How the USA can Win the war on Terror

I buy that in general principle but still feel he was a threat which had to be eliminated. He was only pussy footing around because he was in a corner and there was in fact "Ricin" found in London, traced to Iraq. Superficially your arguement might be hard to oppose but pragmatically you are wrong and he was a threat and not fully cooperating.

As I stated above; plus, personally one shot at one of our aircraft in the no fly zone was more than enough basis to go to war. The unmfortuante fact is however, Bush felt he had to have more justification. He didn't. So they piece mealed the issues and bootstraped their way there.

A warning to those that think they will abuse the US.

[quoate]Yet now it seems that situation has reversed, the war real had begun post-April 2003. [/quote]

Hardly the case. Not pretty, not desirable but certainly not a problem we can't or won't handle.

Both unfortunately.

I'll look at these sites with interest but a doubting eye. The very language doesn't seem Bush nor American.

I have looked and I can't say I am impressed with the authenticity of the claim. But I also do not put it past him as a possibility. I would prefer to see something more reliable and direct. It seems it may be a bit of interpretation but even at that it isn't good.

If you find anything in a bonified US paper I would be more inclined to believe it. Not that the US papers are more viable but that they generally tend to be liberal and would jump all over something like this. I haven't seen anything about it which makes me feel they (US papers) could not back the claim either.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Again I ask the question, what evidence do you have to support your assertions?

One day you will learn the irrelevancy of your opinions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I buy that in general principle but still feel he was a threat which had to be eliminated. He was only pussy footing around because he was in a corner and there was in fact "Ricin" found in London, traced to Iraq.

Traced back to Ansar Al-Islam, a region in which Saddam had no control over. If anything that was complicity on the Kurds (your allies) part. Saddam could not do anything about Ansar, because of your much vaunted No-fly zones.

Superficially your arguement might be hard to oppose but pragmatically you are wrong and he was a threat and not fully cooperating.

In March 2003 he was…

As I stated above; plus, personally one shot at one of our aircraft in the no fly zone was more than enough basis to go to war. The unmfortuante fact is however, Bush felt he had to have more justification. He didn't. So they piece mealed the issues and bootstraped their way there.

That was the US misfortune I guess, because not even the US public would have supported an invasion of Iraq because of one pilot. The fact is that Saddam was not a threat to anyone pragmatically, the US didn’t have to patrol the zones, she choose too.

A warning to those that think they will abuse the US.

Oh you see Iran and NK shaking in their boots right? Please, America cannot do anything meaningful apart from nuking the world now.

Hardly the case. Not pretty, not desirable but certainly not a problem we can't or won't handle.

Obviously you can’t…the insurgency is obviously destabilizing Iraq. A war that was supposed to cost $1 billion to the American tax payer now costs in excess of $200 billion, America’s military and political capably are imo very exaggerated.

I'll look at these sites with interest but a doubting eye. The very language doesn't seem Bush nor American.

Be tactful…Bush is known for using and abusing the word God a lot, so I personally do not find that quote outrageous frankly I find them probable.

EngGrez:

Again I ask the question, what evidence do you have to support your assertions?

Again where do you live? Why is it that you cannot read? Read the quote and the article I posted. CIA analysts seem to agree with me. Tell me what the hell do you think this means:

The CIA analyst who wrote "Imperial Hubris, Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror" says Bush gave bin Laden "a Christmas present" by invading Iraq.

Hmmm??? I’d believe a CIA analyst over some 400 pound loser who watches Starship troopers, and thinks he can read.

One day you will learn the irrelevancy of your opinions.

God you can’t be more original then that? Well imitation is the greatest form of flattery. Ask yourself this question, who do you think makes more sense? Me or you? Think about it…I would vouch to say that the VAST majority of persons on this entire website would not support you or your exceptionally ignorant rants.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i dont feel like blowing through 8 pages but has anyone mentioned that you cant win a war against a concept? the only way to win this "war" is to stop fighting it, and a way we are fighting "terror" is by adding fuel to what terror is burning.

but alas, if america does re-elect bush, we are truly doomed. Cheney (who possesses an unprecedented "veto" power within the bush cabinet, meaning decisions are passed through Cheney before they are implemented) and his PNAC buddies (see www.newamericancentury.org) will create more of an excuse to expand america. They already tried to make a reason to delay the election- without sounding like a conspiracist nut there is something bad coming.

 

A false point on your jpart. The material was made by a terrorist group. They were in Iraq before the war and remained there. The fact that they had become somewhat isolated indeed probably led to the failure of their jplan. SH was very much involved in terrorisim and with this group. They did not suddenly migrate there after SH has his control bifurcated over the land.

Unfortunately that isn't true. It is true that he was making or trying to make appearances of cooperating at the last meinute but you jerk our string for 12 years and then expect to stop a massive military operation which was already being prepared after more than to many warnings, is a bit much to expect of accept.

Perhaps at that oint in time you might be correct but it should not be the case. One shot and you are out. It IS war. And today I suggest there are far more that would agree in the future.

Not so but in any case nuking them would not concern me. Not nuking them if they persist in thier efforts to become nuclear powers could be disasterous.

NMopt merely for the US BTW.

Iraq is a few months behind Afganistan but it will be simular. At this juncture over 90% of eligiable citizens have registered to vote in their first election.

You should have noticed (but probvably choose not to) that the Iraqi people as well as arabs and muslims the world over are getting fed up with these piss ants. Their days are numbered and it won't necessarily be the US that has to draw them out and kill them.

I have some agreement here but I do find it out of line in the setting it is claimed to have occured. One does not mix christian religious beliefs when in discussions with arabs regarding Jewish issues, nor do they in turn say "Otherwise I will go back and pay attention to my election". It appears to be complete nonsense which as I stated apparently hasn't reached a crediable level or we would have heard and seen a huge outcry in this country.

 

Yes they have. But they are incrediably wrong. You are surely right that there are others joing the ranks of these twits but they are twits and only a handful. they will continue to be a thorn in the side but no more and they will only succeed in getting themselves and amny others killed. They will not over turn the USA nor alter its policies. It is fool hardy stupidity. No more.

It will end when they are all dead or reduced to cave dwellers without tools and power of any kind.

I wouldn't think doomed is correct. But I certainly don't want to see this bunch of right wing hypocrits remain in office.

 

A false point on your jpart. The material was made by a terrorist group. They were in Iraq before the war and remained there.

Yes a part of Iraq that was not under the sovereignty of Baghdad. Saddam could not control Ansar Al-Islam because it was outside his jurisdiction. There is no connection with Iraq other then geography.

SH was very much involved in terrorisim and with this group. They did not suddenly migrate there after SH has his control bifurcated over the land.

I suppose you have evidence to back this claim up, and from a VERY reputable source? (alas not the US govt, independent).

Unfortunately that isn't true. It is true that he was making or trying to make appearances of cooperating at the last meinute but you jerk our string for 12 years and then expect to stop a massive military operation which was already being prepared after more than to many warnings, is a bit much to expect of accept.

Then why did the US offer it to him? If the US cared about the WMD then why not allow the inspectors finish their job? 98% of Iraq’s WMD programs were destroyed, one of the most through de-militarization in history. I’m sorry but the only one jerking off here was the White House, they couldn’t wait to get in. If this war really was about WMD I see no reason as to why the inspections were cut.

Perhaps at that oint in time you might be correct but it should not be the case. One shot and you are out. It IS war. And today I suggest there are far more that would agree in the future.

Actually I think that most Americans would like to stay away from war for quite a while now, I would venture to say that Americans would probably ask themselves “why are we putting our boys at risk in the first place”.

Not so but in any case nuking them would not concern me. Not nuking them if they persist in thier efforts to become nuclear powers could be disasterous.

North Korea is a nuclear power…get it, got it, good.

Iraq is a few months behind Afganistan but it will be simular. At this juncture over 90% of eligiable citizens have registered to vote in their first election.

After how many delays? Assuming that the election will be fair, I don’t have much faith to tell you the truth. You know considering that NATO only has troops in Kabul and the rest of the country can go F*** itself, I would venture to say that the election will be a farce.

You should have noticed (but probvably choose not to) that the Iraqi people as well as arabs and muslims the world over are getting fed up with these piss ants. Their days are numbered and it won't necessarily be the US that has to draw them out and kill them.

Sorry but I really don’t see that happening, polls seem to indicate that Osama is more popular then the US. I know you uber Americans would like to believe that everyone loves you, but the reality is quite different, and stark. Travel outside of landlocked New Mexico…does the faculties good.

One does not mix christian religious beliefs when in discussions with arabs regarding Jewish issues, nor do they in turn say "Otherwise I will go back and pay attention to my election". It appears to be complete nonsense which as I stated apparently hasn't reached a crediable level or we would have heard and seen a huge outcry in this country.

Well he did not say Jesus, he said God, there Christians, Jews, and Muslims have the same God.

 

Wrong. The sovereignty of Iraq had not been eliminated. It is true he had been cut off from direct control over his terrorists buddies but they didn't just arrive there after the war. And surely you do not suggest that his control would have been to arrest or in any way deter their activities. You can't be that stupid.

And I suppose you think the weight of evidence suggest Iraq is the victum and not the perp? :bugeye:

The inspections were cut because they were totally in affective as SH was repeatedly refusing them access to any areas he chose to not allow them to go on short notice. Because he was caught several times removing and hiding material prior to an inspection. He was being warned by spys in the system of impending inspections. It was nothing but a hide and seek charade for years. And Yes the US did go in quickly after they had given him far to many warnings without enforcing their demands and he pushed back until what he thought was a last minute ditch to once again stall and bull shit his way around true compliance. Enough was more than enough and he got what he deserved (actually he is still awaiting what he deserved. It will not be the US but the Iraqi's that kill him).

The simple truth of the matter is that the US went in way to late not way to fast. We should have given him 72 hours to allow inspectors back in when he kicked them out. We have been 12 years late not early on this.

You really don't understand. If they pull even 1 stunt in this country we will wipe the earth clean of anybody that dares to not fully cooperate with the erradication of these ignorant bastards. You can make bet on that.

What a joke. You actually consider that piss ant state, poverty stricken, destitute piece of shit spot in the world as a world power. Even if they could effectively deliver their punny nuke to this country (or any other), while it would be horrific, it damn sure would not be a fatal blow, except to their nation. Get real. We could use their nuke (assuming they actually have one and further that the damn thing will actually go off when they want and not in their own hands trying to load the damn thing) as the detonator for one of ours. And we have literally thousands.

I am not afraid of nuclear war but they damn well should be. They try and jpull some bullshit like Japan in Pearl Harbor and they simply will cease to exists as a nation and a people. that would be s sahme but more than justified.

They are lunitics and we are lunitics for even allowing them to be developing WMD. We will not however, be held hostage by anyone.

Fortuantely what you say seems far from reality and very pessimistic and one as a sympathsizer.

We have no illusions about the poor status of the world, nor our place in it. The facts are however, that as I said you have missed some recent events such as Arabs and Muslims the world over getting involved at telling the terroists to stop this shit.

How do you think we found SH and other big whig, chicken assholes. People ratted on them.

[/quote]Well he did not say Jesus, he said God, there Christians, Jews, and Muslims have the same God.[/QUOTE]

Hardly.

 

Of course we do. But if you're so philosophical, why then do you question the motives of the Marshall plan? Of course it benefited us, or we wouldn't have done it. As you said, we do things for our own reasons. You can't have it both ways. Speaking of the egoistic hook on the one hand, and criticizing the US because the Marshall plan was done for our own benefit.

 

ir·rel·e·vant (-rl-vnt)
adj.
Unrelated to the matter being considered.

His opinions on what the best tasting sandwich in the world is would be irrelevant. His opinions on the war on terror and the war in Iraq pertain to the issue being discussed. Frigging hell, you throw the word irrelevant around but you don't even know the meaning of the word.

Actually, he said nuclear power. North Korea has nuclear weapons, therefore they are a nuclear power.

We should all be afraid of nuclear war. If the USA launches on NK, what's to stop other nuclear powers sympathetic to NK from launching on the USA? And what about fallout?
In fact, we should be detest all war and use violence as only a last resort after all other possible options have been tested.


This thread is going nowhere, because we all have strong opinions that aren't going to change.

 

If enough people say close the thread it will be done.

 

Again, what evidence do you have to support your assertions?

One persons opinion is not an acceptible standard of evidence. Actual numbers are the standard, statistics. Prove to me that killing terrorists breeds terrorism.

Note that the "assertion" I am refering to is the claim "killing terrorists breeds terrorism." This is not to be confused with anything happening in Iraq, where the conflict has become politicized. Luckily the war on terrorism has not reached that stage, yet.

Q: In a seeming contradiction, you state that Iraq is a seperate case. Aren't US troops in Iraq killing terrorists? Why is it that there seem to be more terrorists in Iraq now, than before?

Two reasons. First of all, Iraq has become a political conflict much like Vietnam. The United States is not applying the principles of warfare to this conflict, under the premise that since war-torn Germany after WW1 was left in devastation, this was the cause of Hitlers rise to power, and subsequently WW2.

The problem with this premise is that it is misleading The central cause of Hitlers rise to power was the fact that war-weary Europeans and the Americas (Canadians too, for all you Canucks) failed to properly enforce the Treaty of Versailles (1991 Cease-Fire, UN resolutions). The failure of international organizations such as the League of Nations (UN) to act accordingly, coupled with a desire for peace, led to several years of appeasement (sanctions, food for oil, diplomacy), including the annexation of the Sudetenland from Czeckslovakia (Kuwait if the United States had not responded).

So it is true that the conditions of the treaty allowed Hitler to rise to power, but he could have been easily checked at any point in time prior to 1930, just like Saddam was.

America is trying to simultaneously rebuild Iraq while establishing order, a nearly impossible feat that only time will determine.

The second reason is that Iraqs terrorist activities are being orchestrated by international terrorists operating within the country, most notably from Iran and Syria. Thousands of Iranian terrorists have already crossed the border into Iraq, staging attacks against the United States, inciting mobs and acts of violence, gathering crowds and spreading propaganda, and ultimately working against the wishes of both the United States and the Iraqi people.

The war in Iraq did not "create" these terrorists. They have been imported, as well as recruited through religious progaganda. Bush's mistake may cost him the election -- democrotizing Iraq before restructuring it's society -- this is only a question time can answer. Is Iraq ready to join the civilized world. Or will Iraq plunge back into the darkness of theocracy? Bush believes the former. I hope he's right, I want to believe he's right, but we have to be prepared for the worst.

 

Eng Grez, Kala, Pakman

One persons opinion is not an acceptible standard of evidence. Actual numbers are the standard, statistics. Prove to me that killing terrorists breeds terrorism.

Oh that makes so much sense; yes because Al Qaeda does an international census of her members…ok there you’re a genius. There are no facts this isn’t a economics course. It is educated, well informed, opinions that matter in this war. And you are neither…

Note that the "assertion" I am refering to is the claim "killing terrorists breeds terrorism." This is not to be confused with anything happening in Iraq, where the conflict has become politicized. Luckily the war on terrorism has not reached that stage, yet.

The War on Terrorism does not exist, get over it do you purposely sound like an automaton? The insurgency is growing in Iraq, which is a fact. 9/10 of all Iraqi’s consider the US an occupying power and want them out. For Al Q and the gang this war in Iraq has proven their assertions correct, that the US invades weak Arab nations, shames them, etc. This garners support for those who offer a strong alternative. Learn SIMPLE human psychology.

Q: In a seeming contradiction, you state that Iraq is a seperate case. Aren't US troops in Iraq killing terrorists? Why is it that there seem to be more terrorists in Iraq now, than before?

Actually the question is faulty; the people fighting the US in Iraq are not terrorists. Zarqawi is a terrorist, but the insurgency is an insurgency against an occupying power. Thus it is legitimate, so the premise of your question is wrong, and thus so is your answer.

 

why then do you question the motives of the Marshall plan? Of course it benefited us, or we wouldn't have done it. As you said, we do things for our own reasons. You can't have it both ways. Speaking of the egoistic hook on the one hand, and criticizing the US because the Marshall plan was done for our own benefit.

I did not criticize the US, I was responding to the belief that the US did it because she wanted to help people. That’s false, just like US aid string come attached. If Americans were actually wiling to admit to these things then no such conversation would have been necessary in the first place.

 

I must generally agree with Eng Grez. Your evaluation system seems linked to the religious fanitics (which is your insurgency exposed).

There is no true insuregency, there is only power hungry theist leaders like Al Sadar tyring to replace Sadam H. The general population is not in a civil war with the US but is pleased that they came and freed them from SH. Yes they do want us to leave and they understand we will and they support our effort to restabilize their country.

You seem to have ignored the fact that Iraqi's have stated they want us to stay and provide protection but once they can do that for themselve we should and will leave.

You do seem to see this situation through the eyes of the religious fanatic.

 

Has there been a referendum on it? If not, then it's just speculation.

 

Wrong. The sovereignty of Iraq had not been eliminated. It is true he had been cut off from direct control over his terrorists buddies but they didn't just arrive there after the war. And surely you do not suggest that his control would have been to arrest or in any way deter their activities. You can't be that stupid.

Firstly you have not provided any evidence to suggest that Ansar, and Baghdad had any connection.I am not stupid, I know that Saddam could not touch Kurdistan and guess where Ansar was. The burden of proof is on you, and I’ll be waiting. Sorry but only an idiot would cite circumvention as a fact.

And I suppose you think the weight of evidence suggest Iraq is the victum and not the perp?

I’d love to see the evidence; so far all the evidence seems to show that Iraq in this instance was the victim to American aggression.

The simple truth of the matter is that the US went in way to late not way to fast. We should have given him 72 hours to allow inspectors back in when he kicked them out. We have been 12 years late not early on this.

He kicked them out in 1998, and the US decided to bomb him, but not to pursue invasion. Then in 2002 he allowed the inspectors back with ample access. It was the US if I remember correctly who did not give the inspectors, the nessecary intelligence or U-2 photos. IMO (although I cannot prove this) that shows that the US may have known her intelligence was Bull Shit. Due to America's inability to wait, and calling the inspections a waste of time the US kicked out inspections in 2003 which de-legitimatized the war in Iraq.

You really don't understand. If they pull even 1 stunt in this country we will wipe the earth clean of anybody that dares to not fully cooperate with the erradication of these ignorant bastards. You can make bet on that.

I can make a bet that historically hasn’t been the case…these words don’t scare anyone.

What a joke. You actually consider that piss ant state, poverty stricken, destitute piece of shit spot in the world as a world power.

Where did I say she was? Secondly the ignorance spewed in that sentence proves to me you don’t know who your enemies really are. The US would lose against NK in an invasion today due to America’s military position.

Even if they could effectively deliver their punny nuke to this country (or any other), while it would be horrific, it damn sure would not be a fatal blow, except to their nation. Get real.

If NK were to actually use her nuclear weapons I am pretty sure that would have recognized all is lost, and thus who cares what you do. Also you must understand that NK is the most tunneled nation of Earth, those tunnels are designed to survive a nuclear bombardment. So an American nuclear strike would surely be catastrophic, NK would still retain some military capability, and more likely then not a second strike capability.

We could use their nuke (assuming they actually have one and further that the damn thing will actually go off when they want and not in their own hands trying to load the damn thing) as the detonator for one of ours. And we have literally thousands.

Actually NK is estimated to have at least 8 nuclear weapons and by the end of this decade in excess of 100 (low ranged estimate). Your ignorance shows its true colours, I wish I were so foolish.

I am not afraid of nuclear war but they damn well should be. They try and jpull some bullshit like Japan in Pearl Harbor and they simply will cease to exists as a nation and a people. that would be s sahme but more than justified.

Boga woga…your not scaring anyone.

They are lunitics and we are lunitics for even allowing them to be developing WMD. We will not however, be held hostage by anyone.

No not the US, but surely Seoul will be a trump card in NK’s play book. NK doesn’t even need Nuclear weapons to kill millions.

Fortuantely what you say seems far from reality and very pessimistic and one as a sympathsizer.

What did I say that was as you imply unrealistic?

We have no illusions about the poor status of the world, nor our place in it. The facts are however, that as I said you have missed some recent events such as Arabs and Muslims the world over getting involved at telling the terroists to stop this shit.

Segments in society surely, but millions more in the Arab/Muslim world sympathize rather then scorn Osama.

How do you think we found SH and other big whig, chicken assholes. People ratted on them.

Everyone hated Saddam, are you honestly trying to compare Saddam to Osama! Your ignorance of who you are dealing with is CLEARLY evident.

Hardly.

One god, three ways of looking at him, I can hardly believe you have dignity after this.

 

There is no true insuregency, there is only power hungry theist leaders like Al Sadar tyring to replace Sadam H. The general population is not in a civil war with the US but is pleased that they came and freed them from SH. Yes they do want us to leave and they understand we will and they support our effort to restabilize their country.

9/10 of the country doesn’t want you, and considers you occupiers (fact). Sorry the facts do not support your position. There is a true insurgency, includes Al-Sadr but he merely part of a larger pie, the US was not greeted by flowers but predictably bullets. The general population of Iraq is not at war with the US…yet, but large poor, young, disenfranchised men are.

 

The referendum will be in January 2005 when they elect their president. If they vote (however they vote) they will then have freedom.

 

Then how have Iraqi (as a whole) stated that they want occupation forces to remain>?