Why is there the war on terror?

[Monadnock]

Exactly when do we win? After we have killed the whole religion?

I don't know. Maybe you should actually watch the video that was linked at the beginning of the thread.

 

[Lisa]

Moderator Note:

Please keep the conversation at a mature and respectful level.

Thank you.

Lisa Deneka
MartialTalk Super Moderator

 

[Hand Sword]

The problem is that the "THEM" that attacked us (I presume you are referring to 9/11) had nothing to do with Iraq or Saddam Hussein.

Well, not before our invasion, anyway. Howard Dean had it right in 2004. There was no real Al Queda presence in Iraq prior to our occupation of that country, but they're sure as hell there now. Our military actions have emboldened the terrorists and expanded their power and influence, not weakened them.

In any event, I personally don't believe George W. Bush was behind any of this. In my opinion, he is just an insipid puppet for the PNAC. The real president of the United States of America is Richard Cheney. That's also one of the reasons that Donald Rumsfeld hasn't been fired yet, either, even though there are widespread sentiments by both military and ex-military personnel that he is incompetent. Rumsfeld, like Cheney, is one of the signatories of the PNAC.

That being said, you are right about one thing. The Bush Administration did use 9/11 as an opportunity to initialize their "Pax Americana" agenda. Unlike others, I am not willing to go as far to say that they orchestrated 9/11, but it is glaringly obvious they used that tragedy as an excuse to begin their campaign of military imperialism.

May your choices be good ones this afternoon.

Well, overall, you're right Iraq and "them" were seperate issues. Bin Laden should've been dealt with in entirety before anything was done with Iraq. They were isolated and of no direct threat. However, there was a few of "them" that were in Iraq, at certain times. Let's just say, that they weren't unfriendly with each other.

As for the terrorist presence, you're right there too. However, I think, since we are in the middle of their "turf", we are forcing their hand, to come out and fight, as opposed to emboldening and empowering them. They were already a presence throughout the world, and had the influence in that region, more so before our military actions. Better they fight our troops there, than our citizens here. It's also probably why they were "let" into Iraq. Sure is better than going to other nations, and looking for them, or putting those nations between a rock and hard place, to deal with them or us.

Overall, They are present, and were present. Irregardless of your politics, this was true. You can hate the right or the left, but, "they" were going to, and have to be dealt with at some point.

 

[Hand Sword]

I'm wondering if you heard about the nationalities of the terrorists.

First Osama bin Laden.
Second Ayman Al Zawahiri
Third, 15 of the 19 September 11, 2001 hijackers

Would you say our policy concerning the nationalities of these people has changed since the 'War on Terror' began? Or are we still pandering to them?

Really, it seems like we aimed our 'hammer' at the wrong nail.

No argument there. They were Saudi's for the most part. But, in terms of my statement, didn't we pander to them for years? I would say so. Just the fact of not addressing them harshly due to "relations" would qualify. I think we still are too. More could be and should be done. don't think it's just them though, They are in all of those nations. Call them by different names, but, they are still of the same philosophy, and committing the same actions. I feel all of what has gone on, unfortunately, is the tip of the ice berg. Radical Isalm is the enemy to the world, and exists in a lot of places. The war is going to expand, and the rest of the nations are going to have to make an unpopular choice. The problem was allowed to grow too big. They won an election to take control of a country, officially.

 

[searcher]

Exactly when do we win? After we have killed the whole religion?

This is a very real possibility. It may be one of those, "It will never happen" items, but the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki probably thought the same thing. Not to sound to cliche', but extreme circumstances require extreme measures.

 

[Hand Sword]

These extremeists chose to fight. They will fight irregardless of our politics, and actions. This has been proven true. The world, as a whole, has to stop dragging it's feet and make a real choice, to unify and deal with this threat.

 

[michaeledward]

First, there were no 'THEY' in Iraq prior to the United States invasion. Had 'THEY' been there, Saddam Husseins Feddayeen secret police would have eliminated them. One can not portray an accurate picture of where we are, unless one can accurately describe from where we came.

Second, I refer the posters to the Greek legend of the Hydra. By whatever name you call it, a military campaign against a religous idea will result in a Hydra response. It becomes a war that can not be won.

Of course, winning is not the point.

 

[Hand Sword]

First, there were no 'THEY' in Iraq prior to the United States invasion. Had 'THEY' been there, Saddam Husseins Feddayeen secret police would have eliminated them. One can not portray an accurate picture of where we are, unless one can accurately describe from where we came.

Second, I refer the posters to the Greek legend of the Hydra. By whatever name you call it, a military campaign against a religous idea will result in a Hydra response. It becomes a war that can not be won.

Of course, winning is not the point.

Correct, on the first point. But, in the end of his time, not true on the second. Their politics toward "us" was the same. There were certain individuals, one with one leg? A hospital? sound familiar. I'm sure in a locked down state, he just snuck in and remained un noticed. A blind eye was turned to him and certain others.

However, what is, is. "They" are there now. Does it really matter where they are? We have to deal with them irregardless. Better they come to our military, right? Better that those who have been dealt with, have right? Would you rather have those individuals still running around doing what they were doing?

Bottom line is "They" Exist. are doing what they are doing, and will continue to do so, no matter where.

 

[Don Roley]

The problem is that the "THEM" that attacked us (I presume you are referring to 9/11) had nothing to do with Iraq or Saddam Hussein.

The problem with that sort of statement is that none of the 9-11 hijackers were from Palestine and Al- Queda never mentioned the plight of the people there until after 9-11. And yet, if we are to deal with the problem of Islamic terrorism it is taken as a given that we have to deal with the issue of Palestine.

The whole situation involving Islamic terrorism is not only limited to the hijackers that attacked us in the past, but also the religion, the culture, the governments that deal with the terrorists and a whole lot more. So to try to say that we should only concentrate on Al- Queda and not Iraq because they attacked us is kind of like saying that we should not care what the Israelis do to anyone because they are not us. If you look at things at a deeper angle, Iraq was involved in the larger problem, not the direct attacks.

But the Iraq thing has been kind of done to death here has it not? What is current is the message that this election has sent to the world. No matter the reasons people voted for a Democratic victory, the world is seeing it as proof that American does not have the stomach for the long battle against the forces of Islam. Take a look at the news of the world on the internet- not just cnn and you will see the message that this was about how Americans have had enough of their people killed and are voting to retreat.

The irony is that congress does not have the power to pull troops back from Iraq. The most they could do is threaten to stop funding for the troops in the field. And that would be suicide for them. What we can expect for the next few years is a lot of meetings and hearings by the Democrats to drive home the point with the voters that they need to put them in power in the white house in the next election.

But the world sees what is going on and realizes that the American people will not support those that fight against Islamic terrorists. Al Queada will trumpet this and point to Vietnam, Beruit and Somalia and say that anyone in the middle east that supports America will end up like the South Vietnamese government. The fighters will be inspired by this proof that their strategy of killing enough Americans will make the people cut and run works and they will continue to do more of the same. Not just in Iraq, but in Afghanistan and future battles.

The people and the governments of the region will realize that if they don't cut deals with extreme Islam, they can only bet on a couple more years of protection and support from America. Which choice do you think they will make?

Before 9-11, many governments in the region made devil's deals with the forces of extreme Islam. They would not fight us, nor would they fight them. Their security forces looked the other way when things were being done under their noses and they funneled millions of dollars of Danegeld to the terrorists through front organizations. They showed their devotion to the cause by having their children taught hatred toward the west in schools and having their state- controlled media have story after story about how Jews run a world- wide conspiracy and America wants to take over the world.

It took the words, "You are either for us or against us" to stop this type of thing. That and a willingness to move an army half way across the world and take out a couple of governments. The gains we have made have not been because we asked, "could you please stop running stories in your official newspapers about how Jews need the blood of a muslim for a traditional pastry?" They would not risk a bullet from the Islamists for just words from us. They would if they feared us doing something and thought they could count on us protecting them as best we could. So we have made small gains in reducing the amount of goverment support for the hatred against us.

But now, they are looking at this election and realizing that America might not do anything to them if they slacken on their commitment and reach out their hand again to the Islamic terrorists. All the stories in their textbooks and media that preach hatred of the West and christianity will seep back in. The rulers from Musharef to Mubarak will not be as eager to stand up to the message of hate and the forces that work against America because they have seen that the American people will not be around when the Islamic militants come knocking. Better then to lay the groundwork for Osama and his type to be guests than be tossed out by them.

People may not have thought that they were voting to tell the Islamists that their strategy of terrorism was working. But that is the message they will get.

 

[michaeledward]

Correct, on the first point. But, in the end of his time, not true on the second. Their politics toward "us" was the same. There were certain individuals, one with one leg? A hospital? sound familiar. I'm sure in a locked down state, he just snuck in and remained un noticed. A blind eye was turned to him and certain others.

However, what is, is. "They" are there now. Does it really matter where they are? We have to deal with them irregardless. Better they come to our military, right? Better that those who have been dealt with, have right? Would you rather have those individuals still running around doing what they were doing?

Bottom line is "They" Exist. are doing what they are doing, and will continue to do so, no matter where.

I contend you are wrong on every point.

To suggest a 'blind eye' was turned is not in accordance with the evidence. It is like blaming the Terminator for that kid who went and fought for the Taliban. I mean, hey, the kid grew up in California, right? Who cares that he left the country before Arnold became governor? Who cares that there are millions of citizens doing all sorts of crap in the state. The Governor is responsible for everything that occurs there, and tacitly allows Mr. John Walker Lind to become a terrorist.

I do not think our military should be used as 'fly paper'. We put the Army in green and tan so they blend in with their surroundings. We don't paint big Red and White Circles on their uniforms. To suggest that we deploy them to become targets seems to be the exact opposite of 'Support the Troops'.

The purpose of a military is to kill people and capture land. We'll we seem to be accomplishing that pretty good. We have annexed a Fifty-first state. And we keep killing people. The problems is, by making Iraq part of the United States, and by killing the people in Iraq, we are (in the words of SecDef Rumsfeld) creating more terrorist than we are capturing or killing. The metrics are messed up.

The United States Government has demonstrated the perfect example of the 'Law of Unintended Consequences'. The 'BlowBack' we are going to receive from this mis-adventure will certainly justify everything you are saying. But, to not recognize it as the coming 'BlowBack' is to be naive.

 

[jazkiljok]

. The world, as a whole, has to stop dragging it's feet and make a real choice, to unify and deal with this threat.

except the world as a whole has far greater threats to deal with don't they? there are dozens of insurgent wars going on right now, there's the major ones you know like Dafur, Sri Lanka and there are the dozens of ones that don't make the news, as in Nepal, the Philipines, India/Pakistan, South America and most other parts of Africa.

then of course there's corruption, famine and natural disasters. most of these places just neither have the resources nor a concern for our terrorist issues. many of the people living in these regions live in terror as just a daily aspect of life.

but if by world you mean the western world-- that already has happened-- it's been a unified front -- especially after the wake up calls in madrid and london.

just don't expect to much help from the rest of the planet...

 

[Touch Of Death]

This is a very real possibility. It may be one of those, "It will never happen" items, but the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki probably thought the same thing. Not to sound to cliche', but extreme circumstances require extreme measures.

Thank God that way of thinking just got voted out. LOL
Sean

 

[Monadnock]

Thank God that way of thinking just got voted out. LOL
Sean

I think Michael Stipe's party just got voted in..

"It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feeeeel fiiiiine..."

 

[Hand Sword]

I contend you are wrong on every point.

To suggest a 'blind eye' was turned is not in accordance with the evidence. It is like blaming the Terminator for that kid who went and fought for the Taliban. I mean, hey, the kid grew up in California, right? Who cares that he left the country before Arnold became governor? Who cares that there are millions of citizens doing all sorts of crap in the state. The Governor is responsible for everything that occurs there, and tacitly allows Mr. John Walker Lind to become a terrorist.

I do not think our military should be used as 'fly paper'. We put the Army in green and tan so they blend in with their surroundings. We don't paint big Red and White Circles on their uniforms. To suggest that we deploy them to become targets seems to be the exact opposite of 'Support the Troops'.

The purpose of a military is to kill people and capture land. We'll we seem to be accomplishing that pretty good. We have annexed a Fifty-first state. And we keep killing people. The problems is, by making Iraq part of the United States, and by killing the people in Iraq, we are (in the words of SecDef Rumsfeld) creating more terrorist than we are capturing or killing. The metrics are messed up.

The United States Government has demonstrated the perfect example of the 'Law of Unintended Consequences'. The 'BlowBack' we are going to receive from this mis-adventure will certainly justify everything you are saying. But, to not recognize it as the coming 'BlowBack' is to be naive.

Well now, everyone should disagree with you. You are not consistent with your own arguments. So, I guess you're arguing, just to argue then?

First you said that "they" were never in Iraq, or the secret police would have hunted them down etc..

Now, they were there, but it's not the fault of the Iraqi government. Because you can't blame so and so etc..

Come to a real stance, make your points, then stick to them. If "They" didn't and don't really exist, which is what you're saying, then who did Lind go off and join up with? They had to exist right? You are contradicting yourself.

You can't have it both ways.

As for my points being wrong: They exist, they did exist before all of this, They are there, They were there, and they will keep doing what they do and have done.

What is wrong?

As for the blowback, It happened anyway, before we did anything. Remember the Cole, all of the embassies bombed, the first WTC bombing? "THEY" can't be ignored sir. They have to be dealt with, and you can't talk to them, or negotiate with them.

 

[Hand Sword]

except the world as a whole has far greater threats to deal with don't they? there are dozens of insurgent wars going on right now, there's the major ones you know like Dafur, Sri Lanka and there are the dozens of ones that don't make the news, as in Nepal, the Philipines, India/Pakistan, South America and most other parts of Africa.

then of course there's corruption, famine and natural disasters. most of these places just neither have the resources nor a concern for our terrorist issues. many of the people living in these regions live in terror as just a daily aspect of life.

but if by world you mean the western world-- that already has happened-- it's been a unified front -- especially after the wake up calls in madrid and london.

just don't expect to much help from the rest of the planet...

Yes, the world does have all of that going on, I never said that it didn't, or alluded to it, and it is horrible. However, with all due respect to the topic, all of that has nothing to do with it. If you want to discuss those issues, start a new thread.

 

[Hand Sword]

Can we all be honest here please? Lay down our politics, about the right, left, or middle. The real truth is the terrorists really do exist. They have committed attacks, and will continue to do so. They have to be dealt with in a military manner, like it or not, no matter who runs congress, and the presidency. When we were less warlike and talked (Clinton's years), we were attacked multiple times, when we were more aggresive, they attacked, (and we uncovered plans for more). They are going to attack people! What should the real action on our part be?

Please leave out the personal politcs. The enemy has none, and will take/has taken action(s).

 

[Marginal]

Come to a real stance, make your points, then stick to them. If "They" didn't and don't really exist, which is what you're saying, then who did Lind go off and join up with?

The American Taliban? Wasn't he affiliated with the Taliban?


In Afghanistan?


The same Taliban Frist has publicly advocated giving Afghanistan back to?

Apparently that particular THEY aren't that THEY if Frist publicly is comforting them.

They have to be dealt with, and you can't talk to them, or negotiate with them.

So contain them with relevant police actions. Nationbuilding obviously isn't doing the trick.

 

[Hand Sword]

The American Taliban? Wasn't he affiliated with the Taliban?


In Afghanistan?


The same Taliban Frist has publicly advocated giving Afghanistan back to?

Apparently that particular THEY aren't that THEY if Frist publicly is comforting them.


So contain them with relevant police actions. Nationbuilding obviously isn't doing the trick.

Police action is not the Military's role. That's where "they" were, and in charge of a government. Nation building isn't easy, look what we had tio do, in the US's history. Hundreds of years and we're still arguing, and finding our way. You think, after a few years these countries should get it? Forget what is seen on the news, they report only the negatives. Listen to the troops about all of the progress that has been made.

 

[jazkiljok]

These extremeists chose to fight. They will fight irregardless of our politics, and actions. This has been proven true. The world, as a whole, has to stop dragging it's feet and make a real choice, to unify and deal with this threat.

Yes, the world does have all of that going on, I never said that it didn't, or alluded to it, and it is horrible. However, with all due respect to the topic, all of that has nothing to do with it. If you want to discuss those issues, start a new thread.

it's not said to start a new set of topics it was stated as to give proper perspective to the facile and general idea about the "whole world" having to stop dragging it's feet.

i find my comments relevant to your statement and therefore relevant to this discussion.

 

[Hand Sword]

O.k. But, instead of continuing to try to "respond" for the sake of arguing, how about, doing what I said above and answering the question.

Originally Posted by Hand Sword
Can we all be honest here please? Lay down our politics, about the right, left, or middle. The real truth is the terrorists really do exist. They have committed attacks, and will continue to do so. They have to be dealt with in a military manner, like it or not, no matter who runs congress, and the presidency. When we were less warlike and talked (Clinton's years), we were attacked multiple times, when we were more aggresive, they attacked, (and we uncovered plans for more). They are going to attack people! What should the real action on our part be?

Please leave out the personal politcs. The enemy has none, and will take/has taken action(s).

Or,

How's this for a question to all of you: Why shouldn't there be a war against Terrorism?