Quote:
Originally posted by Superbelt
I'm sorry if I don't see where you are coming from Lebell.
|
No problem.
I really
do enjoy a rational discussion, which for the most part this is.
Quote:
|
Who is Bush taking the fight to? The only real fight he is engaging in is with Al Qaeda, and I would hope you don't actually believe that a democrat in the white house would have let that one slide without going after them.
|
You asked a sincere question and I will do my best to provide my own answer (understanding that you probably won't agree with it).
The "War on Terror" is easy to say, but hard to define. The things that have to be considered in this whole mess are:
-Culture: Arab culture is undeniably different than western culture. It is a blend of nomadic tribalism, religion and history. And frankly, I think as a whole, the culture has an inferiority complex.
-History: It is impossible to ignore the thousands of years of history in the region, including the rise of Islam, the conquering, reconquering and reconquering yet again of various areas. This includes both internal strife and external forces, such as the Ottomans and the British.
-Religion: Impossible to ignore (obviously, I think), the culture and history of the region has transformed Islam from a unifying force for good, into a rallying cry for these tribal/nation state units. Much of the time, it is used to justify killing between different tribes/sects. Unfortunately, those who want to use it to unify the Arab world need a boogie man to do it, and that right now is US.
-Oil. Again, impossible to ignore. Like it or not, the entire WORLD (not just the west) requires oil to run. Our entire civilization is built on energy which for the most part is built on oil. So naturally those nations that have this resouce will use it to their political advantage. And those who don't have this resource will maneuver as best as they can to secure their own supply.
Is this good or bad?
It's neither.
While we can argue fossil fuels, global warming, etc., that is a separate argument. Right now we are simply talking about supply and demand of a precious resource and the inevitable politics that will surround ANY such situation.
-Israel. Ah, little Israel, such a small country with such big geo-political influence/affect. Israel is another buggaboo for the Arabs. Israel returns to their homeland, fights for it, wins and creates a permanent grudge with all Arabs. Never mind historical arguments. Never mind practical arguments. Arab mindset is that Israel insulted the Arab world (basically by kicking their asses several times) and for that, Israel can never be allowed to exist.
Oh sure, we can argue the Palestinian issue, but if the Arabs
really felt that was the issue, we would have had a Palestinian state back in 1946.
SOOO, all of these things factor into the situation as it is today. And to adequately address the situation these must be addressed. Unfortunately, some of them are simply out of our hands.
We cannot make Israel and the Palestinians come to a peace agreement (although we are trying). We can't magically change the fact that the 21st century world runs on oil (although we are working on that too). We can't make the Arabs feel better about themselves (although we give money out the wazoo to nations like Egypt and Turkey). So what is left?
Well, diplomacy where possible and where not, the sword.
Whether or not we like it, the Arab culture is very strongly into the whole "weak/strong/macho" image. We can't make them like us, so the only solution is that when an arab nation harbors our enemies, we punish them. Severely.
And it's already working.
I don't know how old you are, but I remember very clearly how much Libya was considered a threat. Quaddafi sponsered terrorists who blew up planes, he attacked his neighbors and was also pursuing nukes.
Now he sees that we aren't afraid to take someone like him out.
Note once again, this didn't happen after negotiation and diplomacy (which we have used repeatedly with Libya), it happened after we took out the Taliban and Saddam.
Yes, sometimes force, raw, naked force, is necessary.
And those nations who don't acknowledge it do so at their peril.
Quote:
|
We now know that Iraq was not necessary whatsoever and David Kay has reacted to Tenet's recent speech and thinks it has "raised the possibility that the intelligence community had been telling the White House one thing and the White House had been hearing something else." He said the issue of whether politicians manipulated data to make the case for war "is an important question that needs to be understood".
|
Unfortunately, I am not in the intelligence community or in the government where I can form such an opinion.
Right now, with the information I have, I believe we have been justified in what we've done.
I am 100% sure that 9/11 happened and that OBL is responsible and that Afghanistan was harboring him.
I am less sure about WMD's in Iraq, but I know that Saddam did other things that cause me to weep not.
And I also know that Iraq and Afghanistan were good examples of what will happen to those nations that support terrorists.
Quote:
Finally, we don't disagree on whether or not the fight against terrorism is necessary. We just disagree on the methods we need to use and and the priorities.
You think that fighting Iraq was a goal in the war on terrorism. I think our priorities, and of course much of the money used to fight the Iraq war, should be focused on securing our borders and not firing tens of thousands of policemen, firemen and EMT's. (actually hiring more)
|
Well, no, I didn't know that, but it's good to hear.
Maybe I should say again that I don't agree with Bush on everything he's done either and that securing the boarders would definitely be a good thing, IMO.