Bush's Policy on Terrorism

After looking through the 9-11 thread, I saw that many people have widely differing opinions on a variety of subjects that fall under the war on terror. So, what do you think? Good job or bad? Too aggressive, not aggressive enough? I welcome any opinion on the subject.

Personally, I feel that Bush has done a fairly decent job, but is taking it too far too fast. Not enough "thinking before we say or do something" has been done.

 

Hi dasreich,

I personally think he has not done a decent job.

If you are declaring war on terrorism it is 'ALL' not just who they feel like attacking.

Has the US seized the assets of NORAID? This is the Irish American group that funds the Provisional IRA. I have not seen any reports of that happening.

After 9/11 one person wrote a letter to the Daily Mail in England. He wholeheartedly agreed with Bushes' stance on terrorism. He stated that he looked forward to seeing US troops walking the streets of Belfast. Has that happened?

I may be biased on this stance, but I served for 3 years in Northern Ireland and I saw the fighting at its' worst and the first ceasefire which failed when the IRA bombed Canary Wharf in London.

Since then we are in the second ceasefire. The only time the IRA has handed in any arms is after 9/11. That was about two weeks after Bush declared war on terrorism. However, because he has left that past alone and never really touched them they still continue to operate in NI, along with the Loyalist paramiltaries. And yet they continue to also train other terrorists such as the ones in Colombia where three members of PIRA were arrested not that long ago.

When you declare war on something that encapsulates the entire world it should be the entire world.

 

I have to disagree with you gunner. He has done the best job that the liberal senate will allow him to. In reality, the best way to deal with this threat of terrorism is the conquest of the middle east. In afganistan weve installed a new government there. We need to implement the Marshall plan all over again. After all, the US has played a critical factor in the European society, they will deny it (especially the brits) But the Us, with help from Churchill. Made Europe a truly democratic continent. Now, 60 years later, we must do this to the Middle east. Without absolute victory, there is no peace. Therefoe, we must conquer Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Lebabnon, and let the IDF deal with the Palistinian movement without internationAL scrutiny. Bush has done an ok job so far, the next step is obviously the invasion of Iraq and Saudi Arabia. But instead of installing a former king to power, we must install a democracy.

Thoughts?

edit- Ok gunner about the IRA, imho, those arent terroists, i see them as an extention of The Irish army itself. So basically Britton is fighting an undelared war on Ireland itself, not 'irish terrorist.' Now i know, with you yourself fighting against these people, that you have very strong veiws on the subject, and i can only give you the veiw of a well-informed american.

CVM

[ 18 August 2002, 07:28 PM: Message edited by: Carl Von Mannerheim ]

 

I think thats a little extreme CvM; we won in Afghanistan because no one but a mob of toughs called the taliban challenged us. The middle east will be a lot harder to conquer. Russia would be very unhappy, and I cant see China not getting involved against us in some way. Iraq alone is much tougher of enemy than Afghanistan, and attacking Saudi Arabia would make us look like the biggest backstabbers in history. Plus, Europe would 100% drop us as an ally if we pursue a strategy of conquest. Not even Britain would support us if we charged ahead through the Middle East. We assisted West Germany into becoming a strong democracy because we needed them on our side to deter the soviets. Plus, they declared war on us. We were not the aggressors in world war 2, and Germany's populace wasnt the kind to start a jihad on us. Japan almost did, but they obeyed their own authority and surrendered. I doubt the Muslims would. And I dont see Hussein or the Saudi royal family surrendering. Invading the Arab countries would almost certainly set off an anti-American jihad. And that kind of startegy could get us into a conflict worse than Vietnam. Conquering the Middle East, assuming we could, would make us world enemy #1.

And as for the Palestinians, the Israelis are bringing it on themselves by sending settlers into Arab lands. I dont condone killing civillians in any situation, but there is a reason why the Palestinians fight the Israelis. Sheron is a war criminal who would rather have a bloodbath on his hands than sit and talk and be prepared to compromise.

Gunner; I agree with you about Bush not focusing on terrorism everywhere. Now that you mention it, he is being hippocritical. He has not once mentioned Basque separatists or the IRA, and is more concerned with invasion plans than the Middle East peace process. I think he focuses more on what is a threat to America, but saying so bluntly would not be an internationally wise move. I still support his efforts to increase domestic security though. Homeland security, in my opinion is a good idea, and even if I disagree with his methods, it is his priority to deal with terrorism.

To sum up, I think Bush needs to table any plans against Iraq for now and instead focus on at least curbing the violence in Israel and kashmir provence.

[ 18 August 2002, 08:39 PM: Message edited by: dasreich ]

 

Posted by dasreich

When it comes to saudi arabia and us being the backstabbers you all all wrong(imo ofcourse). They, while ahaking our hand, and allowing us the use of airbases within their country, and at the same time funding terrorism, is a bigger stab in the back then the Nips at pearl harbor. They have deveived us. And as to your whole 'jihad' comment in regards to germany, i, in no way, said that they were the type of people to do so. The only reason i brought europe into it was that it is a prime example of how the marshall plan is effective. Everyone wants peace in the middle east: Without Victory, There Can Be No Peace.

 

I agree that Saudi Arabia is likely supporting terrorists, but invading them is not the answer. If we attack them we show that we are no better than they are when it comes to international relations. Plus, it wont stop terrorism, just make it harder to locate, as we will be driving them to hide from us. The marshall plan was effective, but because the German people didnt want to fight us after the war. Plus, Europe was ready to stop their petty bickering. The Arabs are a different story. They normally hate each other, but might unite against us if we get too agressive with them, which makes them an even more formidable foe. On top of that, you have to consider world opinion of us invading countries in unilateral actions. The whole resaon 9-11 occurred is because of our nosing around in the Middle East and supporting Israel. Imagine the kind of attention terrorists will pay us if we start a war with Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Diplomacy and patience is the key to ending bloodshed in the Middle East and curbing terrorism. The Pen is Mightier Than the Sword .

 

Posted by dasreich

 

Originally posted by CvM:

 

(I promise not to get heated on this one!)
Carl, I'd also have to disagree on going after the middle east. For one, it's not really any of our business I don't think- it's a huge jump from a war on terror to a war on teh entire middle east. Many of those goevernments have never done aything to the US- why attack them?
Also, it would not at all be an easy fight I don't think. We have a very powerful army, but many of the middle eastern states do have impressive forces, purchased with oil money of course. That would be another problem- any war in the middle east would completely disrupt world oil markets.
Dasreich really says it well in my opinion- my thoughts would be close to restating his on the war on terror and the arab-israeli conflict. (Sorry- don't mean to flatter or anything, I just agree nearly to a word!)
I would also further second the notion about Bush's "definition" of terrorism. It is clear that the definition of terrorism for Bush and his advisors only includes their current and convenient targets. Of course the IRA have not been acted against- that would not benefit Bush politically. I bet if you backed him into a corner, he would have to agree that the IRA are terrorists, but he would have plenty of excuses not to act all lined up and ready to go. Of course the focus for Bush is on middle-eastern terorists- he wants to go after iraq.
His stance on Iraq really does frighten me- rushing into a war like that is a horrendous mistake in my opinion. We did beat them easily before, but times change, and the political climate in the middle is way too volatile.

My final thought- on Bush's policy on terrorism- we have actually instituted a COLOR-CODED domestic warning system for terrorism. Now this isn't some defcon rating that works in norad. This isn't some city-specific warning system. And this is not a bad Mel Brooks movie. This is actually what American tax dollars, paying Tom Ridge's salary, have been used for.
But look at it this way- Ameicans can now color-coordinate their outfits to match the terrorist threat.
I mean, do they expect us to take that seriously???

 

Why CrazyD88...I'm flattered!

But seriously, I have to agree with your stance on color coding terrorist threats. It seems rather...juvenile.

 

CVM wrote...

"Ok gunner about the IRA, imho, those arent terroists, i see them as an extention of The Irish army itself. So basically Britton is fighting an undelared war on Ireland itself, not 'irish terrorist.' Now i know, with you yourself fighting against these people, that you have very strong veiws on the subject, and i can only give you the veiw of a well-informed american."

The opinion of an 'UNINFORMED' american. The IRA are nothing but murdering terrorist scum. Not an extention of the Irish Army. They have spent years killing and maiming not just soldiers and policemen but women and children. They have specifically and consistantly targeted civilians in order to cause death and terror. That sounds like terrorists to me. Unless you believe that wars are fought by planting bombs in cars and killing kids? My entire life I have grown up watching the misery these people have caused this country. Personally, the best thing we ever did was send the SAS after the bastards.

I know several people who served in the Parachute Regiment in Northern Ireland and it sickens me to here intelligent people side with total scum like the IRA.

 

In response to dasreich:

Yes the did event the the arabic laguages. But also more importantly the arabic numerals that helped us get to the MOON. They, did not go to the moon. WE DID Likewise, they cannot read and write, nor understand the language of diplomacy ie. FRENCH. There for my friend, they are not capable of acheiving diplomatic peace. They know only one way, a way we are hoping to avoid, that my friend, is the thing that brings us together on this forum, that is: TOTAL WAR

Boy, im glad to be a part of this firey debate. However, refrain from calling me an 'uninformed' american red, for you have no idea, my comprehension of this subject.

God im loving this.....

CVM

Not so passive am i?

[ 18 August 2002, 11:06 PM: Message edited by: Carl Von Mannerheim ]

 

CvM; it is considered imperative that Islamic children learn the Koran. To read it, to understand it. Arabs can definetly read and write. In fact, in most upper class areas, 1 or more foreign language is required in their equivelant of high school. My father grew up in Lebanon, near Beirut. He was required to take English and French. Education is highly prized in Arab countries.

Many Arab countries like Lebanon and Syria are not threats to the USA, and the reason the area is so warlike is Colonial mistakes. Carving countries where there should be none. Iraq is a meadly of ethnic groups, and only a tyrant of Saddams caliber can control it all. Israel shouldnt even be there. It hadnt existed for millenia. But the British government saw it wise to create all kinds of problems in the region.

 

To CVM

Well tell us your 'comprehension' of the subject?

I would like to know why you feel that the IRA, who kill women and children, are not to be regarded as terrorists.

I take it you support the IRA? If you do please explain why?

But then for years Americans have funded these scum and been allowed to get away with it. I wonder if you would feel they same if you had seen pictures of the dead children and those horrifically maimed.

If the IRA stuck to 'hard' targets, military and police, then maybe I would have some time for your arguement, but they dont. They have sytematically waged a war of terror on Great Britain.

 

Ultimately terrorist threats have been, at best, contained by the Military and solved by political means.

The Bush White House is not geared up to solve terrorist threats. As long as Bush thinks that the US is "Good" and those who oppose it are "Bad" and fatuous declarations about being "with us or against us" continue to spew forth this whole thing is going to go nowhere.

Invade the Middle East? Are people totally insane? Oil at $60 per barrel, masses of Muslims with dead relatives looking for a way to strike back, a cycle of terror that will make the Palestinian problem look like a picnic.

This issue needs to start with a hard-headed examination of why the US is attracting such a reputation and then trying to turn that around. Killing more people will not do this. Either allow the radical muslims to take power and then peter out, as they are in Iran, or provide a seperate model for the future development of the region. The latter would have to see the restructuring of the Gulf Monarchies into democracies coupled with a lighter touch US policy. Look at Gaddaffi. Today he needs the west and knows it. Bringing him back into the fold is freeing up options in Africa and the Middle East. If the US can accept that they are not going to be able to control these regional leaders unless they are willing to pay the price in the shape of terrorists it will be an important step.

Bush, Rice, Cheney and Perle will be unable to grasp the changing realities of the situation. I think Powell does, but sidelined in Foggy Bottom he seems unable to influence policy. It's going to be a dangerous few years. Meanwhile I understand that Blair has been frantically trying to get Bush to deal with Palestine first, but is publicly going to say nothing which highlights a split between the US and the UK.

Jumbo

 

And don't even get me started on these "POWs"-why is everyone feeling sorry for them-the conditions at Camp X-Ray and Camp Delta have been found to be of suitable living condition.
These people are dangerous people and are not to be given space. They have perpetrated a ghastly act on life, liberty and justice-and robbed this world of many characters-namely a true hero, Rick Rescorla of the 7th Cavalry of Ia Drang fame, a true hero-and Chaplain Mychael Judge-administering the last rites-and he was killed.

These people are members of a TERRORIST organisation that has carried out attacks on the way we live, and have corrupted their own religious beliefs of the Koran.

Not impressed at all-and now John Walker Lindh is getting lenient punishment for his role in supporting attacks on his own people-HIS OWN PEOPLE-and he gets 10-20 years jail-pathetic!!!

 

On the detainees in Guantanamo bay- I'd agree that their conditions are acceptable for military prisoners. I only wonder about charges and evidence. Thise prisoners have been there for over 9 months- is the US planning on actually charging any of them with a crime, or just holding them indefinetely?

And Carl...

So you are advocating total war against the "terrorists", but you get to decide who is and who is not a terrorist? This sees to be tha same mistake Bush is making- only going after the "convenient" terrorists, the ones that fit a specific definition. If you advocate total war on terror, why not go after the IRA? They killl inocent people with bombs and terror tactics. Why do you differentiate them?
I think it's absolutuely ridiculous to make such blanket condemnations of arab people. That really weakens any argument, in my opinion...
What does travelling to the moon have to do with diplomacy? If you want to suggest that western culture is in some way "superior", be careful- just as many examples can be brought up for either side.
And since when is French the language of diplomacy? I thought that ended with Louis XIV!

Carl I wouldn't call you uninformed, but when you call for total war against the middle east, and then go on to claim that arabs only understand total war, that really puts your argument in a bad light. How could you know what the arab world wants? And again, you follow up by using your "definition" of a terrorist- why the exception? I thought terrorists only knew total war?

Good points, Dasreich... I'm not worried though- I'm wearing green today, and our terrorist threat level is also in the green, I think, so I should be fine.
Geez. Did everyone else here have the same reaction as I did when Tom Ridge actually unvieled that color-coding system? I mean, really, Saturday Night Live could not have done it any better. I'm still waiting for the punch line.
I didn't want ot be the one to bring it up, but I do think that the manner in which the US deals with Israel is one of the major causes of problems with the arab world. It really gets to me how the US government seems to blindly support Israel no matter what. Each side in the palestinian-israeli conflict is guilty of great wrongs; and yet the US continues to support Israel, actually still supplying Israel with billions of dollar every year in aid and weapons. When these weapons get used to kill innocent women and children, what does the US do? We send more weapons. But to the Palestinians, not only do we condemn (correctly) their use of the same tactics, but we treat the palestinians the same way Israel does. I love Bush's idea that he wants the palestinians to have democratic elections- just as long as they elect someone Bush approves of. That kind of defeats the purpose, no?

Panzerknacker, not to be a devil's advocate- how did John Walker Lindh support the Al Quaeda attacks on America? Besides just being there, do we have any other info?

 

Carl. Now I know why everybody jumped on you.

Things like September the 11th happened because of people who thought like you. No ofence intended, you know I consider you my friend, because we have cahted nicely. But haven't you learned anything from this site? Invading the middle East is the same than "Barbarossa". It would put 1.200.000.000 Muslims against your "mighty" country. Beside, the Muslim culture is far richer than yours and the Western one. The letters you're reading and the numbers you are using are because of them. If they are such "evil" and stupid people why were they so powerful in the Middle Age. Do you know that Spain was the wisest country of Europe in that time? Britain, Italy, France and Germany were full of dirty ignorant people, while Spain, thanks to 800 of arabic colonization was the most advance culture of Europe in technology, science and art.

And if those countries have not got right life-levels nowadays are because of USA and Europe's idiotic policies. We and you became rich at their expenses. We STOLE them. Why are USA hated? Because it could not have remained quietly within its borders. Things like September 11th happened because of many years of stupid policies. You introduced foreigners into a land NOT from their own and got the real people from that place out of there. Why wouldn't they be mad? You kept in place corrupt and filthy regimes to keep earning money. You have no right of doing so. Muslims are pissed because of your bases so close to their holy places. What would you say if there would be a sign which said "Long live Osama" in the statue of Liberty? Is the same... And now, attacking more muslim nations would become those 1.200 million people against you more than they already are. Those wise and convinced of their ideas 1.200 million people. And what would you do? Drop 100 A-bombs on them expecting Europe, Russia and China to aplaude?! PLEASE!

 

Posted by the redbaron

I would be glad to explain my veiws on this subject. I was criticised earlier for saying "without victory there can be no peace."

A prime example of this is the stuggle that continues in northern ireland. Britain, knowing they had no right to be there, occupied 1/6th of ireland without acheiving a victory of any kind. Therefore, groups like the IRA, continue to fight the kings colors. However ireland is not they only member of 'greater britain' that still has factions that want their on soveriegn nation. There are many welshman that would pick up arms against England as well.

Btw, a little off topic here: I have one flag hanging in my bedroom, and their is one countriy's anthem i think of every morning. That flag doesnt have 13 stripes, nor does it have 50 stars. But is is George's flag transposed on top of the flag of scotland. And the anthem doesnt begin with: "Oh say can you see...." but with "God save our gracious queen....." And as i look back on my family's history, with The name Davey first appearing in Cornwall, and having lost several 'ancestors'/family members, in WW1, and the battle of britain, all serving for king and country. So you can see, i in NO way support the IRA, but i do NOT support the way the situation was been dealt with by England.

(Finding this topic pleasureable)

CVM

 

I cannot believe that someone thinks the IRA as not being terrorists. And I have to say that I have worked with the Southern Irish Army and they would linch you for that statement about the IRA being an extension of the Irish Army. They are a professional body of men who also have to contend with the IRA and the Loyalist terrorists on the border between North and South.

I will give you a few examples on these so called non terrorists.

In 1996 an PIRA terrorist walked into a pub on Haloween and said, 'Trick or Treat?'

A woman said 'I don't think that is very funny'.

She was the first one to die. The gunman then sprayed the entire bar. He killed and wounded 17 people. The irony of it was it was a pub frequented by protestant and catholic friends.

If the Omagh bombing was not a terrorist act whereby women and children were killed whilst out shopping on a saturday then what is?

I think you are a very uninformed American and there are a lot of you about. Before you all start slagging me off I am working on a base, in Macedonia, alongside American servicemen. Some of them are good friends. However, there are a great deal of them who have no idea what PIRA is about, nor do they really know what is going on in the worlkd other than Afganistan and the possibilty of kicking old Saddam's arse.

One of them thought NORAID was the bunker in the Rocky Mountains. I am afraid that you have no idea what the troubles in Northern Ireland are all about.

Another thought that Sep 11 was acceptable because it gave the US the excuse to go and kick old Bin Laden's and Saddam's arse. That was said in a bar one night in front of other Americans who were deeply shocked at what had just been said.

We did not occupy Northern Ireland. We were called in in 1968 to qwell civil unrest. Who were we protecting then? The catholic areas.

The troubles just degenerated from there.

I am using Northern Ireland as an example. There are areas of this world where the US is not touching in the fight against terrorism. The Basques are one as dasreich mentioned. Greece is another hot spot of terrorism, Rhodesia will soon be another hot spot. Look at what is going on in Israel! Macedonia is hotting up at the moment. 8 people have died over the past week. Although there are American troops here, as well as most NATO countries, we are not doing a lot to stop either side from killing each other.

Like I said I may sound biased on Northern Ireland, but I served there and I saw a lot of terrorist acts out there. They were not perpetrtaed by some sort of extension of the Irish Army.

Terrorism is a worldwide thing. It is not just America thatis threatened by it. The other thing I want to leave you all with is that do you not think that most terrorist organisations do not talk and train with one another? Again, using PIRA as an example, they have links with the
Palestinians, the Libyans, Columbians, the Basque Seperatists. The list goes on!

Loyalist terrorists have links with neo nazi groups and other right wing extremists.

Terrorism is big business and a lot of them all trade and swap ideas and train with one another.

[ 19 August 2002, 12:59 PM: Message edited by: the gunners dream ]