NationStates Jolt Archive

Brigadier shocks and awes: there is no war on terrorism
By Cynthia Banham, Defence Reporter
April 27, 2005

The so-called global war on terrorism does not exist, a high-ranking army officer has declared in a speech that challenges the conventional political wisdom.

In a frank speech, Brigadier Justin Kelly dismissed several of the central tenets of the Iraq war and the war on terrorism, saying the "war" part is all about politics and terrorism is merely a tactic.

Although such wars were fuelled by global issues, they were essentially counter-insurgent operations fought on a local level. This would result in Australian soldiers fighting in increasingly urban environments.

Speaking at a conference on future warfighting, Brigadier Kelly, the director-general of future land warfare, also suggested that the "proposition you can bomb someone into thinking as we do has been found to be untrue".

His speech appears to fly in the face of a comment by the Prime Minister, John Howard, last year that the "contest in Iraq represents a critical confrontation in the war against terror ..."

the "proposition you can bomb someone into thinking as we do has been found to be untrue".
I wouldnt go that far...

I wouldnt go that far...
meaning?

I wouldnt go that far...
terrorism is a tactic that is outlawed by the United Nations. It's like using chemical weapons.
The point of terrorism is using guerella warfare against civilians, which is unaccaptable. That's why the civilized world is waging a war on it.

That's why the civilized world is....what is your definition of "civilized world" ?

terrorism is a tactic that is outlawed by the United Nations. It's like using chemical weapons.
The point of terrorism is using guerella warfare against civilians, which is unaccaptable. That's why the civilized world is waging a war on it.
I'm sure if there was a civilized world it would know how best to act.

terrorism is a tactic that is outlawed by the United Nations. It's like using chemical weapons.
The point of terrorism is using guerella warfare against civilians, which is unaccaptable. That's why the civilized world is waging a war on it.

There is no civilised world. There are only those who claim there is. The war on terror started out as a fight against a terrorist network but became an excuse for increased military presence in a hostile area. There was some justification for Afghanistan, none for Iraq, even less for Syria or Iran. The war on terror is used because calling it flatly a war is bad PR.

Terrorism is in the eye of the beholder. Was WTC terrorism? Yes. Was Beslan terrorism? Yes. Was Pentagon? Not Pentagon itself but the airplane. The Pentagon is a military target(granted there are civilians working there, but they do so voluntarily). Now terrorism is hard to determine. Vietnam is a prime example. US troops massacred civilians for no apparent reason. This was accepted by the "civilised world" because it was committed by it. The Soviets in Afghanistan killed civilians, as did the Afghans. Was this terrorism? Yes.

Both the US and the USSR defended their imperialistic wars of terror with the fact that many civilians rose against them, killing them in guerilla attacks. If the Soviet Union invaded the US and militias took arms against the Soviets, would the destruction of Chicago be justified if it held 40,000 guerillas? Would it?

Terrorists exist, but the war on terror is not about terrorists. It is a regular war going closer to a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites. Saddam was no terrorist. He was a terrible man, yes. But not a terrorist. Saddam's Iraq committed atrocities, but many were following the revolt after the Gulf War. That could be justified by Saddam. Would that make it less than terror? Saddam was a mentally sick man, but not a terrorist.

what is your definition of "civilized world" ?
The countries with advanced economic, and political structures. USA, Europe, Israel, Japan, Canada, maybe Russia.

The countries with advanced economic, and political structures. USA, Europe, Israel, Japan, Canada, maybe Russia.
I disagree. Those who claim to be civilized are usually the most barbaric.

The countries with advanced economic, and political structures. USA, Europe, Israel, Japan, Canada, maybe Russia.USA,Russia, use terrorism.

Israel has used terrorism for as long as there was a "Israel".
sometimes on a daily basis...

There are no good guys, only lesser degrees of bad guys.

There is no holy civilised world. The Moors in southern Spain conducted brain surgery before the christian Spaniards chased the "uncivilised" muslims out of Spain. Every one is civilised in their own view, no one actually is.

USA,Russia, use terrorism.

Israel has used terrorism for as long as there was a "Israel".
sometimes on a daily basis...
they purposely target civilians?

they purposely target civilians?
I am sure at least Israel does on occasion. They all use terror though.

what is your definition of "civilized world" ?

The guys with the bigger guns and the shiny matching uniforms. The rest are barbarians... I mean come on, after thousands of years if you cant even wear matching clothes whats the point?

they purposely target civilians?they use terrorism.

they purposely target civilians?they use terrorism.

and Israel does target civileans...(but thats is a separate issue as it is not on the definition of terrorism)

The guys with the bigger guns and the shiny matching uniforms. The rest are barbarians... I mean come on, after thousands of years if you cant even wear matching clothes whats the point?

Hmmm, that would mean some of the fashion designers today are barbarians too. I mean, those things hurt just to look at them.

Hmmm, that would mean some of the fashion designers today are barbarians too. I mean, those things hurt just to look at them.thay re terrorists man ...im tellin ya!!!

Hmmm, that would mean some of the fashion designers today are barbarians too. I mean, those things hurt just to look at them.

I agree, lets throw them into Guantanomo.

Naw, waste of money. Cheaper to shoot them...going back to the first part of my argument concerning the larger guns.

USA,Russia, use terrorism.

Israel has used terrorism for as long as there was a "Israel".
sometimes on a daily basis...
Wow, your understanding of Israeli history is so shallow as to be laughable.

Wow, your understanding of Israeli history is so shallow as to be laughable.
the history of the Jewish peoples are epic...and they are deserving of sympathy..

but the history of Israel is disgraceful...

now...you can laugh at me all you want...but you cant spin the facts on me.

you can always try...but good luck with that...

The only reason the Israelis are allowed to do what they do is because people start pointing at you screaming anti-Semite.

The Mossad is probably going to hunt me down for saying this: Israel was created because the West felt sorry for the Jews after the Holocaust. I am not saying they didn't deserve sympathy, but taking land where the Palestinians had lived for centuries and telling them to sod off is plain wrong. They should have put them some place else or at least tried to be friendlier about it. That Israel is protected by the US in the security council keeps the UN from telling the Israelis to stop.

I am not anti-Semite, please don't say I am. I dislike the policies of the State of Israel, not Jews or Israelis. Just like I dislike the US policies but not Americans.

the history of the Jewish peoples are epic...and they are deserving of sympathy..

but the history of Israel is disgraceful...

now...you can laugh at me all you want...but you cant spin the facts on me.

you can always try...but good luck with that...

Try me.

Jewish settlers began to move into what was then Palestine to escape European anti-Semitism as an organized movement in the 19th century, particularly as a reaction to the Dreyfus Affair in France, which galvanized Continental anti-semitism. Jewish settlers in the region were grudginly accepted by the Arab population (living under Turkish domination), but the industry of the settlers and the enormous amount of work they did improving the land of the region soon made their presence largely acceptable.

During World War I, the British made contradictory promises to both the Jewish and Arab populations to secure their aid against Turkey. Jewish regiments in the Royal Army and an Arab rebellion aided the British in the Middle East, and both sides expected their promises to be satisfied. The roots of modern tension began to be seen here.

World War II changed everything. Jews, believing they had nowhere to go after being nearly exterminated, came to the conclusion that their ancestral homeland (an extensively documented historical fact) was where they belonged. The world community agreed (one of the very few things both sides of the Cold War could agree to). The land in what was known as Palestine was parititioned between the Jews and the Arabs, with choice land equally given to both sides. Additionally, the entirety of what was now Jordan and was then part of the same territory was given to the Arabs. The Jews accepted the deal; the Arabs rejected it. A massively outnumbered mishmash of groups designed to defend Jewish settlers from persecution at the hands of Arab mobs managed to hold off the Arab assault, whose goal was the total extermination of the Jewish population in the region ("Drive the Jews into the sea.") Accusations of human rights abuses against Israel were proven false by international organizations, a pattern of false accusations seen throughout history.

In 1956, the Egyptian dictator, Gamel Abdel Nasser, illegally stole the Suez Canal from Britain with the express design of starving the Israeli populace into submission. The Israelis, French, and British fought a war to defend international law, which they settled with a truce (no Arab nation was ready to agree to peace with Israel, even though the Israelis wanted to talk).

In 1967, Egypt and Syria signed a pact to invade Israel from two fronts, and again "drive the Jews into the sea" in a massive pincer movement. With their troops on the border, Israeli intelligence uncovered the plot and cut off the invasion before it could begin. Jordan, having heard false reports about Egyptian victories from Egyptian soldiers, entered the war, only to lose substantial territory to the ready Israeli army. Again, Israel acts in self defense and was willing to agree to a permanent peace, but no Arab nation would talk.

In 1973, Arab nations invaded Israel on the Jewish Holy Day of Yom Kippur, a day of reflection and repentence. This egregious offense was designed again to destroy the nation, but a shocked and determined IDF managed to barely stave off a potential genocide.

In 1983, PLO agents were shelling Israeli civilian settlements from Lebanon, and the IDF invaded Lebanon to stop the murder of civilians. It made an awful alliance with Christian militant groups in the region, who did committed human rights abuses on a large scale while Israel was left in the position of not being able to stop them because they were fighting the same enemies the Israelis were. This was one of Israel's darkest chapters as a nation.

Modern Era: Terrorists blow themselvs up in Israeli civilian centers, defenseless children slaughtered while dancing. Israel targets the leaders of those attacks, and somehow gets the blame of the international community because they didn't try hard enough not to prevent civilian casualties (even though they often warn civilian populaces of incoming strikes). Analyses of the casualties indicate that the majority of Israeli deaths are non-combatant women, children, and elderly, while the vast majority of Palestinian deaths are combat-aged males. The PLO teaches that Jews are evil moneylenders that must be exterminated in their textbooks, and when offered basically all of their demands including access to West Jerusalem in 2000 at Camp David, Yasser Arafat refused and started the current Intifada. The actions of the so-called PLO are inexcusible. Israel is in the horrible position of not defending their civilians or incurring the wrath of the international community (which is somehow blind to the realities of the situation).

These are facts. I haven't heard you provide one.

The only reason the Israelis are allowed to do what they do is because people start pointing at you screaming anti-Semite.

The Mossad is probably going to hunt me down for saying this: Israel was created because the West felt sorry for the Jews after the Holocaust. I am not saying they didn't deserve sympathy, but taking land where the Palestinians had lived for centuries and telling them to sod off is plain wrong. They should have put them some place else or at least tried to be friendlier about it. That Israel is protected by the US in the security council keeps the UN from telling the Israelis to stop.

I am not anti-Semite, please don't say I am. I dislike the policies of the State of Israel, not Jews or Israelis. Just like I dislike the US policies but not Americans.

Oh, really? Never mind that you've just insinuated that there's a massive international Jewish conspiracy to kill anyone who disagrees with them, but your grasp of the facts of the situation is quite inaccurate.

The Jews were kicked off of their land by the Babylonians, a precursor to the current people of the Middle East, first of all.

Second, the UN split the land between the two people, giving equal access to choice land (in fact giving far more to the Arabs because Jordan was at that time part of the territory being discussed as land to be distributed). The Jews accepted the division of land. The Arabs (the concept of "Palestinian" did not at the time exist) didn't, and waged a genocidal war designed to eliminate the Jewish population of the region.

I've already answered the rest of this.

Try me.sure...start a new thread...and Ill asnwer your poins...one at a time...

BTW...try short copy pastes...or post the links...

they dont like long copy pastes around here.

sure...start a new thread...and Ill asnwer your poins...one at a time...

BTW...try short copy pastes...or post the links...

they dont like long copy pastes around here.
Considering that the topic of this thread has changed, feel free to answer this stuff here.

That was all original. None of it was copy-pasted.

Israel was created because the West felt sorry for the Jews after the Holocaust. I am not saying they didn't deserve sympathy, but taking land where the Palestinians had lived for centuries and telling them to sod off is plain wrong. They should have put them some place else or at least tried to be friendlier about it. That Israel is protected by the US in the security council keeps the UN from telling the Israelis to stop.

WHAT??? Where are you getting your history??? The west were having their own problems! They didn't care about the Jews or the Arabs. It has a lot to do with the anomoly known as Social Darwinism (When an idea goes a little too far, and nearly wipes out the planet.) The Western world still ascribed to these ideas until well after WWII. Some would claim they still continue today. In any case the Jews who were European Educated suscribed to the same beleifs and cried out for world recognition INSTEAD of trying to talk to there Arab neighbors who were suspicious of the Jews and feared that they were there to dispeal them. The Ottoman Empire, meanwhile, did NOTHING to quench these fears, and tension rose. The British subscribed the Drefus Doctrine( not quite positive on that one feel free to correct me) not only acknowladging(sp?) the jews existence, but giving them British Support (which meant nothing). This in turn caused many even more tension between the Arabs and the Jews. (I will note that the Arabs are no better, in this respect, because they did not try to discuss settlement terms with the Jews either.)

The vicious circle escalated, and when it did break out the Europeans tried to divide the land to give the jews a homeland, so they could have peace. It didn't work. It made things worse.

Now here's where things get interesting...I'm going to skip ahead about 50 years, so bear with me... The Arab Refugees! I'm sure almost every one has heard about this crisis. (if not find some news website and shift through the millions of articles) now what is not common knowledge is that the there was just as many jewish refugees as there were Arabs. Iseral, at great expense to themselves, absorbed the refugees gave them homes and jobs. Why didn't the Arabs absorb there refugees, after all isreal is miniscule compared to the Arab contries.

Answer, the Arab LEADERS used the refugees as a bargaining chip, and a target, to forward there own political adgendas. However now, with the use of terrorism the leaders who wish peace, cannot find it. Because they are being threatened daily, not much is accomplished.

My point is both sides are at fault, and the British Government really messed it up. I simpified the situation to the point of error. There is SO much more than just that. But I am tired of typing. Look it up yourselves.

in fact look up about two posts, he has a few more details. However, even betwixt the two of us, there is much more that has remained unsaid (or untyped if you prefer.)

ED: make that 3 posts

Considering that the topic of this thread has changed...
It has been temp. hickjacked...but I dont wanna push it...they say the creator of the Thread is a mothafukka...when he wants to. :D

WHAT??? Where are you getting your history??? The west were having their own problems! They didn't care about the Jews or the Arabs. It has a lot to do with the anomoly known as Social Darwinism (When an idea goes a little too far, and nearly wipes out the planet.) The Western world still ascribed to these ideas until well after WWII. Some would claim they still continue today. In any case the Jews who were European Educated suscribed to the same beleifs and cried out for world recognition INSTEAD of trying to talk to there Arab neighbors who were suspicious of the Jews and feared that they were there to dispeal them. The Ottoman Empire, meanwhile, did NOTHING to quench these fears, and tension rose. The British subscribed the Drefus Doctrine( not quite positive on that one feel free to correct me) not only acknowladging(sp?) the jews existence, but giving them British Support (which meant nothing). This in turn caused many even more tension between the Arabs and the Jews. (I will note that the Arabs are no better, in this respect, because they did not try to discuss settlement terms with the Jews either.)
*snip*

First, it's kinda unfair to say that all Jews ascribed to the same socio-political beliefs.

Second, most Europeans had grown out of Social Darwinism and the Jews as a whole had never believed in it. Social Darwinism was a late 19th/early 20th, Industrial Revolution era phenomenon designed to justify capitalist excesses concerning the location of money. No Social Darwinist would ask for "world recognition," anyway - they would feel that they had to earn it through success.

There was no such thing as the Dreyfus Doctrine (Alfred Dreyfus was a French Jew framed for treason in France).

The last part of the quote is fairly accurate - no one side is entirely to blame or entirely innocent.

It has been temp. hickjacked...but I dont wanna push it...they say the creator of the Thread is a mothafukka...when he wants to. :D

True, true. :D

sure...start a new thread...and Ill asnwer your poins...one at a time...

BTW...try short copy pastes...or post the links...

they dont like long copy pastes around here.
"They" who? Who is it you think you're speaking for?
Sometimes the entire context of something IS long and complicated. That's what it often takes to understand the breadth of something. You'd better get used to it and nix that radio-single soundbite mentality, methinks.

"They" who? Who is it you think you're speaking for?.
most others players, the mods, myrth, etc.

thats they.

You'd better get used to it and nix that radio-single soundbite mentality...I dont think so.

The only reason the Israelis are allowed to do what they do is because people start pointing at you screaming anti-Semite.

The Mossad is probably going to hunt me down for saying this: Israel was created because the West felt sorry for the Jews after the Holocaust. I am not saying they didn't deserve sympathy, but taking land where the Palestinians had lived for centuries and telling them to sod off is plain wrong. They should have put them some place else or at least tried to be friendlier about it. That Israel is protected by the US in the security council keeps the UN from telling the Israelis to stop.

I am not anti-Semite, please don't say I am. I dislike the policies of the State of Israel, not Jews or Israelis. Just like I dislike the US policies but not Americans.
We lived there before the palestinians. And UN is too controlled by Arab states.

We lived there before the palestinians. And UN is too controlled by Arab states.
Dude, you and I agree in principle, but don't spout stuff like this. Back your assertions up with facts, as *some* people in this thread have been doing earlier.

There is a big difference between civilization and barbarism on a societal level Vs. civilization and barbarism on an individual level. When applied to a societal level, one can measure the level of civilization by two or three big factors. The most obvious would be their 'works'. Basically, the shit that directly effects the the face of the landscape. Then you have the 'choice' or 'freedom' factor. Basically a question of how many different options a person has in life without serious threat to life. Some would also consider 'culture' as a factor, however that ultimately comes under the 'choice' category. On the whole, I would say that the western powers tend to be much, much more civilized than the rest of the world.

Now, as for civilization and barbarism on a individual basis. A much more complicated issue. I suppose the easiest distinction would be the propensity to use violence. In itself however, it does not measure the persons morality. In fact, one could argue that in the end a highly civilized person may end up causing much, much more suffering than their more barbaric counterparts. For instance, it is highly unlikely that Hitler himself killed anyone after his stint in WWI if he even personally killed anyone then.

Any society, however civilized it may be as a society will inevitably have both barbaric and civilized individuals.

Yeah Yeah Yeah liberals we get it. "Everyone has a differant opinion" "It's all in the eye of the beholder".

But as a WORLD we want to avoid horrible painful death as much as possible. Meaning every goverment should put it in thier interest to stop the production, selling, and especialy using of nuculear and biological weapons.

You liberals are very quick to bring up North Koriea and how at anytime they can turn us into a smoldering crater which is uninhabitable by nuculear death.

Well Iran and all those other damn rag-men have cancer bombs. Do you want to open a box, see a dark green gas, and suddenly have leppersy? Didn't think so.

So just shutup and let the conservatives win this one, yeah it's stupid that they apply it to the Middle-East and not the communist countries with thier nukes and that means there is an altirior motive involved, but hey, we're getting something out of it.

Or you can countinue to be a proud-ass prick and doom us all like Ron Regan. I'm sure mother would be proud.

Yeah Yeah Yeah liberals we get it. "Everyone has a differant opinion" "It's all in the eye of the beholder".

But as a WORLD we want to avoid horrible painful death as much as possible. Meaning every goverment should put it in thier interest to stop the production, selling, and especialy using of nuculear and biological weapons.

You liberals are very quick to bring up North Koriea and how at anytime they can turn us into a smoldering crater which is uninhabitable by nuculear death.

Well Iran and all those other damn rag-men have cancer bombs. Do you want to open a box, see a dark green gas, and suddenly have leppersy? Didn't think so.

So just shutup and let the conservatives win this one, yeah it's stupid that they apply it to the Middle-East and not the communist countries with thier nukes and that means there is an altirior motive involved, but hey, we're getting something out of it.

Or you can countinue to be a proud-ass prick and doom us all like Ron Regan. I'm sure mother would be proud.

Dude, rag-men????

Perhaps we should stop terrorism. Good plan. I agree. You know what we shouldn't do? Kill innocents who aren't planning attacks which actually spurs more terrorist attacks. Invade countries at random. Etc, etc.

Btw, cancer bombs? Leprousy? Hate to tell you, neither one is a practical biological weapon.

You also spell "nuclear" the way the President pronounces it. Intentional?

what is your definition of "civilized world" ?
Well, let's dissect it. First I'd go with nations who have "civil" administrations. Who have maintained infrastructure and goverments, with continuity of government, as well as certain protections and guarantees for the citizens.

Civilized societies are capable of barbaric actions, but that does not necessarily make them barbaric.

Dude, rag-men????
I would've said worse but I rather like this forum. I have no sympathy for an enemy.

Perhaps we should stop terrorism. Good plan. I agree. You know what we shouldn't do? Kill innocents who aren't planning attacks which actually spurs more terrorist attacks. Invade countries at random. Etc, etc.
What do you mean by innocent? Sure they have families and stuff, but so did Hitler. I'm pretty sure over 90% of EVERYBODY in the Middle-East would rather see an American burn at the stake then win a hundred dollars. They don't bleed, so why should we?

Btw, cancer bombs? Leprousy? Hate to tell you, neither one is a practical biological weapon.
True, but biological warfare creeps me out after I read more about it. My own fault really.


You also spell "nuclear" the way the President pronounces it. Intentional?
It was a typo, sorry.

So just shutup and let the conservatives win this one, yeah it's stupid that they apply it to the Middle-East and not the communist countries with thier nukes and that means there is an altirior motive involved, but hey, we're getting something out of it.
Dicking around with NK except as a last resort would be an extremely fucking stupid idea. We are attempting to defuse the situation at hand without screwing over Japan and SK.

Yeah Yeah Yeah liberals we get it. "Everyone has a differant opinion" "It's all in the eye of the beholder".

But as a WORLD we want to avoid horrible painful death as much as possible. Meaning every goverment should put it in thier interest to stop the production, selling, and especialy using of nuculear and biological weapons.

You liberals are very quick to bring up North Koriea and how at anytime they can turn us into a smoldering crater which is uninhabitable by nuculear death.

Well Iran and all those other damn rag-men have cancer bombs. Do you want to open a box, see a dark green gas, and suddenly have leppersy? Didn't think so.

So just shutup and let the conservatives win this one, yeah it's stupid that they apply it to the Middle-East and not the communist countries with thier nukes and that means there is an altirior motive involved, but hey, we're getting something out of it.

Or you can countinue to be a proud-ass prick and doom us all like Ron Regan. I'm sure mother would be proud.


ok we libies shutup...and let you "conservatives" do all the talking...

that way America looks smarter.

Me a conservative? That's the funniest shit i've heard all night! XD

Look at my country on this site sometime. You'll see I am a revised socialist. It doesn't get much more left-wing then that..

However I have a mind of my own. You should get one sometime. You could probably find it on Ebay. Ebay has everything.

First, it's kinda unfair to say that all Jews ascribed to the same socio-political beliefs.

Second, most Europeans had grown out of Social Darwinism and the Jews as a whole had never believed in it. Social Darwinism was a late 19th/early 20th, Industrial Revolution era phenomenon designed to justify capitalist excesses concerning the location of money. No Social Darwinist would ask for "world recognition," anyway - they would feel that they had to earn it through success.

There was no such thing as the Dreyfus Doctrine (Alfred Dreyfus was a French Jew framed for treason in France).

The last part of the quote is fairly accurate - no one side is entirely to blame or entirely innocent.


When I said the Jews, I meant as I did the Arabs, there leaders. I am sorry if I caused offence.

With regards to Social Darwinism, it was applied to so many expanisonistic views, and imperialism movements with in Europe, that it was a viable force to use politics.( not to mention very few were true social darwinists, the socio-political usage of the theory was a handy tool for justify power grabbing. Not just by the Jews or the Europeans, but the US, Japan, China...) The Jews needed European recognition (they believed ["they" again being their leaders]) in order to continue to exist. In order to insure there future.

And it was the Balfor Declaration...yep, I know about Dreyfus. It was late here, and I was tired.

Apologies again...

The countries with advanced economic, and political structures. USA, Europe, Israel, Japan, Canada, maybe Russia.
So being able to make money more efficiently and an organized form of control makes a country civilized? Wrong. A civilized country would be one that respects all human life and treats them accordingly, and so far no such country has ever existed.

Dude, rag-men????

Perhaps we should stop terrorism. Good plan. I agree. You know what we shouldn't do? Kill innocents who aren't planning attacks which actually spurs more terrorist attacks. Invade countries at random. Etc, etc.

Btw, cancer bombs? Leprousy? Hate to tell you, neither one is a practical biological weapon.

You also spell "nuclear" the way the President pronounces it. Intentional?

I agree with carbdown let the conservatives handle it. I dont think the terrorists are going to stop what there doing if we give them all hugs and talk to them. I no this war has been brutal but the world is going to be a better place after its over. And im not trying to be a jerk to liberals but your basic set of beliefs cant solve this particular situation. Its going to take awhile but eventually Iraq and Afghanistan are gonna be 1st world countries with good economies and no crazy dictators. Just look at all of the countries weve invaded and rebuilt. Germany is one of the richest countries in the world along with Japan and South korea, they all have excellent economies and are great places to live.

Also Deluze since when did the u.s. intentionally attack civilians in iraq or afghanistan. And we are not invading countries at random iraq is in the center of the middle east and once it is rebuilt without saddam its going help the countries around it and slowly help transform the middle east into a safer place. And the reason it was iraq instead of north korea or iran is that iraq had the weakest military. If we would have invaded north korea we would have suffered hundreds of thousands of casualties besides the fact that there crazy dictator would have probly attempted to launch nuclear missiles at america. And i no carbdown gave some bad examples of biological weapons but that doesnt change the the fact that if some sort of genetically engineered disease got out it could cause an end to the world as we know it. Thats the thing about biological weapons plauges dont care who they kill.

So being able to make money more efficiently and an organized form of control makes a country civilized? Wrong. A civilized country would be one that respects all human life and treats them accordingly, and so far no such country has ever existed.
You cannot talk about civilization in absolutes.

...Its going to take awhile but eventually Iraq and Afghanistan are gonna be 1st world countries...
...Just look at all of the countries weve invaded...Afghanistan and Iraq are closer to becoming 1st world Country because we invaded them?

Exactly we just sped up the process of there eventual revolutions from there opressive leaders.

The idea of a War on Terror is bit of an oxymoron. The more war, the more terror. You can't have a War on Terror, because war *is* terror.

I agree with carbdown let the conservatives handle it. I dont think the terrorists are going to stop what there doing if we give them all hugs and talk to them. I no this war has been brutal but the world is going to be a better place after its over. And im not trying to be a jerk to liberals but your basic set of beliefs cant solve this particular situation. Its going to take awhile but eventually Iraq and Afghanistan are gonna be 1st world countries with good economies and no crazy dictators. Just look at all of the countries weve invaded and rebuilt. Germany is one of the richest countries in the world along with Japan and South korea, they all have excellent economies and are great places to live.

Also Deluze since when did the u.s. intentionally attack civilians in iraq or afghanistan. And we are not invading countries at random iraq is in the center of the middle east and once it is rebuilt without saddam its going help the countries around it and slowly help transform the middle east into a safer place. And the reason it was iraq instead of north korea or iran is that iraq had the weakest military. If we would have invaded north korea we would have suffered hundreds of thousands of casualties besides the fact that there crazy dictator would have probly attempted to launch nuclear missiles at america. And i no carbdown gave some bad examples of biological weapons but that doesnt change the the fact that if some sort of genetically engineered disease got out it could cause an end to the world as we know it. Thats the thing about biological weapons plauges dont care who they kill.

You misunderstand me. I don't think handing out pamphlets that say "Democracy's good, ummkay" to Middle Eastern countries is relevant to combating terrorism, as you post seems to assume.

On the contrary, the United States needs to take military action to eliminate terrorism. What they DON'T need to do is invade a country with no connection to terrorism whatsoever and call it part of the "war on terror." You know what that makes the people who we need to support us think? That the United states is trying to wage a war on Islam. If they think that, the terrorists will get recruits faster than we can kill them. You see why this isn't a traditional liberal/(neo)conservative debate (true conservativism in foreign policy is isolationism).

You know, you assume that the war in Iraq is going to go perfectly. Guess what? Rumsfeld fucked up. There aren't enough troops which causes higher death rates which in turn discourages more recruits, making the problem worse.

World War II not = "War on Terror." Those are not real examples. Generalizing about warfare across decades is why France got punked by Germany in WWII.

There is no civilised world. There are only those who claim there is. The war on terror started out as a fight against a terrorist network but became an excuse for increased military presence in a hostile area. There was some justification for Afghanistan, none for Iraq, even less for Syria or Iran. The war on terror is used because calling it flatly a war is bad PR.

Terrorism is in the eye of the beholder. Was WTC terrorism? Yes. Was Beslan terrorism? Yes. Was Pentagon? Not Pentagon itself but the airplane. The Pentagon is a military target(granted there are civilians working there, but they do so voluntarily). Now terrorism is hard to determine. Vietnam is a prime example. US troops massacred civilians for no apparent reason. This was accepted by the "civilised world" because it was committed by it. The Soviets in Afghanistan killed civilians, as did the Afghans. Was this terrorism? Yes.

Both the US and the USSR defended their imperialistic wars of terror with the fact that many civilians rose against them, killing them in guerilla attacks. If the Soviet Union invaded the US and militias took arms against the Soviets, would the destruction of Chicago be justified if it held 40,000 guerillas? Would it?

Terrorists exist, but the war on terror is not about terrorists. It is a regular war going closer to a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites. Saddam was no terrorist. He was a terrible man, yes. But not a terrorist. Saddam's Iraq committed atrocities, but many were following the revolt after the Gulf War. That could be justified by Saddam. Would that make it less than terror? Saddam was a mentally sick man, but not a terrorist.


Terrorism must not be by a country, it has to be by another political organism, based on the definition my history teacher gave

It also has to be violent, attack civillians, and be political in motive

You also spell "nuclear" the way the President pronounces it. Intentional?

Nucular!

(We love the prez, and the prez sez. Ergo, is better)

The war on terror DOES exist, but the whole thing is still a joke. Having a war on terror is like having a war on unhappyness, or a war on jealousy. You aren't going to win it, ever. Every day the US creates more terrorists by doing the things it does.

On the contrary, the United States needs to take military action to eliminate terrorism. What they DON'T need to do is invade a country with no connection to terrorism whatsoever and call it part of the "war on terror."
Iraq did have ties to terrorism. In '91 Saddam sent bio-weapon experts to Afghanistan to consult the Taliban. Saddam was infamous for giving $25,000 rewards to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. After the invasion of Afghanistan, Al Zarqawi fled from there to Iraq to receive medical treatment. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, but that does not wipe his hands clean of terrorism.
Both Afghanistan and Iraq are logical places to attack for the War on Terrorism. Afghanistan was targeted for being directly linked to the planning and execution of 9/11. Iraq; because of Saddam's long history flaunting UN resolutions, the ease of defeating his Gulf War I weakened military, and its position smack dab in the middle of the Middle East.
We are not going to get rid of terrorists by attacking them directly. We need to change the environment that breeds suicide bombers. Invading Iraq is going to be messy for the short term. For the long term, though, it will be the catalyst that makes the MIddle East a more stable, less dangerous entity.

Iraq did have ties to terrorism. In '91 Saddam sent bio-weapon experts to Afghanistan to consult the Taliban. Saddam was infamous for giving $25,000 rewards to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. After the invasion of Afghanistan, Al Zarqawi fled from there to Iraq to receive medical treatment. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, but that does not wipe his hands clean of terrorism.
Both Afghanistan and Iraq are logical places to attack for the War on Terrorism. Afghanistan was targeted for being directly linked to the planning and execution of 9/11. Iraq; because of Saddam's long history flaunting UN resolutions, the ease of defeating his Gulf War I weakened military, and its position smack dab in the middle of the Middle East.
We are not going to get rid of terrorists by attacking them directly. We need to change the environment that breeds suicide bombers. Invading Iraq is going to be messy for the short term. For the long term, though, it will be the catalyst that makes the MIddle East a more stable, less dangerous entity.

You are right about not being able to get rid of terrorists by attacking them directly, so how, even in the long term, will invading Iraq pay off? By invading Iraq--especially Iraq--we gave the Muslim extremists a ligitimate reason to continue using terrorism and keep fighting us. The last thing we should do, if we are indeed fighting a "war on terror," is invade Iraq. The war on terror will never be won, and by invading Iraq the Middle East will not become stable or less dangerous. Who's to say what is long term and what's short term anyway? It's been nearly 2 years to the day since we declared an end to all major fighting in Iraq, yet we've gotten no further in decreasing terrorism. If the Middle East is to become stable, all Western powers must withdraw from the area, the Jews and Palestines must come up with a permanent compromise. Once that is accomplished, with no clashes between religions, the world may see a little more peace in the Middle East. For too long, Western powers have controlled Middle East, that is why we are seeing terrorism.

The Middle East will never be stable as long as Western forces are occupying Muslim territory. We do not have a God-given mandate to keep f*cking with the Middle East.

Manifest Destiny + Jihad = World Destruction

And if terrorism is deliberate targeting of civilians for military gain, what do you call the day and night bombing campaigns deliberately targeting German citizens by American and British bombers? Or what about the hundreds of thousands of civilians who died in the deliberate bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Are we, Americans, as guilty as the 19 men who flew into the World Trade Center and possibly the Pentagon?

How can you eliminate Terrorism? It's a concept as old as humanity itself, in one guise or other. Often, if the terrorists won, we remember them as freedom fighters, if they didn't we don't remember them at all.

I'm not a specialist in American history, and I don't mean to offend anyone, but what would the British have called the Rebels? I know that at some time they threw tea into the harbour (economic terrorism? ;) ) but don't you think the occasional British local leader would have been subjected to more physical punishment even if that is not necessarily remembered today. What I'm saying is that Terrorism is a subjective term.

True, you can bomb a place, you can change the Government somewhere, you can even change the culture somewhere and force everyone to believe in your god, rather than another one. It still won't stop someone unhappy from engaging in what we call Terrorism. And when we settle in space and have friendly dinners with the Klingons, we are still gonna have someone who blows something up for political reasons.

And Al-Qaeda simply means "the base". Its just a framework for unhappy Muslims around the world to put their, admittedly misguided, ideas into practice. Destroying Al-Qaeda is
1. Not possible, even if you kill every single "member" (i dont think it actually has members as such), the idea would live on and someone else would reinstate it.
2. Ineffective, since the ideas remain and will be acted upon nonetheless.

So my solution is: America doesn't need to be in the middle east. Israel can fend for itself, and would be forced into some more reasonable policies without US-Support. I heard that if only a third of cars in America were diesels, that would eliminate the need for all Oil Imports from Saudi-Arabia for example. The US is in the area to eliminate terrorists that exist because the US is in the area. Since "the terrorists" don't have a central government, they can't make collective decisions and back out. America can. Leave the place, give money to build the area up and hold out for the 20-something years until the last of the old-guard evildoer has blown himself up.
It's the only solution I can see from where I'm sitting (behind a computer in my room ;) ) And you are left with terrorists that blow themselves up, but in other places and for other reasons.

Which is the best you can hope for.

Impressive rhetoric, Achtung!

most others players, the mods, myrth, etc.

thats they.
Yeah, i see them all lining up with their stones, tar, feathers and pitchforks. How 'bout you do it your way and take it the way everyone else dishes it and things'll work out like they're supposed to?
Cheers

terrorism is a tactic that is outlawed by the United Nations. It's like using chemical weapons.
The point of terrorism is using guerella warfare against civilians, which is unaccaptable. That's why the civilized world is waging a war on it.

What?! The United States are not 'the civilized world' they are just a north american culture that has more military power than any other in their area...they utilize terror on their people and hence you have a war against terrorism; anyways Bush will never catch Osama if they are buddies...

I dont think so.
So you assume to have an authority to force others to change while yourself not capitulating?
Save yourself for the Cliff's Notes and Rush Limbaugh then.
:rolleyes:

You are right about not being able to get rid of terrorists by attacking them directly, so how, even in the long term, will invading Iraq pay off?
Easy. If we're successful in Iraq, the coalition will pull out leaving a stable, pro-Western government in power. That would not have been possible as long as Saddam Hussein, and his ilk were in power. Invasion was the only way to remove Hussein, his sons, and all his leautenants.
For too long, Western powers have controlled Middle East, that is why we are seeing terrorism.
The Middle East will never be stable as long as Western forces are occupying Muslim territory.
The Middle East wasn't stable when Western forces weren't occupying Muslim territory. What territories have been occupied by western powers since WW2?

And if terrorism is deliberate targeting of civilians for military gain, what do you call the day and night bombing campaigns deliberately targeting German citizens by American and British bombers? Or what about the hundreds of thousands of civilians who died in the deliberate bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Are we, Americans, as guilty as the 19 men who flew into the World Trade Center and possibly the Pentagon?
The Pentagon was a legitimate military target. Using civilian airliners and crashing in the Twin Towers were terrorist acts that specifically targeted civilians.
WW2 was a different war where the militaries had different capabilities. It wasn't possible for the Air Force at the time to only target military factories in the middle of the city. I guess if you prefer those factories had continued to make ammunition, tanks and planes rather than be destroyed that's your prerogative.
Read up on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A conventional invasion or blockade would have resulted in millions of Japanese deaths. Lives were saved when those atomic bombs were dropped on the military cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
And even if I do give in and call the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo, and the atomic bombs terrorist acts, who am I going to blame? Should I call for the punishment of Americans born 60 years after the end of the war?

If this truly were a "war on terror," we would be at war with the Russians and the Chinese, the two main sponsors of international terrorism. Instead, Bush considers them allies, and even went so far as to say he looked into President Putrid's soul (as if he had one) and "liked what I saw."

What?! The United States are not 'the civilized world' they are just a north american culture that has more military power than any other in their area...they utilize terror on their people and hence you have a war against terror...exactamente

terrorism is a tactic that is outlawed by the United Nations. It's like using chemical weapons.
The point of terrorism is using guerella warfare against civilians, which is unaccaptable. That's why the civilized world is waging a war on it.
People do both anyway.

On topic, I look at the term 'war on terror' and laugh. Why?

Because, terror is fear. To terrorize is the causation of fear among a victim. So by using weapons to end lives, does that can see death coming will know fear. Or at least that is the theory.

Ergo, the so-called 'war on terror' in its current incarnation would be more aptly called the 'war OF terror' in which any side which uses weapons to inflict grievous injuries are party to.

The countries with advanced economic, and political structures. USA, Europe, Israel, Japan, Canada, maybe Russia.

russia is advanced in their economy my ass. since the fall of the sovier union the Russian Economy is jack shit,

Easy. If we're successful in Iraq, the coalition will pull out leaving a stable, pro-Western government in power. That would not have been possible as long as Saddam Hussein, and his ilk were in power. Invasion was the only way to remove Hussein, his sons, and all his leautenants.

In theory, but invasion wasn't the only way. He would have died of natural causes anyway. Or we could have assassinated him. If we're really the most powerful nation in the world, that shouldn't be too much to ask should it?

The Middle East wasn't stable when Western forces weren't occupying Muslim territory. What territories have been occupied by western powers since WW2?

Umm, Iran, India and what is now Pakistan. Since WWII, we've messed with Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, India, Pakistan, Yemen, Kuwait, Syria, Israel, Palestine to name a few. Also, how was it not stable? And what about Western powers messing up the Chinese by forcing opium sales in their country? That's deliberate targeting of civilians for economic gains.

"Iraqis are sick of foreign people coming in their country and trying to destabilize their country."
--President Bush, Washington, D.C., May 5, 2004

The Pentagon was a legitimate military target. Using civilian airliners and crashing in the Twin Towers were terrorist acts that specifically targeted civilians.
WW2 was a different war where the militaries had different capabilities. It wasn't possible for the Air Force at the time to only target military factories in the middle of the city. I guess if you prefer those factories had continued to make ammunition, tanks and planes rather than be destroyed that's your prerogative.
Read up on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A conventional invasion or blockade would have resulted in millions of Japanese deaths. Lives were saved when those atomic bombs were dropped on the military cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
And even if I do give in and call the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo, and the atomic bombs terrorist acts, who am I going to blame? Should I call for the punishment of Americans born 60 years after the end of the war?

The strategy of the Allies during WWII was specifically the deliberate bombing of civilians to force the Nazis to surrender. Maybe you, my friend, should read up on your own history and you might find that out. Sure many of the targets also had military installations, but the use of nuclear weapons on Japanese cities was a diliberate act of terrorism. And if you can tell the future that well, can you be my psychic? On second thought, no. It could've and it could've not saved lives in the end, but what does it matter now? It was still deliberate act of targeting civilians, and by waging a "war on terror" we are being blatant hypocrits, especially when Bush says such bullshit like, "See, free nations do not develop weapons of mass destruction." --Washington, D.C., Oct. 8, 2003. If you believe him in his righteousness for the war in Iraq, I pity you. I can only hope that people will come to their senses and realize the dirty tactics Bush and his gay lover Rove implements on Americans.

Oh, and he redefined the members of the so-called "coalition":
The United States and the U.S. stand together in support of the Iraqi people and the new Iraqi government, which will soon come into action.
-- Brussels, Belgium, Feb. 22, 2005

Remember, war is peace:
"...when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace." -- Dubya steals a line from George Orwell, Washington, D.C., June 18, 2002

And for an extra dose of lies told straight to our face:
"Not only will we win the war on terror to secure the peace in the world..."--St. Louis, Missouri, Mar. 19, 2002
QUESTION: Can we win [the war on terrorism]?
DUBYA: I don't think you can win it.
--Interview aired on NBC's "Today Show", Aug. 30, 2004

First we can win it, now we can't? Sheesh, are we ever going to be safe?
"The best way to protect us is to stay on the offensive and to find terrorists before they try to harm us again. And they will."
-- Wow! That's reassuring. Nashua, New Hampshire, Mar. 25, 2004

In theory, but invasion wasn't the only way. He would have died of natural causes anyway. Or we could have assassinated him. If we're really the most powerful nation in the world, that shouldn't be too much to ask should it?
Eliminating a single man will not change the situation if the entire government is of a like mind. Do you honestly believe that the removal of Saddam Hussein would have resulted in the same progress we've seen since the invasion?
Umm, Iran, India and what is now Pakistan. Since WWII, we've messed with Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, India, Pakistan, Yemen, Kuwait, Syria, Israel, Palestine to name a few. Also, how was it not stable? And what about Western powers messing up the Chinese by forcing opium sales in their country? That's deliberate targeting of civilians for economic gains.
You said "occupied". Which of those countries have been occupied by western powers since WW2?
Iran was brieftly held by Stalin, but he was forced to pull out in '46.
In 1947 India gained its independence from England. Pakistan then broke away from India immediately after.
As far as I know, Saudi Arabia has never been occupied by western powers. In WW2 they allowed the US to have a military base on their land that only recently closed. It's hardly an occupation if you're invited.
The last of the British troops in Iraq after WW2 were removed by 1948.
Yemen became independent from Britain in 1967.
Both Britain and France recognized Syria's independence in '41.
Kuwait gained full independence from Britain in '61.
The western powers haven't "occupied" Muslim land in 40 years.
Since WWII, we've messed with Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, India, Pakistan, Yemen, Kuwait, Syria, Israel, Palestine to name a few.
Messed with? In the modern world practically every country "messes with" every other country. Are you as vocal towards OPEC for messing with the world with high gas prices?
Also, how was it not stable?
Here's a list
1958-Lebanese Civil War
1966-North Yemen Civil War
60s & 70s-Dhofar Rebellion in Omar
1970-Jordanian Civil War
'75-'90-Lebanese Civil War
1979-Yemeni Civil War
'80-'88-Iran/Iraq War
So what we've got is a good 40 years where the Middle East was free from Western occupation. In that time we have a half dozen wars.
Sure many of the targets also had military installations, but the use of nuclear weapons on Japanese cities was a diliberate act of terrorism.
It's been estimated that 6 million Japanese would have been killed if the A-bombs hadn't been dropped. Their military was not willing to surrender. Woman and children were being trained to attack Allied soldiers with bamboo spears.

Bush says such bullshit like, "See, free nations do not develop weapons of mass destruction." --Washington, D.C., Oct. 8, 2003. If you believe him in his righteousness for the war in Iraq, I pity you. I can only hope that people will come to their senses and realize the dirty tactics Bush and his gay lover Rove implements on Americans.
and a lot more stupid Bus quotes
I don't really care what Bush's says. I care more about his actions, his results. I see Bin Laden's organization unable to strike again at America. I see no other attacks on American soil since 9/11 when the previous administration had one every 2 years. I see Saddam Hussein out of power (something Bush Sr. should have done) and the potential of a pro-US, democratically elected government taking form in the Middle East.

I don't really care what Bush's says. I care more about his actions, his results. I see Bin Laden's organization unable to strike again at America. I see no other attacks on American soil since 9/11 when the previous administration had one every 2 years. I see Saddam Hussein out of power (something Bush Sr. should have done) and the potential of a pro-US, democratically elected government taking form in the Middle East.

Sadly, this is what it all comes down to doesn't it? If you're with the US (meaning you agree with everything they want), fine and dandy. If you don't like it, they find some means of destabilizing you until you do, whether that is political, economic, or military pressure. Or if they can't do that, their media demonizes or ridicules you. Not a recent occurence really. In fact, I think its national policy.

I am sure at least Israel does on occasion. They all use terror though.

The Israeli Secret Service is known to have assassinated people on several occasions, in foreign countries. These people have variously been civilians, and on at least one occasion, an innocent person mistaken for someone else.

And don't forget this gal (http://www.rachelcorrie.org).

In all honesty, I would have to say that 'gal's case was more of an accident rather than anything else. Oh, and a fair bit of poor balance to boot.

Eliminating a single man will not change the situation if the entire government is of a like mind. Do you honestly believe that the removal of Saddam Hussein would have resulted in the same progress we've seen since the invasion?

*splutters on tea* Progress? You call what's happening in Iraq progress?

I see Saddam Hussein out of power (something Bush Sr. should have done) and the potential of a pro-US, democratically elected government taking form in the Middle East.

So, as long as you're safe, and your buddies control as much of the world as possible, it's all morally justifiable, humm?

*splutters on tea* Progress? You call what's happening in Iraq progress?
Or course there's progress. An interim constitution written and agreed on, sovereignty taken out of American hands and put in Iraqi, a successul country-wide election. Are you so blinded by your ideology that you can't see all that as positive? We're rebuilding Iraq as a sovereign nation faster than we did with Germany and Japan after WW2.

So, as long as you're safe, and your buddies control as much of the world as possible, it's all morally justifiable, humm?
Let me ask you this. I've been very open in what I want to come out of this invasion. I want a stable, pro-western (I admit, preferably pro-US), democratic government left in Iraq when the bulk of coalition forces leave. IF this happens, don't you think that will make you, me and the rest of the world safer?

first for
Kardova The war on terror started out as a fight against a terrorist network but became an excuse for increased military presence in a hostile area. There was some justification for Afghanistan, none for Iraq, even less for Syria or Iran.
actually you are incorrect on several points
what the president said following the events of 9/11 was that we were going after terrorist organizations and all those who support and aid them. not just al-queda. as an example abu-saief in the philipines is not al-queda but US military personel are there assisting the philipine government in anti-terrorism operations since 9/11

secondly
there was more than "some" justification in afghanastan the taliban regiem openly welcomed terrorists and allowed them to set up training facilities

in iraq as we were not JUST going after al-queda saddams long public and open support of known terrorist organizations such as hamas and islamic jihad made iraq a legitimate target in the war on terror.
i can say syria doesnt care much for terrorists but iran has long suppported many known terrorist groups. so saying that there was "none" or "less" belies a level of ignorance in your understanding

now onto the israeli issue

Deleuze is quite correct i the information he posted. if you want more indepth discussions on the matter i invite you to look at non-biased information
here: http://www.merip.org/palestine-israel_primer/brit-mandate-pal-isr-prime.html

follow the links at the bottom of the pages(it goes on for quite a few pages), and hopefully you will learn something.
:)

I agree with carbdown let the conservatives handle it. I dont think the terrorists are going to stop what there doing if we give them all hugs and talk to them. I no this war has been brutal but the world is going to be a better place after its over. And im not trying to be a jerk to liberals but your basic set of beliefs cant solve this particular situation. Its going to take awhile but eventually Iraq and Afghanistan are gonna be 1st world countries with good economies and no crazy dictators. Just look at all of the countries weve invaded and rebuilt. Germany is one of the richest countries in the world along with Japan and South korea, they all have excellent economies and are great places to live.

And all the countries since. North Korea, Vietnam, Guatemala, Panama. The list goes on and on. And Liberia, that Bastion of American democracy right on the rubber coast. You're right, whatever conservatives do, the world is always a better place when they stop.

Easy. If we're successful in Iraq, the coalition will pull out leaving a stable, pro-Western government in power. That would not have been possible as long as Saddam Hussein, and his ilk were in power. Invasion was the only way to remove Hussein, his sons, and all his leautenants.

A cherry picked pro-western government ruling a rabidly anti-western population. How long to you think that those politicians are going to be in power in an honest democracy? Why do you think that Rummy's been talking about going from provisional gov't to transitional gov't to "some other gov't" note the one he left out... Democratic government.


Read up on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A conventional invasion or blockade would have resulted in millions of Japanese deaths. Lives were saved when those atomic bombs were dropped on the military cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Well it's pretty much documented that Japan had already offered to surrender twice, but we would only accept an unconditional surrender. They're only condition was that we wouldn't punish the emperor, but we decided that we'd blow them up until they said we could. When they said we could we said we didn't want to. It was a bit like that episode of South Park where Cartman challenged the British kid to a ball kicking contest and then Robert Smith of the Cure showed up and turned into a giant moth to kill Barbara Striesand.

Terrorism:
The killing of people brcause of Racism.
Synonyms:Bullying, KKKing,War*
My own definition

*Not always

A cherry picked pro-western government ruling a rabidly anti-western population. How long to you think that those politicians are going to be in power in an honest democracy?
Cherry picked....right. Who in the provisional government right now has been "cherry picked" by big bad Rummy? They've been elected by the Iraqi people and I don't hear any rabidly anti-western rhetoric or see any anti-western actions from them. That tells me the Iraqi people aren't as "rabidly anti-western" as you fear.
Why do you think that Rummy's been talking about going from provisional gov't to transitional gov't to "some other gov't" note the one he left out... Democratic government.
I've already told y'all; I don't care what Bush or Rumsfeld says. I care about what they do, what they accomplish.

Eliminating a single man will not change the situation if the entire government is of a like mind. Do you honestly believe that the removal of Saddam Hussein would have resulted in the same progress we've seen since the invasion?

By progress you mean suicide bombers killing Americans every day and innocent Iraqis applying to become police officers? Oh yes, we've had so much progress since the invasion. People are dying left and right, we're f*cking up Iraqi babies with DU ammunition, we're acting like arrogant bitches trying to control an entire nation.

Here's a list
1958-Lebanese Civil War
1966-North Yemen Civil War
60s & 70s-Dhofar Rebellion in Omar
1970-Jordanian Civil War
'75-'90-Lebanese Civil War
1979-Yemeni Civil War
'80-'88-Iran/Iraq War
So what we've got is a good 40 years where the Middle East was free from Western occupation. In that time we have a half dozen wars.
wait, wait, wait. The Iran/Iraq war, we gave both sides weapons and said "fight." And for the rest, Western powers were all over the Middle East.


I don't really care what Bush's says. I care more about his actions, his results. I see Bin Laden's organization unable to strike again at America. I see no other attacks on American soil since 9/11 when the previous administration had one every 2 years. I see Saddam Hussein out of power (something Bush Sr. should have done) and the potential of a pro-US, democratically elected government taking form in the Middle East.

Well I guess as long as you believe it to be right, that makes it right. There were no attacks on American soil less embassy attacks and the attack on the WTC. There were not attacks every 2 years as you suggest. And if there were, whyu would that be? Because we're being arrogant assholes towards Islam?, but I'm pretty sure Usama bin Laden carried out those attacks. Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. We know that. We always knew that. We didn't admit it.

And can you really credit the lack of attacks on American soil to Bush? No. And what do we gain out of a shaky democratic Iraq? Oil? Satisfaction that we killed thousands of innocent Iraqis and thousands of American soldiers? That must be it. Maybe if you listened to what Bush says, you might see that he is a retard, thus nullifying his idiotic actions on the basis that he is a retarded puppet being controlled by the PNAC.

Cherry picked....right. Who in the provisional government right now has been "cherry picked" by big bad Rummy? They've been elected by the Iraqi people and I don't hear any rabidly anti-western rhetoric or see any anti-western actions from them. That tells me the Iraqi people aren't as "rabidly anti-western" as you fear.

I've already told y'all; I don't care what Bush or Rumsfeld says. I care about what they do, what they accomplish.
Here's a little bit of "cherry-picked" idea for ya.
Who is Ahmed Chalabi? What is he doing right now? What was his contribution to the plans to invade Iraq in the first place (Note: Curveball FAMILY)? How much was he used before/during the invasion, and since, what position is he in the Iraqi "government"?
Maybe Domici knows more about this situation than you do.

Was Pentagon?
and the passengers in the pentagon plane?

There were no attacks on American soil less embassy attacks and the attack on the WTC. There were not attacks every 2 years as you suggest.
Oklahoma City bombing in 1995.
Bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.
Bombing of the USS Cole 2000.
And finally the Twin Towers in 2001.
That's four terrorist attacks on US in the seven years leading up to the Twin Towers. Averages out to one attack on US soil every two years. Since Bush started taking the fight overseas we've gone nearly four years without any successful terrorist acts on US soil. I certainly can credit Bush for this.

I'm pretty sure Usama bin Laden carried out those attacks. Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. We know that. We always knew that.
Bush made it very clear that we were going to take the fight to all who supported the terrorists who attacked us. He's out to destroy Al-Qeada, and every organization that supports it. I pointed out a few of Saddam's connections to terrorism in my first post on this thread. Nobody's refuted any of those points yet. Saddam had connections to the terrorists who threaten American lives, that made him fair game.

Cherry picked....right. Who in the provisional government right now has been "cherry picked" by big bad Rummy? They've been elected by the Iraqi people and I don't hear any rabidly anti-western rhetoric or see any anti-western actions from them. That tells me the Iraqi people aren't as "rabidly anti-western" as you fear.

How can the reasonably be said to have chosen those people themselves when the names of the candidates weren't even released before hand? We picked their candidates and then let them vote for those we chose to let them vote for. To call that an election is absurd.

And exactly where are you listening for any anti-western rhetoric that might be there? You're not going to see it on network news, and I doubt you've gone for a visit.

Oklahoma City bombing in 1995.
Bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.
Bombing of the USS Cole 2000.
And finally the Twin Towers in 2001.
That's four terrorist attacks on US in the seven years leading up to the Twin Towers. Averages out to one attack on US soil every two years. Since Bush started taking the fight overseas we've gone nearly four years without any successful terrorist acts on US soil. I certainly can credit Bush for this.

Well if you're going to count overseas bombings then attacks on American interests are an almost daily event. There's an ebb and a flow to their frequency, but more Americans are dying as a result of this war than were even at risk without it. And to count Oklahoma is rediculous, that was American Christian terrorists, not foreign ones.


Bush made it very clear that we were going to take the fight to all who supported the terrorists who attacked us.

Weren't you the one who said that you don't care what he says, only what he accomplishes?

He's out to destroy Al-Qeada, and every organization that supports it.

"I don't know where Osama bin Laden is and I really don't spend that much time on it. It's not that important" George W. Bush.

Weren't you the one who said that you don't care what he says, only what he accomplishes? Whether you care about what he says (that he doesn't care about terrorism) or what he does (nothing to stop terrorism) then you should care about that.

I pointed out a few of Saddam's connections to terrorism in my first post on this thread. Nobody's refuted any of those points yet. Saddam had connections to the terrorists who threaten American lives, that made him fair game.

Even if that were true, it was a waste of effort, money, and lives. Take the time to look for the war plans. Both the military's version and the oil companies' version. They wanted the war in Iraq because they could flood they oil market and undermine OPEC, and privatize the Iraq oil ministry respectivly. It was about oil, not terrorism.

Iraq did have ties to terrorism. In '91 Saddam sent bio-weapon experts to Afghanistan to consult the Taliban. Saddam was infamous for giving $25,000 rewards to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. After the invasion of Afghanistan, Al Zarqawi fled from there to Iraq to receive medical treatment. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, but that does not wipe his hands clean of terrorism.
Both Afghanistan and Iraq are logical places to attack for the War on Terrorism. Afghanistan was targeted for being directly linked to the planning and execution of 9/11. Iraq; because of Saddam's long history flaunting UN resolutions, the ease of defeating his Gulf War I weakened military, and its position smack dab in the middle of the Middle East.
We are not going to get rid of terrorists by attacking them directly. We need to change the environment that breeds suicide bombers. Invading Iraq is going to be messy for the short term. For the long term, though, it will be the catalyst that makes the MIddle East a more stable, less dangerous entity.

He tried to speak with them, but the fundamentalists hated Saddam Hussein and they wouldn't work with him. He was a secular socialist dictator, they want a fundamentalist capitalist theocracy. His defeat does nothing to combat terrorism. He used to keep terrorists out of Iraq, now Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorism and a recruiting ground for Al Qaeda.

The only thing that will make the middle east stable is if we leave them the fuck alone to sort out their own shit and then deal with whoever comes out on top.

Even you admit that he had nothing to do with 9/11. Even if you don't think he was a good guy was he really the priority? Don't you think that actual terrorists were a bigger priority?

If it's about going after the bad guys why didn't we intervene in the Afro-Arab conflict in Darfur. If genocide isn't terrorism I don't know what is. And it's about oil, so don't kid yourself into thinking that it won't spill over here. George W. Bush keeps trying to pass himself off as John Wayne, but he's really just Don Knots (Mr. Roper from Three's Company) trying to do a Die Hard movie.

Or course there's progress. An interim constitution written and agreed on, sovereignty taken out of American hands and put in Iraqi, a successul country-wide election. Are you so blinded by your ideology that you can't see all that as positive? We're rebuilding Iraq as a sovereign nation faster than we did with Germany and Japan after WW2.


Let me ask you this. I've been very open in what I want to come out of this invasion. I want a stable, pro-western (I admit, preferably pro-US), democratic government left in Iraq when the bulk of coalition forces leave. IF this happens, don't you think that will make you, me and the rest of the world safer?

A lot of the things you mention are good. But the current descent into a bloodbath and disorder is bad, and not what I call progress. What's the point in having an interim consitiution if you're afraid of getting shot on the way to school or work in the mornings? Assuming you have a job, that is. IF that happens, it would be of some benefit to see Iraq become fully democratic (although a pro-western government would only be good IF THE PEOPLE WANT IT). But at the moment it's become a terroist magnet for every nearly every extremist in the middle east, and the Iraqui citizens are bearing the brunt of a lot of unprovoked vicious attacks. We're talking tens of thousands of dead Iraqi's here, and your ideology had better be damn good if that's worth it. "It makes you and me safer" is not going to cut it for me.

Well if you're going to count overseas bombings then attacks on American interests are an almost daily event. There's an ebb and a flow to their frequency, but more Americans are dying as a result of this war than were even at risk without it. And to count Oklahoma is rediculous, that was American Christian terrorists, not foreign ones.
With assistance from militant Muslims such as Ramzi Yousef and Majahid Menepta. Yousef was a member of Al-Qaeda in 1995. Al-Qaeda provided money and assistance to McVeigh and Nichols.
Yes, there are daily attacks in Iraq against the military which is trained and equipped to deal with threats.
Weren't you the one who said that you don't care what he says, only what he accomplishes?
Yes I am. I'm also seeing American forces helping out in the Philipines against the terrorist organization Abu-Saief. Just like Saddam, they weren't involved with 9/11. Like Saddam, provide support and material to terrorists and that makes them fair game. So Bush's actions tell me he's not just going after Al-Qaeda.
He tried to speak with them, but the fundamentalists hated Saddam Hussein and they wouldn't work with him. He was a secular socialist dictator, they want a fundamentalist capitalist theocracy.
This argument has never held water with me. So the fundamentalists hated Saddam, so what? FDR and Stalin didn't like eachother I'm sure, but they united against a common foe. America is a common foe for them.
His defeat does nothing to combat terrorism. He used to keep terrorists out of Iraq, now Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorism and a recruiting ground for Al Qaeda.
He kept terrorist out when it suited him. He allowed Zarqawi into Iraq to get medical treatment in a state-run hospital.
And you're right about Iraq now attracting terrorism. I prefer that. I'd rather have the terrorists over there attacking a prepared military than over here bringing down office buildings.

If it's about going after the bad guys why didn't we intervene in the Afro-Arab conflict in Darfur. If genocide isn't terrorism I don't know what is. And it's about oil, so don't kid yourself into thinking that it won't spill over here. George W. Bush keeps trying to pass himself off as John Wayne, but he's really just Don Knots (Mr. Roper from Three's Company) trying to do a Die Hard movie.
Oh don't try to hang Darfur on America's neck. We're not the ones refusing to label it as a genocide. America isn't the one with oil interests in Darfur. America isn't the one blocking the UN from taking action.

Saddam had connections to the terrorists who threaten American lives, that made him fair game.Ragan and Bush had conections too...when are we going to Bomb the Bush ranch? and the Reagans home?

Oklahoma City bombing in 1995.
Bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.
Bombing of the USS Cole 2000.
And finally the Twin Towers in 2001.
That's four terrorist attacks on US in the seven years leading up to the Twin Towers. Averages out to one attack on US soil every two years. Since Bush started taking the fight overseas we've gone nearly four years without any successful terrorist acts on US soil. I certainly can credit Bush for this.
In case you forgot, the bombing in Oklahoma City was done by our guys. And how many pre-1990 attacks were there? You certainly can't credit Bush for anything that may or may not exist. It's like saying there are no aliens. You simply don't know until you find one.


Bush made it very clear that we were going to take the fight to all who supported the terrorists who attacked us. He's out to destroy Al-Qeada, and every organization that supports it. I pointed out a few of Saddam's connections to terrorism in my first post on this thread. Nobody's refuted any of those points yet. Saddam had connections to the terrorists who threaten American lives, that made him fair game.

Fair game meaning we all out kill Iraqi lives, and launch hundreds of cruise missiles to get Saddam? And if you don't care about what Bush says, than why are you repeating what he said? Or do you only listen to the "good" and/or semi-coherent things he says? Why don't we just fucking invade Iran and Saudi Arabia since they harbored most of the terrorists that flew into the WTC? Why don't we fucking invade Israel/Palestine and bomb the Palestines for blowing up innocent Israelis? They're like Americans in our eyes. Why don't we fucking invade Syria because we have no better country to invade?

Can't you see the game Bush is playing on you or do I have to spell it out?
You're afraid. He's said there are "tens of thousands of trained killers" just waiting to attack us. He makes us think we could face another terrorist attack even more deadly than 9/11. He uses hazy and terrifying adjectives to describe the dangers we face "we face perils we never thought about." He repeatedly puts things into black and white for us "good versus evil," "either you're with us or you're agaisnt us." Bush establishes the vague threats against Americna are permanent, thus we must accept that the war on terror must also be permanent. We must then give up freedoms because our lives are in danger if we don't. Then Bush spews out rhetoric such as "we're at war to keep the peace." Then he makes Americans feel completely terrified and ready to accept anything that would give us a drop of security, he explains that the only hope in gaining an ounce of security is to let the Administration do anything it wants for the good of America and to protect the homeland. Then he says that some in Washington don't care about our security. W're then to immediately relate those to the democratic opposition. We then become enraged at anyone who might put us in danger thus the opposition backs down. Then Bush says the only way we may be safe is to just go with him. We now love Big Brother.

Bush uses fear and loathing to manipulate Americans into accepting totalitarian rule. We accept perpetual war and the loss of freedoms because our very lives are at stake.

And if you don't care about what Bush says, than why are you repeating what he said? Or do you only listen to the "good" and/or semi-coherent things he says?

He doesn't, but we should, evidently. "Do as I say, not as I do", and all that - a chip off the old GWB block!

And I've managed to catalogue every semi-sapient, unscripted uttering by GWB - "Let's roll". Well, it's comparatively sapient, and if it was scripted then his scriptwriter should be shot.

He doesn't, but we should, evidently. "Do as I say, not as I do", and all that - a chip off the old GWB block!

And I've managed to catalogue every semi-sapient, unscripted uttering by GWB - "Let's roll". Well, it's comparatively sapient, and if it was scripted then his scriptwriter should be shot.
Hey there, Catushkoti, the Encumbered Citizenry of Straughn humbly petition you to maybe share a few of your favorite quotes of said entity, maybe in a telegram or something like?
*bows*

Israel has used terrorism for as long as there was a "Israel".
sometimes on a daily basis...

Israel does not and never has used terrorism. When they attack Palestinians they are not "innocent Palestinians people" like, the media would have you believe, they are terrorists themselves or working for terrorist organizations (building weapons, supplying weapons, carrying out attacks, etc.)

While Israel's tactics may seem brutal it is a country that more than any other in the world has had from the beginning of it's existence (the day after it declared it's independence 5 arab nations) had to be a military state.