Since you accuse me of Bush bashing, I take it, that your original statement on how to deal with Europe in this issue was meant seriouse. Well, allow me then to reply that trying to isolate your allies is not a good plan. Neither in the war on terrorism, nor in any other circumstance.
If i was president i would follow these plans.
-
Talk to the terrorist groups, give them a chance to tell us why they attack the US.
-
Form an international intelligence agency that is specially for combating terrorism, no countries keeping info to themselves, everything is shared.
-
USA not to get involved in any conflict it that is not its own unless asked to by a fighting side.
-
USA remove all non-essentail buissnesses from the Middle East (MacDonalds etc).
-
Try and tone down on the amount of open patriotic behaviour, to try and stop the feeling amognst other countries that the USA thinks it is the best thing in the World.
The issue is definitely not McDonalds, also it standing for the american way of life, it’s a well loathed target.
The buissnes we are talking about is oil! And it’s anything but non-essentail. As long as we don’t acknowledge what the prime interest of the US in the mid-east really is, we’re getting nowhere in this discussion.
Bush has done a lot of what I’d have done.
Firstly, what is so demanding about the so-call terrorist agenda in the first place ? Lets recap; OBL, for example, has repeatedly stated he wants:
[ul]
[li]The US out of Saudi[/li][li]Less US interference and manipulation in the Muslim world[/li][li]A Palestinian State[/li][li] The end of the suffering of the Iraqi people[/li][/ul]
It doesn’t sound unreasonable to me – the agenda, not the tactics some extremists have resorted to.
And it doesn’t seem to be that radical to George W Bush either, because, despite what he says to the American public, he is, in fact, addressing each of those aspects in turn – I mean, two weeks after announcing the war in Iraq was over, he announces the US is withdrawing from Saudi. Go figure, already! Also, look at his efforts in the Middle East (after telling the world when he came into Office it was for them to sort out their own problems).
Second thing Bush doesn’t tell the US public is that you can’t beat this kind of terrorism. Ever. Not once it’s (finally) reached the affluent, post-Grad, professional middle-class family men. And that’s the lesson of 9/11. It tells you the that the bell curve of that society is so shifted the majority understand the extremist agenda and are sympathetic to the aims, if not always the means.
So, there never was a ‘war against terrorism’. Post Afghanistan, it’s all about compliance and the US belatedly realigning itself in the region dressed (for domestic consumption) as revenge; Was there anyone happier than OBL at the demise of what he called “that bad Muslim” Saddam ?
And, fwiw, as someone of the Euro, Christian democrat/socialist tradition, I supported the acquisition of Iraq knowing the WMD was a lie (see postings) because it was the only way for the middle-east log jam (Palestinian State, US out of Saudi, etc, etc) to be broken.
And I still believe ‘the world’ is looking at a better future because Bush had the balls to do what needed to be done. I’m not convinced every president would have done that. And, damn, do I dislike Bush.
That was an exceptionally interesting post, London_Calling. I don’t believe that any of that ever crossed anyone’s mind in the Administration, but here’s hoping that you turn out to be right. 
[list=1]
[li]Regain the trust of the American People by eliminating the secret tribunals.[/li][li]Work to build up public morale. Terrorists win with fear. Fight that.[/li][li]Increased use of agents over technology in espionage.[/li][li]Saudi Arabia is a problem. Stop ignoring that.[/li][li]Stop with the “patriot” act thing. Focus violence outward.[/li][li]The US Marine Corps has been particularly effective in this fight. Double the size of the Corps.[/li][li]Recruit Middle Eastern criminal organizations to form a retaliatory force inside various nations.[/li][li]Establish a “reply in kind” policy with regards to Chemical & Biological weapons. Demonstrate that policy, with a new Chem/Bio Offense program. Consider re-introducing the LeMay Treatment.[/li][li]If a Nuclear Weapon is used, attack any nation assisting the terrorists. Use nuclear weapons. Do not hesitate.[/li][li]In addition, if a nuclear weapon destroys a US city, use a nuclear weapon to destroy Mecca. Make this plain in advance.[/li][/list=1]
Is this the way how to promote democracy in the world? Acting yourself outside the law?
You can’t be seriouse!
London_Calling, not to be a sycophant, but that was one of the most spot-on, yet properly nuanced posts I’ve read on this board.
I think your feelings about the war reflect what pro-war Americans feel in our gut, for better or worse, which may be a reason Americans, by and large, have “overlooked” the WMD imbroglio so far.
(I say so far because I do think the administration owes me and those who supported this war a damn good explanation of the status of those WMDs. Should the administration fail to do so before November 2004, I will be forced to look at an alternative candidate to vote for. What the hell else can I do?)
Speaking as a pro-war middle-of-the-road American that doesn’t consider himself a jingoistic, flag-waving idiot, I think you just captured my feelings on this whole thing, London. I think we’re helping to make a better world, but I’m not altogether comfortable about how we’ve gone about the task.
Just MHO, but I think many of us moderates are coming to the conclusion that we’re grateful Bush had the guts to do this, but want very much to get back in the world’s good graces again.
This is very cute, but COME ON. We know some of the reasons terrorists want to attack us and it isn’t something we’re going to change our opinions on.
I mean, the World Trade Centers were attacked because they represented mass capitalism and wealth and excess. Is the president going to get on NBC Nightly News and ask us to start living a little more humbly and maybe not buy so much stuff?
I think if your first step is to assume that terrorists just want to sit down and talk this all out, you’re in big trouble.
I’m sure that the Muslims consider America as Terrorists,that must be stoped. There are 1 billion of them worldwide, have we
opened “Pandora’s Box” ? They have no ethics when it come
to killing. I recall the same kind of combatants, when I was in
Viet Nam, and after 57,000 dead we pulled out. Is America
really prepared for something that can go on for many years
to come. They say it’s not about oil, Balderdash! We would not
have 160,000 troops there, if they had no oil. If I was President, I would push hard to develop oil fields off the African coast and set up a new 'Royal Family " that would be our pupit, like U.S. presidents have done in the past in the middle east , and take as much of our business out of the gulf reagon as possible.
FrankoThe pro-terrorist idiocy on this board startles me.
I’m not pro-terrorist!
The Muslim’s have become to hard to deal with. We have to have
oil, let’s help other countries develop thier proven oil reserves,
and buy it from them, that way we can use money instead of
blood for our oil. The sooner we get out of the Gulf , the better,
our troops are in the middle of a hornet’s net over there, these
people hate us. Let’s set up a Government over there as soon
as possible, and get the hell out.
Franko
I’m surprised not to see “handling the Pakistan angle” up on anybody’s to-do-list. Doesn’t that figure anywhere in the Fight Against Terrorism?
I’m currently at work, but would gladly put up cites once I’m home re: why I think Pakistan needs to be handled , should anyone require 'em.
Sorry gouda, but seeing where you are from, I don’t need your opinion on Pakistan and how it should be handled…
I don’t give a damn about “promoting democracy” and I never did, nor did I say that I did. Do not assume the stated agenda of my government reflects my own personal views.
I give a damn about protecting my nation, people and intrests from foreign attack, and our people from internal governmental abuse. And that is not immoral.
As for my nuclear retaliation remarks, yes I meant them. Nuclear deterence only works if the other side believes that you will use it; how, when, and why you will use it; and understands how very much they have to lose if you do use it.
I stated that it would be used in a retaliation, and the central role Mecca plays in Islam makes it valuable to the terrorists. Therefore, it is a valid tactic, & a valid target, if used as a deterrent.
Wow! I guess my opinion just doesn’t count then :rolleyes:
Here’s one recent report. And here’s another one. Once I’m home, I’ll go dig out a few more…
T. Mehr, maybe you do need my opinion. Do try to open your mind a little bit. Or would you rather wait until it starts affecting you?
Your opinion does count, but you stating you’re from India I am afraid it’s strongly biased. I’m not sure, we need more accusations…
Did it occur to you that you might reach your goal (i.e. protecting your nation from terrorists) by “promoting democracy”?
Are you sure this is a war of religions? Ask any moderate muslim about this.
This is the whole problem with terrorism: Of course they know that we are superior in terms of military strength but we can’t hit them without hitting mainly innocent folks.
This is not a war between nations were you drop a bomb (however large it be) on the territory of your enemy. (And even this tactic, although largely accepted, is very questionable.) Nuclear detterrent doesn’t work if the guys you want to hit are hiding all over the globe.
And, do the thought experiment: **What would happen if you’d acctually destroy Mecca? **
I agree that Pakistan should be a concern, specially with the sharia law … uh… implemented in the northern part of the country. But, by god, there’s a lot of concerns. So… what can we do? Strangle the dosh, for one.
Well, it’d certainly be interesting if we destroyed Mecca. In the chinese sense. Rule Number Zero: Never write checks with your mouth that your fists can’t cash. It would be a horribly immoral thing to do. It would rightfully set the rest of the world, and most of the US, against the people who did that.
Right then… Assume just for a moment that you have no clue where I’m from. In the light of the cites I’ve provided (remember, no clue as to where I’m from), would you have an opinion as to whether Pakistan needs to be looked at, or would you still be ambivalent about the issue?