Upon what basis did you draw this conclusion?
Because the anti-war folks aren’t automatically accepting whatever nonsense George W. Bush gives out?
All terrorists are people. Therefore, all people are terrorists. Yeah. That’s it.
What scotandrsn said.
We may know the answer very soon. CNN just reported that two groups of Iraqi intelligence agents have been arrested in two different countries with conventional explosives. The targets were said to be American interests. Sources in the State department also said that Iraqi agents may be in as many as ten countries.
I didn’t hear anything about Iraqi agents in the U.S. itself.
Actually this is not quite right. Yes 19, not 20 individuals got on those planes and flew them into buildings. But they had a whole lot of help. They had plenty of monetary and logistical support from other individuals all over the globe. And, as documented in Afghanistan, the explicit support of at least one government.
Lets see here:
A) Peace at all cost. yah thats a good one. We want peace no matter how many people threaten us and abuse us and terrorize us and blow up our ships and so on and so on. Yeah, real reasonable there.
B) This was is immoral, unjust and illegal Allowing a regime that shoots any of their human shields from escaping is a real noble cause.
C) No Blood for Oil This has been the slogan for 13 years now since the last gulf war. Hasnt happened, never will. Iragi oil belongs to the people of Iraq and its going to stay that way.
What bothers me about these protestors is that the war is barely a week old. Yet they protest as if it was already years old. There are no atrocities being commited by the coalition. As a matter of fact and document, all of the atrocities and violation of convention are being performed by the Iraqi regime. Human lives are lost but no one speaks about the iraqi human spirit and how these people are so afraid of Saddam they cannot even flee for their lives.
An honorable leader would call for a ceasefire for civilians to get out of the way. A true leader would not hide in schools, hospitals, mosques and historical sites. A compassionate human being would not try to confuse the enemy by dressing as their civilian population. The fact that we hold our fire and would rather let an enemy escape than risk firing upon an innocent clearly tells you which side God or Allah is on. These peace demonstrations are what Saddam is counting on to drain the American will to fight. These protests helps Saddam survive to be even more popular, more powerful even more deadly than he is now.
If these diehard peaceniks do not see that, then it is my opinion that the anti-war people are not basing their protestations on the facts.
Bonus Question: Saddam told the world that if the coalition attacked then he would “take the fight to them wherever there is land, sea or air.” Obviously he hasn’t really done this yet, and so far at least this seems to be more bluster from the doomed dictator. What happens however if the “next big terrorist attack” is found to be perpetrated by Iraqi forces? Another question in the same vein might be - what happens if solid evidence is found of connections between those Iraqi forces and al qaeda? Before you dismiss the second question out of hand in a hail of “but no conclusive connections have been shown” just admit that they obviously have some common cause.
Can the anti-war movement survive this or will it just become stronger?
Not so fast, dude.
A majority of people in the peace movement, myself included, have said over and over again that sometimes military force is required. We wish it to be a last resort, but we are not so unrealistic to think that it is never justified.
I had several reasons for participating in the two peace marches I attended. One of those reasons was to protest Bush’s intense desire to use war as a first (or arguably second) resort.
And in response to the OP, I think the war in Iraq will not make the U.S. any safer. It has already significantly deepened hostility toward the U.S. in the arab world, which will make another big terrorist attack on U.S. soil all the more likely … and sooner rather than later.
And afterwards, both sides will say “I told you so” – and I don’t know which side will ultimately become the majority public opinion. But I do know that there will be a serious portion of the populace who will say … "Hey, we whupped Saddam’s ass … so why didn’t that prevent [major U.S. city] from [major terror act]?
If there is another terrorist attack in the US, hopefully, our government will get smart and realize we have to stop trying to be an empire. Terrorism is a logical response to empire. If we stop fucking with other people’s countries, they will leave us alone. That should be pretty obvious. I am sick of all this “they hate us because of our freedom” crap.
ES: If there is another terrorist attack in the US, hopefully, our government will get smart and realize we have to stop trying to be an empire. Terrorism is a logical response to empire. If we stop fucking with other people’s countries, they will leave us alone.
Partly true. When other people perceive us as brutal imperialist invaders, that does increase fear and hatred towards the US and, consequently, increases support for anti-US terrorism. Therefore, if we act so as to convince most reasonable people that we’re not actually out to get them, that will naturally make us safer by reducing the number of our enemies. However, I think we’re kidding ourselves if we imagine that we won’t continue to have some enemies no matter what we do, simply because there are always some evil nutjobs who want to kill people.
IMHO, whatever happens with future terrorist attacks, the anti-war movement will continue to remain a very important part of the struggle against terrorism, for two main reasons:
-
it helps keep Americans focused on the need to treat other peoples justly, even when we’re feeling angry and frightened about terrorism and looking for an accessible enemy to whack;
-
it helps other people remember—even when they’re afraid we might whack them—that most Americans do care about treating other peoples justly, so they will be less likely to provide support to evil nutjobs who want to kill people.
I cannot comment as to the “majority” thinking that war can be justifiable. However, my impression comes from newsmedia samplings. Most say war must never be fought. I too, find this unrealistic. I wouldve sided with the anti-war crowd had they adapted this basic philosophy instead of Peace at all cost mentality.
This I will defer to. I do know know the facts as to the exact reason for an immediate strike on Iraq. The President seemed to be informed as to why this was a good Idea. They havent disclosed as to why but I will take their word for it. Let the man do his job. I will hold him accountable after the war. Waging war is not an action that is best made by a committee or democracy. It takes a leader to do that. For good or bad this war has started. We have to see it thru because if we dont, the consequences of prematurely withdrawing is even more devastating than starting.
I agree that this war has heightened hostilities in the arab world. So has the first Gulf war and the Afghanistan war. I believe everyone thinks those were justified. I just happen to think this one is also. We’ll have to wait and see which is right. The heightened arab hostilities died down and the extremists found some other odd excuse to perpetrate their evil. It doesnt really matter what the US does, extremists are not rational or predictable when it comes to terrorist justifications.
Any person who thinks this will stop terrorism forever was probably from the same genetic pool as the people who believed in the war to end all wars. Its about as false as this war lasting only a few days. This war will last weeks not months or years. only when this war is over can we accurately guess the hostilities of the arab world. Only then can we assess the real consequences of this regime’s oppression. Only then can we analyse the threat that was Saddam.
**
It really doesn’t matter what you think; Muslims are enraged by this war, exponentially more so than by the previous incidents. And that’s what is going to bite us in the ass.
True enough. The question is how many extremists are there; the answer is “A lot, and growing more every day since Dubya started this thing”.
Do you think this war will even slow down terrorism? If so, see my last paragraph. If not, why the hell are we there?
Most people can make pretty good guesses right now.
Waging war is best done under the direction of a leader, as the Founders were aware when they gave the President the role of commander in chief of the nation’s armed forces. (Article 2, Section 2, paragraph 1.)
But the decision on whether to wage war, in a democracy, belongs with the representatives of the people, not with the chief executive, as the Founders also made clear, by empowering Congress to declare war, and to raise and support armies. (Article 1, Section 8, paragraphs 10 and 11.)
Taking Bush’s word that an immediate strike on Iraq was needed, rather than demanding to know the reasons, is an abdication of responsibility on our part and the part of our Congressional representatives.
Very well put, RTF.
Well put perhaps but ignorant of the vote in Congress that gave Bush the right to go to war with Iraq over the disarmament issue. Irrelevant even.
Actually, let me apologize RTF, I think I read that wrong. If you think that there was “an abdication of responsibility on the part of our Congressional representatives” then you could be right. Of course you could be wrong as well as you are not privy to the level of information available to those representatives at the time. In any event I think that whole fiasco showed the true colors of the democratic party.
We are there to stabilize the region. With Saddam in charge of a nation with that much oil, the potential for crisis to extend past the middle east is too great to ignore. Saddam must be excised. Syria is showing its true colors also as is Iran. With Iraq under democratic control, its ability sponsor terrorism is significantly reduced. An added bonus would be to get the gratitude of the Shiite clans in Iraq but history shows the fleeting nature of such gratitude. At the most we can stabilize iraq for about a decade or so.
Terrorism justify their actions in a way that mystifies western govts. In this present case, its damned if we do but more damned if we dont.
This has been a very interesting thread with well made points on all sides. My two cents:
-
Terrorist attacks against Americans have little if anything to do with Iraq or either of the Gulf Wars. The anti-war faction cannot use a future attack to demonstrate the futility of war, nor can the pro-war faction use it to justify the war.
-
We have not seen the end of terrorism in the US. Certainly, the ongoing war with al-Qaeda has reduced their ability to wage attacks, but these are determined people that will find a way to wreck havoc every now and then.
-
We have seen a remarkable reversal in world opinion. Post 9/11, there was never a higher degree of sympathy for America. Now, we have millions all over the globe protesting the war. Such a reversal doesn’t happen without cause, and that cause is the current administration.
To address some particular posters:
X~Slayer:
a) Peace at all costs: not really. I was for Gulf War I, for the Afghan War, but against this one. I believe there are just wars and that this one does not meet the criteria
b) This war is unjust, etc. The issue isn’t that Saddam is evil, there is no question about that. There is a difference between the existence of an evil regime and our obligation to take action. The Russians, Poles, East Germans, Czechs, etc. all overthrew evil regimes. When the Iraqis, Chinese, and Cubans do the same we should rejoice. But that doesn’t mean that armed conflict is necessary nor is it for outsiders to decide.
c) No blood for oil- we never said it was blood for oil.
“we are there to stabilize the region” We are doing anything but that. Look at the evidence:
- The Turks have betrayed us and could move against the Kurds
- The Iranians and Syrians are providing aid to Iraq
- The Moslem street has never been so enraged, this poses a real threat to “moderate” states like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. If these regimes fall, watch out.
RTFirefly:
Absolutely right- in our society the president needs to present compelling evidence that the war is needed and just- this case simply has not been made. We the people, through our representatives, ultimately have the power to wage war or not and we cannot wash our hands of this responsibility. You made the point very eloquently.
Clearly, this is Bush’s war as it is the result of his diplomatic bumbling. You don’t refer to sovereign nations as “the axis of evil”. It is such comments that led North Koreans to rattle their sabres and now the South Koreans believe Bush to be a bigger threat to their security than Pyongyang. It is his “you’re for us or against us” mentality that led to diplomatic paralysis, and his unwillingness to travel to other nations and meet their leaders that failed his coalition before it started. Responsibile leaders wage war only as a last resort, but in Bush’s case it was evident that war was the first and only option considered.
What do you meanyour doomsday device?
Mine is a genuine Farnsworth Armageddon Special—Chrome Plated! And don’t you forget it!
He was able to give up one, & still be feared.