Bush's Speech..

[Debby]

Hi All!

I'm Australian, and I had an opinion about all of this before I started reading all of your talk.
Now I'm more confused then ever.

Does it really matter what any of us think now.......It's started, and we are left to clean the mess at the end. SO SAD.

[my man otis]

Originally posted by lil_z@20 March 2003 - 07:41
Terrorism will NOT stop by tackling the taliban, taking out saddam, or acting against any other national gov't.  iraq is more about a dangerous dictator than terrorism.  terrorists are not big old obvious targets to hit. PLEASE realize that acting against an entire nation (although not purposefully killing innocents) WILL kill innocents and WONT stop terrorists!  does that mean nothing to you??

Ok lil_z, trying to be open-minded here...what will stop terrorism? A legitimate Palistinian state? Bush has already stated that the US would support that.

If combating terrorism isn't going into caves in Afghanistan and toppling those that support the killing of American civilians, what is?

Let's put his in perspective - The roots of terrorism are unfortunately already there and have grown thick and deep. Sure we would love to reverse time and figure it all out - scream out to the Germans to not negotiate with terrorists after they slaughtered Israeli wrestlers at the Olympics. But you can't reverse time, can't change what has happened. Sure we were fighting the same enemy with bin Laden in the 80s. But that cannot be changed. And I will admit that the US isn't all innocent in this. No country is in all things.

We have to be concerned about how to solve the problem now and in the future, not what happened in the past that is already set in stone. Would you feel better if Bush said "We wish we stayed in Afghanistan after the Russian-Afghan war to help rebuild the country."? It's not going to happen but of course I'm sure some of the administration (past & present) wish Reagan did. The course of history would be drastically different if that happened.

Just trying to understand those that say this isn't the answer.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by lil_z@20 March 2003 - 07:41
j2k4 - i do get this! stop being so biased! i know 9/11 was harsh, but do u realize how other countries feel about the US? read the damn article if youre not clear! tons of people on this forum have stated these opinions for u! do U get it?!

Terrorism will NOT stop by tackling the taliban, taking out saddam, or acting against any other national gov't. iraq is more about a dangerous dictator than terrorism. terrorists are not big old obvious targets to hit. PLEASE realize that acting against an entire nation (although not purposefully killing innocents) WILL kill innocents and WONT stop terrorists! does that mean nothing to you??

guys, im trying to put forth all the views on these topics and im trying not to be biased, but it seems like u guys ARE! take another view, and be open-minded. its not easy, and u prob wont like to do it, but try.
im NOT saying 9/11 is justified and NO terrorists have a right to do what they do, but u cant keep going back to 9/11 and using that as an excuse to fight a war which really has little to do with it.

u guys r confusing the war on terrorism (which included afghanistan) with this one. NOT the same thing, just cuz theyre both in the middle east.

I don't believe I'm being biased, as you say.
What we are currently engaged in WILL have a NEGATIVE effect on terrorism.
That is beyond dispute; while there MAY be some terrorist activity in the short run, what we do in Iraq WILL have a "chilling effect" on terrorism.

I did read "The Arrogant Empire"-I stated my opinion on it several posts back. I am and (and have been) VERY well aware of what other countries think of the U.S. and it's actions. To them, I say "If you don't like it, you owe it to yourself to wait and see how things turn out". Thats what WE are going to do.

We're also behind the establishment of a Palestinian state; we hope this will have the effect of weakening Hezbollah and Hamas and make them irrelevant; by doing this,we are ALSO attacking terrorism, but in another way.

Watch your T.V.-are we bombing willy-nilly through Iraq? I'd say at the moment-11am DST-we're acting as the models of restraint, although that may change.

I'll also go out on a limb and say our next "terror target" should be Qaddafi in Libya, but I'm not privy to the order of attack; but keep your ears open, you'll be hearing his name in the future.

Also-and I feel this to be my most important point of all-a functioning knowledge of history is VERY helpful in forming opinions about ANYTHING, and cannot be substituted for, or replaced by, the mere reading of "LINKS".
If I had the time and/or the inclination, I could demonstrate how many of the most vocal(?) posters to this subject do nothing more than that before spouting off here.

In any case, I'm proud of YOU, and I hope you don't mind my saying that; you started this, and look what you have wrought. You are blessed with a BRAIN, while many others have to make do with just a keyboard.

[puremindmatters]

So you are saying attacking sovereign countries without provocation or UN mandate will actually improve your image in that region?

Or in the world, for that matter?

[dwightfry]

America is the strongest nation in world. If we want something, we would have no problem getting it....to an extent. One by One all the other nations in the world will hate us, and just as we wish that the citizens of Iraq would lead a revolt against their government, All other nations will lead a revolt against us. This war was the first step in our own destruction, and a mighty big one if you ask me. Granted, we do have other governments backing us on this war, but it isn't the governments that matter, they would back us up if we decided that war isn't an option. The leaders of these countries will leave power and a citizen will take it's place. A vast majority of the world's citizens fear us, or hate us. The odds are, any leader that comes into power in the next 10 years will have a grudge against us.

Whether americans feel this war is right or wrong, it doesn't matter. What matters is what the rest of the world thinks, and the world feels that we are being aggresive and selfish, and we are abusing our power. They have seen our bad side, and it scares them. We should not have a bad side. We should tell them what we would like to do, and if they disagree, ask them what they think we should do, and continue doing it until they decide that it isn't working. We must treat them as our equals, nobody likes feeling like they don't matter, and they will do something about it.

We fought the revolutionary war to break away from our oppressors, now the bush administration is becoming the oppressors for the entire world. The world is screaming out for us to stop, and we are ignoring them. We may end up paying high prices for this ignorance.

I support our troops in the sense that I don't want them die and I don't want Sadam to rule over Iraq any longer. I DO NOT SUPPORT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION FOR PUTTING OUR TROOPS IN THAT POSITION!!!!!

[j2k4]

Originally posted by puremindmatters@20 March 2003 - 17:51
So you are saying attacking sovereign countries without provocation or UN mandate will actually improve your image in that region?

Or in the world, for that matter?

Don't know if your question was directed my way, but I'll respond anyway:

Certain situations arise wherein concerns about "image" recede to a secondary status; the U.S. (and the U.K.) believe the problem of Saddam, his repression of his people, his flouting of U.N. sanctions, and his connections to terrorism cause our concern to rise to a level that supercedes worries about our reputation, at least in the short term. Efforts will be made afterwards to repair our reputation, but I am not a diplomat, so I can't address that. I believe our immediate concerns will be borne out and vindicated by the outcome of the war.
Be patient-that is what's left to us for the time being.

[puremindmatters]

Yes, it was directed at you. I don't think that you are understanding the psychology of terrorism very well, nor the mentality of people in the middle east. It's not about charismatic or oppressive leaders of any given country, terrorism is about attacking superior enemies in order to hurt him with any means possible (for a just and noble cause). You can take out all current leaders, that will only create martyrs and more hate, and for every leader you take out you create 10 more.
You should ask your English allies, they have a bit more experience with that - see IRA, or the Israelis for that matter.

edit: grammar

[my man otis]

Originally posted by puremindmatters@20 March 2003 - 19:17
Yes, it was directed at you. I don't think that you are understanding the psychology of terrorism very well, nor the mentality of people in the middle east. It's not about charismatic or oppressive leaders of any given country, terrorism is about attacking superior enemies in order to hurt him with any means possible. You can take out all current leaders, that will only create martyrs and more hate, and for every leader you take out you create 10 more.
You should ask your English allies, they have a bit more experience with that - see IRA, or the Israelis for that matter.

edit: grammar

This touches upon a point that needs to be brought up.

You are right...Americans are probably not in touch with the "psychology of terrorism" as you put it. Before 9/11/01, we just saw it on TV. I don't want to speak for all Americans, but I've tried to understand Middle Eastern views and opinions but have come up empty.

If the psychology of terrorism is to kill and maim and hurt us, what are we to do? What to do then? Sit back and let it happen, let it fester, take the chance that more American civilians will die? Or negotiate and justify their killing and murder? That is clearly out of the question IMHO. What is the solution besides removing the threat, first by diplomacy, then if that doesn't work, thru force?

Maybe that's the rift - other countries have experienced terrorism and have not, or could not, deal with it in this manner. (?)

Simply stating that the current course of action won't work w/o saying what will work doesn't help Americans understand opinions outside of their country.

edit: And to say that terrorism is meant to hurt for "a just and noble" cause is infuriating drivel. I could use the same arguement about today's events. That phrase is so subjective it is rendered meaningless.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by ne1GotZardoz+19 March 2003 - 22:45--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ne1GotZardoz @ 19 March 2003 - 22:45)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Rat Faced@19 March 2003 - 19:47
There was a huge International Effort in Desert Storm...with the backing of the Arabian/Islamic Countries.&nbsp;

There would have been no backing from the Arabian/Islamic countries for a full invasion of Iraq. The UN and Arabian countries therefore insisted that Desert Storm stop at the Iraqi border.....as to go further would cause more problems than it solves.


Hmm.....bit like today really.

Thats not exactly true.
The ground forces may have stopped at the iraqi border, but our aircraft were giving Baghdad hell.

I&#39;m not really sure that the ground forces stopped there.
Does anyone else know? This calls for a bit of web searching. [/b][/quote]
Our aircraft have never stopped &#39;giving them hell&#39; since Desert Storm.

I was only talking about the Ground Troops....you cant &#39;invade&#39; somewhere poorly from the air (with the possible exception of Granada.......oops, bit of politics)

[puremindmatters]

That&#39;s exactly what I mean: It is difficult for you to understand. What you see on TV, is what it looks like, what suffering it causes and how wrong it probably is. Once you are enraged and outraged, you don&#39;t want to hear why they did it, you just want someone punished for what they did.

What you still don&#39;t want to hear is that these people think they are right, have a right to do what they do, and do it for a greater good.
Those were my references to the IRA - they believed the English had no right being in their country, so they struck them with any means possible.
So are the Palestinian terror groups - they believe that the Israeli have no right doing what they are doing, and attack them with any means possible.
Bin Laden and other terrorist groups believe that the US have no business being in the middle east, and strike you with any means possible. In their eyes, it&#39;s a just and noble cause. In your eyes it&#39;s a just and noble cause to "liberate" countries of your choice, whether they want it or not, because you have the military means to do it.

I don&#39;t blame anyone for believing in what they believe, or dying for that. I just think it&#39;s a bit naive to think that you can fight something like terrorism by attacking sovereign countries which may or may not have anything to do with the attacks of 9/11.

If you want to fight it, you should care for removing the root causes and not the symptoms. And you sure don&#39;t do that with weapons.