attacked by terrorists). Dealing with the causes of the terrorism, and the reason for why people become terrorists, is vital - if you don't do this, it hardly matters how many terrorists you actually kill. Even if you killed every existing AQ terrorist, they will be back in a few years time if you don't deal with reasons for AQ existing to begin with.

Iraq is a major issue for this very reason. I don't believe in the WMD argument, or the one saying Iraq was an active sponsor of terrorism - but Iraq is almost a "test case": can we provide an Arabic population with enough freedom/choice that they don't choose to become terrorists? Giving them hope for a better life is crucial - without hope, young gung-ho people (and don't we have more than few here on this forum???) slip very easily into the trap of terrorism.

In the short-term Afghanistan is a more important (or perhaps obvious is a better word) issue in terms of the war on terror. Iraq doesn't really seem to even feature in this respect (there was no terrorism there until after the war?). However, the long-term consequences of Iraq in the war on terror are profound - one way or the other. Either, the coalition forces succeed in providing the security necessary for hope to exist, or the terrorists win. Iraq is also a tricky situation because there are, in my opinion, two seperate wars being fought: one against terrorism, one against insurgents defending their homeland (rightly or wrongly). There tactics are the same, its difficult to tease the two apart, but I honestly believe this. Some of the attacks going on are being perpertrated by "genuine" iraqi people who don't want the coalition involved, but I also beleive many "outside" terrorists are moving to Iraq because that is where the "enemy" is. Subtle difference, perhaps... but very important in terms of how the coalition handles things.

[WARPIG]

Good points. I was just noticing that when I post a topic asking for debate.. we instead find points to agree on even from differing areas of the world.

[Trident-za]

Yeah - I guess that, despite all the arguing and accusations of being commies/liberals etc. most of us want the same thing - we just disagree how to achieve that "same thing". Still, a good thread so far....

[Ruutiukko]

Thanks to you all for comments instead of insults. I would like to clarify my opinion a bit better, since I wrote it in a hurry and was not able to check the spelling. While I believe, as other posters seem to do, that pacifying Iraq, giving the Iraqese a chance to improve their quality of live to modern standards and doing the same thing in Afghanistan is the only way to effectively stop terrorism originating from these countries. (once more, this whole post is just my opinions and speculations, no insults intended)

I meant to say that I do no tbelieve this attempt to be succesfull. I hope it is, but I am not very positive about its chances, since I fear that either popular pressure inside USA or the change to a more cautious president might force teh US Army to pull out before the operation is completely succesfull, leaving its allies to handle the situation. This could then be used in anti-US propaganda to justify, to a degree, attacks against USA since they could be seen as having bombeb Iraq into pieces and pulling out without doing much to remedy the situation.

Ironically, it might be the best thing for the Iraqese if G.W.Bush stays in power, since he is not likely to pull out prematurely after trumpeting the liberation and rebuilding of Iraq so much. While I do not like Bush a lot and do not thing highly about some of his policies, I must admit that the Iraq campaign has been, so far at least, success to a degree. THe United States was in front of a complicated choice, but the die was cast and the results were not the disaster some feared. I hope to see results, but I fear that it will not happen.

[Trident-za]

Good points, Ruutiukko

While I believe firmly that creating a culture where freedom/choice is available is the key to defeating terroris, I too am not optimistic. I beleive it will take generations for this to happen, and I'm not sure that the coalition's commitment to Iraq will last that long. (I base this opinion on the reality of living in South Africa, after 10 years of "freedom" - where racism is alive and well [and let me tell you, black on white racism is growing], but xenophobia on the part of black South Africans towards black people from other African countries is due to rival apartheid for brutality and suppression of human rights). Despite my scepticism, I think the work going on in Iraq is good while it lasts - the longer it goes on the better.

[Trident-za]

Just as an aside - I'm looking forward to hearing the views of Xasa, Tane etc on this (no pressure, guys :))

[jprichard]

Lifting up those who are poor or oppressed in the middle east would go a long way. Solving the Israeli/Palestinian problem would too. I think the U.S. would be well served by using the military to protect the borders and ports of the country. It's too easy to get into this country and eventually terrorist will exploit this weakeness as they did on 9/11. We need to put more bite in the Homeland Security Department.

[usa320]

my opnion on this whole **** slinging contest is that really No one is in any position to criticize bush in regards to the war on terrorism...and my logic is simple...how can they when no other president has had to delt with such a massive attack before on innocent civilians...There is nothing you can compare him to, nothing to base the insults on. Bottom line is no other president has really been in that situation (clinton was, but he didnt take it serious enough) so no one really knows what anyone else would have or wouldnt have done differently.

[WARPIG]

I think that putting any more funding in Homeland Defense would be a waste right now. The system is broken and there is no quick fix. Maybe as jprichard suggests, a little help from the military will help fill the gap but I doubt it. Americans don't really want it. The complaining that ensues when we bump the Alert level up is proof. People want security for "other people." They want their security but not at the cost of inconvenience and definately not if it strains their rights. We would have to nearly quarantine our country to achieve the level of security that people expect and that is still unrealistic. Most of the threats in our country are already in our country.
Making a stand in the middle east has to be the only option to fight terror. Not just militarily, but by removing the reason for people there to hate the US. If basic human rights, freedom, and living standards become a reality in the middle east... terrorism will wither and die. Those few, passionate, hate filled leaders will lose their most valuable resource... people. Without followers.. Osama is just a greasy, old, angry, fart.

[usa320]

To be honest, i think the DHS should have been a branch of the DOD... i mean it is called the department of DEFENSE for a reason... They would have alot more manpower, funding and resources availible if they were, and it wouldnt have created another layer of beaurocracy. I for one wouldnt mind seeing troops in airports and at bridges and train stations. I flew after 9-11 ( 3 weeks after) and to me the sight of Air Force troops with M-16's was actually rather comforting... Its a known fact that FAR more contraband items were found in airports when the reserves and national guard were manning checkpoints then when the hired goons were.

[Trident-za]

Agreed, Warpig.

I fear, though, that many people are more interesting in the "score card".... according to some, its more important to kill/capture leaders of various terrorist groups and/or kill lots of "bad guys". While I can understand this point of view, I don't believe it will solve the terrorist problem - ever.

Think about it, if some terrorist group managed to kill some high up western leader (god forbid), would that make the average westerner more or less inclined to take the fight to the terrorists? Such a move on the part of the terrorists would ultimately be counter-productive (much as 9/11 was).

Unfortunately, terrorism is a highly emotive issue (thanks to politicians and the media) and people are responding with testosterone rather than intelligence. Despite all the firepower in the world, if the brains don't start to work, we will lose this war :(

Note: I'm not saying military actions aren't a good thing (they are, if used correctly), just that revenge is not the issue - victory is, and that requires more than brute strength.

[WARPIG]

I can back that statement up usa320. When I was working with OP Noble Eagle, we were asked by the FAA to scrutinize the airport screeners. That is because the Airlines were responsible for security. The FAA was just there to ensure they were doing it. (not a very good job at doing it) Once the FAA was put in charge of Security and changed their names to the TSA.. we were told to back off. National Guardsmen may have been left at airports in smaller number but the TSA were wanting US out. We were still finding holes in security and writing reports.

[usa320]

I agree with Trident in two respects. First, it is important to kill their leaders. And secondly, it is important to kill as many of them as possible.

p-)

[Hullebullen]

Mmm...better type something here before the thread is spoiled...

First of all. Personally, merely educating and improving the lives of people in the middle-east won't bring an end to terrorism. Why? Because I don't think your average Muhammed is your problem. He's got enough stuff to worry about without plotting evil deeds against the free world.

Look at the terrorism in Europe. The people in the RAF, IRA and the likes were not poor, uneducated people. What I do think is that raising the living standard for the people in the middle-east will help to marginalize these groups. But I doubt we will get rid of them.

As for the situation in Iraq right now, I'm certain the right thing to do now is to stay the course. While I'm not sure that if the US would pull out, **** would hit the fan I find it more likely than that Iraq with all it's different minorities could work their differences out peacefully like adults. A situation resembling of what happened in the Balkans comes closer to my mind.

Finally, I think that many expect too much, too soon. This will take time, no doubt...

[Trident-za]

:lol: @ usa320

Testoreone is not always the answer - just ask the Arikaaners in South Africa, or the Rhodesians on this forum. Both fought terrorism with more guts than you can imagine (and with a lot less technology), and killed more terrorists than you would believe - but did they win? Moral arguments aside, it takes more than kill ratios to win against terrorism. The world is a complex place and the man with the biggest gun generally rules, but.....

[WARPIG]

Mmm...better type something here before the thread is spoiled...

First of all. Personally, merely educating and improving the lives of people in the middle-east won't bring an end to terrorism. Why? Because I don't think your average Muhammed is your problem. He's got enough stuff to worry about without plotting evil deeds against the free world.

Look at the terrorism in Europe. The people in the RAF, IRA and the likes were not poor, uneducated people. What I do think is that raising the living standard for the people in the middle-east will help to marginalize these groups. But I doubt we will get rid of them.

As for the situation in Iraq right now, I'm certain the right thing to do now is to stay the course. While I'm not sure that if the US would pull out, **** would hit the fan I find it more likely than that Iraq with all it's different minorities could work their differences out peacefully like adults. A situation resembling of what happened in the Balkans comes closer to my mind.

Finally, I think that many expect too much, too soon. This will take time, no doubt...

No doubt.. we are in for a long haul. Hope we stick to it. I disagree with you though. (finally a debate) Removing the recruit pool for terrorist groups will make a huge difference. If young Arab men are given education, basic human rights, and a decent standard of living.. the majority won't have a need to belong to any extreme group. As far as those die hard types.. well we will never be rid of those. Heck, the US still has those... militias... racists... gangbangers.. etc. But, Jihad needs Martyrs... when your life has no hope.. Jihad and Martyrdom must sound pretty good.

[Trident-za]

Mmm...better type something here before the thread is spoiled...

First of all. Personally, merely educating and improving the lives of people in the middle-east won't bring an end to terrorism. Why? Because I don't think your average Muhammed is your problem. He's got enough stuff to worry about without plotting evil deeds against the free world.

Look at the terrorism in Europe. The people in the RAF, IRA and the likes were not poor, uneducated people. What I do think is that raising the living standard for the people in the middle-east will help to marginalize these groups. But I doubt we will get rid of them.

As for the situation in Iraq right now, I'm certain the right thing to do now is to stay the course. While I'm not sure that if the US would pull out, **** would hit the fan I find it more likely than that Iraq with all it's different minorities could work their differences out peacefully like adults. A situation resembling of what happened in the Balkans comes closer to my mind.

Finally, I think that many expect too much, too soon. This will take time, no doubt...

No doubt.. we are in for a long haul. Hope we stick to it. I disagree with you though. (finally a debate) Removing the recruit pool for terrorist groups will make a huge difference. If young Arab men are given education, basic human rights, and a decent standard of living.. the majority won't have a need to belong to any extreme group. As far as those die hard types.. well we will never be rid of those. Heck, the US still has those... militias... racists... gangbangers.. etc. But, Jihad needs Martyrs... when your life has no hope.. Jihad and Martyrdom must sound pretty good.

This is what we all (presumably?) hope..... it will take generations, though, to create what we are hoping for. Believing otherwise is a bit naive, I think. Many children have already been brought up in the environment of "hate/hopelessness" and they will pass that on to their kids - hopefully the scenario the coalition is aiming towards will persuad the next generation that there is hope..... it's always the youth that are militant, and it may be too late for the current generation. Reality is a bitch....

[Hullebullen]

Yes, In that aspect I see your point. But I think I wrote that higher living standards would marginalize these groups. At the same time I don't think those willing to take calculated risks to achieve their goals through terrorism won't be affected that much. By that I mean those people that actually are into the ideology of islamic extremism. But you're right, improving the life chances of the people in general will aid in the battle against terrorism.

Hmm...it's a difficult subject, no doubt.

[von_Moo142]

Edited, to correct quote box errors (again...)

Some good debate here :-)

WARPIG


By removing Saddam, we create an opportunity for Iraq to prosper without oppresion. If it works. The US will have a positive presence in the Middle East. No, terrorism won’t vanish… but terrorism against the US will not be something that happens to someone else.

This is surely the main justification behind the Iraq war.


On a slight tangent... The politicians didn't tell the people why they went to war in Iraq. This indicates to me that we need to make sure most people in our countries actually have some understanding of the global situation reagarding the "war on terror" and how we can go about "winning" it. A bunch of hand-waving about WMD's or "the axis of evil" is just counter-productive, IMO.



Can we possibly battle all of them? How do we tell the extremists from the devoted? Can we honestly wage battle against a religion? Hell no! We can make our country more acceptable to that region of the world though.

A good point, IMO.


Hullebullen


First of all. Personally, merely educating and improving the lives of people in the middle-east won't bring an end to terrorism. Why? Because I don't think your average Muhammed is your problem. He's got enough stuff to worry about without plotting evil deeds against the free world.

But it can't hurt to improve the standards of living. The big goal would be to show people that supporting or tolerating the terrorist organisations is only couterprodutive for them in the long run.

And I guess education is is only way to do that.


usa320 and others


I agree with Trident in two respects. First, it is important to kill their leaders. And secondly, it is important to kill as many of them as possible.


John Browns body lies a mouldering in the grave!

You all know the next line, right? It's important...



He was a terrorist. It doesn't matter that he was fighting for the right reasons and that we think of him as "good", he was still a terrorist. He became a martyr. His soul really did go marching on, if you belive in souls, or metaphors at least ;-)


Now swap John Brown for Bin Laden and soul (or truth, if you know that version) for lies, and you hopefully get the picture.


It's never just as simple as kill 'em all in RL.

[Tane Angle]

I haven't gotten to say this yet, but welcome aboard, von_Moo142. What part of the UK are you from? Have a good one.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

We need to pry the youthful Islamists away from the radical madrassas & corrupt them with western values.

If they continue to be indoctrinated with hate & intolerance, there will never be a way to totally stop them. There's too much Arab oil money funneled to them, too much extremely destructive technology available to them.

The military can stop them in the short term, by picking them off as they join the various groups to fight. But the only long term solution is to be found in making them embrace alternate values.

The solution, as with many things, lies in rock 'n roll. Yes, they must slowly be turned away from the medieval values their elders embrace, and instead they will love the tight spandex pants, the drunken roll in the hay with the large breasted girl they just met, the fist in the air with forefinger & pinkie extended (the goat).

This is both the worst fear of the radical Islamists, and our most powerful weapon. Cultural change will win this for us. We just need a foot in the door. Oh wait we've got Iraq. Time to erect a seriously tall antenna & start broadcasting....

[von_Moo142]

I haven't gotten to say this yet, but welcome aboard, von_Moo142. What part of the UK are you from? Have a good one.


Cheers!

Glad to be here.

I'm in the midlands at the moment, in Loughborough (a town a few miles south west of Nottingham). Planning on moving to the south for a while soon though.

I've lived in Canterbury, Southampton and Portsmouth (I remember going out onto the harbor with my school to watch the troops come home from the Falklands), so I guess I'm not really from anywhere specific. :-)

[basket of soft kittens]

damn you guys are cordual ...yet have good arguements kudos all around :D

[Tane Angle]

Excellent discussion guys. Very nicely carried out. Very encouraging. :D

[California Joe]

In order to conduct counter programming to the next generation of potential terrorists we would need their attention, respect, be able to counteract the indoctrination masking itself as religion, get them to accept our ideas of democracy, change their beliefs about women on a cultural level and a multitude of other issues. Pretty tall order.

Sorry, I'm not usually allowed out of Off Topic.....

[James]

Well, everyone has been so polite, and I fear that my post might be like kicking the top off of an ant hill...

I didn't agree with the reasons for going to war in Iraq last year, as many of you well know. However, since we are there now, I feel that under current circumstances, we need to make every effort to provide a stable democracy in the middle east. I think that would go a long way in making the world a safer place in the future.
However, regarding the war on terrorism - for YEARS, perhaps since 1991 (I can't recall when this started) UBL's rhetoric against the United States was focused on a couple of thins that stand out in my mind at the moment. Establishing a "foothold" in the middle east, and our support for Israel.

For years, UBL spoke of an American desire to invade an oil rich Arab nation and occupy it. Reasons aside, we have. I think quite a few people might think, "Wow, Usama said they were going to do that, and they DID! He is right and just, and we should join his jihad against Jews and Crusaders."

Many Islamist terrorists also hate us for our long and ongoing support of Israel. I think they view Israel as an oppressive state that routinely tramples on the civil rights and often murders innocent civilians. This isn't my opinion, so let's not let this thread get hijacked. Anyway, a great many terrorists see the U.S., beacon of freedom to the entire world, supporting a state that they view in much the same way as we viewed Iraq until the liberation last year - a terrorist state.

I agree with much of what was written earlier - we need to find a flexible balance of being proactive and reactive, and we need to undertake an effort that goes far beyond the act of killing or capturing the bad guys. We need a carrot in one hand, and a stick in the other. Military efforts, diplomatic efforts, law enforcement efforts, foreign aid, all rolled into one package that is constantly changing and evolving. I don't think we can come up with just one plan. What works great this year might be useless next year. We aslo, (as stated more than once already) need to maintain the effort for a long time. Think of the Cold War - that went on for more than 40 years.

Anyway, just some thoughts.

[Fox2]

Finally, a good discussion. :D These seem to be few and far between nowadays.

All good points, guys.

I agree that the key to stopping terrorism is eliminating the cause of it.

However, the answer cannot always be cut and dry (as we have undoubtedly realized).

Being partially of arabic descent myself, and having traveled some parts of the Middle East for a good chunk of my life, I still don't count myself an expert on the arab mentality or culture. There are so many differences regionally, that if you try to paint them all with one brush, you can never get the big picture. However, there are some similarities between the Mid-Eastern cultures and lifestyle.

It is my personal opinion that much of the mindset of the arab culture is one not too dissimilar from that of the far eastern cultures. There is a major emphasis on honor, loyalty, and hospitality within the family structure and ideals. Pride plays an important role in how one interacts with others in that part of the world.

You will notice that many times, the most extreme examples of Islamists are not infact the impovershed victims we would think. Infact, this is why I believe that poverty or financial status play second fiddle to the most important factor; humiliation and pride.

Perhaps part of the reason that we (the United States) are one of the major targets of terrorism, is simply because the US is a major player on the world stage. The fact that we are such a big influence is a point of contempt for non-Americans. You can see it in this forum, even. In other parts of the world, a major chunk of the news is based around the US and its activities. So, I believe there is this feeling of humiliation for some, a feeling of, "The Americans this, the Americans that. Why not my country?" And that is just a human reaction.

As an example, I was reading about Mohammad Atta, and what caused him to become so extreme. I am a bit hazy in my recollection, but I believe he was a law student or similar, and was humiliated in some way. Dangit, can't remember. Anyway, something happened in his life, and he became depressed and disraught. He traveled to Europe to study at some point, and there he got involved with the radical Muslim groups. It wasn't until he was utterly humiliated, and disraught with life, that he became involved with this group of extremist Muslims.

As another example, look to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. As soon as the Israelis decided they were going to start withdrawing from the occupied territories, the Palestinian terrorist organizations step up the attacks. Why? Because they want to make it seem like they forced the Israelis out. So, the Israelis, in turn, must retaliate to show they are leaving of their own will. And so it continues.

So, to make a long post a bit longer, I believe that the single most contributing factor to terrorism is not poverty, but humiliation. Couple that with the education some get that doesn't allow them to form their own opinions, and you have a volatile recipe for terrorism.

Anyway, I am just writing on and on. I hope I didn't offend with any of this. I apologize if I did inadvertently, that was not my intention.

Have a good one.

[Tane Angle]

Very good points, Fox2. If you don't mind my asking, where were your forebearers from? Nearly everyone I've actually met over there has been so incredibly warm and welcoming; I mean, I've met folks who had only had the clothes on their backs, and if asked, would give one of their two garmets to a perfect stranger. I think most people are actually like that everywhere, deep inside. I don't know if anyone could ever hate the people if they actually sat down and had a conversation with the average person over there. I think that we are all more alike than different when it comes to things like wanting our children to be happy and safe and not wanting landmines in our fields. It's a shame that I haven't gotten to travel their much in times of peace, though I have had the joy, and honor and privilege, of being invited back to people's homes years after I had last seen the people extending the invitations. I take the offer every chance I get.

Anyways, back to the thread: One thing that Bush says that bewilders me is his "Axis of Evil" line. Iranian students protest in the streets, calling for democracy. They have made some headways that seem minor to many, but are major for those who have never experienced those freedoms. Many students come to the West to study, like what they find, and bring back that truer view of the outside world, as well as the mentality of questioning one's government openly. But they remain Iranians, and nearly all proud to be so.

It is one thing for the Iranians to hear themselves berate their government. It is another for an outsider to do the same. For example, growing up, my brothers and I were always beating one another up. But if someone from outside our family challenged one brother, well the whole Tane clan got together. The Iranians may want freedom, but we simply can't liberate them, if only because many Iranians find it to be an afront to their honor. They want to liberate themselves. Berating the Iranian government may be warranted, but is it wise?

Perhaps it would be better to do what we can to have the Iranian people identify with the American people. To increase their awareness of the true Western world. To show them our good side, the side that governments sometimes blind their people to. Perhaps instead of saying much of anything about their government, it would be better to voice support and brother/sisterhood and friendship with the Iranian people as individuals and as a people; not the government, but the people.

We need to help them keep their pride, and to let the know that we would feel honored if they would join us in the free world as equals. We can't force them to kick out their government, though. Iran is perhaps a less than common example, but it is still noteworthy that the possibility for a peaceful change of government is possible there.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Fox2]

Very good points, Fox2. If you don't mind my asking, where were your forebearers from?

My father is an Israeli of Mid-Eastern ethnicity. My mother is American.


Nearly everyone I've actually met over there has been so incredibly warm and welcoming; I mean, I've met folks who had only had the clothes on their backs, and if asked, would give one of their two garmets to a perfect stranger.

Yes, that is very true. It is very similar to what you find in the traditional deep South of the US. The focus is very much on making others feel welcome.


I think most people are actually like that everywhere, deep inside. I don't know if anyone could ever hate the people if they actually sat down and had a conversation with the average person over there. I think that we are all more alike than different when it comes to things like wanting our children to be happy and safe and not wanting landmines in our fields.

I agree.


It is one thing for the Iranians to hear themselves berate their government. It is another for an outsider to do the same. For example, growing up, my brothers and I were always beating one another up. But if someone from outside our family challenged one brother, well the whole Tane clan got together. The Iranians may want freedom, but we simply can't liberate them, if only because many Iranians find it to be an afront to their honor. They want to liberate themselves. Berating the Iranian government may be warranted, but is it wise?

Indeed, it would definitely be wise to try and relate to the Iranian people.

The point you make about berating coming from the inside, rather than the outside, and the differences between those two, is very true. It is especially true in that part of the world, where family honor is very important.

The key to winning over the Mid-East is to realize that each country, each neighborhood, is a different social system, with some similarities in between. Iran cannot be won the same way as Iraq. In Iraq, you have many sects and tribes all with differing relations to one another and different beliefs. When we began our assault on Iraq, I don't think it was seen as an attack on Iraq as a whole to many, but rather an attack on the regime running it at the time.

I think one of the major feelings I get from The Mid-East is that the people sense that their governments, their nations, are behind the rest of the world in so many ways. The Middle East was once a world leader in many aspects. Iraq was once the epicenter of the Babylonian Empire. Some people look at that past of leadership, and now look to the present where they are very behind in the world, and they feel anger. I believe they have this question in their minds of, "The world once looked upon us as a leader in technology and world affairs, home to scholars and artists, and now, we are simply looked upon as a third world sesspool of terrorism. How did this happen?"

I think that this is partly the reason they dislike Israel so much, and in turn, the US for helping Israel. Israel is current with the world, and much of what they do influences foreign affairs. Just look at the recent happenings there with the assassination of the HAMAS leader. It has sent ripples throughout the world. I think the average Middle-Easterner looks at Israel's progress, and then compare with their own government's problems, and they feel anger. Anger at their own government for living in the past, anger at Israel for not having the same problems, and anger at the US for helping Israel to be such a world leader. And then they feel helpless to change it at the same time. And it is this emotion, I believe, that keeps the terrorist recruitment pools filled.

So, then the question is, "How do we stop it?" I think that question is a difficult one, and the answer cannot easily be found. But I think the key is making every average citizen of the world, whether they be Arabs, Israelis, Europeans, or anyone else, feel as if they are a respected and equal member of society.

[Tane Angle]

Very true about the differences in cultures there. In the Iraq capital alone, and the same goes for Beirut and many other cities, one can walk only a few blocks and travel through multiple ethnic centers, each with their own individual customs that need to be respected. Another problem, and this is just the tip of the iceberg here: US military says no beards for the average soldier, while the culture over there often says "no beard, no respect." While it may seem less professional in the Victorian concept of military dress (no offense to the Brits out there), things like that, like showing respect for the local cultures and customs, and adapting to meet the cultural needs, are crucial.

Also, while I don't have any business interests of which to speak, it is economically a good idea in the long run to help those people develop themselves, considering that as nations develop and the standard of living goes up, so does the amount of items they purchase. If water is no longer a concern on a day-to-day basis, then maybe things like buying computers will be. FDR grasped that concept when he started the WPA and other agencies; he actually raised taxes to pay for those programs, but those programs gave people jobs, which let them buy things, which gave jobs back to laid off factory workers, as there was now a demand. Demand-side economics seems to work much better historically, no?

Anyways, have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Fox2]

I am still in shock that this thread has not gone the way of so many others recently. :D

[IDFM203]

Many Islamist terrorists also hate us for our long and ongoing support of Israel. I think they view Israel as an oppressive state that routinely tramples on the civil rights and often murders innocent civilians. This isn't my opinion, so let's not let this thread get hijacked. Anyway, a great many terrorists see the U.S., beacon of freedom to the entire world, supporting a state that they view in much the same way as we viewed Iraq until the liberation last year - a terrorist state.

I don’t intent to hijack this thread, but the topic header is debate, well I am debating, that is all.


I have to respectfully say that I think this is more of what YOU say then what they say (I could be wrong about your sentiments and I apologize if I am indeed, its just the way I read things based on how I feel it doesn’t match with what THEY are saying as I will explain in the next paragraph), now I wont hijack this thread by explaining and examining each of those charges (as I could) but I simply feel you have misrepresented what THEY say and hold.

Listen their CORE gripe and hatred of Israel has everything to do with the fact that they are adamantly against there being a Jewish state in what they believe to be Muslim only land. Of course they are adept at PR and have learnt a few “western” talking points to pepper in their speeches when mostly talking to anyone in the west but its just window dressing for this is a land issue more then anything, for believe me if this was about civil rights and murdering innocent civilians as you say they say, then they would have been attacking their Arab nations way before and on a much bigger scale then they do against Israel (and except of a few cases that doesn’t happen often).

I mean those issues are much worse in their own Arab nations then how they convey it to the west about Israel.

Secondly, a great many (I would venture to say a majority of them) do not see the U.S. as any beacon of freedom for the world but rather as an oppressor of a lot of nations. I mean hell if you have a lot of lefties in western nations believing in that, you damn well have most of these Muslim terrorists believing that.


As for their attitudes against the U.S. because of Israel, well of course that has some play, but there are other factors based on a lot of the U.S. actions in that region that constitute a big part of their hatred.

To be honest, I don’t think there is a military solution as well as I don’t think there is any diplomatic solutions. The best you can hope for is to LIMIT their success and infiltrations.

I will extend it to even with Israel where I also don’t think there is a solution to there being any lasting peace.

I advocate stronger military means only as a result of countless “dovish” offers and actual moves (like pulling out of every Palestinian town and city, they had jobs etc.. etc…) and yet the killings and incitements and overall non acceptance of Israel never ceased and has always been (taught) there. My advecation(sp?) of military might is more to limit their infiltrations and success, which in fact it has done (and with the completion of the anti terror fence, it will limit it more) but I as well understand its no solution, because it simply cannot stop the general sentiment and convictions that a lot of the Palestinians and Arab world have in never accepting a Jewish state in what they consider to be Muslim only land.

Now back to the U.S. and the way it can deal with the region in general which I too find very complicating and in a lot of ways as intractable as the Israel situation….. even if you totally abandon Israel in a effort to appease the Muslim world and the Muslim terrorists, (which isn’t as far fetched as some people might think it is), it still wont solve the issue of their hatred against the U.S for all it would do is take away that excuse but still you would have the U.S. propping up secular governments like in Egypt and in some other Arab nations and also the U.S. presence and in how THEY perceive it in the U.S. colonization of a lot of the Arab oil.
Not to mention actual U.S. troops in Arab nations such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and now Iraq.

Perhaps if you totally abandoned the region and not deal with it in terms of oil or anything, perhaps in the short term after that, some of the hostility will decrease as some show of “gratitude”, though it will be short lived for a lot of the Arab world is/has become very Islamitised (sp?) and it will only be a matter of time before those types of people act on a global scale solely for that cause (well they do it now but they have a lot of other “excuses” to mask up one of their true goals)

To me the real problem in the mideast besides the non acceptance of a Jewish state is internally from most of the governments of the 22 Arab nations that for the most part are oppressive dictatorships that has limited their modern progress to where the Arab world as a whole has the lowest productivity rates as compared to any other region in the world. I cant see this changing, for while your efforts in Iraq for example (after you initially went in to neutralize a nuclear and biological threat) of a western style democracy are indeed a noble effort and I commend you on it, though in my opinion is doomed to failure for the Arab world as a whole is not culturally adapt to ever accept that and dictatorships are basically the only type of government most have ever known and its too ingrained in them to accept any western style democracy, even though in my opinion that will be the only way to have any possible chance of them ever fully modernizing and functioning like the rest of the western world has.



Anyways those are just my opinions (as is everyone’s here) and if I might not be sure about everything I write, I am nonetheless 100 percent sure that not everyone will agree with what I wrote above ;)


Shalom to all :D

[James]

IDFM203,

I should've put :roll: after I wrote beacon of freedom. Sorry.

I have never been to Israel, so what I know about the situation there comes from reading, listening, and watching the news. I think of myself as well informed, but that may not be the case, as you have indicated.

The impression one gets here in the States (at least in my opinion) is that many Arabs are unhappy with Israel because of the way it is perceived that Jews kicked Palestinians off their lands after independence, Israeli soldiers and tanks shoot kids who are doing nothing more than protesting and perhaps throwing stones, and using bulldozers to knock down houses in refugee camps. And, to top it all off, Israel is a Jewish state.

Anyway, thanks for your insight.

[Fox2]

To me the real problem in the mideast besides the non acceptance of a Jewish state is internally from most of the governments of the 22 Arab nations that for the most part are oppressive dictatorships that has limited their modern progress to where the Arab world as a whole has the lowest productivity rates as compared to any other region in the world. I cant see this changing, for while your efforts in Iraq for example (after you initially went in to neutralize a nuclear and biological threat) of a western style democracy are indeed a noble effort and I commend you on it, though in my opinion is doomed to failure for the Arab world as a whole is not culturally adapt to ever accept that and dictatorships are basically the only type of government most have ever known and its too ingrained in them to accept any western style democracy, even though in my opinion that will be the only way to have any possible chance of them ever fully modernizing and functioning like the rest of the western world has.

I agree to an extent. I think much of the anger the Arabs grasp onto is caused by their own governments. They hate the fact that their governments are oppressive, but at the same time feel helpless against it. So that anger is then channeled into the other two major angers, the US and Israel. And this is evident in many circles, not just terrorists. When you talk to many of the moderate Muslim Arabs in that region, especially in regard to the 2001 terrorist attacks, they condemn the actions, but then they seem to insinuate that "the US had it coming" or "finally the US was humbled" or somesuch. This all stems from that anger.

It'll definitely be hard for democracy to reach the Middle-East in large numbers, because, as you said, many know nothing other than oppression. I hope, however, that at the end of our stay in Iraq, the Iraqi people will embrace democracy and become an example to their neighbors.

[IDFM203]

IDFM203,

I should've put :roll: after I wrote beacon of freedom. Sorry.

I have never been to Israel, so what I know about the situation there comes from reading, listening, and watching the news. I think of myself as well informed, but that may not be the case, as you have indicated. . No I didn’t mean to convey that you aren’t well informed, simply on that aspect alone I felt you misrepresented the reality here.

Listen I myself can be wrong for they are merely my opinions (as is yours), its just the way I think it is based on what I have read, seen, listened to and experienced as well (Both of us call ourselves well informed but yet might see things a bit differently ;) )



The impression one gets here in the States (at least in my opinion) is that many Arabs are unhappy with Israel because of the way it is perceived that Jews kicked Palestinians off their lands after independence, Israeli soldiers and tanks shoot kids who are doing nothing more than protesting and perhaps throwing stones, and using bulldozers to knock down houses in refugee camps. And, to top it all off, Israel is a Jewish state.

Anyway, thanks for your insight.yes you get that impression from them for that’s what the Arab world wants you to get.

Like I said before, they are adapt at PR and they know their “western” style talking points very well.

All I am saying is that yes (and I believe factually wrong in a lot of cases, as I have addressed in detail in numerous threads and posts before) the way they perceive (and present it) is where they only think of the IDF as shooting kids and bulldozing houses but that is not the main reason for their hatred of Israel, for the main crux of their hatred and why I feel Israel is in an intractable position as far as any ever lasting peaceful solution ever happening, is that it has a lot more to do with their non acceptance of a Jewish state in that region no matter how they say Israel came into being, period!!


I should add that In the Muslim world in general, the problem is that their oppressive dictatorship governments latch on to Israel as a way for their populations to not focus on their own nations abysmal failings in general and as such it is not in their interest to see any peace ever come to Israel

Believe me one of their biggest fares is that the Israel situation will be solved peacefully and as such that is why they work against it (now I could go on in this but that is a whole debate and it will side step from what we are talking about)

Anyways in general some good conversations here :D

Shalom :D

[jprichard]

I wrote earlier about border security and i didn't mean to imply that we totally and hermeticaly seal it off. If anyones ever been to Texas or Arizona around the border it's scary to see how out of control the situation is down there. The military would be more effective in catching and detering any would be trouble makers than some under funded border cops in Chevy Blazers. Sure added security would inconveince lots of people that live, trade and travel around the border area but its better than burdening the interior of the country with more security.

Hopefully in the near future there will be an alternative to gas so that America can begin to butt out of that region of the world as many want us to. I wonder what will happen thoe when the middle eastern countrys no longer have gas profits to drive there economies.

[16 OBr SpN]

Great discussion gentlemen!

I think the issue of Islamic terrorism is a very complicated issue.

I think the roots of the Islamic terrorism have social, political, and economical nature.

But I think the most focus should be given towards Iran and Saudi Arabia. These countries have long been rivals for a position of a "True Muslim" nation, and the leader of Middle East.
I think the Iranian Revolution, and the Soviet-Afghan war were the first signals of birth of Islamic terrorism. On the one hand you see a creation of the fundamentalist despotic regime of Ayatollah, and on the other hand you see a case of Sunni muslims uniting under the green flag of Islam in their battle against Soviet "infidels". Khost, Peshawar, and Quetta had become gathering points of mujahedins from all corners of Muslim world. The religious schools financed by western governments, and run by the Pakistani and Saudi clerics start preaching the ideas of jihad/gazavat. I think that's when nationalistic ideas had transformed into fundamentalist ones. Later, when Soviet Union left Afghanistan many of them viewed it as their first victory against a "Western" (i.e. Christian) nation.
In 1982, Iran creates an organization called Hizballah (The Party of Allah). This organization is a fundamentalist organization which was originally established as a response to Israeli presence in Lebanon, and to create an Islamic state there. Since their agenda completely denies Israel's right to exist, they quickly gain Syria's support. It should be noted that most of recruits of Hizballah come from very poor and uneducated families, which makes the process of brain-washing very easy. As far as I remember, the first suicide bomber was a member of Hizballah. There should be a distinction between FATAH, and NFLP, which at that time were more nationalistic, and didn't use religious slogans. Later on, "Islamic Jihad" was created. After Israel withdrew from Lebanon, the fundamentalist ideas of Hizballah started gaining more popularity in Middle East. That's of course understandable, since nationalistic Arabs were crushed after previous attempts to destroy Israel. The growing popularity of Iranian-sponsored organization started disturbing Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and others. In 1983, Egypt creates an organization called "Islamic Jihad". It should be noted that Egypt already had a fundamentalist organization called "Muslim Brothers" (Jamaat al-Ihvan al-Muslimin), but due to internal persecutions, the organization was severely weakened, and could not efficiently operate outside Egypt.
Here's an interesting pattern which I see in dates of creation of terrorist organizations:

1982: Hizballah
1982: Harakat ul-Mujahedin
1983: Islamic Jihad
1982: Jamaat al-Islamiyah
1984: Lashkar-e Tayyiba
1987: HAMAS
etc.

As we can see, the numbers of organizations grow like mushrooms after the rain.
Why did it happen?

I will continue later since it is a too long subject.

Regards,
16 OBr SpN

[juhae]

In order to conduct counter programming to the next generation of potential terrorists we would need their attention, respect, be able to counteract the indoctrination masking itself as religion, get them to accept our ideas of democracy, change their beliefs about women on a cultural level and a multitude of other issues.

I'll add a new perspective to this matter: consider your proposal as a Huxlean prophecy coming true, and the control by force as an Orwellian prophecy.

Huxley wrote about how the things we love enslave and passivate us, which I guess is exactly what you're after here (in the context of potential militant extremists - not the whole population :)), and I find the thought rather interesting, afterall wasn't that what got Soviet Union in the end? People lost the will to fight against a certain thought, when the opposing side managed to make it look like a mythical reality.

Now, implementing this same method in the arab-world, how could it be done? There are many arab worlds which have huge natural resources and are quite prosperous, which means that the tactic used with the Soviet Union most likely wouldn't work. What would you do to make the general public in the target countries (whichever they may be) to be more interested about the social values of a western lifestyle?

And furthermore, do you consider we have the moral right to consider ourselves as a somewhat "superior" (word quoted in lack of a better one) culture, which has the self-imposed right to convert other cultures to its beliefs and traditions?

Your idea has a very stront point, and I'm not exactly saying I'd disagree with it, I just see a huge sea of sociological problems associated with it.

[Hullebullen]

I should add that In the Muslim world in general, the problem is that their oppressive dictatorship governments latch on to Israel as a way for their populations to not focus on their own nations abysmal failings in general and as such it is not in their interest to see any peace ever come to Israel

Believe me one of their biggest fares is that the Israel situation will be solved peacefully and as such that is why they work against it (now I could go on in this but that is a whole debate and it will side step from what we are talking about)



Yes, it's really depressing, isn't it?

Israel has always had a special place in my heart. My dad did two tours there with the swedish UN forces and I myself had the opportunity to spend half a year in your wonderful country.

Without trying to step on any toes, I believe what is Israel is doing at the moment is balancing on a very thin line. I do think that controlling a group of people to counteract possible evil-doers without limiting that groups freedom is difficult, maybe impossible. Don't get me wrong, I generally support Israel's need for security, I just think it's very difficult doing this and still be considered fair.

[WARPIG]

I can’t describe how grateful I am to those contributing to this post. Great points, great opinions. I read what I missed when I came to work this morning and didn’t go get my wake-up coffee until I had finished.
As I nurse the coffee burn on my lip I’ve realized that the US’s involvement and attitude in the Middle East is a very arrogant one. I made a comment either on this post or possibly on another that the amount of pride in Iraq and many terrorist friendly states must be very low right now. That seems to be the thing that fans the flames of terrorists. Besides being largely made of “cast out” hopeless young men, they provide a sense of pride to people who covet it so much. As I read the thread I realized something that has been in plain site all along. The US is a target because of our pride. We have so many things to be proud of and when we swoop in to a country that hungers for the same and saves them… it has to be very damaging to their own sense of pride. Does this remind you of any other nation? It does to me.

WWII is remember first for Hitler and the Nazis and second for the Japanese. (In the US) But the Japanese were the holdouts. The Japanese were so opposed of being captured, that suicide was common. Kamikaze pilots were shocking then but the word is common today. Japanese soldiers abhorred the thought of capture first because it was a tremendous insult to their Bushido code and sense of honor. Second, because they were told that the US was extremely cruel to prisoners and that they would be tortured. Japanese culture is known for it’s extreme focus on honor. “Losing face” has become a popular term coined from Japanese culture. Yet, the arrogant, lazy, fat, American, Ghi-Jin (sp) has managed to help bring Japan back from WWII to a place of greatness and honor in the world.
A great deal of respect and cultural awareness was practiced to accomplish this. I think another big problem in the mid-east right now is that lack of cultural respect. The heavy media coverage on the OPS in Iraq is one of the reasons why US troops are expected to look and act like US troops. When images of a bearded, shirtless, and very un-GI looking SF bodyguard hit CNN… people were complaining. Yet the SF were trying to meet the Arabic culture on some common ground.

[Royal]

Another problem, and this is just the tip of the iceberg here: US military says no beards for the average soldier, while the culture over there often says "no beard, no respect." While it may seem less professional in the Victorian concept of military dress (no offense to the Brits out there), things like that, like showing respect for the local cultures and customs, and adapting to meet the cultural needs, are crucial.

None taken.

Look at a group of British military portraits from the Victorian era (particuarly, the Indian sub-continent, the Crimea and the players of the 'Great Game') and you'll see more facial hair than a Hells Angels convention.



A great deal of respect and cultural awareness was practiced to accomplish this. I think another big problem in the mid-east right now is that lack of cultural respect. The heavy media coverage on the OPS in Iraq is one of the reasons why US troops are expected to look and act like US troops. When images of a bearded, shirtless, and very un-GI looking SF bodyguard hit CNN… people were complaining. Yet the SF were trying to meet the Arabic culture on some common ground.

Cultural respect is the foundation of the only real sucessfull AT campaigns of the 20th centuary (whether you take the early days in Vietnam, with the White Star teams or the UK campaigns in the Oman and Malaya and Borneo).

A minority in the defence community remember (some) of the lessons learned in the 50's and 60's, but the 'green army' are drowning us out.

[WARPIG]

Albert Einstein:
“Any power must be an enemy of mankind which enslaves the individual by terror and force, whether it arises under the Fascist or the Communist flag. All that is valuable in human society depends upon the opportunity for development accorded to the individual.”

When that opportunity is oppressed, taken away, or does not exist, human society strikes out. There are those whose hatred fuels them no matter their opportunity, or prosperity. But their followers are recruited from the souls without hope. The people who seek a sense of belonging, pride, and purpose and are given that by men who are driven by hate.
One way to illustrate this is to look at crime. Gangs to be specific. In the US there are numerous groups or gangs that make up much of the criminal population. Organized crime is the matured version of the gang system. Most gangs are a small group of diehards, and a network of many many wanna-be gang bangers. A sense of belonging, purpose, and pride are given to those who are inducted to that gang. People are given permission to affiliate themselves with the original die-hard group and the gang grows. Violence and scare tactics are how each gang establishes themselves in their communities.
Terrorism is much the same. Religious extremists, political extremists, or hate driven visionaries generate followers by offering pride, purpose and belonging to those who crave it. There is very little that any individual won’t do to prove their devotion or loyalty to the cause or to the group. These kinds of groups need something to focus their efforts on. Gangs focus on rival gangs.. there is almost always an opposing gang. Bloods vs Crips, East Coast vs West Coast, Folks vs Peoples. Terrorists have to have a nemesis too. The US is the biggest kid on the block, has the most prestige, most power, and the most to lose. We are the biggest threat and have the best chance to kill terrorism. It makes no sense to go after anyone else. Terrorists today must not only attempt to instill fear, but to make the US doubt itself. Making the US hesitate, to become afraid to act, or to back up and simply try and protect itself is exactly how terrorists will define victory. So offense is the only answer. Fighting head to head is foolish. We cannot expect progress in this. We must seek out those die-hards and eliminate them, and give the wanna-bes something else to want to be.

[Fox2]

Albert Einstein:
“Any power must be an enemy of mankind which enslaves the individual by terror and force, whether it arises under the Fascist or the Communist flag. All that is valuable in human society depends upon the opportunity for development accorded to the individual.”

When that opportunity is oppressed, taken away, or does not exist, human society strikes out. There are those whose hatred fuels them no matter their opportunity, or prosperity. But their followers are recruited from the souls without hope. The people who seek a sense of belonging, pride, and purpose and are given that by men who are driven by hate.
One way to illustrate this is to look at crime. Gangs to be specific. In the US there are numerous groups or gangs that make up much of the criminal population. Organized crime is the matured version of the gang system. Most gangs are a small group of diehards, and a network of many many wanna-be gang bangers. A sense of belonging, purpose, and pride are given to those who are inducted to that gang. People are given permission to affiliate themselves with the original die-hard group and the gang grows. Violence and scare tactics are how each gang establishes themselves in their communities.
Terrorism is much the same. Religious extremists, political extremists, or hate driven visionaries generate followers by offering pride, purpose and belonging to those who crave it. There is very little that any individual won’t do to prove their devotion or loyalty to the cause or to the group. These kinds of groups need something to focus their efforts on. Gangs focus on rival gangs.. there is almost always an opposing gang. Bloods vs Crips, East Coast vs West Coast, Folks vs Peoples. Terrorists have to have a nemesis too. The US is the biggest kid on the block, has the most prestige, most power, and the most to lose. We are the biggest threat and have the best chance to kill terrorism. It makes no sense to go after anyone else. Terrorists today must not only attempt to instill fear, but to make the US doubt itself. Making the US hesitate, to become afraid to act, or to back up and simply try and protect itself is exactly how terrorists will define victory. So offense is the only answer. Fighting head to head is foolish. We cannot expect progress in this. We must seek out those die-hards and eliminate them, and give the wanna-bes something else to want to be.

Agreed on all points. You wrote exactly what I was attempting to say, but I believe I was ineffectual in doing so.

I think the key will be in creating communities, and making sure that potential terrorist recruits find a sense of belonging and purpose helping those around them rather than trying to strike out against a foreign country.

Now, that brings me to a question. How do we do that? For instance, in the places where we can have that positive influence, like Iraq. I mean, can we create Boy Scout-type programs? Get the youth involved in rebuilding their community? What can we do for those countries we don't have as much influence on? Perhaps these are the wrong questions to ask.

Anyway, good discussion, all. Now just pray that the more temperamental of the forum don't ruin it! ;)

[Aegirsson]

Hi, i would first like to say thanks, sometimes we can have decent threads were everyone can explain his opinions without being insulted.

I would like to say some things: when you say that terrorism is targeting US, i think it's totally false, terrorists are (inderectly) targeting "big" maghrebins states, Algeria, Morocco, Syria, Egypt ... Because their biggest threat is to see their countries of predilection in term of engagements and in ideology (most of the "greatest leader of islamist extremists are from this big countries, i will speak of this after, active islamist extremism may be 30 years old, but islamist extremist dates from the begininning of 20th century) acceed to more and more democratic governements, rights, and more important: beliefs.

There is a thing that US almost always do when it is fighting an ennemy, it personifies it. We hear too much about how the terrorism is the most important in arabia, it's false, terrorism is not a pyramidal organisation, you can't cut a head and make everything collapse. Terrorism is everywhere and it's only by using collaboration that we will beat it. I read on some geopolitic/strategic site that one of the first thing that sharon's governement did was to cut it's collaboration with palestinians informers and secret services, any info from our israelian forumers?

So to come back to terrorism "history":

It is firstly an historically dated word, "La Terreur", started by Robespierre in 1793. The term makes it's entry in dictionnary at the end of XVIIIe century to design the propagation of this revolutionary state Terreur to the whole France. It takes aproximately one century for the word to take it's nowadays signification.
It is almost opposite: the violence of clandestines organisation fighting most of the time again the State, deliberately seeking to spread a fear intented to paralyse the ennemy, to defy the authorities, to panic the populations. Today we would say: to create a climat of insecurity.

The usage of the word in this direction is spread slowly. It appears in 1866 stigmatize with national violence in Irland. In 1883 to denounce the activities of the revolutionists in Russia. But the usage take a long time to impose itself, it really becomes current in France in 1920.
Thus since 1892, France knew a series a attacks of wich those of Ravachol, the murder of president Sadi Carnot. Their authors speak about "propaganda by the fact", their adversaries of the "anarchist sect" whose intention would be "to destroy the society".
The "lois scélérates", from 1893 to 1894 repress these violences. They accuse intelectual participation, incentive, complicity, or apology for "les menées anarchistes", but all that without needing the concept of terrorism.

However Today and the word and the thing became so usual that we speak about "war to terrorism" and the newspapers start to be equipped of a Mr. Terrorism like a Mr. Weather.


I traduced you a very small part of a french text about history of terrorism (http://infocrise.org/article.php3?id_article=25), i have not the time to continue to write so i invite you to read some great articles on good geopolitic, geostrategic sites, in french there are http://www.grip.org/
http://www.infocrise.org/index.php3
http://vigirak.com/
http://www.stratisc.org/
http://www.strategic-road.com/
and many others...
in english i don't know so much of sites but it is easy to find some.

When i will have time i will traduce a text about extremist islamism's history, how it started in Egypt in the 20s if i remember well, and when it came to heavy activism against invasions.

[WARPIG]

Awsome facts! Try and give us your perspective though. One thing that is keepin this thread productive is that we aren't bogging it down with statistics and factoids. We are seeking the truth of course but use your facts and give us your opinion. Sometimes the details seem to distract us from the goal.
Thanks for that info Aegirsson. Knowing how deeply seeded terrorism and extremists are is crucial to how we approach it. Also, I am aware that terrorism isn't unique only to the US. This thread however is seeking the opinion and debate of how the US is handleing Islamic terrorism against us and what we can do to combat it.
Any theories?

[Sabre]

My position is that if we give the Middle eastern people a choice, give them the opportunity.. most will not choose terrorism.

I can't remember who I quoted this from, but it doesn't really matter. I would like to propose that most middle eastern people do have a choice about whether they become a terrorist or not, and the vast majority choose not to.

Bear in mind that the majority of the terrorist leadership are well educated, well-off individuals (Bin Ladin is a prime example). As is the case with most extreme ideologies, it is the very intelligent that believe in them the most. It sounds harsh to say it, but the 'minions' and 'henchmen' of such people tend to be less intelligent and are easily persuaded by either propoganda, their own life events or the attraction of power. It is this system of persuasion that must be targeted in order to reduce terrorist recruitment. No matter how 'PC' a future military response is and how many terrorists it aprehends/kills, it will allways generate more terrorists somewhere else.

Warpig:

Your idea is that by establishing a western-style state in the heart of the middle east (in fact in the cradle of civilisation itself, Messopotamia), we will be able to show the terrorists and those who might be terrorists that their supposed enemy is actually not too bad, is it not?

Without meaning any disrespect, this plan fails to consider several aspects of arab culture that we desperately need to understand:

1 We are infidels! Discounting all negative attitudes that this conveys, it is the view of many religious and political leaders in the region. You would be fooling yourself to ignore this. That does not mean we can not have meaningful relations with these countries, it just takes a more considered approach.

2 Arabs don't invade arabs. We saw this in the Gulf war. The arab coalition troops were happy to enter Kuwait to push out Saddam (he had after all commited the taboo of invading another arab state), but they were unwilling to press on into Iraq.

3 A combination of the two, if you invade an aranb country as an arab, that's bad. If you invade an arab country as an infidel, you are asking for it. I am afraid that is exactly what we did in Iraq. You can not simply hope that they will accept our new state we wish to impose on them. The best we can do I believe is to install and arab state that is truely western-friendly, but I do not believe we will achieve a 'shining example of democracy' to all the arab nations, as West Berlin was meant to be towards the Eastern Bloc.

I will continue my point later on, as I have to go somewhere now...

...please keep up this intelligent discussion, it is refreshing...

[IDFM203]

I read on some geopolitic/strategic site that one of the first thing that sharon's governement did was to cut it's collaboration with palestinians informers and secret services, any info from our israelian forumers?

As far as I know this is absolutely false!!

Informers are one of the main ways in how we get our intelligence for some of our operations and there is no way that happened and its simply false.

As for their so called secret services, well when we are speaking in the realm of intelligence services and the general secrecy around it, of course its hard to verify but as far as I know there has been no major cut of any collaboration as any Sharon policy per say, though of course its at a much smaller scale then how it was a few years ago based on the reality of the security situation.

I mean in general, corporation with their security services like with meetings at the DCO or joint patrols is much less due to the simple fact that instead of them actually working to go after the terrorists, a lot of them in fact actually worked and helped out those terrorist organizations and in fact worked against the IDF operations to go after them (not to mention the fact that a few IDF soldiers have been stabbed to death by them on joint patrols and shot at (which I my self have personally experienced by them), which all led to a understandable reevaluation as to the true nature of the kind of “help” that we were actually getting.





Yes, it's really depressing, isn't it?

The outlook is indeed depressing and for me I always thought so with reagrds to any peacefull solution based on how I feel the reality is there not being any peaceful solution no matter what Israel does or doesn’t do, though in general life goes on and despite this, Israel has lots to offer and Israelis will remain steadfast, as we have always done




Israel has always had a special place in my heart. My dad did two tours there with the swedish UN forces and I myself had the opportunity to spend half a year in your wonderful country. Thanks for your kind words :D


I thought of answering the rest of your post but I figured that would take it back to the whole Israeli/Palestinian debate which there have been plenty already and which I have addressed each of your points in greater detail before so I think for this thread I will leave it alone.

Shalom :D

[Hullebullen]

^

I hear you...besides it would going off-topic (yeah, I'm guilty as well). I do not regularly read the israeli/palestine threads (or those threads that are about something completly different but seem to come down to that "discussion" anyways) because they generally tend to degenerate into pure mud-slinging and flaming. Although I haven't read all your post you seem to be on top of it and keeping your posts on a high intellectual level even when the bull**** is flying both high and low. Respect.

Back to topic:

How do you guys feel about that some of the US allies are, at least in my opinion, very far from saints? Like US forces working with Pakistani forces? Does the end justify the means? What kind of signals does it send?

[2Sheds_Jackson]

1 We are infidels! Discounting all negative attitudes that this conveys, it is the view of many religious and political leaders in the region. You would be fooling yourself to ignore this. That does not mean we can not have meaningful relations with these countries, it just takes a more considered approach.
This is true enough. But it is only by the ongoing efforts of the extremist leaders that the common people view us as such. These leaders use time honored methods to empower themselves - giving the people a scapegoat/enemy in the form of America, infidels, etc. Without an outside enemy, there'd be no need for these leaders. Muslims outside the grasp of these madrassas have a much more tolerant view of non-Muslims.


2 Arabs don't invade arabs. We saw this in the Gulf war. The arab coalition troops were happy to enter Kuwait to push out Saddam (he had after all commited the taboo of invading another arab state), but they were unwilling to press on into Iraq.
Now I'm not so certain about this one. It seems to me that one could find many instances where Arabs have fought/invaded one another (including the one cited by Sabre). My guess is that many neighboring Arab countries didn’t' want to piss Saddam off, because they knew that America would leave & they'd still be stuck with Saddam next door.


It's as simple as peeling the "us-vs-them" onion. First they consider themselves "one" as Arabs. But then they can use religious differences to attack each other. Or national borders to differentiate one another (Kuwait/Iraq, Iran/Iraq).

Anybody out there got data on Arab nations attacking/invading each other, border clashes etc? Would be interesting to see. My guess is that they'll be just as likely to fight each other as the rest of the world.

However, Sabre did make a good point that they will quickly close ranks when a non-Arab is involved. Then it's very easy for them to define the us-vs-them. And we're always "them".

Props to all for the continued civility & thought provoking posts. Let's keep 'em rolling . . . .

[WARPIG]

I see your point Sabre. Check out my comments about the Japonese. We were just as "disliked" and feared as we are with Arabs. Maybe fear is not quite appropriate but I think you see the parallels.
I think we have touched on the issues of pride and culture as being obstacles... prosperity and opportunity as countermeasures for the terrorist recruiting pool... what about the die-hards? Hunt and kill them or is there something else we can do?
What about the international bickering? The thing that suprises us the most about this thread is the absence of the blame game players. Europe obviously has had a fresh taste of terrorism, should that be enought to draw them into solidarity with us? Then there is that belief that Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism.. yet I saw some CSPAN coverage of Mrs. Albright last night telling a panel that the Clinton admin. was aware of traffic between AlQueda operatives working in and around Bagdhad. She was also asked about the several meager attempts to counter-strike terrorist sites after embassy bombings, etc. From what I could gather, before it put me to sleep, was that they were talking about why there was a disfunction between intelligence agencies. Big surprise.

Back on topic, so how do we get international support? We obviously don't have it now. Should we still seek support or just go it alone?
Do people really need to see a direct link between terrorism and Iraq to support rebuilding it, or is seeing that the country needs the help enough? You would think the latter would be true but contribution seems pretty scarce while criticism is in generous supply.

[TALOS]

This has been by far the most intelligent and respectful discussion I have seen on this forum for awhile even before I registered and was just trolling.
I think we all agree that what is needed is to "assist" the people in the impoverished regions where terror recruiters lurk so that they can develop a feeling of "Pride" as has been stated.
This subject is so complex because it is a multinational situation. So many different cultures (you cant say all Arabs feel the same just as we see all westerners dont always feel the same)
What we have to do is find a mutual need just as the cold war exploited the concept of "mutually assured destruction"
The eastern nations have to see a mutual reason to resist and actively combat terrrorism, and the west has to feel secure in its dealings with them. "Trust is easily lost and only with great effort and time regained"
The nations that have even casually accepted some aspects of western influence have done much better economically even if they still have to contend with extremists in their borders.
When people of any nation feel hope instead of despair they are more willing to negotiate.
As we have all done, I have just vaguely described what I see as a general outline of the problem, what we need is to have some one postulate actual steps that could be realistically implemented to affect the results we all wish to see, from a hypothetical perspective of course. I mean just portions of the solution, each one of us maybe make one point, not an all encompassing solution and the others add to it. Does this sound rediculous, I might just be tired but I think it would be an interesting exercise.
My suggestion has already been started in A-stan, the building of highways, schools and hospitals, the infrastructure needed for a modern society.
What do you all think?

[James]

Has anyone read anything by the author Ralph Peters (novelist, essayist, and retired Army officer extraordinaire...)? Particularily "Beyond Terror". THere are some interesting essays that seem applicable to this discussion. I will have to search for my copy.

[Ballistic]

I agree with Trident in two respects. First, it is important to kill their leaders. And secondly, it is important to kill as many of them as possible.

p-)

I know this was probably said in jest.....(?) but thats the problem with alot of people, they think in exactly that fashion above, and it doesn't solve the problem no matter how many fanatics they kill. For every leader killed another steps foward, for every matyr killed another 10, 100 (more) step forward, killing just for the sake of it because they present themselves as targets doesn't really do anything, but sometimes it's unavoidable and it has to be done for the safety of innocent people which I have no problem with.

Too stop terrorism a good long hard look has to be taken at the roots of the problem, whether it be foreign policy, Western involvement in the Middle East when they dont want us to be there, Islam being distorted by the extreme and preached to the weak minded, so on so forth. We may think we are doing them some good, like in Iraq (and Im not saying Iraq was a bad thing...I was/am for the removal of Saddam and his regime) but it seems that every good done over there in the ME is overshadowed by many other bad things.

The sad fact is, I think a Western presence IS needed in the Middle East, now more than ever, especially since 11th Sept. But for all the actions taking place in taking out terrorist targets, they are still getting through the net, Madrid for example, and when that happens some blame has to be pointed at the leadership of the nations attacked by terrorism as much as the terrorists themselves for not being vigilant enough in the defence of their nation (ofcourse even the most robust defence has cracks to get through). But when nations pull out of international duties like Spain in Iraq, that shows that terrorists are able to come out on top, and gives them more strength to carry out more attacks on other nations.

I dont know if the War on Terror can ever be won, I dont think it's a case of winning or losing, there is no clear cut road to victory, no absolutes or prominent target that can be taken out or ground taken. Fact is though we have to try, and we have stand strong, but at the same time as I stated above, we really have to look at the main cause of what is creating these terrorists and what can be done to stop them from doing harm to innocent people, but it cant be us giving all, they need to give something back in return, what that is though is up to them. The more they fight us, the more we hit back, it's a vicious circle, not unlike (in a very roundabout way) the Israeli/Palastinian conflict, only on a worldwide scale.

When it all boils down, it's the human inability to compromise, apathy, intolerance, nationalism, arrogance that is causing so much trouble in this time of ours. What to do about it though ? Unite ? Grow up ? Who knows.

Thats my thoughts...

[The Walrus]

In my opinion, terrorism (or more speciffically, islamic terrorism) exists because the extremist minority are being supported by the majority in Arab countries, without this support I believe that the extremists cause would collapse.
In every country there are extremists who feel too strongly one way or the other about issues, even in democracies such as the US where there are right wing militias who believe the UN is gonna take over the world, or the BNP over here who think we should make life hard for non-british citizens. The extremists, wether they are right wing, left wing or fundamentalist have always used the same propaganda, the propaganda of fear such as 'we are being invaded by immigrants' or 'our people are being repressed by US imperialism' or 'the Jews our strangling our country', they all shift the blame of a nations/peoples woes on an external power which must be eliminated, if a nation is sufficiently impoverished and people there have little hope for improvement, they will start to listen to the extremists and start believing their propaganda, that's how the Nazis came to power and also, I believe, extreme Islamic fundamentalism in the middle east.
My point is that if people are comfortable with their life and have hope for the future, they wont listen to the extremists and will see them as the real source of trouble for their people/nation/religion. I believe that the best way to combat the threat of terrorism is to remove the bed of popular support from the extremists.
In the case of Al-Quaeda/Islamic terrorism, I believe that the first step should be to solve once and for all, the Israeli/Palestine conflict which is the major source for Arab perceptions of repression. Of course it is extremely complicated and difficult to do this, but I think the current admnistration should put a lot more effort into resolving this issue.

[WARPIG]

Awsome progress all. I am looking at viewpoints from Yanks, Brits, Aussies, Canadians, and Islraelis. Most of us seem to see that weakening the recruitment pool of terrorists is a matter of raising the standard of living, prosperity, and hope. Getting to the die-hard extremists will only weaken the network temporarily. But on a case by case basis.. we need to be able to get to them. 9-11 was not executed by some impoverished hopeless youths. Those guys were said to be living pretty well here in the US.
What of my last question? How do we get past this finger pointing and US bashing? Whether you agree how the US is handling Iraq or not... there still has to be a need for Iraq to succeed on a global scale. Islamic extremists are striking out everywhere. Is there more cooperation from Europe now? Or is everyone waiting until it is secure?

[von_Moo142]

What of my last question? How do we get past this finger pointing and US bashing? Whether you agree how the US is handling Iraq or not... there still has to be a need for Iraq to succeed on a global scale. Islamic extremists are striking out everywhere. Is there more cooperation from Europe now? Or is everyone waiting until it is secure?

That might not be so easy, as there is a pretty stubborn attitude taken by large numbers of people in many countries regarding US (and British) foriegn policy. The only answer I guess is to keep up the work in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Some people will always belive things such as that the US invaded Iraq for oil, and you will probably never change thier minds.


It will always seem hypocritical if we promote democracy in Iraq, yet buy Saudi oil (as an example). Can we do anything about this at the moment in practical terms though?


Better publicity might help. No-one much cared about the WMD argument for going to war in Iraq, and IMO they were right not to. I don't say that because no weapons were found (I thought weapons would turn up, and I think Blair and Bush also believed that), but rather that Iraq having WMD was irrelevent to any war on terror. After all, Sadam would probably not have gived chemical or biological weapons to terrorists as he would have known that it would be stupid to do such a think.

The WMD argument was used in an attempt to provide some level of UN backing for the war, I guess, and it backfired. It was seen as a way to manipulate opinion, and this was one of the major issues some people took with the war. It didn't matter to them that Sadam was technically in breach of a number of UN resolutions, as this was not accepted as a valid reason to invade Iraq.

Having said all that, I can't think of a better arguement for "selling" the war to the sceptics.


This next bit is fairly superficial, but significant IMO.

Generally, another step towards winning more people over in parts of Europe, including the UK, would be having a president who is not so much like the latest Bush (or like Reagan for that matter). To many people Bush seems like a joke, even some people who should realise that how he appears is just an image. For all his faults, it's hard to imagine Clinton using the "axis of evil" line, or making the "with us or against us" blunder.

[juhae]

Some people will always belive things such as that the US invaded Iraq for oil, and you will probably never change thier minds.

Yes, this is one of the major issues in the whole big picture. From what I've understood, the basis for the anger was the too blatant manner of establishing economic supremacy in the area, which many viewed as basicly as an imperialistic action.

Take the rebuilding of the port of Umm-Qasar as an example, which was subcontracted to an US company. Sure, they'll (hopefully, I'm not even sure about this) employ locals to actually do the job, which in turn helps the unemployment in the area, but the major issue is that the money and profit actually leaves the country. People with strong national identity will feel pissed off because the economy in the area doesn't actually improve as much as it could.

In modern warfare and global-scale politics, things like these are very important. It's almost like if you're just marketing a product and trying to establish a good public image of yourself, people who've done some basic marketing courses at school would probably agree with me here, right? Given the hostile atmosphere at the moment, "outsourcing" (as in "profiting foreign companies instead of domestic ones") many key factors of the economic structures of Iraq seems almost like a textbook example of how not to do things, unless they're willing to take huge risks in belief of that the consumers ("the people") will sooner or later adapt their views..


To many people Bush seems like a joke, even some people who should realise that how he appears is just an image. For all his faults, it's hard to imagine Clinton using the "axis of evil" line, or making the "with us or against us" blunder.

Continuing the parallel analogy about marketing, if the current US administration was a new product from Company X, so far they've made horrible blunders in their marketing. Their product might be good, but given the initial opposition, they haven't done enough and/or have done some things completely wrong - possibly even made the whole situation much more worse than in the beginning.

In my opinion, the best thing the US administration could now do would be to put all new projects into hiatus and try to gain some "general trustworthiness" among the people, before continuing whatever they might be about. Of course, with the elections coming, the process might be seriously threatened by their initial blunders.

[WARPIG]

Hmm. Good point. With elections inbound, the internal mud slinging is going to hamper the work in Iraq. 9-11 trials, political "witch hunts", and the slow death of that post 9-11 Patriotism are among the few things that are going to hamper focus on the war on terror. Playing the blame game always does.

[Aegirsson]

Hi

Yesterday, i watched a television show about litterature, and in the guests there was Gérard Chalian, a well known french professional of mondial strategy, terrorism etc...
I'll resume some of his thoughts to you.

Islamists:
Their cause has no futur, because it is not realisable. Their main goals are to put the christian world on his knees and to push back the invasions, judeo-christian from the west and hindu from the east.
So contrary to terrorism acts that were perpetrated in Algeria against the colonisation, in France against the occupation, and in Israel (i don't remember when, he spoke about a "Belin"?), the radical islamists have nothing to exchange.
So their terrorism is almost not easily qualifiable of terrorism. Because the main goal of terrorism is to exchange something against the stop of the terror.

So why do they continue to fight? is there another way to stand up?
"One day you must look yourself in a mirror to understand why nothing advances and thus to understand that the fault is not inevitably on those of opposite, and that you can be your own master."
The radicals are against progress and new technologies, thats one of their reason to act as terrorists.
But didn't the japanese managed to leave the time of the samurais and open their minds to the technology? Did they lose their valors and their souls? no of course, the proof is that today Japan is one of the first developed countries.
India 50 years ago was conciderated has the country of famine whereas today they manage to get out of it and develope themselves.
China once was one of the powerfullest empire on the earth, and after an enormous fall don't they manage to regain it?

These are examples to show radical islamists are wrong.

Dostoievsky and Conrad were the first writers to analyse terrorism: death to the language, live death. But radicals are only spreading death, without representing anyone, nor anything.
Because terrorism is concidered as the weapon of the poor against a rich almighty ennemy. But even this the radicals don't manage to do it. Do they represent poors? Are they themselves poor? The 11th september, and in other examples, these were not persons from poor society who crash themselves, so no radicals are not poors and do not manage to lure us: they really don't represent the Third Wolrd.
So once again they are not justified.

"War against terrorism":
This war, contrary to what medias are trying to make believe, is on it's way to be a success, the super-mediatised facts that they show us are only minimal infiltration of the web that the united nations against terrorism are weaving. They don't say beside this that alot of groups are dismantled and attacks avoided.

Irak:
As the things are going, on may when the hypotetic passassion of power will be done UN will intervene and probably send troops for the next 18 months for at least keep a stable country (it is dreaming to think that a governement will rule). But every ingredients will be there for a civil war.
Why the UN will intervene? Because if the coalition loses control it will be seen in the world as a mistake by the western world.

Gérard Chalian, wrote a new book, history of terrorism "from antiquity to Ben Laden". It seems pretty interesting, he said that the first terrorism acts that we know are:
_Assassination of romans by the jews (it finished in Massada when they all commited suicide).
_The Tug hindu sect, who strangled people in the name of Kali.
Etc...So terrorism is really multi-ethnic.

Thanks for your time, and sorry if i skin your language.
(Six nation final tomorow, France-England, i hope we are going to kick their ass ;))

[WARPIG]

Funny how this thread is avoided by the belligerent buttheads that plague the rest of the threads here. I guess if you limit the topic to intelligent opinion and the challenge of thought and contribution.. the idiots seem to keep their distance.

[WARPIG]

So in an effort to keep my post alive...
Helex just recently called the war in Iraq, illegal and based on lies. Can anyone intelligently explain why people feel this way? A new user name to me is a member called W(M)D. Can you guess his stance on Iraq? I have to say that the pull towards Iraq by Bush and friends seem really displaced on the surface. But my opinion has been so far that the fight on terror has to be waged in the middle east. Why not Afghanistan? Well, oil has much to do with it. A war in Afghanistan will come right out of our pocket. We would have had much more support from other European nations but that would have only killed the terrorist regime there. Islamic extremism in the middle east is the biggest global threat. Tearing down Saddam's regime and putting Iraq back on it's feet is a long term fix to combating terror. My opinion of course. The weakness I have to admit in my arguement is when do we look at Saudi Arabia? Afghanistan? The Gaza strip? I think this is where Bush loses his focus.
Any thoughts??

[Webley]

1,400 Years of Islamic Aggression

"Imperialistic

The Muslim wars of imperialist conquest have been launched for almost 1,500 years against hundreds of nations, over millions of square miles (significantly larger than the British Empire at its peak). The lust for Muslim imperialist conquest stretched from southern France to the Philippines, from Austria to Nigeria, and from central Asia to New Guinea. This is the classic definition of imperialism -- "the policy and practice of seeking to dominate the economic and political affairs of weaker countries.""

Also:

"Muslim imperialism has continued without any let-up from ten years before Mohammed's death until today.

Consider the Ottoman invasion of Christian Eastern Europe in which the Ottoman Empire invaded the west and conquered and colonized Greece, all of the Balkans, Romania, Bessarabia, and Hungary, and was stopped only at the outskirts of Vienna in 1529. Consider also the Muhgal conquest of Northern India in the early 1600s. But today? Of course! In the 20th century alone:

1. Muslim Turkey has expelled approximately 1,500,000 Greeks from its empire in the east and replaced them with Turks. They have massacred approximately 2 million Armenians and replaced them with Turks in the west.

2. Muslim Turkey has invaded and occupied northern Cyprus, displacing the Greeks living there.

3. Muslim northern Sudan has conquered much of southern Sudan, literally enslaving its Christian and pagan population.

4. Indonesian imperialism has occupied all of non-Islamic western New Guinea and incorporated into Indonesia.

5. Muslim Indonesia has invaded and conquered Christian East Timor with horrible loss of life.

6. This very day, Muslim Indonesia is attempting to destroy Christianity in what used to be called the Celebes.

7. A half-dozen Arab countries have fought two to four wars (depending how you count) in an attempt to destroy Israel and occupy its territory, and is currently continuing the attempt this very day with the publicly voted consent of 55 of the world's 57 Islamic nations.

8. For no good reason, Muslim Libya has blown up western aircraft, killing many civilians.

9. Muslim Iraq, in an imperialist war of aggression, invaded and occupied Muslim Kuwait.

10. Muslim Iraq, in an imperialist act of aggression, invaded Muslim Iran with a resulting (some estimates say) death of 2 million people.

11. Muslim Albania, this very minute, is attempting to enlarge its borders at Christian Macedonia's expense.

12. Muslim Northern Nigeria has been (and is currently) an aggressor against the Christian south.

13. Muslims expelled approximately 800,000 Jews from their homelands between 1947 and 1955.

14. During Jordan's occupation of the West Bank, the kingdom undertook an unsuccessful attempt to make Jerusalem a Muslim city by forcing out approximately 10,000 Christian inhabitants.

[Royal]

Son of Sixgun :cantbeli:

welcome to the board...

[WARPIG]

I asked for debate.. I guess a counter-Jihaad on Muslims on this thread was inevitable.
Any intelligent opinion or theory to this rhetoric Webly? I can see you have a strong opinion, but rather than stringing together some trivia, speak on it. A debate is more than pissing on each other from a distance... you're supposed to convince us.

[XASA]

I'm still trying to figure out how Webley can call Argyll biased in favor of Muslims as if his own hatred towards an entire religion wasn't so obvious.

The Crusades ended Centuries ago, so give it a rest Webley ;)

[talib_killa34]

Bush is in a position that I think none of us would want to be in ourselves. There is tremendous pressure on him to perform and to protect American lives 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.

Add into the mix, numerous press outlets and news agencies who report about what you are doing wrong, and how new attacks are inevitable because of his "shortcomings"

Yeah, new attacks ARE inevitable but to use that as a crutch to attack and slander the president for political reasons or selling newspapers is low. I did not vote for the man in 2000 but I respect whoever is in office and I think he has done a good job since 9/11.

Europe and Hollywood did not like Bush when he "stole" the election back in 2000. They did not like him after the inaugeration in 2001. All he got and what the USA got after 9/11 was the "sympathy effect" for about a year and a half, until the Iraq war.

The Iraq war was timed wrong (like 12 years late!) but we had to do something to move the last troops out of Saudi Arabia and end the longstanding Northern and Southern watch no-fly zones that could have gone on another 10 years. (!) The threat and reason for the troops being in SA was an Iraq still headed by Saddam Hussein. So, get rid of Saddam and get those forces out of the Saud Kingdom so that the Bin Ladens of the world cannot use that as an excuse any longer for "Holy Jihad"

How anyone can be for that cause is beyond me.

"Yeah, I blow myself up with an explosive laden belt so I kill myself and go to Paradise and kill numerous innocent men, women, and children infidels too! "

Well, the only consolation will be when the last homicide bomber kills himself there won't be any more after him.

Let's hope.

[von_Moo142]

Funny how this thread is avoided by the belligerent buttheads that plague the rest of the threads here.


(snip)

A classic example of jinxing ;-)



Son of Sixgun

Webley is a British sixgun, perhaps....



Europe and Hollywood did not like Bush when he "stole" the election back in 2000. They did not like him after the inaugeration in 2001.

Well, while what you say is true (at least for a fair number of Europeans), he is disliked more for his politics AFAIK.


The Iraq war was timed wrong (like 12 years late!)

Thats a statement frequently made, but the war would have been no more easy to justify back then. There is an additional complication too, many of the coalition allies would have been opposed to a full invasion of Iraq.



Helex just recently called the war in Iraq, illegal and based on lies.

I have never understood the "based on lies" argument, at least if it refers to the WMD claims as lies. I find it hard to believe that a politician would lie, only to know that the truth would be exposed a few months later. Thats not me kidding myself about the nature of politicians (I hope), as they lie frequently, I really don't think they would risk that much.

And I think that, at least over here (and I suspect in the US too), we were fairly carefull not to imply that Iraq posed a direct or military threat to Europe or North America.

Thats not to say our leaders weren't economical with the truth though.



The weakness I have to admit in my arguement is when do we look at Saudi Arabia? Afghanistan? The Gaza strip?

What can we actually do to promote a more moderate leadership in Saudi?

I really don't think there is an easy answer to this, although it's possible that SA will start to become more liberal on its own (sort of like the situation in Iran). I wouldn't bet on this though...

Afghanistan will need a lot of effort. IMO more funding for constuction would help right now, provided troops are available to provide the security (another problem in the "war on terror...).

[talib_killa34]

"Afghanistan will need a lot of effort. IMO more funding for constuction would help right now, provided troops are available to provide the security (another problem in the "war on terror...)."

Yes to all of the above. We can't win for trying though there. If more troops are sent to stabilize the country we can regain more control but the tribes there will unite and attempt to "drive out the infidel invaders".

Or

Bare minimum of troops and you have what is going on now: regional warlords controlling their own sectors and a weak central government.

I think the west just wants to "not lose" like guerilla tactics dictate and keep Afghanistan how it is now.

Also, Bush is disliked not only because of his policies but also of the "idiot" tag he can't seem to shake off. rofl

[chauncy republicans]

Idiot tag? :lol:

[talib_killa34]

Yeah..... ;)

Hey, I have no problem with Dubya!

He's got a great sense of humor and his wife, Laura, is nicer than that other first lady...ummm... ...err I forget her name.

George is ok in my book,

[chauncy republicans]

I like how he fumbles his words up during speeches. I wish I knew where I could find the speech where he accidentaly said he was extremely amebriated or something to that effect. :D He also looks like he has to take the worlds worst dump in a lot of his meetings.(At least the one's the press attends.) I dont like some of his politics, but he is a funny bastard.

[TALOS]

Much as Webley's post may not have been an argument per se it is an interesting point that we should keep in mind. We always hear from certain groups and members on this forum of the "Imperialistic USA" but we have to recognize and admit that the muslim world is not innocent in this regard also. All honesty and fairness in this discussion means that we dont sugar coat the facts to avoid proper debate.
Having said that we also need to avoid mudslinging without reason and debate.
To say " they did it first" or "they are bigger imperialists than us" will get us no where.

Moving on....
Bush may not be very polished in world politics and image building, but he has been challenged with a difficult task in a difficult time. Many left wing democrats dislike him but sometimes I wonder if that is just because he speaks a little too bluntly and they are used to flowery speech. He's kinna crass but is he really dumb? I doubt it. We can take sound bits and photos from any politician and add stupid sayings or find a monkey face that looks like them also, it doesnt prove squat.
As for WMD, I think that many people including Clinton, many of the DEm's and many of the world leaders all believed he had them, hell, I think he did but moved them before the US got there. Even if he didnt, we know he used to and we know he programs to make them and he never fully disclosed and lied and blocked the UN groups who were seaching. So, "reasonable grounds of suspician" it would have been massively stupid to assume he just gave up on them. IMHO

[WARPIG]

Just my observation on the presidents and the WMD issue. George W. seems to get beat up over his lack of PR skills. While slick Billy Clinton was as good as they come. I for one prefer a Pres that has a bit of trouble with PR. A good lyer may be an easy President to get along with so long as he keeps his Executive Meatcicle in his pants. Dubya and Slick Billy both had the same info. The fact that the "pre-911" investigation is going on kind of says that. George chose action rather than popularity. Not really because of some great shining integrity, but becuase he over judged his approval rating after 9-11. He just doesn't have the legal mind that Clinton does. Clinton just wouldn't risk any action unless he had a waterproof alibi.
One thing us Americans are good at.. is dragging our President through the mud.

[W(M)D]

......A new user name to me is a member called W(M)D. Can you guess his stance on Iraq?.....

Warpig: What is my stance? I chose this name more on a whim which are close to my initials.

I think that Bush sent the USA to action in Afganistan & Iraq to fight terror, etc and as the world's only super power (regardless of if it is right and wrong) the USA feel that they needed to act for the benefit of the world.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Son of Sixgun :cantbeli:

welcome to the board...
Well called. :)

[WARPIG]

......A new user name to me is a member called W(M)D. Can you guess his stance on Iraq?.....

Warpig: What is my stance? I chose this name more on a whim which are close to my initials.

I think that Bush sent the USA to action in Afganistan & Iraq to fight terror, etc and as the world's only super power (regardless of if it is right and wrong) the USA feel that they needed to act for the benefit of the world.
If I miss judged, my apologies. A few posts I have read of yours led me to that comment as well.

[FRO]

My apologies in advance for such a long post.

I may be wading into flaming mud on this one, but here goes:

I don't think anyone with any sense of humanity or understanding of the justification of self-defence can argue that attacking Afghanistan was a mistake or in any way imperialistic. The United States was attacked. Innocent civilians from around the world were attacked. This was as clear a declaration of war as the attack on Pearl Harbour in 1941 or the invasion of Poland in 1939. I can accept pacifism as an ideal, but in a world where 19 clearly sociopathic individuals can murder thousands at the drop of a hat, pacifism is not a practical alternative. To their credit, the government of the United States pursued diplomacy first--though I imagine this was along the line of "You know they're going to refuse, but it'll take time to get assets into position to beat the living s*** out them, so what the heck?" Still, diplomacy was attempted, which failed.

The world did not rise up in unison to decry the military action against the Taliban and Al'Qaeda. How could any but the most morally corrupt government argue that the United States not only had the right but the necessity to protect itself and its citizens--and, in fact, citizens of the world--from amoral murderers?

Iraq, however, I don't consider a part of the War on Terror. Here's the thing--resources were taken away from the War on Terror, the war against Al'Qaeda and the Taliban who protected them, to pursue the war in Iraq. Now, this is simply personal opinion, but I have heard nothing that makes me believe Iraq posed a clear and present danger to any nation, not just the United States, but any nation.

Don't get me wrong, Saddam and his bunch certainly deserved to end up in custody. The abuse of Iraqi citizens was horrendous and well documented. The problem then becomes the plethora of like regimes throughout the world, many far worse and far more recent in their actions. Why choose Iraq?

There's a principal around here (Department of National Defence in Canada) called the Globe & Mail test. The Globe & Mail is a Canadian newspaper. The Globe & Mail test is basically asking yourself "if I do this, and the G&M gets a hold of this story and tries to show it in a negative light, have I covered all my bases?" It's partly a cover your @$$ policy, but it also has to do with the concept of not only doing right, but being seen to do right.

If the President had evidence that showed the actions of Iraq were such that they necessitated immediate and violent action, he should have shared that information. As I watched the President and his government attempt to persuade the world to join the United States in a war with Iraq, I saw the focus change from WMD to regime change to humanitarian relief. It made me believe--correctly or incorrectly, this was my perception--that the reason for the war in Iraq was not as important as actually going to war. Whether the action itself was right, it was not seen as being right in many quarters around the globe.

And if the war in Iraq is about terrorism, what about all the other regimes around the world that support terrorism? The only real link between Iraq and terrorism which I have seen proved is that between Iraq and Palestinians. Therefore, why has the United States not only attacked the patron, but also the actual terrorists, the homicide bombers in Palestine? And what about the Saudis who finance and populate Al'Qaeda? Why do they get a 'get out of jail free' card?

Given all that, the unfortunate fact is that the djinn is out of the lamp. The forces of the United States and its coalition are in Iraq, and premature withdrawal could prove disastrous. I would point to Afghanistan, where the Taliban are again gaining a foothold. I would argue that this is because of the diversion of manpower to Iraq, but that is pointless, it's been done. Let's remember that for the future--finish fighting the fire before you go off to fix the fence--but right now, we have a huge problem. Iraq isn't suddenly embracing Jeffersonian democracy and Afghanistan is once again being threatened with the Taliban regime.

I know many people will shout and gnash their teeth, but unless the United States can conjure up a few hundred thousand more troops, it needs to go the international community and ask for those troops. That pretty much means the UN. The UN isn't going to support that proposal without some big concessions from the US. And I honestly can't blame them.

Many nations basically said they didn't believe Saddam posed a clear and present danger (perhaps an overused phrase). The US administration did not take kindly to this. However, by and large, there has not yet been any proof unearthed that Saddam did pose an immediate or considerable threat. I'm not going to argue whether he did pose a threat or not, that is now moot. The point is, those nations that opposed the war see their stance as justified now. The US has offered nothing to alter that perception. If the US wants help, it is going to have to share power with the international community. The UN will want control in exchange for troops. Personally, I consider that justified, but that's just me.

So, there we go. My own long-winded diatribe. In essence, I believe in the War on Terror. I support it without reservation. I do not, however, consider the war in Iraq is a corollary to the War on Terror.

[WARPIG]

Some great points FRO. I think we see things the same as far as the use of manpower in Afghanistan and Iraq. I don't see that Iraq was not a threat. Clear and present may have been a stretch though. I don't know if you read the first couple pages of this thread but the general consensus that I got was that most people could see that the direct link to terrorists wasn't in Iraq specifically, but that the middle east was were the war on terror should be waged. By making a positive presence in Iraq, we can then affect a cultural change that allows individual freedoms, opportunity, and better quality of life. This would create a much smaller recruitment pool for Islamic extremist terrorists. Afghanistan is no easier a country to rebuild then Iraq, but Irag has the oil to be able to fund it's own rebuilding. Read those first couple pages and you'll get the idea. I think that was the plan. Get our feet into Iraq. We already had beef with them, Saddam seemed an easy monster to illustrate to the world, and some intel was pointing to existing WMD. So, Bush saw plenty of opportunity to justify invasion in Iraq, and the seed of democracy being planted to fight terrorism from within. His alibi fell apart though. Add to that Murphy's law and the fact that Arab culture is a notably stubborn one and George W's popularity loses weight, along with the US foreing policy.
We still seem to agree that we are well past the point of return and need a stronger international presence in Iraq.

[FRO]

Another long rant. My apologies in advance.

Warpig: thanks for responding with reasoned comments rather than rhetoric or worse.

I actually have been following this thread since its inception. I do understand the reasoning behind entering into Iraq--that it would make a good example if successful, that the Iraqis would love to be rid of the regime, that the oil could pay for reconstruction, that Saddam was an unrepentant, violent dictator and war-monger--I just don't think that Afghanistan should have left unfinished. If it was a point of having to fight a war--and I don't mean 'having to' in the sense of 'we have to fight a war in order to prop up our sagging poll numbers' (cheap shot, but I have some suspicions it may not be far from the truth)--it might be defensible. I cannot, however, imagine any scenario in which the need to fight a war had no specific target and allowed one to chose which target best suited one's purpose. In my mind, a necessary war would have a necessary target. I don't have a clear sense that Iraq was a necessary war.

I honestly don't believe that Richard Clarke is working without an agenda. However, I also don't believe that the present administration is or was working without an agenda. I don't completely trust either, however, Clarke's assertions about a decision to attack Iraq given the opportunity, seems to ring true to me. Could be a huge smokescreen, a load of well crafted . . . stuff. Still, based on what I've seen and heard, it makes sense to me. Given that, I am honestly appalled that Afghanistan was left still shattered.

The US would have retained the support of most of the world--other than those who reflexively condemn anything the US does without thought--if it had stayed the course with Afghanistan. A rebuilt Afghanistan would have proved everything the US indicates Iraq will prove. In fact, I do recall that Afghanistan was to be democratized and become a beacon of hope in the Middle East. I think it reflects poorly that the US left that unfinished and then espoused the same goals for Iraq. What could have been the first step on a reconstituted relationship between the US and the people of the Middle East has just become more fodder for the extremists.

In the end, yes, we do agree that Afghanistan should have remained the focus of US efforts and that the attack on Iraq was unnecessary at that given time. I do not, however, agree that one can pick a target for a war based on convenience or on meeting certain needs. A necessary war, in my mind, has extenuating circumstances that would direct the war against a very specific target.

I also wonder about the "recruitment pool for Islamic extremist terrorists." I can think of many targets in the Middle East--allies for the most part--that might fit that bill better than Iraq, which--to my knowledge--did not supply manpower for Islamic extremist terrorists. However, if evidence exists to the contrary, I would gladly concede that point.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Warpig. Thanks also for conducting an excellent thread filled with important thoughts.

Take care all.

[WARPIG]

FRO.. I am nearly at a loss of words. Nearly. Your illustration, as vague as it seems, really reflects the same opinion that I have. The truth is that the focus was moved to Iraq for no real tangible reason. I sometimes have to ask questions, or play the "devil's advocate" to try and generate conversation. But, in truth my own view of things is very close to what your post, illustrates. I called it vague but that is a more accurate reflection of what is going on than any. George's alibi for going to Iraq was obviously not sea worthy, yet I have a hard time believing that some sort of preconcieve conspiracy was at play. We over commited ourselves and Afghanistan is suffering becuase of it. Afghan people are used to it, probably have much more freedom now, just nothing to do it with. They are stuck in limbo unless we go help. We can't drop what we do in Iraq though. We have effectively gotten stuck. It is as if the US has stepped across a precipice with on foot and left the other foot in place. As the world watches us straddle this great failure we wonder how to get out of it on our own. Our government has over estimated our stride.
Our only course is to find some help on one side or the other and deal with those issues unified. We can't do either country any good nor can we affect any progress in the fight against terror, without support internationally.
I still haven't heard any dialogue here on how the US can get some support in Iraq or Afghanistan. Maybe the US should beef up security there? Or is it not a question of security? My understanding is that Afghanistan is ripe for rebuilding, we just have to commit to that. Why haven't we?

[Webley]

The war Afghanistan is going about as well as we could hope for. As far as the invasion of Iraq, the world knew that was coming. Osama bin Ladin hated Saddam Hussien. But Al Qaida is a network of Islamic militants and I am sure that some factions were getting support from Saddam Hussien.

Alot of these Islamic militants don't like each other, but they will join together when they share a common enemy. If not for the non-muslims in this world, they would be fighting each other. They have an old saying that goes something like this "Me against my brother, My brother and I against our cousin, My cousin, my brother, and I against the world."

I would point to the mujahadeen in Afghanistan. They were united in fighting the Soviets, but many of those factions were opposed to each other. They had a truce for as long as they were fighting the Soviets, when the Soviet forces withdrew from Afghanistan, that truce was over and the various factions of the mujahadeen started to fight each other.

[Royal]

The war Afghanistan is going about as well as we could hope for.

Been there to check things out recently?


I am not saying they like each other mind, but they share a common enemy. Their enemies are Jews and Christians. If not for the non-muslims in this world, they would be fighting each other.


Hmm, a secular Ba'athist regime condemned as degenerates by OBL...

[Webley]

I watch the news and read forums like this one for more information.





Hmm, a secular Ba'athist regime condemned as degenerates by OBL...

That is true, but Saddam was a demogague who played the "good muslim" to the masses.

The Baathist were secular, pan-Arab rather than pan-Islamic. But again, they shared the same enemies. Remember that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" as the saying goes.

[WARPIG]

The war Afghanistan is going about as well as we could hope for. As far as the invasion of Iraq, the world knew that was coming. Osama bin Ladin hated Saddam Hussien. But Al Qaida is a network of Islamic militants and I am sure that some factions were getting support from Saddam Hussien.

Alot of these Islamic militants don't like each other, but they will join together when they share a common enemy. If not for the non-muslims in this world, they would be fighting each other. They have an old saying that goes something like this "Me against my brother, My brother and I against our cousin, My cousin, my brother, and I against the world."

I would point to the mujahadeen in Afghanistan. They were united in fighting the Soviets, but many of those factions were opposed to each other. They had a truce for as long as they were fighting the Soviets, when the Soviet forces withdrew from Afghanistan, that truce was over and the various factions of the mujahadeen started to fight each other.

Well, not exactly perpetual optimism is it? Not really a bad view of things just a little narrow.. (and dark.) As all of Afghanistan is not covered in Islamic Militants.. I think there is quite a lot we can still do. By the way.. us non-muslims were not in Afghanistan, and instead of fighting each other.. some of those militants came to the US. What was that date? ....hmm.. sort of reminded me of a phone number.. ?? oh.. yeah. 9-11.
I think that the potential for the seperate tribes in Afghanistan to just fight each other no matter what is still there, but not really enough of a reason to just write them off is it? No, that is not as good as we can expect.

[chauncy republicans]

Hmm, a secular Ba'athist regime condemned as degenerates by OBL... This is very true. Saddam was also condemned by your "every day muslim" for things like, drinking wine and other alcohalic beverages, and Adultry.

[ronin2172]

My problem with the war on terrorism is that we left a fight unfinished, to me al qaida (or however the hell u spell it! :D ) is more of a threat than Iraq was, and just at the time we should have finished them we backed off and shifted focus to Iraq. In effect letting them off the hook.

Now Osama and his crew can say "hey we took your best shot and we r still standing. We can still hurt you" (ie Madrid). Now they are much harder to hunt because they have dispersed globally, not only with cells in who knows how many countries but they now have forged ties with other terrorist groups ( Such as FARC). Prehaps most importantly in the eyes of of potential terrorist recruits (which is where the real victories will be won or lost); Osama's stock has risen (despite the fact he can't be living much of a life in a cave or tunnel somewhere) thereby making him to look invincible, someone for them to follow or emulate...not a good thing.

Osama and co. outsmarted themselves with 9-11, they generated more ill will towards their cause and more sympathy to the US by attacking the WTC,(not only did a lot of foriegners die but a good portion of those killed were muslim). But that has now be frittered away with the dubious reasoning for the war with Iraq. Already one of the US's staunchest supporters has fallen over this and others are under fire, our standing in the international community has been damaged. We are looking more like the boy who cried wolf everyday. Meanwhile US troops are caught in a no win situation and have no choice but to suffer. I understand that Saddam had ties to terrorists; but those ties were no stronger (in my opinion they were weaker) than the ties Syria and Iran have to terrorists. Iraq (crippled by sanctions and and pretty much isolated from the international community) i don't think could have been any ideal haven for a terrorist hell bent on international mayhem and Saddam seemed to be concerned more with personal gain so making any support for terrorists mostly lip service.

Now we have a shattered country that is rife with outside interests causing mayhem and internal strife (sunnis hate/fear the shi'ites and no one likes the kurds) threatens to wreck any future government which now increases the possibility of creating a whole bunch more people who hate the US.

I'm not against the war on terrorisim. I think that in the beginning we had the right intentions and strategy but we went off kilter somewhere and took a giant misstep.

Just my opinion, feel free to trash my statements!lol

[Truthsayer]

One of the more dangerous things are that now small independant groups of extremists go aheads and do acts and claim responsibility "and says it has ties to Al Quida", making other groups braver and making sure the name/network, how loose it might be, will never die.

You can't kill something that doesn't have a clear structure of hierarcy.

[ronin2172]

good point al queda seems to be different than any other terrorist organization that has previously existed. Previous groups such as Black September, the Baader - Meinhoff gang (aka Red Army Faction) seemed to have a defined hierarchy which was more easily targeted. Prehaps Osama and his brain trust learned from the demise of these groups and the apparent ease the mossad was able to routinely penetrate the security of the various PLO groups to form an organization which can withstand signifigant hits to it's leadership and training areas. or am i giving him too much credit?lol

there is also evidence to suggest there is 'cross pollenation' going on in the terrorist community. Don't know if this is fact, just saying i saw it..on CNN.com i think.

[Webley]

I understand that Saddam had ties to terrorists; but those ties were no stronger (in my opinion they were weaker) than the ties Syria and Iran have to terrorists.

Take a look at a map of the region, Iraq is the springboard to attack Syria and Iran.

I also think the oil in Iraq can be used to bring economic pressure on the House of Saud.

[Yard Ape]

Take a look at a map of the region, Iraq is the springboard to attack Syria and Iran.Where do the soldiers come from? Already Iraq and Afghanistan could use more, yet what you suggest would syphon off what is available.

[Webley]

Take a look at a map of the region, Iraq is the springboard to attack Syria and Iran.Where do the soldiers come from? Already Iraq and Afghanistan could use more, yet what you suggest would syphon off what is available.

Give it some time.

[Webley]

edited: The humourous image I posted here will upset the PC sensitivies here.

[California Joe]

You're not helping anything.

[FRO]

FRO.. I am nearly at a loss of words. Nearly. Your illustration, as vague as it seems, really reflects the same opinion that I have.

I'm going to take that as a compliment. Sorry I was vague. I ramble. I think sometimes I really need to read a long post three or four times before I post it, just to make sure I'm saying what I mean to say. Even then, well, you've seen the result! ;)


George's alibi for going to Iraq was obviously not sea worthy, yet I have a hard time believing that some sort of preconcieve conspiracy was at play.

I believe that you are right, but it may just be our definitions of "conspiracy." I don't think there was a secretive group, planning something in dark rooms without anyone knowing. I also can't say I was particularly surprised when the administration decided to attack Iraq. I do believe there was a decision--perhaps just the will to see this particular thing done--by certain people to attack Iraq, and I also believe that these individuals ignored the very real peril of sapping strength from Afghanistan to pursue this agenda. I could be wrong. One politician/bureaucrat says one thing, another politician/bureaucrat says exactly the opposite, and I can't help but think the truth lies somewhere in between.



We over commited ourselves and Afghanistan is suffering becuase of it. Afghan people are used to it, probably have much more freedom now, just nothing to do it with. They are stuck in limbo unless we go help. We can't drop what we do in Iraq though. We have effectively gotten stuck. It is as if the US has stepped across a precipice with on foot and left the other foot in place. As the world watches us straddle this great failure we wonder how to get out of it on our own. Our government has over estimated our stride.


Good imagery, and I think it encapsulates my view of the situation as well.



Our only course is to find some help on one side or the other and deal with those issues unified. We can't do either country any good nor can we affect any progress in the fight against terror, without support internationally.

I still haven't heard any dialogue here on how the US can get some support in Iraq or Afghanistan. Maybe the US should beef up security there? Or is it not a question of security? My understanding is that Afghanistan is ripe for rebuilding, we just have to commit to that. Why haven't we?

I think security does need to be beefed up; the question is how? Where are we going to find the manpower? I also think that the very different kind of war that the administration talked about but then quickly forget, is the way to win. A lot of that is going on now, but a lot more needs to be done. Construction, infrastructure, education and medicine are the best weapons that I can think of. I think it was science fiction author Jerry Pournelle that made the comment that all a nation really needs to grow are freedom and access to resources. I think, in Afghanistan, we can also say security and a little helping hand.

Maybe that's one way to approach it. The US can say: "Okay, we know we bit off a little more than we can chew right now, at least for now. Our bad. Sorry about that. If you guys can handle the policing and reconstruction--including education and medicine--we'll go and kick some @$$ to make sure you can do that in peace." And it might cost a lot of money. The PMCs are already there in droves. Maybe we'll need more. Also, maybe once the ball starts rolling, once successes become more common, more nations will decide they want a piece of that pie.

Of course maybe it will just all blow up in our faces. Ouch.

I do think that Kabul is on its way to becoming secure and--for it--prosperous. That's a beginning. It could spread from there, a little at a time, so that in five or ten years, maybe Afghanistan could be a proper nation, with all the bickering and finger pointing any confederation has (Canada has got plenty of that, West vs. Centre vs. Quebec vs. East vs. Natives) but without bloodshed and violence.

Jeez, that'd be nice.


Thanks for your thoughts, Warpig. Nice to have a calm, rational discussion.

[FRO]

Hey all again.

A few people have pointed out what a Hydra this whole Al'Qaeda thing is. True enough. However, even the Hyrda got killed. When this all started, back in 2001, the White House made much of the fact that this war would be fought unlike other wars. For the most part, I haven't seen that. I could be wrong, please feel free to correct me if I am. However, I believe the sentiment was correct and that while it was not as obvious when reporters had things like tanks, explosions and aerial bombardments, it is moving to the fore now.

In my opinion, we need the two-****ged assault of the stick and the carrot. We've seen plenty of stick, and I imagine we'll see plenty more. This is not a "turn the other cheek" situation. However, I think as much effort needs to go into rebuilding Afghanistan and seeing to the needs of its citizens. To me, education and medical care are necessities. Let's give them that. Let's show them a future for their children, a brighter future than they had ever thought possible. Quite honestly, given Afghanistan's recent history, a ' brighter future than they had ever thought possible' really shouldn't be all that taxing.

Just thought I'd throw in that nugget of optimism. I'll cut it short here.

Thanks for reading.

[Webley]

"Among the coalition of the “unwilling,” large majorities in Germany, France still believe their countries made the right decision in not taking part in the war."

Where they show themselves was by their silence when the mass graves were discovered..

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

"Among the coalition of the “unwilling,” large majorities in Germany, France still believe their countries made the right decision in not taking part in the war."

Where they show themselves was by their silence when the mass graves were discovered..
You are now repeating yourself Sixgun please go.

[Webley]

"Among the coalition of the “unwilling,” large majorities in Germany, France and Russia still believe their countries made the right decision in not taking part in the war."

Where they show themselves was by their silence when the mass graves were discovered..

[Skaman]

Although this post is quite late to the thread, I hope you will take the time to read it and engage in an orderly debate with me. The war on terror is so very complex with so many variables to consider, one cannot simply explain, define, or trace it. One can however, debate very aspects of the war on terror, its origins, its fallacies, and its ramifications.

The war on terror and the radical movement of anti-us fundamentalism is nothing new, and was only brought to the worlds attention in significant broadcast on the tragic day of 911. Prior to this event, there was the bombing of the US Cole, unconventional attacks on foreign US positions, but nothing too significant that would capture the world’s attention. One must ask themselves, why is their a jihad against the American people? Is it a stark contrast in values and norms, color of their skin? Perhaps to some degree, yet this war was brought on the US itself, with its foreign policy in the Middle East which shook up the hornets nest all too often. This is not one nation, but a global organization unified under a similar cause: the destruction of America. The US ran its foreign policy in the Middle East according to its own false pre-conceptions, not cognizant of the chaos that would result. A nation cannot run its foreign policy based on simple beneficiaries and ‘what’s good for us’. What is good for you may not be good for you down the line, and over time, this progressive hate will built off of these Middle Eastern encounters. The support of Saddam in the war with Iran, the intervention of the first gulf war, the political tampering in Iran, the support and condemnation of Afghanistan. The list goes on. Allying with Israel, the condemnation of Palestine, Lebanon and so on. The list and occurrences are never ending and have eventfully brought an unconventional war to the very doorstep of your untouchable nation. A war of fear, a war of hate, a war or revenge.

The American people are susceptible in this weakened state, their emotions running wild, allowing men like G. Bush to step headfirst into Iraq, and Afghanistan without significant supportive evidence. The American people sought results, and the people belied Iraq and Afghanistan was the answer. How does a nation win a war against an enemy they cannot see, they cannot find, nor can they hear. These people are not a tangible force, they do not bare the flag of a nation, and they are a vast network of terrorists who seek to unravel the capitalist and political fundamentals of your nation. How can we condone an attack against Iraq or Afghanistan? Is this progress, will the attacks stop, and is this a clear message to the terror cells? No, if anything, it is an addition of fuel to a growing fire.

While the Taliban and Hussein regimes were without doubt deadly, cruel and malicious, they are not the target. There blatant disrespect for human rights is no way correlated to this devious global organization. While the US aims to protect the right of the civilian and ensure peace and freedom in a violent world, they ironically wreak the very blood the aim to clot. The civilian casualties in these nations are paramount, and the progress is little. The ‘hearts and minds’ are not had, the rebuilding is of no significant gain, and the people continue to fight and their hate grows stronger amidst an ‘occupation’ of an enemy nation. How can you expect these nations to greet you with opens arms when all they have known is hate and fear? There is no helping these people, the do not want to be helped in any significant number, and the war on terror is nothing but a fallacy in an attempt to appease a mourning nation. War brings votes; war brings popularity, while in-turn war also brings hate. Iraq and Afghanistan are not Japan and Germany, the social norms are far too different and the occurrences of war are dissimilar. Indication that the objective of the war in Iraq was never certain should be made clear with President Bush’s continual change of objective in the nation. From dismantling a nuclear arsenal, to ending Saddams regime and restoring order, how are we to know our reasons for war? Iraq is a nation plagued with problems, but an effort to help this nation will be met with little success. If America ultimately wants to help these deprived nations, why not move forward with Latin America, the Horn of Africa, or the instability of the Balkans.

These speculations of mine are only guesses, yet I suspect the US wants to establish a friendly foothold in the Middle East for trade and relations, and create yet another nation among the globe to exert western influence and Americanization. It has been done in nearly every corner of the globe, so why not here. Ultimately, those who truly suffer are the families whose lives are torn apart war, both American and Iraqi/Afghani. Why must innocent blood be split in the name of the war on terror? This war on terror is nothing of the sorts; the USA is shooting in the dark and looking in all the the wrong places.

[Haiw]

Paragraphs duci, paragraphs. ;)

[Fox2]

I disagree with many of your points, Ducimus19, but good discussion.

I am going to have to tackle that post bit by bit, I think! :D


Although this post is quite late to the thread, I hope you will take the time to read it and engage in an orderly debate with me. The war on terror is so very complex with so many variables to consider, one cannot simply explain, define, or trace it. One can however, debate very aspects of the war on terror, its origins, its fallacies, and its ramifications.

As an American with some history in the Mid-East, I will meet your challenge. :)


One must ask themselves, why is their a jihad against the American people? Is it a stark contrast in values and norms, color of their skin? Perhaps to some degree, yet this war was brought on the US itself, with its foreign policy in the Middle East which shook up the hornets nest all too often.

I disagree with this statement. Say what you will about the United States' foreign policy in the Middle East, but today's Islamic extremists are very anti-West. That definition is not US exclusive. They see the US as the leader of the West, therefore it is the most targeted nation. The other factor in this is US support for Israel.

The root of the recent rise of terrorism in the Middle-East is mainly due to one factor over all others, in my opinion; Pride. Look at the way in which much of the world views the Middle East. It is viewed as a backwater desert where crime and savagery reign, where logic and rational thought do not exist. This is in contrast to the historical Mid-East, the Mid-East that was the gateway to the Old World, a place where the wealthy would go for vacationing, continental trade, and other such things. Today's Iraq was once Babylon, the seat of an Imperial power, and Baghdad once the host to one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. (info link (http://ce.eng.usf.edu/pharos/wonders/gardens.html))

Today's citizens of the Middle East wonder to themselves, "How did we lose so much power? How did we go from one of the greatest civilizations of the ancient world to today's sesspool for terrorism, crime, and totalitarianism?" They look at how the rest of the world views them, how far behind the world their own governments have let them slip, and they are humiliated. They become angry. This is the root of the cause of terrorism, in my opinion. Their society and values are entirely different from ours. Family honor and reputation is what makes the world go round in the Middle East.

Appeasement will not work with these groups. This is what we have to realize. We cannot be weak. Because then we are dead. In the Middle Eastern culture, to show weakness is death of the spirit, and they intend to make sure that you are dead of the body if you are dead of the spirit (even if you are family). Example, the recent increase of Palestinian terrorist activities in Israel. The Israelis announced they were going to pull out of some of the territories, and the Palestinians began to increase their attacks. Why? Not in retaliation. Because they wanted to make it seem like Israel was forced out, not left of their own accord. It has to do with pride and honor, and it is so intrinsically intwined into the Middle-Eastern mentality, that it is most important thing to consider when dealing with the Mid-Eastern people.



This is not one nation, but a global organization unified under a similar cause: the destruction of America.

Really, it is the destruction of Israel, and by association, destruction of America.

It is not just one organization, though. There are many, many, many organizations. They even quarrel and fight between each other. What has been happening recently is these groups have been combining. Al-Qaeda, even after 2001, has consolidated other groups that now carry on their operations.


A nation cannot run its foreign policy based on simple beneficiaries and ‘what’s good for us’. What is good for you may not be good for you down the line, and over time, this progressive hate will built off of these Middle Eastern encounters.

Welcome to the real world. There is not one nation in this world that is not looking out for its own interests and its own interests alone. To say that the contrary is reality is, with all due respect, naive.


The support of Saddam in the war with Iran, the intervention of the first gulf war, the political tampering in Iran, the support and condemnation of Afghanistan.

We supported Iraq in the war with Iran towards the end of the Cold War. The cliche, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," rings true here. After what happened at the US Embassy in Iran, it was the only logical option for the US.

As for Afghanistan, again, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." The Cold War was in full swing. Many wars after WW2 were proxy wars between the United States and the Soviet Union. The Russo-Afghanistan Conflict is a prime example. Years passed, the Taliban took power in Afghanistan, and supported Al-Qaeda by hosting their training bases and base of operations. After the attacks of 2001, when it was found that Al-Qaeda was responsible, the US decided it was time for action. Al-Qaeda was camped up in Afghanistan, supported by the local government. We attacked them and displaced their command and control structure. It's pretty cut and dry.


The list goes on. Allying with Israel, the condemnation of Palestine, Lebanon and so on.

We are right to ally with Israel, and condemn the Palestinians that choose terrorism. When mothers encourage their children to kill themselves, in hopes that they will reap profit from it, there is something very, very morally wrong with the mother. The PLO and the Palestinian Authority have been offered many times a Palestinian state, and they refused, instead choosing to resort to the deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children. They are not freedom fighters, they are fighting for genocide.


The list and occurrences are never ending and have eventfully brought an unconventional war to the very doorstep of your untouchable nation. A war of fear, a war of hate, a war or revenge.

Never-ending? Israel, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon...I think that about covers it all, mate.


The American people are susceptible in this weakened state, their emotions running wild, allowing men like G. Bush to step headfirst into Iraq, and Afghanistan without significant supportive evidence.

Yeah, I'm real sorry we didn't allow Gore to win. I would be much happier were we: apologizing to Al-Qaeda for offending them; asking, "Why?" constantly, while, more major terrorist attacks occur all over the nation; giving Saddam more taxpayer money to finance his rapes and murders; bending over backwards to make sure our European and United Nations "allies" are not offended by anything we might utter or do. I'm so glad there is no such thing as national sovereignty anymore.


How does a nation win a war against an enemy they cannot see, they cannot find, nor can they hear.

Night vision, a good dog, and hearing aids. :P

Seriously, though, the answer is intelligence assets. And believe you me, there have been lots of changes to the intelligence structure in this nation. From the FBI and the CIA down to the local law enforcement, everyone's mind is focusing on terrorism, how to find it, how to combat it. If you cannot see this happening, please open your windows to the south. p-)

There have been no terror attacks in the United States since 2001, and I think that speaks volumes about our intelligence and law enforcement communities. People like JiJoLeMac (sorry if I butchered that) and California Joe might be the ones to know about such things. Thanks, all you guys, for keeping us safe.


These people are not a tangible force, they do not bare the flag of a nation, and they are a vast network of terrorists who seek to unravel the capitalist and political fundamentals of your nation. How can we condone an attack against Iraq or Afghanistan?

You are wrong, they are a tangible force. They bleed, and they die, and they weaken, every day. These are not supermen; they are not supernatural. They bare a false flag of Islam, because they want us to go after Islam. But we won't, we are smarter than that. And they don't seek to unravel just the fundamentals of our nation, oh no, they seek to unravel the fundamentals of the entire world.

How can we condone an attack on Afghanistan or Iraq? It's quite simple. The rag-tag ruling government of Afghanistan (the Taliban) were supporting Al-Qaeda, the perpetrators of the largest attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor. They were a valid target. Iraq was viewed with the intelligence at the time, as a viable threat. We were already in the neighborhood, so we thought we'd stop by. p-)


Is this progress, will the attacks stop, and is this a clear message to the terror cells? No, if anything, it is an addition of fuel to a growing fire.

Again, there have been no attacks on US soil since 2001. If that doesn't say something to you, I fear you cannot view the big picture. Yes, from the Middle Eastern mindset, it is a clear message to the terror cells. They see that we will not sit idly by and take their tantrum. We will strike them where they sleep, and where they were rest, and where they believe they are safe. I believe the message is clear that appeasement is not an option for the US.


While the Taliban and Hussein regimes were without deadly, cruel and malicious, they are not the target. There blatant disrespect for human rights is no way correlated to this devious global organization.

The Taliban supported Al-Qaeda, they played host to their training camps, and much of their weapons and personnel came from Afghanistan. How can any rational person with any brain cells not say they were not correlated to the attacks in 2001, which were the work of Al-Qaeda? Hussein was deemed a threat. We gave him time to cooperate. Hans Blix, a Swede and a UN employee, came back and said Saddam was not cooperating. A deadline was given, a deadline was passed. It's quite simple really. The fact of the matter is there is bad blood because certain members of the UN council decided they were not willing to lose a major customer and business partner.

But, let me get this straight; A global war on terror itself is declared, and you say that although these regimes were terrorizing their own populations, they should not have been targeted?


While the US aims to protect the right of the civilian and ensure peace and freedom in a violent world, they ironically wreak the very blood the aim to clot.

Can you give an example of this? To me this just seems a bit unfounded and baseless.


The civilian casualties in these nations are paramount, and the progress is little. The ‘hearts and minds’ are not had, the rebuilding is of no significant gain, and the people continue to fight and their hates grows stronger admits an ‘occupation’ of an enemy nation.

The rebuilding is of no significant gain? Tell that to the contractors who gave their lives this past week, defending food shipments to the Iraqi people. I don't know if you missed the memo, but the majority of Iraqis want us to stay, and think we did the right thing. (source (http://abcnews.go.com/images/pdf/949a2SunniShia.pdf))


How can you expect these nations to greet you with opens arms when all they have known is hate and fear? There is no helping these people, the do not want to be helped in any significant number, and the war on terror is nothing but a fallacy in an attempt to appease a mourning nation.

"There is no helping these people." This is exactly the attitude that keeps the recruitment pools of terrorism filled.

"They do not want to be helped in any significant number." What are you basing this on, besides political bias? All current evidence suggests that most Afghanis and Iraqis just want to get on with their lives, and they know that the Coalition is the only one that is going to help them right now.


Indication that the objective of the war in Iraq was never certain should be made clear with President Bush’s continual change of objective in the nation. From dismantling a nuclear arsenal, to ending Saddams regime and restoring order, how are we to know our reasons for war? Iraq is a nation plagued with problems, but an effort to help this nation will be met with little success. If America ultimately wants to help these deprived nations, why not move forward with Latin America, the Horn of Africa, or the instability of the Balkans.

Did you ever think all these reasons factor in? The current intelligence at the time said there was a threat. Britain's intelligence agency got the same intelligence, and they obviously agreed with the US government.

"Iraq is a nation plagued with problems, but an effort to help this nation will bet met with little success." Again, you are basing this on what, besides wishful thinking? You underestimate the Iraqi people.

Regardless of the reasons for going to war in Iraq, it does not negate the good things that will come out of it. The Allies did not enter World War 2 to stop the Holocaust of the Jewish people, but it was a result of the war anyway.

As for your list of other deprived nations; We were already deployed in Afghanistan. Like I said, we were in the neighborhood. Who can choose which deprived nation should get liberated first? The United States? The United Nations? A 19-year-old Canadian reservist? Why doesn't Canada get on the ball and start liberating some of these people pro-actively?


These speculations of mine are only guesses, yet I suspect the US wants to establish a friendly foothold in the Middle East for trade and relations, and create yet another nation among the globe to exert western influence and Americanization. It has been done in nearly every corner of the globe, so why not here. Ultimately, those who truly suffer are the families whose lives are torn apart war, both American and Iraqi/Afghani. Why must innocent blood be split in the name of the war on terror? This war on terror is nothing of the sorts

Of course the US wants to establish another friendly foothold in the Middle East. We're trying to take over the world, you know. p-)

Those who truly gain are those who embrace their newfound freedoms, and live as they please.

"Why must innocent blood be split [sic] in the name of the war on terror?" I don't know, perhaps you should ask those who spilt the innocent blood of thousands of business people in 2001.

Your speculations seem to not be rooted in fact or experience. The Middle East is a complex place, especially for those who have not visited it or met its people.


the USA is shooting in the dark and looking in all the the wrong places.

Fortunately, we have night vision technology to aid us when shooting at night! :lol:

Sorry for the long post, guys. Have a good one. :D

*Edited for clarity and errors

[TALOS]

Excellent post fox, very reasoned and rational. :D

[FRO]

Hmmm, reasoned discourse! I can't pass this one by!

I'll try to be direct and concise, though that's quite a challenge for me. If my statements give offence, I assure you that was not the intent.



The root of the recent rise of terrorism in the Middle-East is mainly due to one factor over all others, in my opinion; Pride.

I think this is a contributing factor, and one that is quite possibly overlooked by politicians and diplomats, though not by historians (like bernard Lewis). I would argue, though, that there are other factors--economic, political and religious--that are at work. While I am by no means disputing Fox's claim, I do not think that the primary motivating force is Pride. I do agree, though, that it is extremely important and should receive more attention than it does.




A nation cannot run its foreign policy based on simple beneficiaries and ‘what’s good for us’. What is good for you may not be good for you down the line, and over time, this progressive hate will built off of these Middle Eastern encounters.

Welcome to the real world. There is not one nation in this world that is not looking out for its own interests and its own interests alone. To say that the contrary is reality is, with all due respect, naive.

True, very true. I would suggest that the problem is not self-interest, which always will be the primary criterion for a nation's policy, rather that some foreign policy is based on short-term self-interest rather than long-term. Governments, for the most part, have always focused on reactive rather than proactive actions, and often five years into the future is the extent of "long-term" planning.




The list goes on. Allying with Israel, the condemnation of Palestine, Lebanon and so on.

We are right to ally with Israel, and condemn the Palestinians that choose terrorism.

I would also say that we are right to ally with Israel as it is the only representative democracy--which adheres as closely to the rule of law as any 'Western' nation--in the region.



Yeah, I'm real sorry we didn't allow Gore to win. I would be much happier were we: apologizing to Al-Qaeda for offending them; asking, "Why?" constantly, while, more major terrorist attacks occur all over the nation; giving Saddam more taxpayer money to finance his rapes and murders; bending over backwards to make sure our European and United Nations "allies" are not offended by anything we might utter or do. I'm so glad there is no such thing as national sovereignty anymore.

I honestly can't think of any time--ever--that the United States has bent over backwards for anyone. The US has bent, perhaps shifting position slightly, but part of diplomacy is compromise. To be intransigent is not a sign of strength and is not--in my opinion--a rational course for any government.

I'm also a little confused at "giving Saddam more taxpayer money to finance his rapes and murders." I'm not dismissing it out of hand, but am honestly requesting clarification, as I had not heard of US money going to Saddam since Gulf War I.




How does a nation win a war against an enemy they cannot see, they cannot find, nor can they hear.

Night vision, a good dog, and hearing aids. :P

rofl



How can we condone an attack on Afghanistan or Iraq? It's quite simple. The rag-tag ruling government of Afghanistan (the Taliban) were supporting Al-Qaeda, the perpetrators of the largest attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor. They were a valid target. Iraq was viewed with the intelligence at the time, as a viable threat. We were already in the neighborhood, so we thought we'd stop by. p-)

I honestly shudder to think that anyone can honesty ask for justification for the war in Afghanistan. The Pearl Harbor reference is apt. I have to admit--and I've mentioned it before--that the US showed extreme restraint by not obliterating the country from the air. I was also gladdened to see that diplomacy was the first avenue explored--though I expect that was due to the lag in time between the decision for military action and the time that military action was feasible.

But Iraq? There are sources (most recently, Richard Clarke, though I do agree he has his own agenda, but who doesn't?) that indicate there was plenty of other intelligence refuting the assertions regarding Iraq. The intelligence also didn't persuade the UN or other common allies of the US (yes, that means Canada). I would argue that given the widespread and virulent opposition to the war--which did not exist for the war in Afghanistan--the US administration might have reconsidered. However, that is moot. What is done is done. We should, however, deeply meditate on the justifications and realities on the war in Iraq in order to carefully avoid this situation in the future.




While the Taliban and Hussein regimes were without deadly, cruel and malicious, they are not the target. There blatant disrespect for human rights is no way correlated to this devious global organization.

The Taliban supported Al-Qaeda, <snip>
Hussein was deemed a threat. We gave him time to cooperate. Hans Blix, a German and a UN employee, came back and said Saddam was not cooperating. A deadline was given, a deadline was passed. It's quite simple really. The fact of the matter is there is bad blood because certain members of the UN council decided they were not willing to lose a major customer and business partner.

But, let me get this straight; A global war on terror itself is declared, and you say that although these regimes were terrorizing their own populations, they should not have been targeted?

Regarding your comments on the Taliban--spot on. Regarding your comments on the reasons for opposition to the war in Iraq--if one is to take that approach, one must also look at the history of the US and Iraq and consider ulterior motives as well. What's good for the goose . . . I must also add that all opposition to the war in Iraq did not come from those countries with invested interests.

However, I really want to address your final point, regarding targeting regimes that terrorize their own populations. Then why were not Sierra Leone, the Ivory Coast or even Liberia targeted before Iraq? What the heck about North Korea, where the policies of the government have led to the starvation deaths of--conservatively estimed by the Red Cross--over a million people? If this is about humanitarian intervention, it is an odd choice to start with. In fact, all the arguements for war offered by the US for attacking Iraq apply equally to North Korea.

Iraq denied having WMDs--though this denial was rightly met with suspicion--while North Korea proudly announces its successful nuclear program, test fires a missile (without any payload) into Japanese territorial waters and blatantly threatens to use these weapons.

The death toll from the actions of the Iraqi regime against its own citizens have not--to my knowledge--reached 1 million people over the last fifteen+ years--arguements to the contrary may make me swallow this, and I will willing do so if proven wrong--while the policies of the North Korean government have led to the starvation deaths of 1 million+ in one year.

Iraq's conventional forces were not immediately threatening the region. North Korea regularly attacks--or attempts to attack--targets in South Korea. The last two that I can remember was a naval incursion in January of 2000 and an aerial incursion in 2001. I vividly remember--because I was there--when a disabled minisub landed 20 or so NK commandos ashore in South Korea, who then attempted to get back to North Korea. The body count--civilian and military--was around 50 or so.

So, basically, while it can be argued that many European powers may have opposed the attack on Iraq for ulterior reasons, the US is not blameless in this regard.




Indication that the objective of the war in Iraq was never certain should be made clear with President Bush’s continual change of objective in the nation. From dismantling a nuclear arsenal, to ending Saddams regime and restoring order, how are we to know our reasons for war? Iraq is a nation plagued with problems, but an effort to help this nation will be met with little success. If America ultimately wants to help these deprived nations, why not move forward with Latin America, the Horn of Africa, or the instability of the Balkans.

Did you ever think all these reasons factor in? The current intelligence at the time said there was a threat. Britain's intelligence agency got the same intelligence, and they obviously agreed with the US government.

I would argue, based on information in the media of the UK and US, that there was questioning of the intelligence even inside these governments. Unfortunately, to my knowledge, full disclosure of all the intelligence information to an objective third party--at least one without interests in Iraq--is neither likely nor possible. Did the US base the decision to go to war on the intelligence, or had that decision already been made (accusations before the 9-11 commission make me suspicious)? Did the UK agree with the US based on intelligence or was the decision made previously and the intelligence then selected to support this (such as the intelligence that was later revealed to be 10 years old)?

I am sorry, but I have not been convinced. That is, of course, just my opinion based on what I have seen and read.



"Iraq is a nation plagued with problems, but an effort to help this nation will bet met with little success." Again, you are basing this on what, besides wishful thinking? You underestimate the Iraqi people.

Dead on. In fact, I would say, given the wealth and ingenuity of the US (and the other Western nations), I don't believe there is any nation that could not be helped. The problem, in my eyes, is the timeline. It isn't going to happen overnight.



Regardless of the reasons for going to war in Iraq, it does not negate the good things that will come out of it. The Allies did not enter World War 2 to stop the Holocaust of the Jewish people, but it was a result of the war anyway.

I would question this comparison. France, the UK and Canada entered the war in 1939 when the Nazis invaded Poland. Mistakes in diplomacy and underestimations on all sides aside, this was a response to the invasion of a sovereign nation. While it is petty--and I apologise--I must point out that this was not enough for the US to enter the war--though, to their credit, there were many US politicians who saw the necessity of doing just that. It was not until the US itself was attacked that the decision was made to go to war.

The comparison would be more apt to Gulf War I, in which Iraq invaded a sovereign nation.



As for your list of other deprived nations; We were already deployed in Afghanistan. Like I said, we were in the neighborhood. Who can choose which deprived nation should get liberated first? The United States? The United Nations? A 19-year-old Canadian reservist? Why doesn't Canada get on the ball and start liberating some of these people pro-actively?


Canada does not act militarily in these situations. Since WWII, Canada has not considered military action as the best solution to crises. This can, of course, be debated. Canada's role has been as an international peacekeeper and--before the bottom line became more important than people's lives--as a foreign aid donor.

As for liberation, while this might be acceptable under the newly minted philosophy of proactive self-defence--or whatever euphemism is now used to describe this--the concept of self-determination of nations has long been a cornerstone of international diplomacy. While it makes for situations that are viscerally unpleasant, it is in all nations' best interest. Using the same logic, why shouldn't the people of Indonesia decide to "liberate' those poor, suffering citizens of Malaysia? Or even Australia? And what actions would this decision to liberate take when the liberator lacks a powerful conventional military.

It's a slippery slope.

And I must also apologize for the long post. I really have to stop doing this.

Take care all. If I haven't responded to a point, you can either assume I agree or am neutral. I hope this dialogue can continue on in the spirit of rational discourse that has so far dominated. If my statements give offence, I assure you that was not the intent.

[wholagun]

If you really genuinly want to stop terror, the only way you do that is to not permit Muslims or Arabs to immigrate to the West. That is the only way, anything else is just cosmetic. Lets face it if a terrorist wants to blow something up he will, no amount of airport, port, etc security will stop him from getting in and causing havoc.

[Fox2]

If you really genuinly want to stop terror, the only way you do that is to not permit Muslims or Arabs to immigrate to the West. That is the only way, anything else is just cosmetic. Lets face it if a terrorist wants to blow something up he will, no amount of airport, port, etc security will stop him from getting in and causing havoc.

Timothy McVeigh was a caucasion "Christian" male who caused the death of more than 150 innocent people in the US. He was born here in the 'States. He was a terrorist.

The Al-Qaeda cells in the Phillipines are made up of Asian males who follow a radical form of Islam. They are terrorists.

Terrorism knows no race, not even religion. It can come from any angle and any demographic. It wears many hats, but it is always the same face underneath the guise. Terror.

[WARPIG]

In my leave of absence it is good to see that this thread still progressed in an intelligent way. I am hoping to re-kindle this discussion with some of the new developments and questions that revolve around Iraq today.

I don't have the time to dissect every comment I want to address but I will speak on a few.

Dicamus very respectfully and intelligently laid out his view of the situation in Iraq and it's relationship with terrorism. I hate to generalize but basically I get that his view is that the US is responsible for a global hatred toward the US for some sort of imperialistic meddling foreign policy. More than a few of US see that view as a bit naive. I know that the US foreign policy is pissing a lot of people off and pretty much always have. Not to the point of hatred very often though. Many people have addressed this view but my take on the reason for the US being a target is because of it's position in the world. I think that Al'queda had an agenda to take a shot at the biggest kid on the block. The US has emerged as the sole superpower of the world. Religous, cultural, political, and economical fall out is expected. Extreme groups are obviously going to have the US in their sights. Fact is because of the US power and position, we are going to be criticised no matter if we act or refrain. We are beat up in the media for not doing anything about one situation and berated equally for meddling in another. It comes with the territory. ( of the record, the media isn’t covering South America, Horn of Africa, and the Balkans… but the US military is “covering” it. I personally have the opportunity to do something in all of those areas as well as the middle east.)

Someone compared N Korea to Iraq also. Maybe the regimes are similar but the situations are different. The key differences… South Korea is actively pursuing a solution. They don’t want the US to muscle up the North. North Korea doesn’t have the resources to rebuild itself after a major conflict.

If this thread will continue, I think that looking at the developments today, and the global reaction to the political environment in the middle east is a big factor. Many people feel that the task of “freeing” Iraq is doomed to fail. Mostly because of the image of the situation that the media feeds us. How is the political climate in the US going to affect the mission against terror?

[FRO]

Someone compared N Korea to Iraq also. Maybe the regimes are similar but the situations are different. The key differences… South Korea is actively pursuing a solution. They don’t want the US to muscle up the North. North Korea doesn’t have the resources to rebuild itself after a major conflict.


Just got to jump in here because in another thread I put forward N Korea as a greater threat to international security (and American lives) than Iraq before the invasion.

So, the points raised:
"South Korea is actively pursuing a solution." The UN was actively pursuing a solution in Iraq. They were getting more cooperation than S Korea has been getting with the North. Granted, the US did not like the results nor the timetable for the solution in Iraq, but progress in Iraq was certainly better than in N Korea.

"They don’t want the US to muscle up the North." And some other country asked the US to muscle up Iraq?

"North Korea doesn’t have the resources to rebuild itself after a major conflict." I think we have seen that Iraq's ability to rebuild was exaggerated. At least the appraisal of the atmosphere in which the reconstruction would take place was far too optimistic.

Basically, my problem with Iraq is that--in my opinion--it is not part of the War on Terror. If it were, there were many other countries posing a much greater threat than Iraq before the invasion. Consider that that NKorea test fired a missile that could reach Alaska and could certainly reach US bases in S Korea and Japan in 1999. N Korea has more recently said that it has nukes and that it will use nukes if threatened. Further, N Korea is a known arms dealer to anyone who can pay the price.

And, I just want to reiterate that I do not wish for the US to fail in Iraq. In fact, I wish all the insurgents would just throw up their hands, accept the inevitable and realize they could have a much better life putting all that energy into a construction company or something, get some big juicy government contracts and buy themselves BMWs. However, I don't think this precludes me from looking at the causes of the conflict and trying to point out that it was an error. This is in the hopes that such an error does not happen again.

The War on Terror was taking place in Afghanistan. The War on Terror is still taking place in Afghanistan. Why oh why did the US government shift its focus to Iraq when so much remains to be done in Afghanistan? Wasn't Afghanistan going to be the shining example of Arab democracy? Promises were made and I worry now that they won't be kept, or can't be kept because Iraq is demanding so many resources. This is my problem with the decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

Take care all.