shakran

I did a search but either I entered the wrong terms or no one's mentioned this. . .

With the recent bombings in Madrid and Al Qaeda taking responsibility, I have to wonder how Bush can say that his efforts have made the world safter from terrorists when the original target of his efforts is still pulling off massive attacks like the one in Madrid. Seems to me he's dicking around with irrelevant crap (Iraq) and not doing a whole lot about our real enemies.

JumpinJesus

The War on Terror is like the War on Drugs: no clear objective and nebulous enough in definition that it can last indefinitely. The world will never be a "safer" place in terms of eliminating any threat that we or any other nation may face.

__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

Strange Famous

the world is much more dangerous today than it was 3 years ago, and the war on terror is impossible to win, the more you strike, the more you are struck back,,, it is that simple.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Ustwo

Something bad happened it must be Bush's fault.

*yawn*

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

irateplatypus

maybe i'm the exception and not the rule...

but my gut inclination is to take the opposite tack of Strange Famous (as it often seems to be the case lately )

my attitude is that if someone hits you, then you must hit them back harder. if they continue striking, then either you aren't hit hard enough or aren't hitting in the right places. no one said that it was even possible that this war would result in them only getting a single punch off. but i'll tell you this, President Bush should be given some credit. i firmly believe that without his leadership, these bombs would've exploded on our side of the atlantic.

these people fundamentally hate the ideals and institutions that i love and value. they have proven that they are willing to give their own lives, as well as the lives of innocent women and children, in efforts designed to take them away from me or frighten me into not using them. i have no interest in cowering, i have no interest in appeasing these people.

of course, you'll probably call me a combative american with a chip on my shoulder. in that case, you'd probably also be right.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

MSD

Guys, I'm worried that this thread headed toward a big, gaping hole called "nowhere."

Please prove me wrong and don't make me get the fire extinguisher

Paq

Believe it or not, i'm actually mixxed on this.

My cynical side says: it's a war without a true goal and is nebulous enough to encompass anything and can possibly last indefinitely. It has no real, definable, tangible, possible way of totally ending bc there is always someone who wants change and someone willing to cause harm to affect that change.

My "american" side says: Defend your country, attack those who wronged you and make your country safe first. Part of me really wants to bomb any area harboring terrorists, just carpetbomb the place. I have to keep this part in check with reality, but the feelings are still there. I say if you attack us, you deserve retribution. Clear and simple. The main problem i see with this is that you sometimes do not know who to attack. I think this administration has a tough time deciding and often, the decisions "appear" to be based on ulterior motives, i.e. Iraq.

I can actually understand both sides of this, which is one reason why i'm glad i don't have to make the decision. I just wish the president could fathom the other side of the problem

__________________
Live.

Chris

Mojo_PeiPei

I like the notion of Swordfish. They bomb a church we bomb ten etc. etc. This is definently a situation which requires action and brute force, thats all these clowns know. I agree though that we need to address the roots of the problem, but that is just not feasible. How can you address an entire culture/religion/mind set which feeds and fosters these ideal's of hate? Wipe it from the face of the earth?

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

shakran

No, I won't call you that because I agree with you that if someone hits us we should hit them back a LOT harder. I do disagree that the bombs would have hit us this time - i think this was a message to Spain: "You helped the Americans. This is what you get."

My point in the original post was that we AREN'T hitting the ones that hit us. We're busy hitting OTHER people. Does everyone realize that Saddam NEVER made a move against us? EVER? In 91 he went after Kuwait. This time, he didn't go after anyone. On the other hand, we're devoting a TON of resources to Iraq - resources that should be used to beat the hell out of Al Qaeda, who actually hit us.

Jizz-Fritter

I found it a little convenient that a Koran tape was found in a vehicle. Does anyone smell a smoke screen??

Bush would like to think that terrorism can be destroyed with guns, tanks, and missle defense...fuck it, I'm a cock sucker, so don't listen to me.

Mojo_PeiPei

Your right Jizz, cuddles and concessions would do the trick a lot better when dealing with these socio-paths.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

filtherton

Didn't rumsfeld used to be the secretary of the Department of Cuddles and Concessions?

I don't think nonviolent solutions are the answer all of the time, but really, some "cuddles and concessions" mixed with naked aggression seem like a rational course of action. As rational a course of action as any in war that, by definition, can never be won.

Mojo_PeiPei

I disagree that it can never be won, it just can never be executed. What takes victory isn't really realistic, in terms of it being wide spread death and destruction.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Zeld2.0

For some reason that statement seems to contradict itself

Mojo_PeiPei

I'll refer to a quote by Chris Rock ,"Just because you can do it, doesn't mean its to be done... I can drive the car with my feet, it doesn't make it a good fucking idea".

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

stingc

No its not. Everyone makes such a big deal about a couple hundred deaths because its displayed in such a flashy way on CNN (or BBC, ...). Sure its tragic, but your probability of dying in a terrorist attack is still negligible. 40,000 people die in car accidents every year in the US alone.

In any case, it is not possible to defend against terrorism. Nearly anyone can get some explosives and leave them on a couple of trains. Seriously, what is Bush (or anyone) supposed to do?

On another note, it is possible that certain plans were discovered and stopped before anything happened. I doubt that such things would be released to the public.

How would we measure any changes if they did exist? Terrorism against the US is so uncommon that there is no sense of a statistical sample to compare against. AFAIK, Israel is the only country unlucky enough to make any claims on whether attacks are increasing or decreasing.

maximusveritas

This is very true and I don't think people would be so willing to criticize Bush for this tragedy if not for the fact that he seems adamant on taking credit for making the world a safer place. If Bush wants to take credit for stopping terrorism, he needs to be willing to take the blame for not stopping it as well. It's about taking responsibility as the President of the United States, something that Clinton never did and that Bush hasn't done either.

onetime2

Well, let's see, terrorist attacks against the US have been going on since the early 80's. We spent 20+ years ignoring them for fear of encouraging more. In that time the attacks have become both more frequent and more aggressive. That strategy has failed miserably.

Since the attacks of 9/11 US strategy has changed dramatically and resulted in the capture, destruction, or change of many terrorist sponsoring governments and terrorist cells.

There is no question that we need to annihilate the terrorist organizations which have no respect for human life and are dedicated to destroying anything/anybody who disagrees with them.

Is the world safer? Probably it is since we now know a hell of a lot more about the terrorist organizations themselves. The world was dangerous before 9/11 and is still dangerous today. The major difference now is that we recognize a little better that the world is NOT full of people who will be satisfied with the status quo and instead see that there is a segment of the world that would like nothing better than to kill you, your family, and your neighbors to promote their radical Islamic agenda or force change on those too afraid not to capitulate.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

JBX

Spain just fucked it up for everyone. Changing what would have been a conservative incumbent victory to a socialist victory by planting bombs before an election. It is a major victory for the terrorist. Overturning elections by the bomb. That wont lead to more attacks :: sarcasm :: The chicken hearted are going to have to come to grips with the fact that burying your head in the sand only increases the chance of your suffocation. The pioneering sprit of the early Spaniards must be turning over in their graves.

__________________
"Youth and Strength is no match for Age and Treachery"

stevie667

thats an extremly biased and rather stupid view on something that really is a complete disaster.
the spanish reacted in a way that any country would, a big disaster happened, you just arn't going to vote for the government that let it happen, plain and simple. If a terrorist action happened just before the next US election, what are the odds that you'd vote for bush, considering he'd have let it happen twice?
yes, it could be classed as a victory for terrorism, but what your forgetting now is that the spanish populance around the world will be baying for blood, and the new government isn't going to ignore that.
to be honest, thats a pretty american way of looking on things, that the rest of the world is vying away from your new holy war so of course they must be cowards. spain has been suffering alot at the hands of ETA recently, they know a lot more about terrorist actions that most people in the states do, so don't call them chicken without first looking at their perspective.

Ustwo

The socialists were caught meeting with the ETA which is a big part of why they WERE going to lose until the bombs went off.

Socalists and fighting...

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

dy156

Instead of focusing on the details of each event, take a step back and look at the big picture.
The war on terror will continue to be waged and fought by both sides. The good guys have changed regimes in two countries that supported terrorists, caught hundreds if not thousands of people either connected to AlQueda or plotting similar acts, including, notably, the shoe bomber and someone who was trying to hatch a dirty bomb plot, thereby preventing many terrorist attacks. Other nations, like Libya and North Korea see Afghanistan and Iraq, and think alot harder about being belligerant. Al Queda's leader is in hiding, and even if not caoptured yet, is still far less effective today than he was in early 2001 in organizing and waging this war. Yes, there was a terrible attack in Spain, but I'd say we are winning.

stevie667

yes, we are winning, but against only a few terrorist networks. it's all very nice killing some of the bad guys, but in the process, we've created a lot more potential terrorists, and a hell of a lot of pissed off people. we may be winning for now, but long term, we can't keep on blowing people up and hoping it will help, we have to stop new cells being formed in the first place, then blow up everyone left...

Ustwo

Ok I've decided we need your wisdom.

Now how do we stop these new cells from forming and then get rid of the old ones. Obviously you are much smarter then our leaders, so tell us, what needs to be done!

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

stevie667

you show the people that your not their enemy for starters.
most terrorist cells form because people are really pissed off, and want to do something about it.

take the situation in iraq, the american soldiers charge in, shoot a lot of people, then wonder why everyone hates them.
the british and other nationalities go in, make friends with the locals, show them they're not so bad after all, and generally create a truce.
you can't keep on pushing people and not expect them to push back sometime or other, which is exactly what is happening at the moment.
yes, there will always be people who will be terrorists out of relgious fanatisism, and theres very little you can do about it except try and stop them through any means, but you can stop the rest of the population from joining them.

i agree that force is required to deal with those who would see our way of life destroyed, they should be hunted down and shot, but you have to understand the reasons that people would join them before you can fully stop terrorism, something that i feel america in particular isn't doing.

prb

They strike us, we strike back. Strikes to continue on both sides indefinitely. This sounds like the situation in Israel, doesn't it?

The only way to stop the cycle of terror is to convince those who would employ terror that there is no good reason to target us. If the United States was perceived as trying to help solve the Palestinian problem instead of trying to exploit it, that would certainly help. We are fighting terrorism, but not the root causes of terrorism.

onetime2

There needs to be a short and long term strategy in combination.

In your scenario, what is done in the short term until we can "convince" the terrorists that we're ok? Probably not much right? That means we will be subjected to whatever attacks they desire until their perceptions change.

We need to buy breathing room by attacking those terrorists who have the capability of striking us now and those that will have that capability in the near future. In the long term, we need to change their perceptions. This is precisely what destroying Al Qaeda and the Taliban and rebuilding Iraq into a viable economy/country does for us. It puts terrorist organizations on their heels for a short time while we develop the tools to change perceptions of us.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Jizz-Fritter

I wonder if ignoring terrorism would produce some kind of enui in Al-Qaida. They wait years and years to set a bomb off, it blows, and nobody really cares. They just clean up the mess and move on.

YOU'RE GOING TO DIE ANYWAY, GET OVER IT!

That's the remnants of my christianity, I guess.

Lebell

I don't think it works that way.

When they don't get what they want, they kill more people.

When they get what they want, they add new demands and then blow up more people to get them.

We've got a whole new generation determined to ignore the lessons of history in the hope that appeasement will magically work this time.

Truthfully, that is the one reason I am still voting for Bush, warts and all. He won't appease, while I honestly think Kerry will.

Yes, the terrorists got what they wanted, a change in Spain's government that is favorable to them, and they got it by murdering people.

Yes, the terrorists are getting what they want here, when well-meaning but naive Americans beat their chests about how "terrible" the war in Iraq is and how "terrible" America is.

People are duped and conquered and don't even realize it.

Congratulations.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

james t kirk

I don't think the terrorists give a rat's ass who is in power in Spain. They went after Spain to demonstrate a point and they succeeded. I honestly don't think there isn't a reason in the world that says the terrorists won't go after the new government in Spain if they wanted to.

As far as Bush or Kerry, again, I don't think the terrorists care about which guy is in power. Either man is just as much a target as the other. And both will probably react in pretty much the same way if the USA is attacked again. They will attempt to hammer the shit out of whoever they think did it.

I don't for a minute think Kerry is any less patriotic than Bush.

The only thing I hope is that Kerry doesn't try to throw US weight around like Bush did by attacking a noncombative country (Iraq).

Lebell

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

jwoody

There is a very strong link between drugs and terrorists. If only more casual pot smokers realised where their money went.



I'm not against the private use of mind bending drugs but I am dead agianst Moroccan Cannabis / Afghan Heroin / Columbian Cocaine.

__________________
.

gibingus

um... you may not recognize it, but that's the same justification that abusers use when beating their kids.

violence is no way to maintain real control or win respect, it only serves to temporarily intimidate people into submission and build resentment - which compounds until it hits a boiling point where the subjugated strike back using whatever means are are at their disposal. the net effect is a cycle of escalation that only breeds more violence.

this kind of macho philosophy is a prescription for terrorism. groups that are not recognized as nation-states and do not have the economic or social machinery to wage war with armies have to fight with car bombs and other weapons of terrorism.

ugh. here's a quote from today's washington post :

"We love America -- Faulkner, Hemingway, Coca-Cola and Marilyn Monroe -- but we have something against your government," said Luis Gonzales, 56, a high school Spanish literature teacher, as he stopped to view the rows of candles, flowers and makeshift signs at the central Puerta del Sol. "Aznar took us into a war that wasn't our war but only for the benefit of the extreme right and the American companies."


as they say in 12-step programs, admitting you have a problem is the first step to getting help.

__________________
if everyone is thinking alike, chances are no one is thinking.

Mojo_PeiPei

False. Its the mentality that you don't let some punk bitch cowards get away with killing innocent civilians because Allah with reward them with 50 virgins.

As stated before in other threads. Violence has done more to solve matters then anything else throughout history.

Its one thing to target the military. Its another thing to blow up/crash airplanes, blow up buses, blowing up trains, constant drive by shootings of civilians, blowing up of discoteques(sp) and cafe's. It's even harder to justify all of that when your sole purpose is the destruction of the evil zionist jews or the eradication of the Great White Satan.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

gibingus

the big failure in the "war on terror" has been the inability to identify a clear strategy to disable the enemy.

once again, nations wage war to destroy or deprive other nations of economic and human resources or to control those resources. when the resources are depleted on one side, that side surrenders and the war is over. even before the era of modern warfare, ancient armies attacked civilians and civilian resources. in the u.s. civil war, sherman's march through georgia and grant's strategy of 'total war' brought this concept to new level. the nuclear obliteration of the japanaese cities of nagasaki and hiroshima took targeting civilians to a level beyond.

the idea of war crimes, rules of engagement, and other such conventions are largely preposterous. the age old quotes are more true: to the victor go the spoils, all is fair in love and war, etc.

the challenge in the war on terror is to determine how to fight a group that is not a nation-state, has no means of production like a formalized state, and subsequently has no formal armed forces. there is no question that terrorist attacks can go unchecked, the question is where and how to apply that check.

bush was on a very good track when they started with afghanistan, if a nation harbors terrorist organizations it either co-operates with the US in the removal of that organization or it is considered in league. simple enough: diplomacy, intellegence, and then measured use of force. this all fell apart with the iraq invasion, and it has since lost focus in afghanistan and -most importantly- pakistan.

with total diplomatic buy in and full military commitment, the war on al queda should have ended -successfully- a long time ago. it would have set a precedent for dealing with this new type of threat that would have served to keep terrorist actions confined to their local areas. instead, we have adopted an old line cold war mindset, which in the end is only good for making contractors wealthy by consuming more munitions, destroying more infrastructure that we have to rebuild, and keeping active forces deployed indefinitely.

__________________
if everyone is thinking alike, chances are no one is thinking.

fuzyfuzer

so the british should be the peacekeepers of the world, what a great job you guys did first you carve up africa not even looking at the natural boundries and then you believe in conscesions before WW2
are these really the signs of an informed leader i don't think so it may be easy to sit back and criticize what other people are doing but before you do that look at your self relize the problems you caused and then after you solve those weel see where the world sits and i think looking at history a lot of the hot spots today (middle east, Africa) will be very toned down or maybe non existant

__________________
"The difference between commiment and involvment is like a ham and egg breakfast the chicken was involved but the pig was commited"

"Thrice happy is the nation that has a glorious history. Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat." Theodore Roosevelt

stevie667

well, considering that mostly british led task forces have done a major amount of peacekeeping over the past 50 years, with some prime examples of the balkans, where about 3 americans stood around and did jack shit.
um, and i would please ask that you get your history right, the british empire was a colonial one, along with the rest of europe they created colonies abroad, you yanks would be a bunch of puritain weirdos if you hadn't been a british colony.
the empire made this world, without it america wouldn't be anything close to what it is today, india wouldn't be industrialised, iraq wouldn't exist (then who would america have to bomb?), and most of the inventions that fueled this worlds growth wouldn't have been created for a hundred or more years.

and if i remember correctly, most of the african problems are in ex-french colonies, not british.

if you like it or not, british troops are far more qualified at peacekeeping missions than americans, it's been the europeans who've been given the task of sorting out the world after america goes in a blows shit up.
and considering the americans history, blow stuff up, blow more stuff up, get a few thousand troops killed in jungles and mountains, blow more stuff up and wonder why everyone hates you. not my idea of a peackeeper.

stevie667

if you want to play it like that, this is rich from the country that gave saddam the keys to detroit.

Mojo_PeiPei

False Stevie, America gave Saddam squat compared to the other world powers i.e. France, China, and Russia. Wait, those names look familiar from Gulf II.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

stevie667

a-you missed the point of the actual post
b-not only did you miss it, you twisted around to something else

my point was, if you use the concessions by chamberlin as an attack against britain, i might as well bring up all the random crap that america has given to rogue states, such as helping afganistan during the russian occupation e.t.c, it's just stupid sniping.