NationStates Jolt Archive

I am not against this war. Saddam Hussein was a dangerous and murderous tyrant who inflicted many miseries on his people. The Western World could not just sit and watch such monsterous actions. Equally Saddam destablised the Middle East with his wars, with both his neighbours and his own people. It was shown by the Gulf War that we could no longer take a wait and see atttitude towards Iraq. if we did, we would be running to solve every war that their regime started. The West had this opportunity, whatever the motives that inspired it, to end his tyranny and it is to our everlasting credit that we ended the sorry mistake in Iraqi history that was Saddam Hussein and his dictatorship.

As a war on Saddam, as a war on tyranny, as a war to spread the ideals of liberal democracy, it was a success. But as a war on terror? No, I can only call it an abject failure. The war on terrorism is no normal war. Al-Quaeda is no Nazi Germany. We cannot stop it by invading a country or killing its leader - they simply find a new country and a new leader from the multitudes of disgraceful villains that form their ranks.

The war on terror is not one that can be won with tanks, guns and bombs. It is a battle that will be fought on in the hearts and minds of the Islamic world.
Most Islamic Arabs are a people not far removed from us -good and god fearing who are repulsed by the politics of terror and the acts of violence that are pepretrated in the name of their religion. They would not support the actions of the murderous few unless they had other option, unless they were forced into a corner, unless they were forced into desperation. And this is what the fruitless invasion of Middle Eastern regimes will bring. The Arabs will not see it as a war to rid the world of the evil that they hate as much as any westerner. They will see it another Crusade, an attempt to wipe out their religion and their way of life. They will become desperate and then the terrorism will be proliferated. Ranks of Islamic youth will become fresh and frutitful grounds of recruitment for what will be advocated as a war for very survival of the Islamic way of life.

This is why an invasion of Iran or Syria in the name of an attack on the principle of Terror is foolish beyond comprehension. We do not need to show our Arabian allies (for they are allies still) the size of our armoury and threaten them into submission. We need to give them the hand of friendship, extend it without condition to them. Then their peoples will see that we intend no harm and we have a common goal: to rid the world of the malicious, disgusting rats who have the bare faced cheek to call themselves Islamic. And when the people see it, they will turn their backs on these terrorists. And when the people see it, the governments shall see it. They shall cease to condone it (privately or publically). And so the terrorists will wither, without allies, without recruits, without funds until they become nothing more than a single extremist whisper drowned out by the singular shout of the Arabic and Western worlds united.

You're making some vast assumptions about how the "arabs" will view it. You're also making the mistake of treating Al-Qeada as the only target in this "war." Removing Saddam scores at least one blow against terrorism seeing as it helps cut off funding to Palestinian terrorist groups. At the same time you fail to describe how exactly one "extends the hand of friendship."

Also, please, break your thoughts up into multiple paragraphs.

The idea of a war on terror is stupid to being with. You can't fight against a specific tactic and hope to accomplish anything. Its like fighting a war on paratroopers or a war on tanks. It just doen't work.

You're making some vast assumptions about how the "arabs" will view it. You're also making the mistake of treating Al-Qeada as the only target in this "war." Removing Saddam scores at least one blow against terrorism seeing as it helps cut off funding to Palestinian terrorist groups. At the same time you fail to describe how exactly one "extends the hand of friendship."

Also, please, break your thoughts up into multiple paragraphs.

Lets make this straight: Saddam's Baath party was near-communist. Atheist. Saddam fought for most of the eighties Iran, which is a true islamic dictatorship, prone to fund religious extremists.

Saddam did NOT fund Palestinian groups, he gave money to the families of dead suicide bombers, just to piss off the Israelis (Also staunch enemies of Iraq). Remember the old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"?

Most funding to alqaeda comes from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, it has been more than discussed that IRaq had no ties to islamic extremism.

The idea of a war on terror is stupid to being with. You can't fight against a specific tactic and hope to accomplish anything. Its like fighting a war on paratroopers or a war on tanks. It just doen't work.


But fighting a war against a military dictator that openly supported agression against the US and funnelled cash to terror organizations is worthwhile. Its not stupid. Hunt the terrorists wherever they are-anywhere in the world. Kill them, sieze their assets and break whats left. Its open season on them. Start offering specific bounties on them and their toadies. Zero tolerance.
And when they are rounded up in other countries, lets not whine about their constitutional rights, ok? Thats our Constitution in the US and it applies here.

Terrorism is an ideal, and you can't really fight an ideal, you can attempt to combat its causes and support structures, which is what the coalition has attempted to do.

However, I'd be inclined to beleive that things can only get worse before they will get better.

Although the removal of saddam hussein may have been a big step in securing a potential source of funding and "sanctioned" refuge for terrorists, it will have a tremendous fallout by actually "creating" more terrorists.

Every iraqi civilian that is accidentally killed in iraq will have family members. When tradgedies such as these multiply as they have, all that is going to happen is that more and more of their relatives will flock to the Mujahadeen in order to take revenge for the "unjust" killings of their relatives, and I honestly can't say as I'd blame them. That isn't to say that the taking of further civillian life is correct, but when there IS no recourse or recompense for the relatives of killed civillians, what can you expect?

You can train more intelligence agents to hang out worldwide with their ears to the ground.
You can send more Special Forces teams worldwide to assassinate terrorists you locate.
You can fight a war with the intent of attracting terrorists and killing them on arrival.
You can conquer countries where they had their training bases, and force them to fight on their own ground instead of allowing them to roam the world at will.
You can destroy governments that gave money, weapons, and training to terrorists.

It may not *all* work, and it may not work quickly, but it certainly works better than

surrender - do whatever the "terrorists" demand
nothing - hey, that's what we did before 9-11, and only 3000 people got killed

You can destroy governments that gave money, weapons, and training to terrorists.


I suggest you start with your own government then. Or did you forget who funded Hussein or who trained Osama and who gave weapons to Iran and Iraq in the 80s? But of course, all these rules don't apply to the most holy US government and killing 100.000 as "revenge" for the death of 3.000 is of course justified. :rolleyes:

But fighting a war against a military dictator that openly supported agression against the US and funnelled cash to terror organizations is worthwhile. Its not stupid. Hunt the terrorists wherever they are-anywhere in the world. Kill them, sieze their assets and break whats left. Its open season on them. Start offering specific bounties on them and their toadies. Zero tolerance.
And when they are rounded up in other countries, lets not whine about their constitutional rights, ok? Thats our Constitution in the US and it applies here.

But, alas, our Constitution states that "all men are created equal." Not that all American men are. We don't grant them rights as Americans. But regardless of what someone has or has not done, we must still treat them as human beings.

Ein Deutscher']I suggest you start with your own government then. Or did you forget who funded Hussein or who trained Osama and who gave weapons to Iran and Iraq in the 80s? But of course, all these rules don't apply to the most holy US government and killing 100.000 as "revenge" for the death of 3.000 is of course justified. :rolleyes:

Finally someone noticed that small fact.

Now, we're not "holy."
And I think you're a little off... 100,000 kills isn't revenge. It's combat.

Don't forget, the U.S. has paid almost every country in the world....
At least we paid the Queen of England back for the tea we threw in the ocean... how many nations paid us back for the food/clothing/money?

Time to cash in.

You can train more intelligence agents to hang out worldwide with their ears to the ground.
You can send more Special Forces teams worldwide to assassinate terrorists you locate.
You can fight a war with the intent of attracting terrorists and killing them on arrival.
You can conquer countries where they had their training bases, and force them to fight on their own ground instead of allowing them to roam the world at will.
You can destroy governments that gave money, weapons, and training to terrorists.

It may not *all* work, and it may not work quickly, but it certainly works better than

surrender - do whatever the "terrorists" demand
nothing - hey, that's what we did before 9-11, and only 3000 people got killed

I couldn't agree more...

...

...

...

or could I? :p

in declaring a war on terror, it effectivly means that you can declare war on any country, so long as you suspect it of aiding terrorists. think about the implications of that a bit...

also, as for the palestinian terrorists, i can sympathise with them. how would you like it if the rest of the world practically uprooted you from your home, and put someone else in there. the isralites had left that land of their own free will, and the palestinians had come in and settled. what gives them the right to say 'we dont like where we went, we want this area back again'? you could almost equate it to the slaves beeing removed from africa

in declaring a war on terror, it effectivly means that you can declare war on any country, so long as you suspect it of aiding terrorists. think about the implications of that a bit...

Exactly. I don't think you understand. There ARE no second chances. If someone acts against the U.S. or its people, they will be hunted down. So... don't fuck with us, and you won't have anything to worry about. Terrorism isn't some kid's game of tag where you can be in a "safe" zone.

also, as for the palestinian terrorists, i can sympathise with them. how would you like it if the rest of the world practically uprooted you from your home, and put someone else in there. the isralites had left that land of their own free will, and the palestinians had come in and settled. what gives them the right to say 'we dont like where we went, we want this area back again'? you could almost equate it to the slaves beeing removed from africa

Last I checked... the world uprooted the JEWS. Including the palestinians, who aren't willing to share a speck of sand with an israeli. But go ahead... sympathize with terrorists... you didn't call them freedom fighters. You didn't call them patriots. You called them Terrorists... people who use terror as a form of power. :(

Israel is a terrorist regime too. They use terror in the form of flattening entire homes or bulldozing people...

Last I checked... the world uprooted the JEWS. Including the palestinians, who aren't willing to share a speck of sand with an israeli. But go ahead... sympathize with terrorists... you didn't call them freedom fighters. You didn't call them patriots. You called them Terrorists... people who use terror as a form of power. :(

Ahhh, yes. Like the Israeli's want to share a piece of the holy land :rolleyes:

Terrorism isn't an ideal or an orginization it is a tactic. Like a tactic it can be used by groups that you agree with and by groups that you disagree with.

Lets put it another way, if Germany suddenly landed battalians of paratroopers in a major US city with the intention of occupying it should the US declare war against germany as a result or should the US declare war against Paratroopers?

The problem with the "war on terror" is that the attack wasn't done by a country it was done by a group of civilians with a specific ideaology. One can't fight an ideaology with force but the government had to look like it was doing something. Unfortunatly, such tactics will prove fruitless in the end. They can weaken the current terrorist orginizations but the ideaology that spawned them is still there and it will spawn others. As a result it is just a wasted effort.
Its like declaring a war against paratroopers and completely ignoring the aircraft carriers and balistic misssile submarines off the shore.

It also makes the US look hypocritial when we want to use paratroopers of our own, or in this case when we want to use terrorists. Remember, Ossama Bin Ladan was a good guy in the 80's. When his tactics were directed against the Soviet Union they were good. It is only now that they are directed against the US that they are bad. Declaring a war on terror means that the US looks bad when it does support terrorist freedom fighters.

Ein Deutscher']Israel is a terrorist regime too. They use terror in the form of flattening entire homes or bulldozing people...

Well, the Israeli government is a terrorist orginization. Most of the Israeli's and Plaestinians want peace.

Ahhh, yes. Like the Israeli's want to share a piece of the holy land :rolleyes:

They're always the first to the table to discuss it....

Terrorism isn't an ideal or an orginization it is a tactic. Like a tactic it can be used by groups that you agree with and by groups that you disagree with.

Lets put it another way, if Germany suddenly landed battalians of paratroopers in a major US city with the intention of occupying it should the US declare war against germany as a result or should the US declare war against Paratroopers?

The problem with the "war on terror" is that the attack wasn't done by a country it was done by a group of civilians with a specific ideaology. One can't fight an ideaology with force but the government had to look like it was doing something. Unfortunatly, such tactics will prove fruitless in the end. They can weaken the current terrorist orginizations but the ideaology that spawned them is still there and it will spawn others. As a result it is just a wasted effort.
Its like declaring a war against paratroopers and completely ignoring the aircraft carriers and balistic misssile submarines off the shore.

It also makes the US look hypocritial when we want to use paratroopers of our own, or in this case when we want to use terrorists. Remember, Ossama Bin Ladan was a good guy in the 80's. When his tactics were directed against the Soviet Union they were good. It is only now that they are directed against the US that they are bad. Declaring a war on terror means that the US looks bad when it does support terrorist freedom fighters.

"Terrorist freedom fighters...." We weren't in the way of their freedoms until an act of terrorism.

Last I checked... the world uprooted the JEWS. Including the palestinians, who aren't willing to share a speck of sand with an israeli. But go ahead... sympathize with terrorists... you didn't call them freedom fighters. You didn't call them patriots. You called them Terrorists... people who use terror as a form of power. :(
last i checked, it was actually the nazis in occupied europe that uprooted the jews within europe. they chose to leave the area of israel/palestine centuries before WWII, and because of WWII they decided to move back. the UN said 'sure, we will just kick the palestinians out so you can move back.'

as for people calling people terrorist, cause they use terror as a form of power, then effectivly you have labled the USA a terrorist nation. they have used terror to enforce their policy around the world. as stated before, who gave sadam the weapons? who trained osama? the US gave sadam the weapons during the iraq-iran war. osama was trained by the CIA. i would actually agree that the palestinians are realy more freedom fighters, but i agree that some of there tactics are questionable. then again, countries have been threatening countries for many a millenia, it is only now people are using the term terrorism.

as for people calling people terrorist, cause they use terror as a form of power, then effectivly you have labled the USA a terrorist nation. they have used terror to enforce their policy around the world. as stated before, who gave sadam the weapons? who trained osama? the US gave sadam the weapons during the iraq-iran war. osama was trained by the CIA. i would actually agree that the palestinians are realy more freedom fighters, but i agree that some of there tactics are questionable. then again, countries have been threatening countries for many a millenia, it is only now people are using the term terrorism.

Of course the U.S. gave them weapons and training. We do that with every country.

An interesting comparison would be if you train a police force, and suddenly the police force starts shooting the people who trained them.... We've got our hands bloody just like every other country. But that doesn't mean we can't react to an attack, whether by a trained ally or trained foe. Terrorism is an actual action. Telling the world that messing with us will result in an assured destruction isn't terrorist. It's a threa... nay, "Quality Assurance." If we started attack countries that were completely innocent, just to prove a point, it'd be terrorism.... Iraq needed to be cleaned out since the 80s. We just never got a clean shot at him. (We did try, though. >.>)

last i checked, it was actually the nazis in occupied europe that uprooted the jews within europe. they chose to leave the area of israel/palestine centuries before WWII, and because of WWII they decided to move back. the UN said 'sure, we will just kick the palestinians out so you can move back.'


Considering there was no space left FOR them to return to....

The Jews always had a presence in Israel. The palestinians don't want to SHARE the area. They want to remove ALL israeli presence, even those who've always remained....

The thing about this war on Terror is we have to start somewhere. Removing groups like the Baath party or Taliban removes some of the support structure that Terrorists depend on. Yes, we are causing some people to pick up the suicide bomber act who otherwise wouldnt, but this is part of the course. In time you will see more pro-American governemt in force in Afganistran and Iraq. This wont happen over night or over a year, maybe not over a decade, but it will happen if the American people can stick it out. This is the begging of a new middle east- one that will join the modern world, being dragged kicking and screaming if it needs to.

Wow this thread went bump last night but now its thriving. Hooray!

"Terrorist freedom fighters...." We weren't in the way of their freedoms until an act of terrorism.

That is a matter of perspective.

The idea of a war on terror is stupid to being with. You can't fight against a specific tactic and hope to accomplish anything. Its like fighting a war on paratroopers or a war on tanks. It just doen't work.

That's what I always say, but most people don't like to consider the fact that they are advocating an unwinnable war against an undefeatable intangible concept.

If it's a war on terrorists - fine. I'd rather they say "war on terrorists." Hell, specific terrorists would be even better (since we're obviously not fighting, say, Irish terrorists). That'd be more honest and correct and it even makes sense in NS political arguments.

But "war on terror" is as stupid as "War on aggression." Remember that? The first gulf war was called a War on Aggression, and when it was won Bush Sr said "Aggression is defeated." Doesn't that make you feel better inside? Aggression has been defeated, now people are not going to be aggressive. :rolleyes:

Basically, political rhetoric is aimed at capturing the hearts of those with small minds, not at actually describing foreign policy.

Considering there was no space left FOR them to return to....

The Jews always had a presence in Israel. The palestinians don't want to SHARE the area. They want to remove ALL israeli presence, even those who've always remained....
where are you getting that garbage from? they dont want to remove all israeli presence, they are pissed that they have been in camps for over 50 years. thats where the UN were holding them for aproxamatly 25 years (that is roughly until the olympics in munich, so that makes it 50 years now) waiting for a resettlement that never happened. yes jews have always had a presence there, but they havent always had a nation. for quite a few centuries, till the late 1940s, it had been the nation of palestine. they had tolerated the jews living there. the thing is, the majority, almost all, of the jewish population moved into europe until WWII. and of course there was no space for them to return to. its not like: 'we are moving here, can you reserve this area of land for us incase we want to return, oh, a few centuries in the future?'. if that was the case, the greeks would have a large stake in claiming most of europe, because they are technically the last of the romans.

But "war on terror" is as stupid as "War on aggression." Remember that? The first gulf war was called a War on Aggression, and when it was won Bush Sr said "Aggression is defeated." Doesn't that make you feel better inside? Aggression has been defeated, now people are not going to be aggressive.

This should go into the book "101 ways to bullshit at people in order to get re-elected"

Ein Deutscher']Israel is a terrorist regime too. They use terror in the form of flattening entire homes or bulldozing people...
Which happens in direct response to various actions by the palestinians. The israelis have shown before that they would stop once the palestinians quit homicide bombing their civilian population. Only problem is the bombing always starts up again. Besides which, given the constant propaganda they feed their children I have little sympathy for the adults.

Which happens in direct response to various actions by the palestinians. The israelis have shown before that they would stop once the palestinians quit homicide bombing their civilian population. Only problem is the bombing always starts up again. Besides which, given the constant propaganda they feed their children I have little sympathy for the adults.
palestinians will stop when an official palestinian state is established and recognised. at the moment, the isralies are using any excuse not to leave the west bank or gaza, which i belive is deemed to be palestinian territory, and dont recognise a palistinian state, so the cycle continues. and it isnt palestine that feeds their children with propaganda. if it wasnt for the propaganda the isralies filled their kids with, and actually recognised the west bank and gaza as a palestinian state, the cycle will never stop.

This should go into the book "101 ways to bullshit at people in order to get re-elected"
as well as 'you will have higher intrest rates under the opposition as government, because they caused higher rates the last time they were in' as used by the liberal government in australia (which actually kinda backfired on them... the rates rose!)

yes jews have always had a presence there, but they havent always had a nation. for quite a few centuries, till the late 1940s, it had been the nation of palestine. they had tolerated the jews living there.
Love that last sentence. And by the way, where did you learn your history? Prior to WWI it was part of the failing Ottoman Empire. The biggest reason the locals were originally pissed was because they had been promised control of that land by the British if they rose up in arms against the Ottomans. Which did happen in every other area, Jordan being identical to the region of palestine in culture at the time. The brits pretty much reneged on their deal and land was sold in job lots to the jews. They still didn't have control of the area but there was a general influx of them. Then WWII happened. Afterwards the partition act of 1947 was issued by the UN. This pissed off the palestinians but they still weren't really doing anything major. Then the surrounding arab countries get it in their heads to do some ethnic cleansing. Basically to chase off some dirty jews. Here is where accounts begin to diverge rather radically. The arab side says that well over 300,000 fled the area entirely on the basis of a single incident commited by a jewish terror group/militia type thing which they agree only killed about 250 people. On the other hand, the Israelis say that the surrounding arab countries urged the palestinians to flee so that they wouldn't get in the way of the fighting. I find myself leaning towards the israelis explanation simply because I find it hard to believe that a single incident would be enough to mobilize that many people on it's own. There were no other incidents before the actual war commenced. *shrugs* People have looked into the matter of the radio broadcasts, but none were actually recorded so evidence in either direction is basically hearsay.

how can the war in iraq be veiwed as anything but a failiure? it's gone from being a dictatorship to being a... uhh dictatorship. that fake government should proclaim they are going to change their bank reserves to euro's and watch how quickly they get shut down.

yes people, the whole war on terror is actually *terrorism* in itself. america took over iraq to say to oil producing companies, switch your reserves to euro's and we invade! that's why north korea was actually left alone when it was making it's nuclear bombs, north korea has no oil.

venezuela is another oil producing company with a democratic goverment, america sent agents there to carry out a coup. it only lasted a day and failed, venezuela had diversified it's reserve and was talking about going further.

iran has been talking about switching to euro's for a long time, after they saw how much money saddam hussain made for himself doing it, more stable currencies yield more money.

since the war, the dollar has weakened and is all over the place, countries are changing their reserves anyway now. another war would speed up the process and severly damage america's economy.

armed bookworms, the israeli side were actually a terrorist group smuggling in jews. *the influx* you mentioned was people smuggling, since when have people smugglers been nice people? answer is they haven't. i'm sure it was partly both reasons. no-one likes being bombed by terrorists, assassinated or being in a war zone.

armed bookworms, the israeli side were actually a terrorist group smuggling in jews. *the influx* you mentioned was people smuggling, since when have people smugglers been nice people? answer is they haven't. i'm sure it was partly both reasons. no-one likes being bombed by terrorists, assassinated or being in a war zone.
It is still highly unlikely a single event that involved less than 500 people could propel an exodus on the order of 300,000 people. In Rwanda, Darfur, and Kosovo it took quite a few more deaths and several attacks to even begin to get that many people to move. It's highly suspect that the incident in question was the biggest factor in their decision to flee.


Also, when did I mention they were nice people? They did completely massacre 250 people after all. I'm just saying it's odd that so many people would have been led to flee the area by said incident. There had to be at least another major reason for it, and the only one available is the arab broadcasts.