Siege Mentality

[Kevin]

Has the U.S. gone too far in it's ' war on terror' ? Without wanting to alienate American friends, I have to wonder whether or not that this call to arms is a false trust ... or can one really declare a war on a concept (no disrespect to military families intended) ? Can even victory in Iraq makes one safe ? Will you ever again be truly (as you once felt ) safe or will you recede your own constitution (the best one ever written ) in order to do so , despite the efforts of the Homeland of Insecurities ? We all watch breathlessly. How goes the war?

[Tenacious_Peaches]

If we've accomplished everything we were supposed to do over there (squash Hussein, find the W.M.D.s), we should be gone by now.

[Uncle Joe]

I don't believe we've gone far enough on the "war on terror". But I don't believe that's what Iraq was/is about.

I agree with Peaches. Let's finish up and get the hell out of there...oil deals intact.

Wherever there are terrorists who pose a threat to us I feel we should go and search and destroy. That is the only proven method to dealing with steadfast terrorists.

I feel the US and UK should take an even stronger position in the Middle east with regards to a Palestinian State. Not because it will make friends among the Arab World but because it's the right thing to do. Israel, knowing we will never abandon her needs to be more willing to cede land back to the Palestinians. Otherwise there will never be peace.

As for Al Qaida...kill 'em all. The short the long and the tall.

[Aunt_Acid]

I don't understand why the US feels the need to rebuild countries. You don't see other countries sacrificing their money and lives for us.

[CanAm]

Whenever Islamic terrorists kill innocent people (in Tel Aviv, Bali, Mosul, wherever) I am overwhelmed with a visceral desire to annihilate them (the terrorists, not innocent people). However, the rational part of my personality eventually asserts itself and I realize we will never defeat terrorism using conventional methods. The terrorists are our implacable enemies and are willing and (in some cases) eager to die to terrify us and destroy our way of life. The only way to defeat them is to undermine their support within the Islamic community. We must convince moderate Muslims that the religious fanatics/terrorists are as big a threat to them as they are to us. If countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria and Indonesia refuse to allow the terrorists to operate within their borders, the terrorists will realize that they have no support anywhere. The democratic countries of the world must vigourously prevent terrorist groups from fundraising and use every economic means possible to force Islamic countries to root out and prosecute (or kill) known terrorists.

Regarding the Iraq situation, I agree with Peaches and Uncle Joe. It's time for the U.S. to bring home its troops. They've done a great job, but their work is done.

[DiggsUK]

I was under the impression that the Iraq business had nothing to do with the 'war on terror', and had in fact been planned before 9/11 in response to an alleged breach of UN resolutions. Likewise the removal of Saddam wasn't intended, only a bi-product of the US lead effort to ensure compliance with Resolutions. The politics/hypocracy of it all has been debated to death all over the world, and opinion about US policy has polarised, as was doubtless intended by the US Government.

The 'war on terror' is a misnomer, as on the one hand it doesn't make the US or UK any less likely to be attacked, whilst on the other scares the sh*t out of our populations, giving support for Governments fiscal and overseas Policy to proceed in exploitative and potentially dangerous directions, to the advantage of the few....

The UK has had much experience of terrorist attack in recent years, as has Spain. One thing here is clear. You cannot beat terrorists, you can only beat the reason for terrorism. You do this and the problem becomes a criminal one rather than a political issue, which can be controlled all the easier. The sooner the US embraces this idea and stops the 'Siege Mentality' the better for all of us, IMO.

"I don't understand why the US feels the need to rebuild countries. You don't see other countries sacrificing their money and lives for us."

RW you crack me up!

Regards

[MementoxMori]

Personally, i don't think we ever should have gone in there in the first place. We had no buisness there. Bush kinda thought it was gonna be a quick fix, in, out, boom, done. but the rest of the world (besides Congress) knew that it wasn't that simple.

This whole ordeal did nothing but add to my distaste for government.

[invisible_r]

Diggs, I agree with everything you've said, but I want to add that my little country had a terrorist organisation called november 17th (based on the events of the student movement which fought against the junta in the early 70s) that did not kill civilians but had specific political targets (including a british guy a few years back) anyway, what i wanted to say was that a couple of years ago, the head of the organisation as well as several key members were arrested, and that case has been closed. so there are examples of terrorist organisations being beaten.

[Batman]

If I was from another country, and for the sake of this hypothetical, a communist country, I would invade America and bomb them and try to topple the government saying that our country knows best and that what they are doing is wrong. The only problem is that if we did attack-I mean-liberate America, Batland (thats the name of my country) would have dead citizens, my least favorite kind of citizen.

[edna]

I don't believe we've gone far enough on the "war on terror". But I don't believe that's what Iraq was/is about.

I agree with Peaches. Let's finish up and get the hell out of there...oil deals intact.

Wherever there are terrorists who pose a threat to us I feel we should go and search and destroy. That is the only proven method to dealing with steadfast terrorists.

I feel the US and UK should take an even stronger position in the Middle east with regards to a Palestinian State. Not because it will make friends among the Arab World but because it's the right thing to do. Israel, knowing we will never abandon her needs to be more willing to cede land back to the Palestinians. Otherwise there will never be peace.

As for Al Qaida...kill 'em all. The short the long and the tall.

Let me suscribe your post, Uncle...

I am afraid of the muslim fanatics who wear bombs and kill tons of innocent people... they don´t have the guts to attack resposibles or what? Anyway, they should attack nobody... I wish that Israel/Palestinian p`roblem had an issue, but I doubt it. As a Jew and a human being I feel they have the right to have peace, but as a person who knows a little about recent history, I wonder if Israel will ever have peace in Middle east... Don´t we have room for a new Israel somewhere else? I´m afraid Palestinians will never allow the state of Israel being there, that´s their first premise...

[Kevin]

Edna, I 've heard southern Thailand is for sale --- they sure advertise here for tourists enough ! Infact that may be the best place to resettle the Palestinians... with their street-smarts and savy, they'd have the whole country in no time v.s the peaceful Thais. There may be a few holdout kickboxing groups , however,....

[Kevin]

I don't understand why the US feels the need to rebuild countries. You don't see other countries sacrificing their money and lives for us.

What about tourists who get robbed and shot ?

[edna]

Edna, I 've heard southern Thailand is for sale --- they sure advertise here for tourists enough ! Infact that may be the best place to resettle the Palestinians... with their street-smarts and savy, they'd have the whole country in no time v.s the peaceful Thais. There may be a few holdout kickboxing groups , however,....

Oh, thanks for your concern, Kevin, but I was thinking that Israel should move, not the Palestinians... you see, Palestinians don´t want to leave and they are dangerous, so if Jews got used to be kicked off from everywhere, why don´t they move once more? I don´t want to offend anybody, I´m jewish myself, but if we talk about peace maybe that will be the only way... pack our bags and build our lives once more...

[Kevin]

I'm sure the same scenario would apply -- plus lots of tourist-friendly beach front property ! If the Irish had any sense they'd have taken the same offer long ago...

[DiggsUK]

Here's a thought along Edna's lines. Why doesn't the US as a magnanamous(?) jesture to the world offer part of itself to the Jews, a kind of Jewish Free State. Assuming those living in Israel wanted to move, it would be a cheaper solution to an otherwise intractable issue in the long run.

Regards

[Kevin]

They have. It's called 'Hollywood '. ::

Kidding aside, it's a decenent offer ,Diggs, but give up the 'Holy Land' -- you're asking too much, methinks.

[Levis]

What exactly started the war on Iraq? Why are people who have never seen each other in their lives being made to kill each other? If Bush has a problem with Hussein he should go see him face to face instead of getting a few thousand innocent kids killed.

[Kevin]

"... that will not do. Crazy, toys in the attic, they are crazy...."

[edna]

Here's a thought along Edna's lines. Why doesn't the US as a magnanamous(?) jesture to the world offer part of itself to the Jews, a kind of Jewish Free State. Assuming those living in Israel wanted to move, it would be a cheaper solution to an otherwise intractable issue in the long run.

Regards

I always thought this would be a solution (though the word is not the right one after all... brrr...) but then Kevin is right, they wouldn´t want to leave... or at least many of them. Which I understand, but then again, we´re talking about peace, and maybe forever this time... I would. Sure, I´ve never even been to Israel, but I have relatives and friends and all they want is some peace... they won´t have it as long as they live together with the Palestinians.

They have. It's called 'Hollywood '. ::

And New York too!

[DiggsUK]

The war started as an attempt to make Iraq comply with UN Resolutions on WOMD, in that Iraq began making it difficult for weapon inspectors to check what they allegedly had. That was the official reason at the time.

It should be bourne in mind that the US and many other countries with an offensive capability greater than Iraq consistenty breaks UN Resolutions, and it doesn't see fit to extend its policing in those directions by way of invasion. It is therefore selective in its policing, which makes one suspect that other motives may be at play. After 9/11 the US Government needed a tangible Arab enemy to boost the morale of the population, and guess which country had a despotic regime, was unpopular in the world for previous use of chemical weapons (supplied by the US) and had no weapons as such any more to defend itself with? Unfortunately what was intended as a morale-boosting crusade has ended up as a right old bucket of fish, with no clear US-acceptable solution in sight. Thousands of US servicemen have died to date and many more will die on a daily basis, however this number is dwarfed by the amount of death and suffering bought onto the Iraqi people as a direct result of the invasion, and this number will continue to grow long after the troops have left.

It can be argued that regime change will produce a net saving of life in the long run, and this may be so. Is this sufficient justification for the war however? Ask an Iraqi - I don't know. I wouldn't ask an American politician, as the answer is likely to contain so much spin and hypocracy that it may not actually be relied upon as fact.

Regards

[Kevin]

The newest point of brillance from the Department of Insecurities : You cannot take a lighter on an aircraft--- but you may take up to 4 books of matches (Note: not 5 ) .......!?!?!!?!

Lincoln, what would YOU do ? I mean, your capital was surrounded by enemies, battles were uncertain; certainly gives your views some weight !!?

[invisible_r]

The war started as an attempt to make Iraq comply with UN Resolutions on WOMD, in that Iraq began making it difficult for weapon inspectors to check what they allegedly had. That was the official reason at the time.

It should be bourne in mind that the US and many other countries with an offensive capability greater than Iraq consistenty breaks UN Resolutions, and it doesn't see fit to extend its policing in those directions by way of invasion. It is therefore selective in its policing, which makes one suspect that other motives may be at play. After 9/11 the US Government needed a tangible Arab enemy to boost the morale of the population, and guess which country had a despotic regime, was unpopular in the world for previous use of chemical weapons (supplied by the US) and had no weapons as such any more to defend itself with? Unfortunately what was intended as a morale-boosting crusade has ended up as a right old bucket of fish, with no clear US-acceptable solution in sight. Thousands of US servicemen have died to date and many more will die on a daily basis, however this number is dwarfed by the amount of death and suffering bought onto the Iraqi people as a direct result of the invasion, and this number will continue to grow long after the troops have left.

It can be argued that regime change will produce a net saving of life in the long run, and this may be so. Is this sufficient justification for the war however? Ask an Iraqi - I don't know. I wouldn't ask an American politician, as the answer is likely to contain so much spin and hypocracy that it may not actually be relied upon as fact.

Regards

don't foget the oil!

[Levis]

war sucks

[edna]

Rachel... the oil!!!

Yeah, she´s right... we should invent another kind of energy... the power of tomato!!!!

[DiggsUK]

RW, your statement about the cost of rebuilding Iraq made me think - where does all the money end up? - back into the US economy of course, as to my knowledge all major companies involved in the job are American!

Regards