was declaring a War on Terror a mistake?

[martinexsquaddie]

apart from handing anti war protesters a brilliant shorthand ****.
by the nature of terrorists they usually don't have training camps or infra structure that can be hit by military force.
the boys in black attack suits kicking a door down are the end result most of the battle will have involved intelligence/police work and hunting the money trails.
calling it a war helps none of these activitys but does give the muslim extremists and arguement similar to the dear departed sixgun that its a clash of civilasations rather than a clash between civilisation and Barbaric nutters inlove with violent death prefably of others :(

[Loco]

I think nobdoy being honest with the acknowledment we have today can say there were terrorists in Irak with Hussein. Hussein was bad, but so is bad Robert Mugabe of Zimbawe and was bad Somoza in Nicaragua, and nobody talked of bombing Zimbawe nor Nicaragua, even White House supported Somoza. I see there´s a quick movement of muslim terrorists in the world: when there´s an open conflict in any country with a muslim community, muslims terrorists go there. In Bosnia and even now in Kosovo there was a fluency of terrorist and volunteers from Magreb countries and Middle East, it seems as in Chechenia is the same, and in Irak just now, but just after the invassion. The bombs in Madrid were designed and made by marroqis living here in some cases since more than 10 years, before conflicts of this nature began. What police is discovering is that terrorists live in foreing countries like sleeping cell, and when there´s a chance or a good situation for an attack, they consult to a higher responsable and if there´s an approval, they have finances for the
attacks and they plan and execute by themselves the attack.
The way of fighting agaisnt that people is mostly a question of intelligence and policemen. The military are only good in a clear case, like it was in Afghanistan just after the 9/11. Irak war was useless for fighting agaisnt terrorism since it was conceived, and I think with all my respects that G.Bush lied and cheated to everybody, included my country.

[Stavka]

Not an entire mistake, terror must be fought. But my 2 cents on the matter are that there are different ways to go about it. I would have preferred to see the Coalition entering Iraq on a UN mandate, not at their own heads.

There are different ways of doing things, Id like to have seen it done differently.

Also, Im not sure Iraq was such a high-priority target npw that the dust has more or less settled. I think a better bet might have been the far east, somewhere around Malaysia, Indonesia and so on.

Nothing factually based, just a few personal reflections.

[Ichhabe]

First of all: I am not a friend of President Bush and his foreign politics.

But as I see it, President Bush did not decleare war on terror. He just responded to it. Cause it was the terrorists that decleared war on Western democracy.
President Bush as a representant of Western democrasies "decleared" the war as some sort of old fashioned use of rethoric.
But the days of good old fashioned galantry died with WW II.
The mistake that has been done by "us", is that we haven't allowed us to stoop down to their level. Our hands are tied by "misunderstood" niceness.

If we really want to be serious in the war against terror, we must go the whole nine yards.

But then a whole bunch of important questions then spring to mind:

1) Are we willing to take the losses?

2) Will our commanders and soldiers lower themselves to do what has to be done?

3) Are we willing to take the burdens back home?

4) And to use Dr.Goebbles own cold words; Are we willing to make a total war?


Difficult questions, that have difficult solutions. No easy way out here, whatever solution we take.

[Yard Ape]

Ichhabe,
If we stoop to thier level, we will only create more of them.

[Ichhabe]

Ichhabe,
If we stoop to thier level, we will only create more of them.

I just raise the questions. Did not say that I had the solution. :D

As it is said in a famous Norwegian act by Henrik Ibsen; My call is not to give the answers, but to ask.

[Tane Angle]

I think martinexsquaddie does have a point. "War on XXXX" has become a clique. War on terror. War on drugs. War on AIDS. War on War, why not?

[hist2004]

Mistake, no not all, the world tends to view terrorism from the prospective of the last few years. I go back to the Munich massacres in 1972, the bombing
of the Marine barracks in 1983, the killing of U.S. Marine Colonel Higgins who was kidnapped in February 1988 while serving as head of a U.N. peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon and the following….

World Trade Center Bombing, February 26, 1993: The World Trade Center in New York City was badly damaged when a car bomb planted by Islamic terrorists explodes in an underground garage. The bomb left six people dead and 1,000 injured. The men carrying out the attack were followers of Umar Abd al-Rahman, an Egyptian cleric who preached in the New York City area.

Attempted Assassination of President Bush by Iraqi Agents, April 14, 1993: The Iraqi intelligence service attempted to assassinate former U.S. President George Bush during a visit to Kuwait. In retaliation, the U.S. launched a cruise missile attack 2 months later on the Iraqi capital Baghdad.

Attack on U.S. Diplomats in Pakistan, March 8, 1995: Two unidentified gunmen killed two U.S. diplomats and wounded a third in Karachi, Pakistan.

Attack on U.S. Embassy in Moscow, September 13, 1995: A rocket-propelled grenade was fired through the window of the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, ostensibly in retaliation for U.S. strikes on Serb positions in Bosnia.

Saudi Military Installation Attack, November 13, 1995: The Islamic Movement of Change planted a bomb in a Riyadh military compound that killed one U.S. citizen, several foreign national employees of the U.S. Government, and more than 40 others.

Athens Embassy Attack, February 15, 1996: Unidentified assailants fired a rocket at the U.S. embassy compound in Athens, causing minor damage to three diplomatic vehicles and some surrounding buildings. Circumstances of the attack suggested it was an operation carried out by the 17 November group.

Khobar Towers Bombing, June 25, 1996: A fuel truck carrying a bomb exploded outside the U.S. military's Khobar Towers housing facility in Dhahran, killing 19 U.S. military personnel and wounding 515 persons, including 240 U.S. personnel. Several groups claimed responsibility for the attack.

Empire State Building Sniper Attack, February 23, 1997: A Palestinian gunman opened fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from the United States, Argentina, Switzerland, and France before turning the gun on himself. A handwritten note carried by the gunman claimed this was a punishment attack against the "enemies of Palestine."

U.S. Embassy Bombings in East Africa, August 7, 1998: A bomb exploded at the rear entrance of the U.S. embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, killing 12 U.S. citizens, 32 Foreign Service Nationals (FSNs), and 247 Kenyan citizens. About 5,000 Kenyans, six U.S. citizens, and 13 FSNs were injured. The U.S. embassy building sustained extensive structural damage. Almost simultaneously, a bomb detonated outside the U.S. embassy in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing seven FSNs and three Tanzanian citizens, and injuring one U.S. citizen and 76 Tanzanians. The explosion caused major structural damage to the U.S. embassy facility. The U.S. Government held Usama Bin Ladin responsible.

Attack on U.S.S. Cole, October 12, 2000: In Aden, Yemen, a small dingy carrying explosives rammed the destroyer U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39 others. Supporters of Usama Bin Ladin were suspected.


Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Homeland, September 11, 2001: Two hijacked airliners crashed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center. Soon thereafter, the Pentagon was struck by a third hijacked plane. A fourth hijacked plane, suspected to be bound for a high-profile target in Washington, crashed into a field in southern Pennsylvania. More than 5,000 U.S. citizens and other nationals were killed as a result of these acts. President Bush and Cabinet officials indicated that Usama Bin Laden was the prime suspect and that they considered the United States in a state of war with international terrorism. In the aftermath of the attacks, the United States formed the Global Coalition Against Terrorism.

There was also the victims of Pan Am Flight 103 and countless other instances.

Regards,
Hist2004

[duck]

Well, in reality it IS a war on Islam. But just on the fundamentalist part that refuses to modernize and re-invent itself. (We) Christians were lucky to get rid of the Inquisition and the witch burnings and separated Church and State. We should not keep that from the Muslim world because of some misunderstood "cultural sensitivity". The Pakistani and Saudi Wahhabists are our enemies and should be treated accordingly.

[hist2004]

Ichhabe,
If we stoop to thier level, we will only create more of them.

We tried complacency in the 1980’s and through the 1990’s, let’s leave them alone,
we don’t want to create more terrorists…the results speak for themselves….truth of
the matter is we will not “stoop to their level” The U.S. doesn’t purposely target
civilians as the terrorists do. But it is not an unheard of precedent for the U.S. to
do whatever is necessary to protect their interests. Examples are the fire bombing
of Dresden, during World War II and of course the use of nuclear weapons at Hiroshima
and Nagasaki. I believe the U.S. will take whatever measured response it feels it needs
to in order to combat terrorist. If we took the terrorist approach, Fallujah, Iraq would
have reached 1,700 degrees centigrade after that barbarious act on Wednesday.

Regards,
Hist2004

[Yard Ape]

Well, in reality it IS a war on Islam. But just on the fundamentalist part that refuses to modernize and re-invent itself.
No. It is a war on terrorists. AQ hides behind Islam and uses it to attract a following, but under it all it has political motives for what it does. It wants this to look like a war on Islam because it can use this to fuel its supporters.

[Yard Ape]

We tried complacency in the 1980’s and through the 1990’s, let’s leave them alone,we don’t want to create more terrorists…the results speak for themselves….Where did you see anybody suggest complacency? Action is necesary. The war is necessary. However, a suggestion was made to fight on the same moral plain as the terrorists and I replied that that is not the way to fight this war.

Firm, Decisive, and Just.

[hist2004]

I didn’t say we suggested complacency; it’s the course of action we took, other than that I believe we are in agreement.

Regards,
Hist2004

[Yard Ape]

Maybe we are . . . [Ack! No "shiffty-eyes" Emoticon! I've nothing to put here.]

[scm77]

Of course it was a mistake. Instead of fighting terrorism, we should let them roam free in harmony with the rest of the world. Then every few months we should bend over and take another hijacked plane up the ass and lose 3000 people.

That's the stupidest question I've ever heard.

Was World War Two a mistake? :cantbeli:

[radon]

Was World War Two a mistake? :cantbeli:
yes. And a big one. The world would never be same after that. lol I know what you propably meant :lol:

[Resevoir Hogs]

Look the question whether we should have declared a war on terror is kinda irrelevant since war was already upon us whether we like it or not.

[OldRecon]

First of all: I am not a friend of President Bush and his foreign politics.

But as I see it, President Bush did not decleare war on terror. He just responded to it. Cause it was the terrorists that decleared war on Western democracy.
President Bush as a representant of Western democrasies "decleared" the war as some sort of old fashioned use of rethoric.
But the days of good old fashioned galantry died with WW II.
The mistake that has been done by "us", is that we haven't allowed us to stoop down to their level. Our hands are tied by "misunderstood" niceness.

If we really want to be serious in the war against terror, we must go the whole nine yards.

But then a whole bunch of important questions then spring to mind:

1) Are we willing to take the losses?

2) Will our commanders and soldiers lower themselves to do what has to be done?

3) Are we willing to take the burdens back home?

4) And to use Dr.Goebbles own cold words; Are we willing to make a total war?


Difficult questions, that have difficult solutions. No easy way out here, whatever solution we take.

Definitely some moral inhibitions will be lost along the way, yes. :|
Though operating with double moral standards will allways lead to some people asking questions. Yet many people in western democracies are remarkably non-reflective and perceptive about why the sort of "democratic" rule rule we live under have come about, and what responsibilties such a form of rule play upon ourselves as individuals.
Final solution vs. Al Qaida will perhaps be some sort of compromise a'la NI.
In sort of at one hand holding our ground, and at the other hand, over a protracted period of time, trying to entice opposition into a dialog, with emphasis on deflecting their anger into something more constructive and beneficial for all parties concerned.
Though with "Been Ladden" I think personal vanity plays a larger role than he would ever be ready to admit himself vs. any sort of religious believes he may harbour (and in no way denigrating his faith at that).
Thus with such strong private motives he would definitely have to be moved out of the way, before even thinking about next step.
Like when Khomeiny died, his successors don't appear to be that immovable and in concert as when "Beardy man" was still running the show.
As for declaring war on terrorism a mistake? Definitely NOT
As for declaring war on Iraq and making that sideshow into a mainshow a mistake? Definitely YES.

[Yard Ape]

Though with "Been Ladden" I think personal vanity plays a larger role than he would ever be ready to admit himself vs. any sort of religious believes he may harbour (and in no way denigrating his faith at that).
On that, what role does the terrorist figure head play in this? Under the current situation, it is not likely that he is running things, but would the loss of a figurehead affect recruiting/retention in the terrorist ranks? I am not talking about his death (although that is a possibility) but also imprisonment.

[Backis]

Was World War Two a mistake? :cantbeli:

HUGE mistake, Hitler probably regretted starting that thing a lot down in his bunker... :P


I do not consider waging conventional "war" against "terrorism" as effective.

Neither is heckling allies because they refuse to obey your every unfounded whim.

[martinexsquaddie]

the war on terror?
hang on terrorists have to be fought but soldiers tend to be rather bad at it most of the time terrorist don't make the mistake of building camps in the middle of nowhere

[Tane Angle]

To add to what I wrote earlier, I still don't think we've really walked the walk so much as talked the talk.

[ALBANIA]

Well, in reality it IS a war on Islam. But just on the fundamentalist part that refuses to modernize and re-invent itself.
No. It is a war on terrorists. AQ hides behind Islam and uses it to attract a following, but under it all it has political motives for what it does. It wants this to look like a war on Islam because it can use this to fuel its supporters.

Right! Each terrorist movement, hides after poor, ignorance and social problems!
IRA and ETA are movements of Christians, but they are dangerous too.

[Yard Ape]

Right! Each terrorist movement, hides after poor, ignorance and social problems!
IRA and ETA are movements of Christians, but they are dangerous too.Exactly, and we must remember never to confuse the culture/ethnic group for the terrorists that hide behind it. We cannot let it slip into our every day speach that we refer to whole cultures/ethnic groups as terrorists.

[martinexsquaddie]

go yard ape.
Bush making a mistake with crusade against terrorists was a prime example. most terror groups form from some legit problem and then go on to make things much worse.
Islamic terror springs from many wells one of which is if islam is so perfect how come the arab/islamic world has got its butt kicked for the last 400 years :(

[hist2004]

Isn’t it interesting that not one Islamic group or cleric has ever condemned the terrorists activities conducted
in the United States or in Europe, small wonder why people find it hard to disassociate the religion with the
terrorism. Why haven’t any of the Arabic nations that have substantial wealth ever helped to elevate the
the living standards of the Palestinian people. If poverty breeds hatred, injustice, and terrorism, why not
invest in the infrastructure. Build schools, medical facilities, invest in businesses. Give these people a chance
at productive lives.
Truth is, most Arabic countries dislike each other, there only commonality is their hatred of Israel.
While not all Muslims are terrorists, so far, all the terrorists have been Muslim… :cantbeli:

Regards,
Hist2004

[Loco]

IRA and ETA are movements of Christians, but they are dangerous too.
Certainly they are dangerous, but ETA is not a group of christians, you failed here.

[hey]

the peacfull way of fighting terror has failed.
every time you ignore terror attacks like EU and US did in the last 3 decades , its like one more shot at the leg. and the terror groups are only getting stronger.
only when all democratic countries will unite and say that there is NO justfication to those barbaric actions (didnt happen yet) , then and only then the terror will stop.

so when Bush declared a war against terror he was right, its a start.
maybe because of it the world will wake up and see the true nature of the terroriests. until now the world always tried to justify them maybe now they will start to fight them.

[martinexsquaddie]

er since when did the eu ignore terror attacks both germany , italy,uk and france have a shed load of terrorists in jail france even has the jackal in a cell not bad going for the surrender monkeys :lol:.
Just because they though invading iraq had nothing to do with terrorists does not mean there soft on terrorism

[hey]

the eu do something only when the terroriests hit them in their own back yard.
every time a terror attack (world wide) ignored and/or even justified, the terror as a legitimate way of fighting are getting stronger.

[sethen]

I believe that the 9/11 attacks were the best thing that ever happened to that creep Bush. How else could he have consolidated military/police power so conveniently in Dept. of Homeland Security?(Americas Gestapo)
After a bloodless coup in Nov. 2000, constant economic scandals related directly to him, does it really take arocket scientist to get a view into this mans character? (Americas Saddam) Another thing that bothers me is that
Bush wanted to find an excuse to invade Iraq from the day he set foot in the Oval office!!!!! And convienently, it lands right in his lap!!!!!!!! The Islamic terrorist hate Saddam as much as we do, because he was a tyrant. Could the 9/11 attacks be a trick so that we overeacted and invaded Iraq winning the war only to lose the peace, withdraw with an Islamic state to repalce it????? Bush really just seems like tin pot dictator and a military amateur!!!!!!! Oh, but I forgot about his Air National gurad time!!!!

[droopy]

The world needs a enemy and since the Cold War was over we needed a enemy so we got the terrorism.

[OldRecon]

Though with "Been Ladden" I think personal vanity plays a larger role than he would ever be ready to admit himself vs. any sort of religious believes he may harbour (and in no way denigrating his faith at that).
On that, what role does the terrorist figure head play in this? Under the current situation, it is not likely that he is running things, but would the loss of a figurehead affect recruiting/retention in the terrorist ranks? I am not talking about his death (although that is a possibility) but also imprisonment.

He does more than enough as a focal symbol, and as long as he is THE focal symbol of the movement, there will be no talk about giving up.
When Muhammad didn't give up against his enemies, why should HE "the new Muhammad" (once again wouldn't surprise me if he looks upon himself in such terms, however much he pretends to be "just a humble servant of Allah" to his supporters) lay down arms.
When he's removed I guess the Qaida leadership will be taken over by a collegaite of whose members none have the same amount of renown/notoriety/fame as the "great man gone" (as a parallell to the Revolutionary council at present in Iran, who today don't have a leader of Khomeinys stature and recogniseability).
Besides looking at the way Al Qaida have operated both before and after 9/11 it wouldn't surprise me if the individual terrorist cells work after some sort of contingency plan priority lists with allready pre-stored funding that have been given to each cell a long time in advance, in case comms between the operators and the "Centre" are disturbed or cut by "the enemy" in counter raids after Qaida actions.
Targets of the individual contingency plans will also have been main-recced a long time in advance needing only at worst a small amount of update reccing before plan is executed.
Working on the contingency plan model, with a lot of the initiative for carrying out attacks delegated to each cell, also pay dividens with regards to the heavy reliance on use of human couriers for comms in the Qaida network, in that the cells can remain active without constant central guidance.

[Yard Ape]

I believe that the 9/11 attacks were the best thing that ever happened to that creep Bush. How else could he have consolidated military/police power so conveniently in Dept. of Homeland Security?(Americas Gestapo)
After a bloodless coup in Nov. 2000, constant economic scandals related directly to him, does it really take arocket scientist to get a view into this mans character? (Americas Saddam) Another thing that bothers me is that
Bush wanted to find an excuse to invade Iraq from the day he set foot in the Oval office!!!!! And convienently, it lands right in his lap!!!!!!!! The Islamic terrorist hate Saddam as much as we do, because he was a tyrant. Could the 9/11 attacks be a trick so that we overeacted and invaded Iraq winning the war only to lose the peace, withdraw with an Islamic state to repalce it????? Bush really just seems like tin pot dictator and a military amateur!!!!!!! Oh, but I forgot about his Air National gurad time!!!!http://ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/negative11.jpg

[OldRecon]

I believe that the 9/11 attacks were the best thing that ever happened to that creep Bush. How else could he have consolidated military/police power so conveniently in Dept. of Homeland Security?(Americas Gestapo)
After a bloodless coup in Nov. 2000, constant economic scandals related directly to him, does it really take arocket scientist to get a view into this mans character? (Americas Saddam) Another thing that bothers me is that
Bush wanted to find an excuse to invade Iraq from the day he set foot in the Oval office!!!!! And convienently, it lands right in his lap!!!!!!!! The Islamic terrorist hate Saddam as much as we do, because he was a tyrant. Could the 9/11 attacks be a trick so that we overeacted and invaded Iraq winning the war only to lose the peace, withdraw with an Islamic state to repalce it????? Bush really just seems like tin pot dictator and a military amateur!!!!!!! Oh, but I forgot about his Air National gurad time!!!!http://ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/negative11.jpg

Well, it wouldn't surprise me if Bush jr. had a fetish about Saddam and "finishing dad's job", and that 9/11 in that sense came quite handy as an oportunity to drum up support for the "Iraqi adventure".
With regards to Saddam vs. Al Qaida, he's definitely got his priorities wrong. In the process spreading his forces thin as well as stirring up even more animosity than allready existed from the outset.
Though from my point of view the reasoning within the British government, behind the decision to "join the fray", is rather more interesting than the reasoning within the US government to take out Saddam in the first place.

[hist2004]

I believe that the 9/11 attacks were the best thing that ever happened to that creep Bush. How else could he have consolidated military/police power so conveniently in Dept. of Homeland Security?(Americas Gestapo)
After a bloodless coup in Nov. 2000, constant economic scandals related directly to him, does it really take arocket scientist to get a view into this mans character? (Americas Saddam) Another thing that bothers me is that
Bush wanted to find an excuse to invade Iraq from the day he set foot in the Oval office!!!!! And convienently, it lands right in his lap!!!!!!!! The Islamic terrorist hate Saddam as much as we do, because he was a tyrant. Could the 9/11 attacks be a trick so that we overeacted and invaded Iraq winning the war only to lose the peace, withdraw with an Islamic state to repalce it????? Bush really just seems like tin pot dictator and a military amateur!!!!!!! Oh, but I forgot about his Air National gurad time!!!!

The 9/11 attacks were the best thing that ever happened to that creep Bush????
The most devastating attack in the history of the United States, nearly 3,000 dead, 1,500 children without a parent, and your gleeful about this for a political
agenda???? I encourage you to attend a 9/11 survivor’s reunion or perhaps you can go to one of the Police precincts or Firehouses in New York and express
those feelings. I understand they’re doing wonderful things with facial reconstruction and forensic dentistry.

George Bush is a creep?
Are you aware that Clinton was getting a “ Lewinsky” will on the phone discussing troop deployments of men who were going into combat?

Homeland Security is the American Gestapo??
Please name one case where the Patriot Act has resulted in wrongful prosecution. Perhaps you’re reading too many Tom Clancy novels.

Bloodless coup in Nov. 2000??
It called the Electoral College; it’s how the President gets elected. That’s how President Kennedy got elected, not by popular vote.

Constant economic scandals?
If your referring to the accounting frauds at Adelphia, Enron, WorldCom, and Tyco, you do realize that the government doesn’t do corporate
tax returns, and of course these cases didn’t originate in the previous administration, they just jumped out on Bush’s watch.

Bush wanted to find an excuse to invade Iraq from the day he set foot in the Oval office.
Yes, that’s true, just as the previous administration wanted him out.

Could the 9/11 attacks be a trick so that we overreacted and invaded Iraq winning the war only to lose the peace, withdraw with an Islamic state to replace it?????
Again, put down the novels, and remove your head from your forth point of contact.

Bush really just seems like tin pot dictator and a military amateur.
Really, the Taliban was taken out in 3 weeks, and military victory in Iraq, 1 month.


Oh, but I forgot about his Air National Guard time!!!!
Ah yes, and which unit did Clinton serve in????

Regards,
Hist2004

[MKtexan]

Hist2004, nicely put response!!! :D I have heard that the PLO, Ansar al-Islam and Hezbollah and maybe other terrorist groups have trained in Iraq. Am i right? Sethen says they hated Sadam as much as we do. Doesnt make sense to me because the terrorists rushed to save Sadam during the war. and dont a lot of terrorists come from places that have limited rights and bad governments like Sadams? Places like Iran, and Saudi Arabia?

[hist2004]

Hist2004, nicely put response!!! :D I have heard that the PLO, Ansar al-Islam and Hezbollah and maybe other terrorist groups have trained in Iraq. Am i right? Sethen says they hated Sadam as much as we do. Doesnt make sense to me because the terrorists rushed to save Sadam during the war. and dont a lot of terrorists come from places that have limited rights and bad governments like Sadams? Places like Iran, and Saudi Arabia?

Ansar al-Islam is a radical Kurdish Islamic group that was supportive of Saddam Hussein's regime. This group was located in the pseudo-autonomous Northern Iraq. This group has supposed ties with Taliban and al-Qaeda. It was the most radical group operating in the Iraqi Kurdistan region. Whether the PLO and Hezbollah trained in
Iraq is conjecture, what is known is that Saddam supported the families of suicide bombers attacking Israel to the tune of $25,000 for each “martyr”.
Bin Laden considered Saddam an infidel; Saddam is a secularist, whereas Bin Laden is motivated by religious fervor. The countries you mention, Saudi Arabia,
Iran, and of course Iraq (among others) have repressive authoritarian governments with questionable (to say the least) human rights records. As far as rushing to Iraq to save
Saddam, the scenario is more like hey, this is an opportunity to take the fight to the Americans, and everyone join in.

Regards,
Hist2004

[Yard Ape]

Well, it wouldn't surprise me if Bush jr. had a fetish about Saddam and "finishing dad's job", and that 9/11 in that sense came quite handy as an oportunity to drum up support for the "Iraqi adventure".True, but read the rest of his post.

[OldRecon]

Well, it wouldn't surprise me if Bush jr. had a fetish about Saddam and "finishing dad's job", and that 9/11 in that sense came quite handy as an oportunity to drum up support for the "Iraqi adventure".True, but read the rest of his post.

Don't aggree with the language of his post, and most accusations perhaps a bit on the strong side.
Wouldn't personaly dare to say that Dubaya also let 9/11 happen on purpose either. Though the way the Bush government afterwards capitlised on the 9/11 mood for building up popular support at home for the enterprise of invading Iraq, concerning there were little in terms of direct links between Al Qaida and Saddam, and how many people seemed to have swallowed those arguments hook, line and sinker really had me wondering.
But finaly, to make the reasons for my scepticism about the "Iraqi adventure" absolutely clear, have never been against the invasion of Iraq on any sort of moral grounds. It's the practicality of the scheme I've never been all too convinced about, and as things have unfolded it hasn't weakened my scepticism for the whole f***in programme.

[Webley]

Terrorism is War.

In war, you want to put fear into your enemies. Yes, this is a clash of civilizations. The politically correct, including president Bush, would like the world to think that Islam is a religion of peace. It is anything but that.

[Yard Ape]

Terrorism is War.No. Terrorism is murder.

[esl]

I don't think the war on terror was a mistake, this has been a big problem since the late 1970s....its just that alot of things can't happen until America gets involved. Thus 9/11 was a catalyst for action against terrorism and Afganistan was the ultimate reaction. Made sence at the time.

Its what happened next that puzzles every one. Axis of evil was a big big mistake as the invasion of Iraq has shown....if for no other reason than the fact that the coallition is no longer fighting terrrorists instead they are creating insurgency. Big difference!

People never read there history thats why these mistakes recur. Read Lawrence of Arabia to understand.

[Valuk]

Hist2004, nicely put response!!! :D I have heard that the PLO, Ansar al-Islam and Hezbollah and maybe other terrorist groups have trained in Iraq. Am i right? Sethen says they hated Sadam as much as we do. Doesnt make sense to me because the terrorists rushed to save Sadam during the war. and dont a lot of terrorists come from places that have limited rights and bad governments like Sadams? Places like Iran, and Saudi Arabia?

Ansar al-Islam is a radical Kurdish Islamic group that was supportive of Saddam Hussein's regime. This group was located in the pseudo-autonomous Northern Iraq. This group has supposed ties with Taliban and al-Qaeda. It was the most radical group operating in the Iraqi Kurdistan region. Whether the PLO and Hezbollah trained in
Iraq is conjecture, what is known is that Saddam supported the families of suicide bombers attacking Israel to the tune of $25,000 for each “martyr”.
Bin Laden considered Saddam an infidel; Saddam is a secularist, whereas Bin Laden is motivated by religious fervor. The countries you mention, Saudi Arabia,
Iran, and of course Iraq (among others) have repressive authoritarian governments with questionable (to say the least) human rights records. As far as rushing to Iraq to save
Saddam, the scenario is more like hey, this is an opportunity to take the fight to the Americans, and everyone join in.

Regards,
Hist2004

Yes, they joined the fight probably just to fight the "evil empire", as they call not just the US, but the entire West. The same way they jumped in when things got hot in Bosnia. And we can learn something from the Bosnian war. Before the war, Bosnia and Sarajevo, it's capital, were rather very cosmopolitan places to live. Bosnian Muslims (many work here, in Slovenia) were very far from being Wahabits, they lived a very normal life and never argued much about islam and politics. After the war, things changed dramaticaly. Almost everywhere in the Muslim part of Bosnia (Mostar for instance) you can see signs: sponsored by Saudia Arabia etc. in arabic!!, there are green flags everywhere and so on. Before the war, Bosnia was a part of Europe, now it looks much more like being a part of Arabic peninsula. I believe same will hapen in Iraq. This mistake should be prevented in the case of Kosovo, where the whole thing is just the case of different natality rates...

[786mine]

They say hind sight is 20/20. We can say all we want now, but I think after 9/11 it was neccessary to "do something". I personally think it was not neccessay to commit to such a large deal. I think the U.S. could have do far better with using small number of SF.