I know its Bush main vote source and he relishes the Commander in Chief role... but isn't he neglecting all sorts of important issues and diplomacy obessing with Al Qaeda ?
(Is this a reflection of America itself and not only Bush maybe ?)
Brits, French, Spaniards and Germans dealt with terrorism for a long time and they didn't whine as much as the US does now. Or will terrorism become a ever present political fact in US politics ?Post in the pit from now on, please. This is not even a little debate. Your anti-American obsession is not even a little unique around here.
It’s always different when it happens to you.
I had a friend. Let’s call her “Joy.”
“Joy” loved our community, and always talked it up to visitors, bragging about how it was a lovely, safe environment in which to raise a family. In her mind, there was no place better.
Until someone broke into her car and stole her stereo.
Suddenly, the community was a crime-ridden hell hole. She scanned the papers endlessly for petty crimes, and trumpeted that something had to be done before we ended up like the Big City. She went to town meetings, and lectured about how “bad” it was getting in town-- that no one was safe any more. Why, last week, a woman had her purse snatched! What’s next? Gangs?
Perhaps Bush has a little of “Joy’s” scewed perspective. Likely, he feels that the rest of the world’s attention is returning to rote business, and it distresses him.
Rashak, the Cold War was one of the central factors in American politics and foreign policy for more than forty years.
Why? The Russians never actually attacked or bombed any US bases or territory, and the one time they came anywhere near us – the Cuban Missile incident – the situation was settled amicably, after some tension.
The situation continued because it was a political hot potato. It was convenient. It was, in fact, profitable for politicians on both sides. Hell, the insanities of the McCarthy Era were based on nothing BUT suspicion, fear, and political hay-making.
And then, the Cold War ended.
And now, we have a situation where foreign nationals DID successfully carry out a very nasty attack on US soil.
And now, even if Al-Qaida vanishes overnight, the politicians have something to squawk about again, something to deal with, something to talk about, and something to beat the voters over the head with.
The “War On Terror” is going to be a major part of the world political climate for quite some time now. Count on that.
Realities have nothing to do with it. American politicians can profit from it. Guys like Osama Bin Laden can also profit from it.
It’s here to stay.
There are 2 types of terrorism :1)terror which has a simple goal, and which will end if the victim gives in to that goal. and 2)terror which is designed to totally destroy a country and wipe it off the map.
British, French, Spanish terror is the first type. Islamic jihadist terror is the second.
The IRA tried to blow up Parliament. Al-Quaida tried to blow up the White House–but these are 2 very different types of terror. England could eliminate Irish violence by submitting to a single demand of the IRA (get out of Ireland.) Then the terror would end.Spain could do the same with the Basques.One “simple” change of government policy, and the terrorists will stop fighting.England’s right to exist is not being challenged by the IRA.
But Islamic terror is not designed to force a simple change of a single policy. (for example, no Islamic group has ever said, “stop supporting Israel, and we’ll stop the terror” , or “get out of Saudi Arabia, and we’ll stop the terror”) Instead, they scream that it is their full intention to totally destroy the Great Satan, and it is their sacred duty to continue the struggle FOREVER until Islam rules the globe.Until Sept 11, nobody cared what they screamed, because it didnt really matter. But now, it does matter—very much.
Bush understands that he is fighting a life and death struggle .He is not, as the OP says, “too worried” about terrorism. It’s just that health care, trade tarriffs and environmental problems are of secondary concern if your country is in danger of being wiped off the map by terrorists who will soon have nuclear weapons .
(You can argue that the best defence would be cooperation (or is it appeasement?), and not Bush’s policy of confrontation. But that’s a different issue for a new thread)
Mmmm…can’t quite agree with that.
Some Islamic groups, or groups that are predominantly Islamic have very specific goals that do not involve the destruction of the United States, and would likely either disband or undergo some major changes if they DID meet their goals. The evacuation of Jewish settlers from the West Bank or the establishment of a Palestinian homeland are two examples.
Unfortunately, these groups tend to get kind of lumped in with the more extreme groups and the utterly insane groups… all the more so these days.
And as long as the goals of those in power – either in countries or in terrorist groups – are served by this sort of thing, it’s going to continue.
Not entirely true. There were agents in the U.S. who did want to spy on and subvert the government. The fact that this was taken as an excuse to brutual, almost insane excess does not mean that it wasn’t responding to a real situation.
From RM
Its easy to dehumanize someone that you dislike. We do it all the time. However, much as I dislike GW personally, I don’t think his prime motivation is getting votes with reguards to how he seems to obsess about terrorist. I think he maybe IS obsessing a bit about AQ and terrorism, but I can certainly see where its coming from.
You have to understand something RM…several thousand citizens of the US died at the hands of a foreign power…on his watch and IN the US. Give the guy a break. It seriously effected him…hell, it seriously effected us all. Many people here are either in denial now or obsessed with the thought that it could happen again. And one thing about Bush…he isn’t in denial about the possibility, thats for sure. HE certainly is taking it deadly seriously.
From RM
Well, leaving aside your obvious attempt to be provocative here, what exactly do you think the Brits, French, Spanish and Germans DID when they were attacked by terrorists? Do you think they sat back calmly and took it?? Not hardly.
In addition, there is the SCALE of the thing. Afaik, NO ONE have EVER been systematically attacked by a terrorist organization like AQ attacked the US on 9/11. When did the Germans ever lose several thousand citizens and several BILLION dollars in damage in Berlin? When was a major building targetted in several cities in the UK where the death toll was so high? When did Basque terrorist ever do such a systematic attack on Spain? When did several thousand French citizens die by a systematic foreign terror attack? How can you know what they would have (or WILL) do had such a thing happen to them??
Its easy for you to smuggly sit back and say the US is ‘whinning’ about what happened, and state that the members of your list never did so…when the members of your list never had such an event happen. Many of the ‘terrorist acts’ in those countrys were home grown (even the Irish/British conflict was ‘homegrown’ IMO) RM…as you know perfectly well. We didn’t freak out over the Oklahoma bombing, no? Nor other acts of DOMESTIC terrorism either. You are comparing apples to ornages IMO.
For myself, I figure that 3 of the members on your list (Spain simply does not have the power to truely vent on an internation scale like the other 3), if such a thing would have happened, would have reacted the same or worse (can you say glass parking lot in Afghanistan?). Certainly the French have never been one full of restraint…except when they are talking about US actions. I can CERTAINLY see them being brutal and efficient if they even THOUGHT that ObL was in Afghanistan and was responsible. Hell, they might have done a better job at killing him than we did, as they wouldn’t have given a shit about the body count based on their past, sorid history.
Britain has shown in the past that they are willing to do what they have to do, reguardless of world opinion (Falklins…Northern Ireland). And god alone knows what the Germans would do if they were attacked on such a scale as the US was on 9/11 by an external foreign power.
Of course, the REAL difference is, if it had of happened to any of the nations on your list, the US would have been right there to help, with the full might of our military. It would have absolutely outraged the American people, reguardless if it happened in London, Paris, Berlin or Madrid…and there would have been a cry to do something. I can’t think of any scenerio (except if the country used or proposed to use nukes) where the US would have blocked, say, France, from going into Syria or Iran, if they felt they had to. We might have refrained from voting (I doubt it, but its possible), but we wouldn’t have voted them down…and most likely, we would have helped them out.
-XT
ch: But Islamic terror is not designed to force a simple change of a single policy. (for example, no Islamic group has ever said, “stop supporting Israel, and we’ll stop the terror” , or “get out of Saudi Arabia, and we’ll stop the terror”) Instead, they scream that it is their full intention to totally destroy the Great Satan, and it is their sacred duty to continue the struggle FOREVER until Islam rules the globe.
Huh?? On the contrary, Islamic groups such as Hamas and Fatah are very explicit about their acts of terrorism being directed towards specific policy goals (not very realistic ones, IMHO).
I certainly don’t think that that justifies their terrorist acts, and I don’t agree with you that it’s less painful to be under attack by terrorists with specific policy goals than by ones motivated only by vague megalomaniac fantasies of world domination. But to say that all Islamic terrorist organizations have set their sights on nothing less than worldwide Islamic supremacy is simply ignorant.
Until Sept 11, nobody cared what they screamed, because it didnt really matter.
:eek: Oh, wince wince wince. This is the sort of comment that fuels anti-American rhetoric about the selfishness and callousness of the US. Um, plenty of people who were dealing with Islamic-extremist terrorism prior to 9/11 did think it mattered, as did many of us Americans who knew about it. Please don’t lend any more credibility to the canard that Americans don’t care what injustice or violence is inflicted on the rest of the world as long as American lives aren’t at stake.
It’s just that health care, trade tarriffs and environmental problems are of secondary concern if your country is in danger of being wiped off the map by terrorists who will soon have nuclear weapons.
The point of the OP, though, seems to be that obsessing about terrorism to the exclusion of all other issues—even when you’re talking to a Southeast Asian/Australian economic coalition—may not be the best way to protect your country. Successful thwarting of terrorism requires a healthy economy, sound domestic policies (especially on the infrastructure-security front), strong international crime-fighting efforts, diplomatic goodwill, and an adequate measure of stability and prosperity in other societies. It’s not wise to neglect such issues in favor of an exclusive focus on the military aspects of fighting terrorism.
I think the whole thing is exaggerated. During the Cold War there was supposedly a “bomber gap” then a “missle gap” and these served the purposes of the military and those who wanted to sell missles and bombers. Turned out it wasn’t so.
I think the same game is being played with the WAR ON TERRORISM, but how can I know for sure? I would need access to the raw data which would be overwhelming to analyze. I’m stuck in the position of having to “trust” authority which I don’t.
So my personal guess is that the threat is exaggerated by 200% + or - 80% but that is my delusion.
Dal Timgar
But those groups you refer you have never attacked the USA.(for example: Hizballah is active in Lebanon, Palestinian groups are active in Israel.) And the US never got too upset about terrorists who attack non-US citizens. But the attacks on Americans–in New York ,in Saudi and Yemen–have all been carried out by Al-Qiada type groups, whose publicly stated goal is the total destruction of America.Bush isnt worried about Hizballah, the PLO or even Sunni/Shiite/Wallabi groups attacking each other in the Middle East --he is worried about attacks on Americans. And rightly so.
The only question is whether he will be effective. There is another thread here about Bush as Good cop/Bad Cop, which discusses the practicality of Bush’s policy. But this thread is about whether the number-one concern of Bush ought to be terror, or other issues. I agree that it ought to be terror
XT: I can’t think of any scenerio (except if the country used or proposed to use nukes) where the US would have blocked, say, France, from going into Syria or Iran, if they felt they had to. We might have refrained from voting (I doubt it, but its possible), but we wouldn’t have voted them down…and most likely, we would have helped them out.
Er, you’ll recall that France and lots of other European, Asian, African, and American countries did “help out” in the military response to the 9/11 attacks, namely the invasion of Afghanistan and the overthrow of the Taliban and hunt for al-Qaeda. (And many of them are still “helping out” in Afghanistan.)
Many of them, however, opposed the invasion of Iraq precisely because they objected that it wasn’t adequately justified as a response to 9/11 (or by any of the other proposed reasons), since Saddam Hussein was not credibly linked to the 9/11 terrorists.
So I really don’t understand what you mean by your suggestion that, say, France is not being as supportive as the US would be if the situations were reversed. Would we support, say, France if they responded to Algerian terrorism by invading Lebanon?
I will try to make a general response to various posts:
Xtisme… did you mean to say Spain has less to complain about Terrorism ? I think I misunderstood… I thought the Basque ETA was as bad as the IRA. Deaths caused being high.
Master Wang… Cuban crisis settled amicably ? 
Wow that was very tense during the crisis… still it was a real menace. I agree the shock of 9/11 is strong… its the continued raising of the issue that is under discussion. Also the Cold War if it was an obsession or a phantom menace… it was a collective one. The west as a whole had it… Al Qaeda isn’t an issue to many now.
Yes, sorry I was being a bit provocative… but its true that other countries with pretty bad terrorism haven’t made so much fuss 2 years on. Even the Israelis. It’s like Bush must make sure the issue isn’t dropped. Al Qaeda hasn’t even targeted Continental USA since then. Then if you compare to the civilian casualites in Afghanistan and Iraq… it hardly balanced.
Now if you get the money dumped into Homeland Security and the extra military spending and reverted into the USA I bet the number of americans saved through better medical attention, food, etc… would be way way higher than 2,800. (I know americans are against hand outs… just an example.)
Bush bashing aside... back to the issue. I agree its political fuel and a good campaign issue... but how much is genuine Bush obsession... how much is just a response from the american people themselves ? Or are they tired of it ?
The US is wasting too many resources, personnel and money worrying excessively with Terrorism ? Are other important issues being left aside and won’t this hurt the US later on ? Or are we just seeing to much media attention on Iraq ? US interests outside the security sphere should get more prominence.
Wow... aren't you overdoing it ? "Life and Death struggle" ! Wiped off the map. Only 2,800 died... not millions. Nukes are hardly being stopped by Bush... thou I agree its not the method were are discussing.
Also this all out military effort needs a good economy anyway... not much point in defending yourself and breaking financially.Sorry for the hijack here…just going to respond to Kimstu then I’m done with that aspect.
You highlighed it Kimstu…now read what I said. Here, let me help…
From me
What I’m saying here is that, IF France was attacked, and IF THEY felt, for whatever reason, that they had to go into Iran or Syria (note, they are unrelated to Afghanistan where AQ is…in other words, IF France wanted to expand the conflict beyond simply going after the folks that did the deed, for whatever reasons THEY felt they had to), then IMO the US would not block such a move…would not basically go around and convince/coerce other nations into blocking them either, especially if there was any justificational fig leaves at all (which there WERE in the Iraq/US conflict). However, thats exactly what France DID do over Iraq.
For whatever reasons, the US felt (rightly or wrongly) it had to go into Iraq…and France and others chose to oppose that. IMO it had nothing to do with ‘adequate justification’…it had to do with national politics and monetary reasons.
From Kimstu
Nope, SH had little or nothing to do with 9/11. You are right there. But then, the US didn’t say they were going into Iraq because of 9/11 either. What they said was they were going into Iraq because SH was in violation of the terms of the ceasefire from the first gulf war, and because SH was dragging his feet over the whole WMD inspections thing. The REAL reasons the US did what it did, of course, was vastly different than the excuse used. But then, the REAL reasons France and others opposed the US are vastly different than what THEY said too.
The opposing countries basically said they wanted more time for diplomacy, however the vast majority ALSO thought that SH had WMD and was in violation of the ceasefire…they simply wanted more time to work it out, to have more extensive inspections, etc. The current US administration had had enough of the foot dragging that had gone on for more than a decade, and was frankly frustrated by the whole process…and still smarting from 9/11, and wanting to DO something in the region that would set an example so that (in theory) no one would consider fucking with us again any time soon. In addition, there there are a lot of folks in the US that were still smarting from the first gulf war (including, again, the current administation), and having our ‘allies’ jerk our chain, when we could have finished SH THEN. Ya, Bush I left the Kurds and Shi’ite to die in their failed rebellion (to the US’s shame)…because he was pretty much convinced too. By our ‘allies’.
To the US, SH and Iraq was the perfect excuse. He was a brutal dictator, who had invaded Kuait, who had killed off thousands of his own people. He WAS in violation of his own ceasefire, with his constant harrassment of our planes in his no fly zones. It looks like he actually didn’t have WMD, but pretty much everyone THOUGHT he did, and I think he played that misconception up for his own reasons.
IMO, both were wrong. The opposing countries were wrong to oppose the US on this as they did (they could have simply come out and said they felt it was wrong, but would abstain from voting), and the US was wrong to make it an issue in the first place, as there was no reason to push the Iraq problem RIGHT THEN which HAD been simering for a decade and wasn’t going anywhere. The people of Iraq would have had to suffer for a while longer, but then its not America’s responsibility to free all peoples that are under the boot of a dictator appearently.
IMO neither side acted wisely or as good allies (or, more importantly, good business partners, which is what we are) should have, and the entire issue created a huge rift between the opposing sides.
This is getting totally away from the OP though, so I’ll end the hijack here for me. If you want to discuss Iraq in detail, and aren’t satisfied with the myriad threads about it on this board, feel free to start a new one.
-XT
Xtisme… Bush said in his 2.5 hr visit that those soldiers were helping fight terrorism.
Forigin (forign? this is public education at work.) terrorists are attacking america because we are interfering with their countries. 9/11 was a direct result of our globilization. The bush administraition used 9/11 to further their globalization. This globalization only angers the terrorists more. If we attack terrorists then they only get angrier and attack us more.
This is an obvious fact that even a junior in a public high school can see. Surely those in the government are bright enough to notice this. If the bush administration truely wanted terrorism to stop they would leave Islamic affairs alone.
Why don’t they? It could be that they want terrorism around to continue to deny americians of their freedoms and constitutional rights. In my opinion it’s because our americian corperations want this war on terror to expand their power to other countries. A perfect example of this is the sale of Iraq’s infrastructure.
RM…were his lips moving? Is he a politician?
In all seriousness though, he might have said that…that doesn’t make it the whole story though. Its one of those partial truths that plays good to the troops and to the people. The real reasons we are there are complex, as you know very well yourself.
-XT
You cannot compare 9/11 to anything the IRA has done. We could compare 1 for 1 the events that happened in other countries without ever mentioning 9/11. The attack on the United States was like no other attack in the last 100 years. Had it been completely successful, they would have succeeded in decapitating the government and taking a serious bite out of the military hierarchy. The WTC wasn’t just a couple of buildings, there was more office space in those 2 buildings than in ALL of Cincinnati. They severely disrupted a city that is recognized as a financial powerhouse around the world.
If the United States had collapsed in political disarray it would have triggered a worldwide financial crisis. Not bad for a collection of rag-a-muffins. More amazing is it took almost no money, planning or skill to carry it out. They needed box knives, planes, schedules and rudimentary knowledge of flight. They stuck Visa with the bill and stole 4 large aircraft full of fuel for use as missiles. They based their entire mission on the fact that nobody would conceive of their intentions, which gave them full control of the situation. They literally took a page out of a Tom Clancy novel and ran with it.
You cannot compare 9/11 to anything the IRA has done. We could compare 1 for 1 the events that happened in other countries without ever mentioning 9/11. The attack on the United States was like no other attack in the last 100 years. Had it been completely successful, they would have succeeded in decapitating the government and taking a serious bite out of the military hierarchy. The WTC wasn’t just a couple of buildings, there was more office space in those 2 buildings than in ALL of Cincinnati. They severely disrupted a city that is recognized as a financial powerhouse around the world.
If the United States had collapsed in political disarray it would have triggered a worldwide financial crisis. Not bad for a collection of rag-a-muffins. More amazing is it took almost no money, planning or skill to carry it out. They needed box knives, planes, schedules and rudimentary knowledge of flight. They stuck Visa with the bill and stole 4 large aircraft full of fuel for use as missiles. They based their entire mission on the fact that nobody would conceive of their intentions, which gave them full control of the situation. They literally took a page out of a Tom Clancy novel and ran with it.