First political party casualties from the war on terror?

Joe DeFuria said:
Right...so as the theory goes: "forget about what Iraq wants....just look at what the U.S. wants, and what AQ wants. AQ threatens us with terrorism, so hey, let's capitulate."
Click to expand...

capitulate to whom? are you going to sign a contract saying yes you have the right to blow 100 americans up every day?

:rolleyes:

The only way we are going to win this war is to sort out our relations with ME and let them do what they want with their countries/governments after 50 years of meddling and support for oppresive regimes etc... let them live their lives and they will leave us alone... the only thing that's left to sort out is our dependance on oil and that's it... war finished.
 
I was kinda under the impression that Aznar declared that elections would go on early in the game when it looked like the PP were going to benefit from it, and then it backfired.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040312/wl_nm/spain_explosions_aznar_dc_1

Everyone saying this event is the main reason the PP aren't in power is not looking at things objectively. The Socialists had been making steady gaines recently, and the recent poll everyone points to as indication that the PP was ahead was something on the order of 42-45%, certainly not a blowout, and which should be within the margin of error. I don't think even Dubya and Gore were polling much closer in what ended up being just about the tightest political race ever. If anything, the attacks galvanized people's resolve to go out and vote, and determined that an attack would not derail their political process, and so given the significantly higher turnout these elections should hold at least as much if not more weight than normally.
 
I can't understand why people are saying that the election result hands the terrorists a victory. The Spanish government was coerced into the Iraq war against the wishes of the vast majority of the population (90% against) which resulted in Spain being put on the AQ hitlist. The Spanish have rightly dumped their PM and Americans would do well to follow their example and dump Bush. After 911, US troops were pulled out of Saudi Arabia (one of the demands of Bin Laden), was this appeasing the terrorists? Yes it was. Was there a public outcry? No there wasn't. Pulling out of the Iraq disaster was the right thing to do for the Spanish. The US is fighting a war of choice based on lies and deceit and now Iraq has become a terrorist factory creating terrorists out of Iraqi civilians where none existed before.

AQ needs widespread support in order to fullfill its fantasy of an islamic world thru force
Click to expand...
Let's get back to reality here, western nations are strong, ME nations are weak. Western nations are the occupier, ME nations are the occupied and this balance of power has been so for generations. Western nations have a history of invading ME nations not the other way around.
 
bleon said:
I can't understand why people are saying that the election result hands the terrorists a victory. The Spanish government was coerced into the Iraq war against the wishes of the vast majority of the population (90% against) which resulted in Spain being put on the AQ hitlist. The Spanish have rightly dumped their PM and Americans would do well to follow their example and dump Bush. After 911, US troops were pulled out of Saudi Arabia (one of the demands of Bin Laden), was this appeasing the terrorists? Yes it was. Was there a public outcry? No there wasn't. Pulling out of the Iraq disaster was the right thing to do for the Spanish. The US is fighting a war of choice based on lies and deceit and now Iraq has become a terrorist factory creating terrorists out of Iraqi civilians where none existed before.

AQ needs widespread support in order to fullfill its fantasy of an islamic world thru force
Click to expand...
Let's get back to reality here, western nations are strong, ME nations are weak. Western nations are the occupier, ME nations are the occupied and this balance of power has been so for generations. Western nations have a history of invading ME nations not the other way around.
Click to expand...

while this all is true, especially the last paragraph, the problem is now that withdrawing is totally wrong. Spanish withdrawal is OK, as they are a fairly small presence anyway, and the socialist run the elecions on that fact.

However US and UK have to weather this out (when they foolishly went in instead of sorting out Afghanistan proper)... it is in the interests of everyone for them/ UN/ whoever to stay there and prevent the civil war from happening. If a civil war happens, than well... expect multiplication of hatered for the west by the ME. That's what we want to avoid, and now without Saddam or any proper ruler in such a volatile space as Iraq, we need to preserve the peace and bring up the country again.

We need to preserve peace and rebuild the counrty under any circumstances, even if it means splitting it up to three parts to aviod another war from happening. That would be bliss for AQ.
 
Oh, I get it.

You think it's "best" to have a presense in Iraq to keep it under control now...but it should only be the U.S. and the UK?

BTW...we're doing a damn good job of "weathering it out". Some of us have the resolve to see through what was started, as promised.
 
Druga Runda said:
Joe DeFuria said:
Right...so as the theory goes: "forget about what Iraq wants....just look at what the U.S. wants, and what AQ wants. AQ threatens us with terrorism, so hey, let's capitulate."
Click to expand...

capitulate to whom?
Click to expand...

The terrorists?

are you going to sign a contract saying yes you have the right to blow 100 americans up every day?

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Who said any such thing?

The only way we are going to win this war is to sort out our relations with ME and let them do what they want with their countries/governments...
Click to expand...

Oh....that's all? How silly of me. You're right.

Oh, wait...I just remembered that some folks decided to fly some planes into some of our buildings, killing 3000 people.

Oops.
 
Joe DeFuria said:
The only way we are going to win this war is to sort out our relations with ME and let them do what they want with their countries/governments...
Click to expand...

Oh....that's all? How silly of me. You're right.

Oh, wait...I just remembered that some folks decided to fly some planes into some of our buildings, killing 3000 people.

Oops.
Click to expand...

Oops, and you give that as an excuse for invading Iraq? Or do you ignore what have we done to them first in order to prompt such groups as AQ forming, and having some popular support there?

So if some folks have killed 3000+ or 200+ people we should catch them, I am sure we agree, and cut them out. However invading Iraq does not accomplish that goal, it accomplished nothing in that respect, it was in fact playing on AQ cards, and takes out the resources for fight against the terrorists and puts them into illegal occupation, undermining UN, and unified front against terrorism in the west - ony GW Bush could do that. While Saddam was evil, the invasion had no merit as anti-terror measure, if anything it will be pro-terror as US/UK feel everyday while patrolling the streets, and someone is killed almost every day. AQ and similar terror groups will have plenty of new recruits given 10000+ collateral damage created by the "allies". Saddam was not an AQ friend anyway.

Cause and effect?

And what does capitulation mean for you? Letting the Arab states/ppl cause uncertainty there in the attempt to create governments of the people, be it the ones like in Iran or elsewhere? Did US capitulate when you pulled out your soldiers from Saudi Arabia after 9-11? No... however instead of pulling out from ME - and let the intelligence services do the dirty work and capture the terrorists, you have "relocated" in the region and invaded (and now you can't pull out anymore really).

US/UK started all this, made the promises, and well I surely expect a delivery -I know that you do, and that is good.
 
Druga Runda said:
Oops, and you give that as an excuse for invading Iraq?
Click to expand...

Of course. That, combined with Sadam's defiance and blatant disregard for of U.N. resolutions, his non-cooperation, and our (the World's) inability to ascretain the status of his weapons program.

Or do you ignore what have we done to them first in order to prompt such groups as AQ forming, and having some popular support there?
Click to expand...

Ignore what...his invasion of Kuwait? Or the brutatility against his own people? That we shouldn't have any "worries" about what he could or would do with WMD that could not be accounted for?

So if some folks have killed 3000+ or 200+ people we should catch them, I am sure we agree, and cut them out.
Click to expand...

But we shouldn't seek them out to prevent future attacks?

This is the difference between treating terrorism as a war, vs. a police action. I am in favor of the former. The latter didn't do us much good: we rounded up lots of those involved in the WTC truck bombing a few years earlier. Look where that got us.
 
Sabastian said:
Druga Runda said:
Saddam was not an AQ friend anyway.
Click to expand...

Where is your verification of this? You state it as if it was some sort of fact.
Click to expand...

Where is the evidence he was? Personally I don't see Saddam allying himself with fundamentalists. . .just doesn't fit the man's profile. And we invaded the country not because of Saddam's ongoing brinksmanship but because he supposedly represented an immediate threat to the US. He didn't. We now have less credibility in our war on terror with the rest of the western world. And how do you think the rest of the world will be inclined to react the next time we present 'evidence' and ask for UN approval to take direct military action against another nation?
 
I'm sick of the hog wash in this thread.
What the the reason terrorists want to blow us up is legitimate in my eyes.
The US gov't are everything they say we are and more.
We are crussuaders , we are colonialists , we do meddle in other countries internal politics, we do kill innocent men , woman and children REGULARLY. All this shit really does happen. It's been will documented for over 50 years. So pull your heads out your asses. If we were undergoing the same sort of domineering and oppresion we would do the same thing. I personally don't believe the should kill innocent people there are more effective ways of getting change. They do not have peaceful methods of removing the thorn that is the US from there sides. The US doesn't listen to the UN or anyone else. The terrorists are murders , but so are we. I hear Bush say all the time that the terrorists have no regard for innocent life. He could replace the word terrorist with US . He many innocents have died while trying to hit "emerging targets ". More foreigners have died since 9/11 than Americans and that's even if you include 9/11 casualties.
The only way terrorists are going to go away is to do the right thing. That is to stop DICTATING and MANUPULATING the rest of the world. The US gov't has proven that they will screw there own citizenship to help some company make a buck. Can you imagine what they do to foreigners?
Everyone needs to stop acting like we are little MR. innocent.
 
Where is your verification of this? You state it as if it was some sort of fact.
Click to expand...

Bin Laden held Saddam Hussein directly responsible for the US military presence in Saudi Arabia and had repeatedly called on Iraqis to assassinate him.
 
Willmeister said:
Where is your verification of this? You state it as if it was some sort of fact.
Click to expand...

Bin Laden held Saddam Hussein directly responsible for the US military presence in Saudi Arabia and had repeatedly called on Iraqis to assassinate him.
Click to expand...

Link to the quote please.
 
John Reynolds said:
Sabastian said:
Druga Runda said:
Saddam was not an AQ friend anyway.
Click to expand...

Where is your verification of this? You state it as if it was some sort of fact.
Click to expand...

Where is the evidence he was? Personally I don't see Saddam allying himself with fundamentalists. . .just doesn't fit the man's profile. And we invaded the country not because of Saddam's ongoing brinksmanship but because he supposedly represented an immediate threat to the US. He didn't. We now have less credibility in our war on terror with the rest of the western world. And how do you think the rest of the world will be inclined to react the next time we present 'evidence' and ask for UN approval to take direct military action against another nation?
Click to expand...

Ironically IIRC Saddam called for Jihad uprising against the infidels. Suddenly there are suicide bombers all over the place in Iraq. That might be simple portrayal of events but it is at least accurate. There is no evidence suggesting that Saddam did not support terrorist groups. AQ might not have been his favorite anti American faction but I don't think that 9/11 was upsetting to Saddam.
 
John Reynolds said:
http://www.unknownnews.net/yellowtimes021203.html
Click to expand...

http://www.unknownnews.net/

lol, and people complain about FOX news. Not the greatest source there John. Lets find a more legitimate link please. That said however I might be willing to accept that Bin Laden hated Saddam.. but something WRT "the enemy of my enemy .. is my frend" likely would apply with these charactors.


Hrm, I am not going to take this any further then the article does but for the sake of arguement...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/768rwsbj.asp
 
Sabastian said:
Ironically IIRC Saddam called for Jihad uprising against the infidels. Suddenly there are suicide bombers all over the place in Iraq. That might be simple portrayal of events but it is at least accurate. There is no evidence suggesting that Saddam did not support terrorist groups. AQ might not have been his favorite anti American faction but I don't think that 9/11 was upsetting to Saddam.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sure Saddam was tickled pink on 9/11.
 
I suppose then it's lucky that Iran has just reversed it's decision on barring Nuclear Arms Inspectors.

..........

I was suprised by the result of the GMTV (breakfast TV) where 68% said they'd vote against the Blair's Goverment if there was a similar bombing incident in UK.
Having lived in Chelsea, London for nearly 30 yrs the risk of being bombed by the IRA was something that was taken for granted and not thought about - if it happened, it happened.
 
John Reynolds said:
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1567140
Click to expand...

That is a little better. However they don't provide conclusive evidence that there was no link, only the suggestion that it was "flimsy". Still no hard evidence that AQ did not receive support in some way from Saddam. I certainly would not go around stating that there was no connection as if it were a fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top