General discussion


Confused about War on Terror

By jdclyde ·
If you were to listen to some news reports, or very liberal people both in and out of the US, you would think that the terrorist problems in the world today are all President Bushs fault.

This show a complete ignorance as the final straw of 9/11 had NOTHING to do with Bush, his policies, or anyone in his administration.

Do we say it was President Clintons fault that the terrorists hated the US so much that they took the trade centers down? Or do we recognise our crime was being alive and that they are quite insane?

Yes, I get it. Liberals world wide are full of hate for President Bush. Does that make everything wrong in the world his fault?

Did he make mistakes? Of course he did. Not using ENOUGH force in Iraq was his main mistake, provided he would still go in if he knew that once Saddam was not there to force rule of law, the different flavors of Islam would go right back to killing each other for nothing more than being the wrong flavor?

Where do we go from here? Do we let the Democrats pull us out and let Iran and Syria take over Iraq, or do we continue to assist them in building a country of their own?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

the WTC was attacked in the clinton era

by mjwx In reply to Confused about War on Ter ...

Just not successfully and terrorism has been alive since the Napoleonic days (probably before). Also we seem to get Republicans that are full of hate for anything not republican (not you JD, but I think we all know which one here I am referring to). And I will say before I start, of course bush had nothing to do with 9/11 wrong place wrong time (but really people he shouldnt have kept reading that book, time to stand up and say "sorry kids but I have important president stuff to do").

Disclaimer you're not going to like what I have to say but it is most unfortunately true

The mistake was going to Iraq in the first place. Not to place blame on a specific president but fear of WMD's was drummed up to gain popular support for an invasion of the most powerful secular state in the mid east. WMD's are yet to materialise and other not-so-western-friendly-states are taking advantage of a power vacuum left by Saddam?s departure in the region. no matter what people thought of Saddam (I don?t have fond opinions of him) he was an integral part of the balance in that religion, secular Iraq managed to cancel out fundamentalist Iran, both states had their own agendas which pushed against one another with no help what so ever from the outside. Now that Saddam has been removed we are seeing that fundamentalist Iran is pushing its own agenda with little interference from local sources and as always foreign interference is ineffective.

The US has no chance of fixing the problems over there now. All you can hope is that foreign powers not US can manage to stabilise the region. The EU and AU (African Union not Australia in this case) hold more sway over the Middle Eastern states than the US especially after what is perceived over there as the backstabbing of Iraq (yes most Arabs and Persians considered Saddam to be western friendly). You'll have to rely on your allies if you expect any kind of a victory. Not every state is against the west, Turkey is trying to get into the EU, Jordan is a very forward thinking state (king Abdullah seems to love the BBC) what we (as in the not US world) need to do is to first show that we are not the imperialist Christian US puppets that we are perceived of being and then work to separate the other middle-eastern states from fundamentalist Iran.

Somalia and Syria are good places to start, Somalia especially is a good place to start as the Islamic council is trying to separate themselves from the terrorist stereotype. Hearts and minds, we have to work to convince the Middle East that there is only madness and destruction coming from Tehran. This can only be done if the US buts out, proving that you can put the most powerful state in the back seat for the greater good (for anyone who has failed to catch on this is what we need to get the Middle Eastern states to do to Iran)

On Iraq, the US has really got no choice now. Iraq is in a civil war and neither side really want US forces there. You're just going to have to let them fight it out and hope that fundamentalists don?t take over. It will keep costing you lives, just like Vietnam did. As for not using enough force, it's like a rubber band the harder you pull the more resistance the rubber band puts out. The US is yet to encounter a "Hezbollah" style civilian militia in Iraq, you have only encountered light resistance compared to that the Lebanese threw at Israel during the 22 year occupation. Accept it, the Iraqi's want an American ruler as much as Americans want an Iraqi ruler.

I said you wouldn?t like this and I suspect you haven?t. But the facts are the facts, in the Middle East You've Failed.

Now to the naysayser?s that would call this "chamberlain style appeasement" I would say that we have tried your way for the last 30 odd years first with the Roosevelt style "ignore it because it doesn?t concern us" and then the for the last 4 and a half years "bomb the crap out of it and try to turn it into an US democracy". You've been trying to stabilise Afghanistan for 4 years and to date, women are still forced to wear burquas, Sharia law has been reinstated and the Taliban are gaining strength because the only way for people to make a living is via poppy farming, which is deemed illegal by the US. Iraq is in the middle of a bloody sectarian war. You've failed, now sit back and let someone else work on it.

Now as for fighting terror, I don?t want to live in terror so I support it. I say we start with the fear mongers in Australia, Europe and America? I have spoken to some Arabs and Persians who have moved here to the great land of Australia, they have varying opinions of back home in the Middle East but they will always tell me how pleased they were to be able to immigrate to Australia.

Collapse -

It wouldn't be much of a discussion

by jdclyde In reply to the WTC was attacked in t ...

if we all agreed right off the bat, now would it?

I figured it would take a few posts at least to make you see the error of your ways? B-)

As for not liking what you said, I do agree with a lot of it. I think the US should get out of other countries, and cut off ALL aid to anyone that is not considered a close ally. Want to hate America? Fine, get your funds from your comrades in Russia and China. Can't buy friends, and we should stop trying.

Would be nice if there WERE other groups stepping up to try to resolve the issues in Iraq, but that just doesn't seem to be happening. Everyone would rather the place turned to a pile of rubble just so they can gloat on a failure of the US, instead of worring about helping people. Global politics sucks, and so do the people that practice it.

Collapse -

Think of this

by tryten In reply to It wouldn't be much of a ...

Think of how many BILLIONS of dollars the American government would only aid close allies. The numbers that keep popping in my head are astronomical.

Others did try to help the US in Iraq. I dont want to go into it, but I will say that most of those "Friendly Fire" incedents inflicted on allied solders by US solders were probably not accidents, they probably deserved it.

Collapse -

I was expecting

by mjwx In reply to It wouldn't be much of a ...

A scathing "Maxwell Edison" libertarian style response to my somewhat scathing post. Who was it that said "expect the unexpected".

In Iraq the damage is already done, the people have to want help and after living under Saddam, they don?t know what they want only what they don?t want.

We can?t force the Iraqi people accept a specific way of governance, they have to choose for themselves. If they can?t choose they will get another dictator, be they a traditional or religious dictator.

Like Tony said, I don?t want to blame the US (we've told you before we are not democrats, so if you expect democrat like responses you will be disappointed) but it would be good if they would take some damned responsibility and stop blaming other nations/political parties about the situation in Iraq.

Diplomacy is a game that nobody wins but war is a game that everybody loses. I think that is a good description, requires a bit of semantics to understand.

Collapse -

Clinton wanted 9/11 on his watch

by Too Old For IT In reply to the WTC was attacked in t ...

So he could have a legacy beyond "getting a Lewinsky".

Collapse -

Will the "not-US" countries please step up?

by sn53 In reply to the WTC was attacked in t ...

mjwx wrote, "...what we (as in the not US world) need to do is to first show that we are not the imperialist Christian US puppets that we are perceived of being and then work to separate the other middle-eastern states from fundamentalist Iran."

I really would like to see the "not-US" parts of the world step up. It is not likely or it would have happened already. In Afghanistan NATO has taken over much of the responsibility. How is that working out? Are the "not-US" countries actually doing anything or are they operating at minimal levels as a political sop? I cannot tell.

It is still too early to tell but I believe the US has already seen the turning point in the Iraq area of operations. That occurred when the people selected their own government. Turning points are tricky. It is hard to see them until long after the fighting is over.

But then, I believe we are winning.

Collapse -

Well as a member of the socialist

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to Confused about War on Ter ...


If we allow them to pull out, ie vote in another set of scum bag politicians with that policy, then we are saying we are as bigger set of assholes as they are., both lots !

I'm a died in the wool socialist, I've voted labour since I got my majority. I want Tony Blair's epitaph to be, 'Wish I hadn't gone into Iraq'.

Those responsible can't be allowed the option to escape the painful consequences of their own ignorance.
The iraqi people can't, our troops and their families can't either.

Keep them in power until they say they are sorry, and keep them there until they mean it.

Oh, and enlist all their kids, it's only fair.

Try not to annoy me by lumping me in with those democrats, I do believe in fighting terrorism.

However unlike the nipple heads who authored this stupidity, I realise I've got to find my enemy before I can give him a slap.
Hitting someone who looks him, might make me feel better, but all I end up with is at least one more enemy.

Collapse -

I tried to work this

by jdclyde In reply to Well as a member of the s ...

in a way that was not a attack on anyone who is a non-republican.

What would be your solution from today forward on how to handle Iraq? Do we throw all of our soldiers on a boat and bring them home today, or do we continue to TRY to train their own forces to be able to protect themselves? Or is there another option that isn't on the table yet?

Right now, I don't CARE about blame, I care about solutions. I see the Democrats in the US right now going down the "pull them NOW" path, but that seems to be more to try to hurt Bush than to do what is good for Iraq or us.

Collapse -

If you broke the eggs

by JamesRL In reply to I tried to work this

You make the omlette. You can't put it back in their shells no matter what wonderful hindsight you have.

If you pull out too soon, you leave a power vacuum and civil war ensues. Groups that are allied today to fight the US will fight each other. If there weren't a high probability of massive civilian casualties, I wouldnt care so much.


Collapse -

in a nut shell

by jdclyde In reply to If you broke the eggs

I don't CARE if the different groups kill each other off, but because by nature it seems the followers of Islam are cowards that attack civilians regardless of men,women and children, instead of military or militia groups, it would get real ugly, real quick.

Evacuate the citizens and let the other groups kill each other. Who ever is left alive, try to make them a trade partner.

Related Discussions

Related Forums