Ive been away for a week WTF so lets ignite an old debate

[Miffed22001]

First.
i dont know what has happened here, but i hope it has ended. I personally have been guilty of a flaming incident with UG but we managed to sort that out like... well like people do. So hopefully that'll happen here!

Anyway.
Politics. (i hope to God this doesnt blow up!)

Why has the 'war on terror' been so controversial? Has it been successful in acheiving its objectives?

DISCUSS
yeah, cmon make me feel needed after all the melodrama
(this is a serious post by the way )

[Phantaroth]

It's been controversial because it is a war against a country-less entity that does not have a clear course of action by definition, so ther will be disputes on how to conduct it. (or wether to conduct it at all).

It is impossible to tell wether it was successful or not as the avg length of time between Terrorist attacks on US soil is a larger length of time then we have been conducting this operation.

It will not be possible to evaluate the success of this war without having a shit-load of secret government information, that the government might not even have.

The war in Iraq is a bit different... Iraq was not really a terrorist threat when compared to other countries in the region. I think that the war was conducted with an overall goal of trying to spread democracy in the region and hence, lower the threat of government-sponsored terrorism coming from the area. Spreading democracy would also be a generally good economic move for us in the region when it comes to oil down the road, which is also a goal that probley had some influence on the situation.

So if those were the two main goals, I do not think the war in Iraq up to this point as been going too well. The region is still way to unstable to provide us with any positive benifet.

Even more troubling is the US/Iran relationship going down the pooper, as any military conflict with Iran will almost sureley destroy any chance of a stable middle east in the next 2-3 decades.

[LeFou]

Its "success" is a little dubious becase the way its being conducted might -- might, take note -- be causing as much new animosity/new terrorism as the animosity&terrorism that it is neutralizing.

Me, I don't have hard data either way.

[Phantaroth]

Yeah well I think it is pretty definite that it is causing increased short term risk, but I believe the goal all along was long term depsite what the US Politicans said at the time.

[LeFou]

I remember a line from Chomsky early on (please forbear digs at me for reading Chomsky) about how nothing would please the Bin Ladens of the world more than war(s) on Afghanistan, Iraq, et al.

[Greedo017]

the war is theoretically good for the long term, but definitely bad for the short term. if you choose to focus on the short term and be pessimistic about the long term, then you are against it. if you choose to overlook the short term and be optimistic about the long term, then you support it. it is controversial because political parties are intolerant of the ideas of the opposite party and most of america/the world is too dumb to understand what's going on on their own beyond a functionally retarded level.

[Phantaroth]

Politicans are not interested in explaining things clearly in 99% of situations anyway... this is no different.

What is your reasoning behind thinking the war was needed etc?

[Greedo017]

the war was needed because saddam was a shitbag and iraq was welcome territory to terrorists. terrorists don't have a country, they move around to whatever countries are passive to their presence, iraq was one of these.

i believe the war was needed for a lot deeper reasons than this, but i've been down this road 1000 times, i'm not going again, that's the gist.

[Miffed22001]

surprisingly, despite the media bullshit about the oil link, it is conceivable that a key reason for the U.S intervention was economically based, critically upon oil
The reason being that one of Al qaedas goals is the removal of the saudi governement which will be replaced by a theocratical islamic governement that will also conveniently have control of the single most important factor in the american economy: oil. So the U.S is forced to find another supplier.
What surprises me is that the U.S chose a traditional enemy where MOST people thought the setting up a democratic state after invasion would be difficult due to the ethnic constituents of the country (now being realised by the jarhead pentagon offcials *cough* dumbasses *cough*)
Thus why not just go to uzbekistan or some other ...stan former satellite of the soviet union and make much less of a mess in getting a new oil supply? In fact, why cover all this up at all with a war on terror? Or is it actually good that the bush doctrine of active national security, ie bombing the fuck outta everyone before they go bad and bomb new york has now been implemented?
how do u feel that ur presisdent can now make the excuse that anybody, including we brits is a threat to your national security and thsu u can bomb the fuck outta us?
(fun thought 4 u guys i know )

[Miffed22001]

would it surprise you to know that saddam was vehermently against the jihaddy ways of bin laden and no repreat NO terrorist linkls could be found in the country since the first gulf war?
also, saddam was a shit bag, but why didnt hsi people just shoot him down like they are now doing to U.S/coalaition forces?

[Greedo017]

al queda wants to remove every pro-u.s. government and destroy the united states. Your argument is confounded by the fact that removing al-queda is good for us in every way, economic or otherwise.

[Greedo017]

because he had a military and killed dissenters

[Phantaroth]

There are countries with even less concern about getting rid of terrorists then Iraq, and yeah, Saddam wasn't good, but that hardly justifys going to war for a number of reasons.

- The economic costs of this war to us

- Iraq is not garunteed to stableize, and as it stands now it is just as likely to have terrorists.

- a Democractic Iraqi regime is not garunteed to be harsh on terrorists.

- This could have a negative impact on the entire region, especially timing it with increased hostility with Iran and the ongoing Palestine-Israel conflict, it could just raise tensions even further.

And I believe the negatives of this operation outweight the negatives of allowing a terrorist-passive country to exist in terms of $ as well as deaths.

[Greedo017]

and thus you focus on the short term bad and are pessimistic about the long term good and don't support the war, as predicted.

[Miffed22001]

al qaeda is comited to the creation of a pan-silamic calipahte (big area full of mucslim countries) and its attacks on the U.S and west are only retaliation to the fact that U.S troops are in the country of their holy city. They find thsi insultive as drawings of muhamed or whateva his name is
If the U.S withdrew from the gulf and stopped supporting isreal do u think al qaeda and the problem of terrorism might just go away? or are u commited to the idea bin laden wants u dead regardless coz u aint islamic? :P

[Greedo017]

and also, george bush can't just make an excuse to kill anybody, even you brits. you choose to tunnel vision yourself into believing the u.s. went to this war for no reason, ignoring what was commonly believed before the war, if anything you just display how politically blinded you are.

If the U.S withdrew from the gulf and stopped supporting isreal do u think al qaeda and the problem of terrorism might just go away? or are u commited to the idea bin laden wants u dead regardless coz u aint islamic? :P

osama bin laden could care less what the u.s. does unless 100% of our citizens simultaneously

[Phantaroth]

I'm not focusing on the short term.

I am focusing on the long term. I think this war will set the region back at worst, and do nothing to help it at best. Down the road it will get better reguardless of this war.

Edit: And i'll atleast say that there is a -chance- this will help.

I just think that chance is far outweighed by the risks involved. We could have equally invaded Iran, Iraq was essentially a random target. Either way, the region does not like us invading them. A lot of Iraqis and other middle eastern folk hate us more then they hate their dictators, there has been so much propoganda in the region for so long that it is to be expected.

[Miffed22001]

actually im a long term supporter of the war on terror and the active position that bush has now comitted himself to, the eradication of international secuirty threats.
What bothers me is are u americans ready to police the world (hitsorically uve never wanted to apparently) and are you ready, as i am to see soldiers coming hom in body bags day after day despite the need or desire to the make the world a safer place? is this a good way to do it?

[Greedo017]

saying we are policing the world is a straw man. the idealogical differences between the radical islamists and western viewpoints is non-trivial and probably will end up being one of the biggest conflicts in this century. if we don't stop countries that passively accept terrorism, how are we ever to stop terrorism? there is nothing else we can do except sit back and hope they leave us alone, i'll take my way.

nothing about this war was perfect or great, in its planning or execution. yea, george bush's administration wasn't perfect or even above average. but ideologically, they are solid.

[Phantaroth]

We can't stop terrorism, we can stop terrorist attacks. There is a difference, and terrorism will quite obviously always exist (as long as conflict exists).

Using your logic we should temporarily take over countries that can not economically eliminate terrorism from their borders? For instance, a poor country in Africa has hidden terrorist training grounds.. The government has a very weak military and does not have much influence in their own borders. Isn't their inability to stop terrorism just as dangerous to us as a countries unwillingness to stop terrorism? So now are we invading every country that doesn't jail terrorists and every country that CAN'T?

That is a very noble idea but completley impossible.

[Greedo017]

We can't stop terrorism, we can stop terrorist attacks. There is a difference, and terrorism will quite obviously always exist (as long as conflict exists).

Using your logic we should temporarily take over countries that can not economically eliminate terrorism from their borders?.

To the first part: You're probably right we should just hope they don't attack us.

To the second part: no. you are using a straw man, i am obviously advocating a reasonable approach to any given situation.

[Phantaroth]

Invading countries that do not fight terrorism in their country to the level we find satisfactory is not a reasonable solution to the problem.

And no, we cannot destroy the abstract ideas of terrorism, only specific terrorist cells. Terrorism will always exist, we can only minimize it. The negatives of this type of warfare outweigh the risks of terrorist cells, as they are by far minimal in comparison to the possible problems caused by your proposed military-policy.

[Greedo017]

Invading countries that do not fight terrorism in their country to the level we find satisfactory is not a reasonable solution to the problem.

And no, we cannot destroy the abstract ideas of terrorism, only specific terrorist cells. Terrorism will always exist, we can only minimize it. The negatives of this type of warfare outweigh the risks of terrorist cells, as they are by far minimal in comparison to the possible problems caused by your proposed military-policy.

To the first part: you are using a straw man

To the second part: You're probably right we should just hope they don't attack us.

QFT and i'm done here

[Phantaroth]

Aw... its over?

[Greedo017]

i will return to post yes and then make my hasty exit again

[Phantaroth]

I'm happy

I don't really like Iraq as a topic for discussion anyway, Theory is much better for me as I don't really give 2 shits about practicle issues most of the time because they are 1 time events, where as theory is timeless and can be applied to all situations.

What do you take in college? something related to politics?

Edit: And what is up with you randomly editing large portions of your posts while im replying to them? :P

[Renton]

Dude you guys are all missing the point.

We're bombing Iraq because they are brown.

America's job in the world is to bomb brown people. Simple as that.

[Phantaroth]

I can't reply to Renton in anyway without getting put on probation.

So, I'll just say, I love you. <3

[WhiteFingers]

looks like Greedo and Phantaroth are enjoying this post.

At least someone is

[journey075]

i will return to post yes and then make my hasty exit again

DUDE THATS FREAKING CUTE.

[pgil]

first off, the US is one of the biggest state sponsors of terrorism around. they have subverted countless south american governments. they are currently harbouring a known terrorist, but since he just blew up a cuban airliner, he can stay in florida.

Iraq was not a haven for terrorists. Saddam was an ass, but he was an ass that ruled with an iron fist, and was also a secular muslim, which outrages religious fundamentalists more than the US does. bin laden and hussein were bitter enemies, and they would not cooperate on any issues, and religious terrorists would not have been allowed to operate out of the old saddam regime.

as for the current US administration having a different philosophy than Al Qaeda, not really true. wolfowitz, rumsfeld, and the other neo conservatives have a very similar world view to that of Al Qaeda's founder (cant remember his name right now, and no its not bin laden).

it is this world view which led the neocons to push for a war in iraq. it was not about rooting out terrorism or freeing the iraqi people. it was about pushing the neocon agenda.

[LeFou]

ooh, sounds like a chomskyite.

[pgil]

ooh, sounds like a chomskyite.

lol.

I have read three chomsky books, all of which were quite good. very interesting reads. 'manufacturing consent' was the first chomsky book i read, and i would encourage all to go and read it.

[metaxy6]

I know! Let's declare war on undefined emotional states, and then use those to usurp all the power we can to push our agenda!!
Coming next: The War on Anxiety, The War on Malaise, The War on Irratibility, and don't forget the War on General Contentedness.

In this new order, you're either with us, or against us, that means we're coming for you
Germany, for promoting anxiety and harboring nervous people.
France, ennui/malaise whatever, we don't have time for fine distinctions.
Japan, yes you, grouchy pricks.
Italy, we're coming for you happy daigos.

[Renton]

and the War on Brown

[Sprayed]

Real reasons for invading Iraq:
- Oil
- Central to every Muslim state in the area. Makes good base to attack from.
- Finish what his father started.
- Long Standing Partnership with the Saudis

It wasn't because of mass destruction devices, because there were none. It wasn't because Saddam harbored terrorists because he hated Al-Queda and there has been no proof that he supported Al-Queda and the 911 attacks. It's all about money, power, and land.

Now, yes we all need to fight terrorism and I had no problem with attacking Afghanistan. I have no problem with attacking and fighting any nation that shows proof of supporting terror. But with Iraq, it just does not make sense and innocent lives are being lost each day for nothing. The majority of the American people do not like the way Bush is running this country. He is making the U.S. look like a bully and a war mongrel. All of this is for his corporate buds to get fat and richer.

[Sprayed]

first off, the US is one of the biggest state sponsors of terrorism around. they have subverted countless south american governments. they are currently harbouring a known terrorist, but since he just blew up a cuban airliner, he can stay in florida.

Iraq was not a haven for terrorists. Saddam was an ass, but he was an ass that ruled with an iron fist, and was also a secular muslim, which outrages religious fundamentalists more than the US does. bin laden and hussein were bitter enemies, and they would not cooperate on any issues, and religious terrorists would not have been allowed to operate out of the old saddam regime.

as for the current US administration having a different philosophy than Al Qaeda, not really true. wolfowitz, rumsfeld, and the other neo conservatives have a very similar world view to that of Al Qaeda's founder (cant remember his name right now, and no its not bin laden).

it is this world view which led the neocons to push for a war in iraq. it was not about rooting out terrorism or freeing the iraqi people. it was about pushing the neocon agenda.

Your views scare me.

[sykotik489]

You guys are leaving out one key aspect of both their hatred of us, and our push for war: Our ties with Isreal.

They don't hate us for our freedoms, they hate us because we back their bitter enemy, occupy "their" territory, and there's some religion in there too.

I've read a pretty interesting view of things on various "wacko" sites, that claim that the NeoCons are trying to push armageddon. For biblical armageddon to take place, Isreal has to do a few things, most prominent is the building of the Third Temple (I believe the site of this is somewhere on the West Bank, and I know it's on the site where currently there is a very important mosque.) I'm not into mythology, so if you're interested you can read up on it.