So much fuss about whether we should have gone into Iraq or not.
Terrorists exist world wide. I maintain that even if Israel was destroyed, terrorism would continue to flourish. I believe that after the election, Bush will send in hundreds of thousands of troops and wipe the insurgents out.
Will that stop the terrorists? Must we catch Osama Bin Laden to stop it? or can we stop terrorism at all. Your opinions please.
Terrorists will always exist. That’s one reason I heard from alot of people opposing “The War on Terrorism” in the first place. Terrorism is an idea, not a concrete tangible thing, and therefore cannot be expunged permanently without anything short of mind control. As long as there are radical people with ideas, terrorism will exist.
If 20,000 of people in the USA were to die from another terrorist attack, would you continue to be a pacifist?
I can’t make head or tail of your OP. What connection are you proposing between the war in Iraq and terrorism? Why do you believe that Bush will send hundreds of thousands more troops after the election, if victorious? Where would he get these troops from, anyway?
xgxlx does not refer to all wars being wrong, and hence can’t be called a pacifist on the information he / she supplies. He / she merely objects to the concept of a “War of Terror” as ridiculous.
Not to junior mod, but just a quick pointer - people usually don’t use titles after the OP, and we usually refer to other posters by their names rather than their post number. It’s just easier that way, I guess.
I think you have got this backwards.
Attacking Iraq greatly increased the number of terrorist actions against US and non-US civilians.
If Bush didn’t invade Iraq the incidents of terrorist acivities there would be minor. Sure you would have a dictator terrorising his own people, but you wouldnt have hundred of people killed and injured every week.
What has OBL got to do with Iraq? Do you mean that al Quida has been involved in terrorist actions there now that Saddam Hussein is out of the way?
We were not at war in Iraq on 9/11. Atticus Finch, if you had been president of the USA at that time, what would YOU have done after 3000 of our people were killed by terrorists?
Well, I would have gone after the people who had actually attacked us, and the people who were directly aiding and abetting them, including toppling the Taliban. I would have committed the resources needed to go after the groups who were responsible for September 11. I would have also stuck with peacekeeping and reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan to try and prevent it from becoming a safe haven for terrorists again in the future. A peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians would also be nice, although I certainly have no illusions that this would end radical Islamic terrorism. (Now, where’d I put that magic wand…?)
What I would not have done would have been to get us bogged down in a war against a dictator who, however loathsome, was basically contained, didn’t pose an immediate threat to us, and had nothing to do with the attacks which killed 3,000 people on American soil.
First of all, Bush doesn’t have more troops in the numbers mentioned (hundreds of thousands) that can be spared for such folly. I do agree that terrorism would exist even if Israel were to disappear altogether. Israel happens to be a convenient whipping boy for both terrorists organizations and governments in the middle east- far better to have the masses focused on an external enemy than to focus on the problems closer to home. If not Israel, other justification for terrorism would quickly be invented in order to suit the purpose at hand.
I agree with those that say that American force should have been reserved for those actually involved with terrorist activities and that the Iraq debacle has not made America any safer. Indeed, the continued occupation of Iraq only fans the flames, and the atrocities committed against American held prisoners adds fuel to the fire.
Simple!
I would have got together with my buddies in the Oil industry, Fox and the Likud party, as follows!
Isn’t fortunate I’m not President. Imagine the grief I’d cause.
Yes, I think we all know this. What’s the relevance of this statement.
I may have invaded Afghanistan in pursuit of senior members of al Qaeda. However, I would have focussed on capturing these leaders and dismantling terrorist infrastructure, such as it was, rather than regime change. Any captured leaders would be subject to a criminal trial with all rights normally accorded to criminal defendants. I would have immediately set up a public and bipartisan inquiry on the failure to predict / prevent 9/11 and implemented their resolutions as soon as they came out to prevent any future disasters. I would have initiated more security measures, but would not take away any civil liberties.
Then I would have used the sympathy in the world for the US to initiate greater cooperation with other nations in preventing terrorist attacks. I would have concentrated on winning the support of the vast majority of the world’s population and cutting off some of its recruiting by addressing some of the issues that aggravate much of the world.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and no links with al Qaeda or any other terrorists (apart from face-saving support of some Palestinians), and thus Iraq would be irrelevant to the issue.
There’s my opinion. What’s yours? I fail to see your position or your argument here. What is this debate about? Perhaps you can help us by laying out your argument in a few steps so we can agree / rebut as necessary.
Damn, botched my coding. Could a passing mod please fix it, if they feel so inclined?
Of course not. ‘Israel’ is not the only reason they hate us. If Israel never existed they would hate us because of our religion, because we’ve been more successful in developing our country and culture in a much shorter period of time, because we have more square acreage, because we have real football, etc. If someone is hateful, they will find a reason to hate us. Heck, they don’t even need a reason. Terrorists are hateful, if nothing. Doubtful you could ever rationalize with a terrorist. “Hey look, we support Israel because of x, y and z.” “Oh, ok. Why didn’t you just say so. We shall cease killing your people and destroying your structures at once.”
How much would terrorism be different today if we hadn’t relocated the post-WWII Jews to the place on Earth they are hated the most? I wonder very much about this.
Bolding mine.
There is a strong and persuasive link between the Iraq and Al Q. It is plain that once this link was established the US inevitably had to take military action against Iraq.
The connection is irrebutable and material. MadSam is far from alone in identifying the connection and supporting military action on that basis.
Of course the link is not rational. It is a narrative. The administration has told the story in such a way that Iraq is the chapter subsequent to Sept 11. And lots of the US population has bought it.
Like MadSam they accept the administration’s line that the US had to attack someone. And hell, one A-rab is as good as another.
Approximately 15 of the terrorists that were directly responsible were from Saudi Arabia. I would have preferred our troops going right into Saudi Arabia. We did the right thing going into Afghanistan and destroying the Taliban but we didn’t finish the war there. O.B.L. is still not captured.
I believe we went into Iraq to establish our presence in the Middle East to keep a geographical watch on Syria, Jordan, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen as Israel was the only sliver of democracy in the Middle East.
Terrorism is primarily conducted by Fundamentalist Islamic people throughout the world. I would agree that invading Iraq doesn’t do much about terrorism in the world.
Beheadings and killing and starvation of hundreds of thousand Sudanese and other Africans cannot continue. The leaders of the terrorists in any country must be warned that the US will not tolerate continuous inhuman activities.
We cannot nuke the terrorists…We would kill too many innocent people and also polute the earth’s air and water and destroy us all.
But we can use force against nations supporting terrorists by threatening to damage their water systems or other specific threats…If terrorists continue, we must act
So, if there is another, large, stable democracy in the Middle East, then you would have a different belief?
Then why didn’t you?
Exactly 15 of them were from Saudi Arabia. What would US troops have accomplished in Saudi Arabia? What exactly would they occupy or bomb? Would you have them invade an entire nation, also Islam’s holiest territory, for the sake of wiping out a couple of houses full of terrorists?
I disagree. Terrorism has been used by all kinds of groups throughout history. Even the tactics being used are not unique to radical Islamists. For example, the Tamil Tigers were pioneers of the “suicide bombing”.
Even in the cases where it’s being used by Muslims today, the terrorists’ motives are often more mundane than religious. There’s a lot of people in Iraq, for example, who are attacking Americans because they see them as invaders or merely because a friend or family member died in an American bombing. Maybe many of these guys never pray or attend a mosque, but they’re still full of anger and hate.
I didn’t say it wouldn’t do much, merely that Iraq wasn’t linked to terrorists, and that there weren’t significant numbers of terrorists in Iraq. Well, now there are. The war serves as a very effective recruiting tool for terrorists. Osama and co can say to many Muslims, “Hey Abdullah! Didn’t I tell you that the Great Satan is just out to kill as many innocent Muslims as possible, regardless of their connection to terrorism, torture others in a bizarre and sexual manner and steal their territory?”
An attack on water systems or something similar would hurt civilians far more than it would hurt terrorists or regime members holed up with plenty of supplies. And how do you determine which countries support terrorism? Usually, that would be the province of governments and their intelligence services to proclaim, but the US, UK, Australian, Polish and other governments lied about this sort of thing to invade Iraq. Who do you trust now to make the decision that a regime is supporting terrorists?
answer to your first question is yes.
answer to your 2nd question…(I’m presuming that your 2nd question was asked as if I had been president): I would have…but I think we didn’t want to displease cowardly France, Germany, Russia, China and most of our other UN “friends”.
Atticus, there is a great deal of truth in some of what you said. Noone said that dealing with world terrorism would be uncomplicated. Putting Iraq aside for a moment…once again, we have had 2 gruesome beheadings in the last 2 days to Americans…more terrorism will continue on a daily or almost daily basis in Sudan, Iraq, Israel, Indonesia and others. What would you suggest we do to bring this to an end. 99% of discussions on the subject are critical of Bush and our entry into Iraq…What would our teeming members suggest to stop this insane killing?
As a member of Earth’s peoples, I would like to hear from anyone ideas on how to solve the problem.
I know how to solve the problem: stop buying Arab terrorist oil from Saudi Arabia and other Arab terrorist-supporting nations. Do that, and the Arab world will revert to exactly what it was before we started paying them to fuel our combustion engine addiction: a barren desert full of nomads, starvation and desolation.
Saudi Arabia thrives on oil. Turn off the oil spigot and they’re not going to have any more money to fund terrorism.