Why is there the war on terror?

[searcher]

I am with you HS. I have several students that are currently serving in Iraq and in Afghanistan. I get reports form them regularly and they will tell each of you the same. We have to do this to keep these nuts from breaching our borders anddoing more of the same. If "police action" is not what we should be using the military for, at this current time, then who do we use? The only way we will ever be rid of this problem is to strike a decisive blow to the terrorists. The problem is that this is easier said than done. Our soldiers ARE doing the best that they can, but CT is a very different beast to battle. Trust me, it sucks.

Going back to the original question. The reason we have a war on terrorism is because we should never have to deal with things like 9/11/01 ever again. We can stop and bring everyone home, but it may be you oryour family that will be the next victims of terrorist action.

 

[heretic888]

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

As I have said previously, the so-called "War On Terror" is a farce. It's a marketing scheme whose purpose is to get the American people and the people of other countries to "buy" what the PNAC is "selling".

They're trying to scare you into buying into their global agenda. And, you know what?? It's working.

A more proper term would be the "War For Pax Americana" or the "War For American Hegemony". That would at least be an honest description of our purpose in Iraq (and, in the near future, probably Iran).

Once again, the signatories of the PNAC have called for the military occupation of Iraq since at least as far back as 1997. Letters from individual members (such as Wolfowitz) also indicate such a plan may have been in place from as early as 1992. These people have been planning our military invasion of Iraq pretty much since the first Gulf War ended (Bush Sr. was apparently smart enough not to buy into such idiocy). The idea that it is in any way connected to international terrorism is a fantasy.

A few months before the 2000 presidential election, the PNAC published a letter outlining their "vision" for America's strategic, political, and military future. This involved a dramatic increase in both the spending and global expansion of our military forces, all in an effort to secure American economic and political interests throughout the globe, an process referred to as "Pax Americana". Iraq was considered top priority on that list, given its strategic location in the region and the oil revenue it could potentially provide.

Hey, I love to pretend as much as the next guy. But, let's call a spade a spade.

Laterz.

 

[michaeledward]

They exist,

define 'They' ...Are you talking Al Qaeda, or Islam Al Jamiha?

Or do you believe the world is broken down between the 'Good' and the 'Evil' and you are describing 'They' as all the evil in the world?

they did exist before all of this,

Al Qaeda did exist in Afghanistan.

Islam Al Jamiha did exist in the northeast mountains of Iraq. Under the safety net of the United States No Fly zone. Completely out of the scope of Hussiens' Iraq and Fedayyeehn.

They are there,

They are there now.

But we are still unclear as to how to define 'They' ... because most of the 'They' in Iraq, are the pissed off Sunni's who are afraid of being ethnically cleansed by the Government the United States put in Place in Iraq.

Sure, there are some terrorists in Iraq, but, they are a small percentage of the disruptive entities in Iraq. And they were not there before the US Military.

They were there,

Again, Islam Al Jamiah did have training camps in the northeast mountains of Iraq - the area where the Kurds had been operating as an independent country since 1992 - Under the protection of the United States Air Force.

Prior to the US invasion of Iraq, this organization was, at best, very loosely influenced by Al Qaeda, and hardly an affiliate. After the invasion, the one legged guy changed the name of his operation - which was loosely affiliated with Islam al Jamiha - to Al Qaeda in Iraq.

This was a Brilliant Marketing Stroke - because it was bought by Bill O'Reilly and passed on to his sycophants, and from that echo chamber assimliated to the uninformed.

and they will keep doing what they do and have done.

If the United States military disappeared from Iraq today ... the Sunni and Shi'ite militias would eliminate any of the terrorists in the country. Islam Al Jamiha - or Al Qaeda in Iraq - would have bigger worries than where the next Bradley Fighting vehicle was going to be. Really, they'd be looking for the Mahti Army. That would be getting their attention.

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.

Now you are conflating two different organizations, to different ideaologies into one. You are trying to paint everything in the world in a single color. The inability, or unwillingness, to discern the difference between bin Laden's Al Qaeda and the civil unrest in Iraq is getting our soldiers killed.



(and the spelling of Islam Al Jamiha throughout this post is incorrect, I apologize for that, but the facts about this organization are not in dispute)



P.S. - And the President often tells us that Iraq is part of the War on Terror because the leaders of Al Qaeda says it is - claiming bin Laden said Iraq is the central front of the war on terror. I don't believe that Osama Bin Laden should be directing American Foreign Policy. Mr. President, You need a better reason than that.

 

[michaeledward]

{terrorists} 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).

It is your belief that terrorist need to be dealt with in a military manner. I am not so convinced.

I wonder what your statements are concerning President Clinton's military attacks on Sudan, Afghanistan and Iraq. - Yet you claim we 'talked'. Please show one negotiation with Al Qaeda.

You state multiple attacks ... WTC '93 - African Embassies - '99 - Cole '00 - That is six years between attacks. Bush still has a way to go.... Unless you count Indonesia, London, Madrid. Then the clock needs to reset.

And the CIA was not convinced Al Qaeda was involved in the Cole until after the Bush administration came to power ... What action did Bush take in military retaliation for that attack?

To claim that the 'enemy' does not have politics is to be completely ignorant of the enemy, and will no doubt result in failure. Without understanding your enemy, how can you defeat him?

 

[michaeledward]

Listen to the troops about all of the progress that has been made.

Seems to me the Troops published an editorial earlier this week telling us what progress has been made.

 

[CoryKS]

For those who lean toward a more Jacksonian approach, here's an interesting article by Thomas Sowell. Going Quietly? Enjoy.

 

[Touch Of Death]

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..."

If blowing up the middle east and alienating ourselves from the rest of the world was the alternative. I feel fine too.
Sean

 

[Don Roley]

I wonder what your statements are concerning President Clinton's military attacks on Sudan, Afghanistan and Iraq. - Yet you claim we 'talked'. Please show one negotiation with Al Qaeda.

Please, it is clear that by "talked" he was talking about making statements and not about negotiations.

And those attacks you mention were pretty much just cruise missle attacks on buildings. Not quite the same thing as taking out the Taliban in Kabul.

But why are people refusing to admit that there are Islamic terrorists out there that want to kill non Muslims? I see more railing against the Republican Illuminati than talk about some of the things you can find at www.memri.org.

And guess what, these folks are not going to go away because we think nice thoughts. We need the military, we need the political process and we need to understand the problem. Just one or two of the three is not going to be enough. I do not think that anyone here is saying that we do not have to worry about the politics of the situation. But I am shocked to see that some people seem to think that the military is useless when dealing with terrorists.

 

[heretic888]

But why are people refusing to admit that there are Islamic terrorists out there that want to kill non Muslims?

Because any feasible "War On Terror" ended the day our troops set foot in Iraq.

 

[Marginal]

Police action is not the Military's role.

Nationbuilding is not the millitary'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.

Yes, and it's even harder when you are trying to build a nation with an unwilling population as the germ.

Hundreds of years and we're still arguing, and finding our way.

That's overstating what's going on in the US. It's a firmly established nation, and the stuff we routinely bicker about is totally meaningless. (Abortion, flag burning, pledge of allegeance, ten commandments, Republican vs Democrat.) Certainly doesn't lead to routine violence in the streets, it doesn't destablize the government etc.

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.

Why? They had no reason to be in Iraq. Afghanistan was understandable, but the administration's compelte lack of interest in Afghanistan has screwed the pooch.

Further, if nationbuilding is a long and hard road, and the troops are making great gains, why has the funding been rolled up by Bush already?

 

[Makalakumu]

Not quite the same thing as taking out the Taliban in Kabul.

The Taliban would have given us Osama anytime we wanted. The real reason the Taliban had to go was the failed deal with Unocal. The invasion of Afghanistan was planned long before 9/11. Hell, the US was telling the Indian government in August of 2001 that we'd have troops on the ground before the snow flew.

But why are people refusing to admit that there are Islamic terrorists out there that want to kill non Muslims? I see more railing against the Republican Illuminati than talk about some of the things you can find at www.memri.org.

The problem is how the threat is being presented and how its being dealt with. The Republicans have turned Muslim into the new ENEMY in order to justify WWIV. They've ramped up everybodies FEAR so they could ram through their policies in the middle east.

Terrorism has GROWN exponentially because of Republican policies.

And guess what, these folks are not going to go away because we think nice thoughts. We need the military, we need the political process and we need to understand the problem.

What we are seeing is blowback from our support of Isreal and our attempts to monopolize middle eastern oil. Many americans don't want to understand the problem, because responsibility for some of this in our laps.

But I am shocked to see that some people seem to think that the military is useless when dealing with terrorists.

How useful has it been so far? Terrorism has grown because of all of the military action we've undertaken. A wise man once told me that fighting for peace was like ****ing for virginity.

 

[Hand Sword]

As I have said previously, the so-called "War On Terror" is a farce. It's a marketing scheme whose purpose is to get the American people and the people of other countries to "buy" what the PNAC is "selling".

They're trying to scare you into buying into their global agenda. And, you know what?? It's working.

A more proper term would be the "War For Pax Americana" or the "War For American Hegemony". That would at least be an honest description of our purpose in Iraq (and, in the near future, probably Iran).

Once again, the signatories of the PNAC have called for the military occupation of Iraq since at least as far back as 1997. Letters from individual members (such as Wolfowitz) also indicate such a plan may have been in place from as early as 1992. These people have been planning our military invasion of Iraq pretty much since the first Gulf War ended (Bush Sr. was apparently smart enough not to buy into such idiocy). The idea that it is in any way connected to international terrorism is a fantasy.

A few months before the 2000 presidential election, the PNAC published a letter outlining their "vision" for America's strategic, political, and military future. This involved a dramatic increase in both the spending and global expansion of our military forces, all in an effort to secure American economic and political interests throughout the globe, an process referred to as "Pax Americana". Iraq was considered top priority on that list, given its strategic location in the region and the oil revenue it could potentially provide.

Hey, I love to pretend as much as the next guy. But, let's call a spade a spade.

Laterz.

You could be very right in your assumptions, However, There is a terrorist element in the world, conducting those activities. They have and will attack. So, what should be done? Why shouldn't it be done?

 

[Hand Sword]

define 'They' ...Are you talking Al Qaeda, or Islam Al Jamiha?

Or do you believe the world is broken down between the 'Good' and the 'Evil' and you are describing 'They' as all the evil in the world?



Al Qaeda did exist in Afghanistan.

Islam Al Jamiha did exist in the northeast mountains of Iraq. Under the safety net of the United States No Fly zone. Completely out of the scope of Hussiens' Iraq and Fedayyeehn.



They are there now.

But we are still unclear as to how to define 'They' ... because most of the 'They' in Iraq, are the pissed off Sunni's who are afraid of being ethnically cleansed by the Government the United States put in Place in Iraq.

Sure, there are some terrorists in Iraq, but, they are a small percentage of the disruptive entities in Iraq. And they were not there before the US Military.




Again, Islam Al Jamiah did have training camps in the northeast mountains of Iraq - the area where the Kurds had been operating as an independent country since 1992 - Under the protection of the United States Air Force.

Prior to the US invasion of Iraq, this organization was, at best, very loosely influenced by Al Qaeda, and hardly an affiliate. After the invasion, the one legged guy changed the name of his operation - which was loosely affiliated with Islam al Jamiha - to Al Qaeda in Iraq.

This was a Brilliant Marketing Stroke - because it was bought by Bill O'Reilly and passed on to his sycophants, and from that echo chamber assimliated to the uninformed.



If the United States military disappeared from Iraq today ... the Sunni and Shi'ite militias would eliminate any of the terrorists in the country. Islam Al Jamiha - or Al Qaeda in Iraq - would have bigger worries than where the next Bradley Fighting vehicle was going to be. Really, they'd be looking for the Mahti Army. That would be getting their attention.




Now you are conflating two different organizations, to different ideaologies into one. You are trying to paint everything in the world in a single color. The inability, or unwillingness, to discern the difference between bin Laden's Al Qaeda and the civil unrest in Iraq is getting our soldiers killed.



(and the spelling of Islam Al Jamiha throughout this post is incorrect, I apologize for that, but the facts about this organization are not in dispute)



P.S. - And the President often tells us that Iraq is part of the War on Terror because the leaders of Al Qaeda says it is - claiming bin Laden said Iraq is the central front of the war on terror. I don't believe that Osama Bin Laden should be directing American Foreign Policy. Mr. President, You need a better reason than that.

1st question : Does it matter what name each "group" is called by? They are all doing the same things, with the same intentions. I wouldn't call what they do, as part of the "good" side.

Let's be realistic too, they aren't being ethnically cleansed. A certain dead person and his co horts started this. The Iraqi government has extended a hand to get these groups involved with the government.

Would they cleanse the foreign fighters if wer left, or would they cleansen each other, which isd going on, and we are trying to stop. I think it would be a hell of a lot worse for Iraqi's if we just left outright.

I think I did address the differences earlier, saying that the insurgents were killing the foreign terrorists as well, as well as ratting out their locations and activities to pur, and Iraqi troops.

This arguing of the "facts" could go on and on, and it's pointless. As I requested sir, to another "arguer", lay down your politics and answer the real question. Why shouldn't there be a war against terrorism?

 

[Hand Sword]

It is your belief that terrorist need to be dealt with in a military manner. I am not so convinced.

I wonder what your statements are concerning President Clinton's military attacks on Sudan, Afghanistan and Iraq. - Yet you claim we 'talked'. Please show one negotiation with Al Qaeda.

You state multiple attacks ... WTC '93 - African Embassies - '99 - Cole '00 - That is six years between attacks. Bush still has a way to go.... Unless you count Indonesia, London, Madrid. Then the clock needs to reset.

And the CIA was not convinced Al Qaeda was involved in the Cole until after the Bush administration came to power ... What action did Bush take in military retaliation for that attack?

To claim that the 'enemy' does not have politics is to be completely ignorant of the enemy, and will no doubt result in failure. Without understanding your enemy, how can you defeat him?

O.k. what would be a convincing way to deal with this problem, in your eyes? Never talked to al queda, but, talked and placated to those nations for years under his admininstration. Downsizing the military, spreading them thin, a pandering foreign policy, doesn't embolden these groups to pull of attacks here? You don't need the CiA to confirm, when a group claims responsibility for it. I say who cares which "group", As far as I'm concerned, it's one big group of jerks. You're right, they do have politics, I made a mistake. They want everything Islam, they way they see it, and everything that's not, will be destroyed.

 

[Hand Sword]

Because any feasible "War On Terror" ended the day our troops set foot in Iraq.

For this argument, There is some validity to that. Iraq was a seperate issue, that didn't need to be addressed, the way we did, at that time. Al Queda should have had all of our resources go to it, and it's destruction, with Bin laden captured.

 

[Hand Sword]

Nationbuilding is not the millitary's role.

Yes, and it's even harder when you are trying to build a nation with an unwilling population as the germ.



That's overstating what's going on in the US. It's a firmly established nation, and the stuff we routinely bicker about is totally meaningless. (Abortion, flag burning, pledge of allegeance, ten commandments, Republican vs Democrat.) Certainly doesn't lead to routine violence in the streets, it doesn't destablize the government etc.



Why? They had no reason to be in Iraq. Afghanistan was understandable, but the administration's compelte lack of interest in Afghanistan has screwed the pooch.

Further, if nationbuilding is a long and hard road, and the troops are making great gains, why has the funding been rolled up by Bush already?

You're right, But, I never said that they should nation build.

Nation building isn't easy. I wouldn't say that the whole people are unwilling germs, huge amounts, both genders, have taken part to do this. A small group is the germ.

No violence in the streets over our "meaningless" topics of arguiment? You're not serious on that one are you? Destabilizing a government? I guess getting voted out of power wouldn't qualify. How about all of the spending/ man hours needed needed for those issues. I'm sure it doesn't hurt a government from funding what's really needed, hurting how they are viewed.

Afghanistan is the issue that should have been dealt with fully. No argument there. I wouldn't say it's been a lack of interest though. Different set of circumstances, and it's more stable there.


For everyone, No matter your hatred for the Iraq situation, the fact remains that it is going on, and will be for a while. This arguing is pointless. If you want to Fight so bad, for the sake of fighting, Go and join the troops on the ground. They could use your fire and tenacity. If not, could we please stop this.

What are the real solutions, instead of all of the coulda, woulda, shoulda's ?

 

[Seeking Zen]

[FONT=&quot]Ok...so the world is heading towards the "global village". We live in free cities and countries, which have laws to enforce basic common rules, which are agreed upon to uphold a basic common denominator of what is acceptable. When one acts outside these laws, we feel safe knowing that these people will be hunted down and punished. Why then is it suddenly wrong to expand this form of thought to a global scale. If in the "global Village" some fall below the common accepted denominator why is suddenly wrong to hold them to account. Why does it become "interference". Be it a home invasion and murder, terrorists, or mass abuse of human rights, or genocide. Do the victims not deserve protection and prevention?
When I hear " what gives us the right to force freedom and human rights on any nation" I have to ask...if these core values are not to be promoted or enforced are we not saying that freedom and basic human rights are only for those who are born into them. [/FONT]

 

[Hand Sword]

Good post! I would also point out, as this becomes more so, and Countries lose their Identity, in favor of the global point of view, more and more of the violence is going to come. That's the reason for the Fascist Islamic fighting and attacks. Their surroundings are moderating, and becoming part of the world family.

 

[FearlessFreep]

One thing I suggest we take from the small and apply large is the fact that this board is filled with Martial Artists and from that we derive ways of dealing with threats, both with verbal deflection if possible or physical violence if needed and then what must be done if phsycial violence is required.

 

[Seeking Zen]

Good post! I would also point out, as this becomes more so, and Countries lose their Identity, in favor of the global point of view, more and more of the violence is going to come. That's the reason for the Fascist Islamic fighting and attacks. Their surroundings are moderating, and becoming part of the world family.

[FONT=&quot]Good point!
For all that "thinking globally" is all the rage. Few seem to seem to notice the forced acceptance Radical Islam is unleashing in Europe. As you say… as a result the fear of cultural offence not mention the basic fear of retaliation. This is not going away by pretending it is not happening. History tells us before peace there is conflict. Victory creates peace…diplomacy keeps the peace. Diplomacy has never created peace…rather postponed the inevitable until the cycle completes as stated above. Take North Korea…is Diplomacy go stop a nuclear attack by them or whoever the sell the technology to. No. It is however…postponing an eventuality. Which leads to Iran. Should world postpone the inevitable the downward spiral we are witnessing or end the threat and use diplomacy to mitigate the result?[/FONT]