Should there be a war on terror and how/who should it be fought?

Hi Folks.
Isthatu-LOL, I know people who used to do that, and sometimes I've seen troops do it, but the helmet we crewmen use is closer to a motorcycle helmet than anything, it's got ICS (intercoms) a visor, and even attenuates sound-and like a motorcycle helmet, is not bullet resistant at all-although unlike most motorcycle helmets, it is set up to mount night vision goggles...now THAT would be fun on a motorcycle...so long as no one else was on the road...

While I enjoy this discussion immensely (if not some of the insinuations made about Americans-unfounded suggestions about a broad selection of people is not often a good way to "bring them to your side") I think it is just going back and forth for the moment.

Just because the other side of the argument doesn't immediately trust one's sources does not mean they "don't get it" but rather they still feel their own point of view is more valid. Such reasoning goes both ways...Think about it...have you been convinced by any of the OTHER person's links, sources, etc? Exactly.

Not sure about everyone else posting here, but I actually have read the Koran, although admittedly in an English translation. Got a few looks for that one in the desert, but it's one of those "know your enemies" sort of things. Didn't see anything about Jihad being banned, although it's possible I've forgotten it. I DID see an awful lot about sands flowing red with the blood of the Jew and the Infidel, and something or other about "Jinn" which, to be honest, I don't know what are. Islam, at its founding, was spread primarily by the sword, why are any of us surprised that some factions still continue this method today? We in the west (non-Muslims) are all "fair game" from what I read. Thankfully some Muslims do not carry it to the extreme...

After all, if Christians all observed everything strictly according to Biblical scripture-there wouldn't be as huge a difference, what with stoning adulterers to death, animal sacrifices, seventh day Sabbaths, (the Church, which started the practice, never called Sunday the Sabbath-which is why to this day many call it "The Lord's Day")...and if we routinely called for the extermination of whole groups of people for being an "Abomination to the Almighty" as in Biblical times....we would be nearly the same as the radical fundamentalists currently beheading people (which IS in the Koran) or stoning them. It isn't that they all Hate us-some do. But to the hard liners, I think, we are exactly that abomination I referred to...so fundamentalist (look up that word some time) Muslims simply take a more literal understanding of scripture from the Koran than do their more moderate contemporaries.

I fear, with such people there will never be a "live and let live" mentality which seems to make so much sense to US. The attacks have little to do with US foreign policy so much as what we are one of the biggest SYMBOLS of, Greed, "Idolatry", you name it. AND to them, our guilt is confirmed as far away as the closest TV set. Trouble is, USA isn't the ONLY enemy of such people, just one of the biggest symbolic targets...

Crow, strange bedfellows wars make. My personal take on the Kosovo issue is that ultimately in American politics it is not usually the President, or even the administration, who makes a mistake-that ends up having to pay for it. I could go more in depth but it would be a 4-pager... Countries and their alliances often tend to come back to haunt them in the future, but countries, and their populations, have to live in the present. With an eye to the past-history is a great teacher.

What I mean, is that, when Iraq is fighting Iran-which has just been taken over by radical s calling for the destruction of one's country....you help out Iraq a little. Give them a chance against all those F-14 Tomcats the previous administration gave Iran, thinking everything would be hunky-dory. 30 years later, the tides have changed, the revolutionary "hero" in charge of Iraq has become a despot, and now HE is threatening your country.

Another example-American troops are sent to grab a particular warlord in Somalia, due to violence over food shipments, and the like...things go bad, a couple helicopters go down (HATE that part) people get killed...but here is the clencher...The troops called for armor backup, which would have gotten them out safe and accomplished the mission-and the administration, perhaps for political reasons-denied the request. More people died. Then the bodies of the crew were dragged through the streets on international television. Did the administration do anything? Kick a little B&##? no....they withdrew. Osama Bin Laden, in an "exclusive" interview, said it was at that moment that he felt he could take USA down, that it was, in his words, "A Paper Tiger".

He was close. That administration had shrunken the armed forces so badly that not only equipment, and bases to operate from (many closed) but experience was hard to find in some areas (they forced people out who had at times, 15 years experience-not replaceable by a teenager out of boot camp). For someone biding their time to hit the symbol (to them, anyway) of all that is evil in the world....we must have looked ripe for the picking.

Just venturing a few thoughts, anyway.
John P.

is an idea that grew out of waha'ab not american interests. the moeny helped, i am sure but US really had very little to do with it.

Going well to what greater interest?

To whom shall it be perceived as going well?

The WMD’s were an erroneous farce of deception.

The correlation between Iraq and 9/11 is non-existent.

Iraq is now a catastrophe dividing Sunni versus Shia in Civil War brutality.

The supposed “War On Terror” surely eliminates many Islamic fundamentalists, though its quite transparent it creates many more and fuels hatred for the youth of Arabic nations to join the cause.

Going well?

It’s an absolute catastrophic travesty of the 21 Century.

Sorry folks in advance for rambling...but....

Not true, although this is a common misconception. The administration has never *once* said "there were no WMD's, sorry guys...we made it up". No, what they said was only that "We haven't found them". Big difference.

I am not sure what the point is here-while I think Iraqi intelligence or maybe rogue elements from it may have had something to do with 9-11, 9-11 has nothing to do with why Iraq was invaded.
Saddam was flaunting his disregard for 11 or 16 of the UN sanctions he was supposed to comply with (ostensibly to remain in power, after Gulf war I). Luckily for him, the previous administration let him get away with it for quite a number of years. He even played a dangerous shell game with UN inspectors, and neighboring nations, which all thought he either had or was close to having WMDs in one or more forms. (I personally believe he did and that some things have already been found. I also believe it will never be told to the public. That's a different thread however)Unlucky for Saddam, the present administration had less sense of humor about the whole thing, and saw him as being a threat to security not just of the region but to US strategic interests.

Perhaps Clinton's inaction had something to do with his much more friendly relationship with high figures in the UN, because while he was outfitting US troops in baby-blue helmets so the UN could make them bomb Serbia, Saddam was already shooting at coalition planes, and intelligence even THEN said he was up to some WMD's-but the world was different, and in those days it seemed far riskier politically to *do* something than just to assume it was all "saber rattling" and let it go. True there were warning signs, and perhaps somebody did try to call the president-unfortunately so many of those calls come in daily it would be ridiculous to route every one of them to the president....but I'm getting off-track here.


This is different than before how? Sunni and Shia have been killing each other for hundreds of years, neither America nor even Poland for her part, started that. It rekindles every time each group think there is enough of a lapse in government authority for them to get away with it. Most of the killing in Iraq right now isn't US troops killing anyone, it's Sunnis and Shia trying to kill each other with IED's etc.

People worldwide (even Americans) are no different. Witness the looting that occurs after a catastrophe in many parts of the world. Those people *normally* wouldn't rob, steal and kill-but when they think they can get away with it.....

Iraq's infrastructure is building up, although I personally think it's government is a little nervous about stepping up to the plate (so we can all LEAVE btw) I can understand, though, when de-stabilizing influences assassinate government officials when possible. How strong would our OWN politicians be, if they knew members of the opposing party weren't only going to smear their names in the papers, but actually kill them...


Again, this is simply one opinion, although it is becoming so common that it is almost like a mantra of the uninformed. In reality it is only true IMHO to a very small extent, but has been blown out of all proportion by celebrities and others with more money than brains, and who feel that somehow their opinions should be more important than our own or those of our elected officials....

After all, there is no real quantifiable way to show this assertion to be true. Rather than creating "new" enemies (only the media or infiltrators etc. telling tall tales that America wants to ban Islam, or kills children-can do *that*) I think simply having 3 journalists to every rifleman leads to a glut of imagery of "Infidels on Muslim ground"-and every 30 year old Muslim in the region who has grown up with the idea of the west being "The Great Satan" or some such...now has him locally available, and goes to Iraq to try fighting the "Great Evil" or whatever their latest pet name for us is.

These are not NEW enemies, just old ones who are able to fight. Over there. The only NEW enemies are fueled by things they've been told by less than reputable sources, IMHO like many of the people in Fallujah, etc. Once Marines started getting the upper hand, the locals ran the "insurgent" infiltrators out, and are apparently quite relieved that we are NOT going to ban Islam, beat their women, or any other such thing. We *also* unlike their erstwhile Jordanian friends-do not behead people in secret for not being "Muslim" enough. People are impressionable.

It happens. Imagine what the Church was suggesting to young, impressionable Christian men (and boys-12 was a good fighting age back then) to get them to go on Crusade....

Spoken exactly as one who has not been and seen. Had I never went, I would probably believe 90% of the stuff I hear also. Things are rough in small pockets, but those get ALL the coverage...and now with the "surge" things are (for us at least) getting much quieter.

Gen. Petraeus is IMHO a genius. I wish the politicians would let him alone. He IS the military expert, as opposed to politicians, who are usually lawyers who perhaps *studied* how to win wars. Wars are not won by killing all of the enemy, but by 1. defeating his morale until he is unwilling to fight 2. Once he is conquered, give him dignity and help him rebuild. Just because there is a war doesn't mean the other nation should always be considered "the Enemy" after it ends.

Ever get into a fight? Shake hands later when it was over, or something like that? End up friends, or at least on better terms? Exactly. The same for wars, IMHO.
Again, I ramble....


John P.

My friend, the whole premise of this invasion was based on these WMD’s.

You are here to tell me that the mighty U.S.A military can’t locate them after almost four years in this Nation?

What is the flaw here? The US intelligence or the servicemen on duty whom can’t locate the smoking gun after four bloody years? Or the probable fact that no such items exist?

Do you really believe in this fictitious quest? Is your personal employment justified because you still hold hope for finding the Holy Grail?

I once again think back to 1776, and ponder what a tremendous man like George Washington would ponder about pertaining to the current state of affairs when ex-soldiers have to make up excuses for the current United States Administration and its foreign policy’s failure.




To me, 9/11 is very relevant to the Iraq invasion. If not for that attack, many Americans would not have supported the Bush administration in Iraq’s invasion.

The American populace was galvanized. Its hearts and souls, so desperately looking to vilify somebody, that the Iraq invasion held very little opposition with such a furious American population.

You want to bring UN into this debate?

How about the plethora of Resolutions the UN has placed upon Israel that the US has vetoed.

Is the UN and its policies only an authentic institution when it meets your agenda?


I'll continue this some other time...

True.

And you are surprised why? U.S. military aren't supermen. We do not have X-ray vision and that crap about finding it with satellites....not so much. We still haven't found all the CONVENTIONAL weapons caches. How many million illegal immigrants sneak across the US border every year? We can't seem to find THEM either...and THEY actually have to buy food....Nuclear weapons, of course, do not. They simply wait until called on.
Even if they *would* announce finding something you would not believe it anyway, and US would lose critical advances ("Hey guys, we found a NUKE!!!" while all the guys saving their own nuclear weapon, Bioweapon, whatever...quietly move it somewhere else...or just send it to England, Poland, UK, US...and detonate)...

I saw *plenty* while there that made me think he at *LEAST* had chemical weapons, and perhaps more-but without the ACTUAL weapon, it proves little. And just an FYI, while the U.S. military does have weapons experts, the typical 19 year old soldier or 30 year old SOF trooper-does not carry a geiger counter, nor is he an expert with a petri dish or some such to say "Yes, this is Anthrax". Reality is we are just trying to keep the place stable until it's new government takes over, one that, hopefully, will not enjoy hinting to its neighbors that it has something.... Don't give me that lot about "US intelligence" either. Israelis, (I believe) British, and other Intelligence agencies believed he had something also, not just the US. In fact, Saddam's own top officials believed he had them. I personally think they were right. After the last administration or two, US HUMINT strength has suffered greatly, and more is done through SIGIN (satellites etc) although they are desperately trying to change that, still what gives? If you were a police officer and everyone in a local market said the gentleman in a blue coat had a gun, would you wait until you SAW the gun to search him? Until he shot someone? Now, when you search him you can't find the gun. Does that mean everyone was wrong? Or did he stash it. Same with Iraq. Iraq was a bomb waiting to go off (Saddam getting old, Uday and Qusay getting more power, and exponentially more evil even than Saddam) and perhaps some terrible weapons were about to be added to the mix. My belief is that Chem rounds would have been used by Saddam, until it was made obvious the US would leave the nuclear card on the table if he did so. Didn't stop thousands of us from sweating in tiny holes while CBR experts "sniffed" each SCUD, Al Fath, etc. that came our way to see if it was "safe".
Give me a break...you believe this stuff? BTW I am still active duty and will be returning there. I do not feel this is a foreign policy failure so much as it has been portrayed as such. When you do a tour there yourself you will see what I mean. 90% of the hateful stuff you hear, the sob-stories about losing and Iraqis hate us-are just stories, stories I suspect have a political motivation more than a truth motivation. But believe what you will.
...just thought I would point out that a UN resolution has to pass before becoming a resolution. Just because some member of the UN wants to ban the existence of Israel, for instance, does not mean the resolution will pass.
The U.S. is, as a founding member of the U.N. a member of the UN Security Council, with full veto powers. A resolution vetoed by ANY of the UN Security Council members-is NOT, by definition a UN resolution at all...
Finally, no need for the veiled hostility toward me. Everyone has their own opinions, and you have obviously read none of my posts or you would know more about my feelings concerning the UN. We all have opinions. "Agendas" on the other hand, involve a plan (e.g. to do something, whether mundane or nefarious). While you may agree or disagree with my opinion (please do! it's an internet forum-pretty harmless) that doesn't make it an "agenda" any more than your own opinions, no matter how misguided I think them to be, are an "agenda".
Agenda indeed. You give me far too much credit.
John P.

Huh? So if the US found WMD they would keep it quiet because other bad guys would move their stash ? Please explain.

In keeping with this analogy what the US have done is shoot the guy, go to his house and shoot his family, blown his house up and then scratch their navel and say, "oh well" !! ( I am thinhking about the half a million dead civilians here)
This doesnt tally with the picture of Saddam as a man that didnt give a hoot about his people. He didnt use them because he didnt have them.

now now,No1,When wearing those "baby blue" helmets as you so endearingly call them,no force is authorised to bomb people(no matter how much they deserve it,ethnic cleansing remember,Ruanda,) the people who eventually bombed important military targets in Serbia(about 5 years too late) were working under NATO. Maybe if bush snr had provided a single battalion of US peace keepers to work alongside the europeans at the start of serbias war of aggresion then things would not have developed into the slaughterhouse that the balkans turned into once Serbia saw the the worlds superpower didnt care how many people they exterminated or plain starved/raped to death in europes first concentration camps since the 40s....

the whole reason there are the 2 groups ,sonny and cher,sorry shia,is because the divided in a war of succsesion after mohame carped it,the bloodshed has been on and off since before the crusades.

man of the moment more like,he was a crap general.so his comments would not be very valid today.

anyhoo,all this WMD guff is just smoke and mirrors;
If a man stands up in a crowded room claiming to have a pistol in the bag he is brandishing,the Police are called,if the man continous to insist its a gun in the bag he is pointing the police will shoot this man to protect the innocent passers by.If however it turns out the man was pointing a banana do you then blame him for his own stupidity or blame the policemen for shooting him?

I would say it was the man with the banana. I have worked in police field and this is what suicidal people will pull to end there life without ever having to pull the trigger. Most of the time it works. Carol

Interesting artical on Iraq Tues. and where the troops are.

Exit Al-Qaeda. Enter the Militias?

In 2007 the United States military put its most dangerous enemy on the run. In 2008 it may face an even more entrenched foe. Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), the primary target of the American troop surge and counter-insurgency strategy, appears to be on its last legs after a year of being attacked from all sides. But Shi'ite militias, which have deep roots in Iraq's Shi'a communities and the Shi'ite-dominated government, may now pose a more serious long-term threat.



http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1699187,00.html

Negotiations for a ceasefire with the Mhadi army happened just before the recent "surge" in US troops. This is why coalition fatalities have dropped from four a day to just over one, so making the "surge" a success.
It was only by doing a deal with the Mhadi army that the Brits could pull out of Basra.

Are the Mhadi army terrorists ?
By the definitions given earlier in this thread then they are.

Very good question, seems like as soon as you think you know who's fighting whom, they change teams.

Iraqi Shiite Praises Sunni Groups

Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim's praise for the role of the Sunni groups, many of which had fought U.S. and Iraq's Shiite-dominated security forces before switching sides last year, runs contrary to the hard-line position recently taken by Prime Minster Nouri al-Maliki's government.
http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=105&sid=577832

The Sunni militias, more than 70,000-strong, have been credited by U.S. commanders as being instrumental in what they say is a nearly 60 percent reduction in violence in the last six months. It also was affected by the dispatch of additional U.S. troops and a six-month cease-fire declared in August by anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his militia.

But al-Maliki's government has been deeply uneasy about the potential for the Sunni fighters _ now better organized and armed _ to switch sides again, posing a threat to stability and the Shiite domination that followed the ouster of Saddam Hussein's Sunni-led regime.


Carol

Here is an interesting article on the role of the US & Britain in the current situation in Pakistan:

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7705

Why Britain must be everywhere?!

What if Poles decided to be everywhere? Serbs? Ukrainians? Russians? What if we combine our efforts to be everywhere? Where would Brits then?

Thats a lot to read Joe - whats it saying ?
That the CIA and Al Q are interlinked? That they are behind this ?

I'm beginning not to care who attacks who there. Britain supports one side, America arms the other. Just pathetic gits wasting our taxpayers money. Where's the unified objective if America's closest ally doesn't act in concert with the US? Psychopaths!!

I think if we continue to go back in history we can continue to find positive and negitive relations. From what I see in Iraq, Poland, USA and Britian have been depending on each other just fine and cover each other. This bashing is counter productive and now that I looked up the meaning, "troll" it is what happens when any conversation begins here. I have nothing agianst Serbia, Canada, Britian or even Iraq for that matter. I do have a problem with people putting down military non stop for trying to stop a bad situation and only seeing their side. I am sure where ever you look you will find corruption, abuse of power and wars that in hindsite someone should have acted differantly. We know what we read, being there I am sure is another story altogether.

I know today that if the USA helped the Polish in WW2 the tables would have been turned. Maybe they didn't come to eastern Poland due to being told "you will kill children". Instead they stayed out and gave "Stalin" and "Hitler" free rein to kill them. Today we can say, I wish ..... Carol

What is ur take on the proposed rigging of the elections in Pakistan celinski? Musharraf has his plan in place to make sure he is still top dog. America can scarcely afford to allow an unknown in.

Huh ? I dont get what you are trying to say.
What has WW2 got to do with the war on terror, Iraq or anything else.

Celinski, Bush clearly said that not only the terrorists will be sternly dealt with, but those who harbour or support them in any way too. Saudi Arabia had a mini pact with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda that they'd continue to fund him, provided that he agreed not to attack the KSA. What action has Bush taken against them? How about Pakistan's terrorist groups? I fear for Iran as they are rich in many ways, they have what Bush wants. I can really see Bush having a go at Iran, maybe not this year but it's a realistic prospect

Personally, USA and Musharraf should both back off and let the people decide. I thought they put the voting off. Right now the streets are full of violence because of the people's frustration over their lack of control. My heart hurts for the people, but thats all I can add as I have not studied all sides.



In eastern Poland 1939-45 Stalin and Hitler killed, enslaved and abused unarmed military and military reserve, no one came. Can you imagine if they did and no Polish were exiled what the population of Poland today? It is funny when I hear we were saved, saved from what? My grandfathers land had gone from barren to 5 building, gardens that had surplus and fruit trees in abundance. Polish are hard workers with talent and it showed by how this and other properties florished. Without such a large part of Polands trainned military and youth wiped out think of what Poland would be.

Maybe if we had help like USA, Britian and Poland are trying to do in Iraq the outcome would have been quite differant. They may not have been popular and might even have been told how they were the ones that created it. Yet, Poland might not have lost so many innocent people. There are many families in Iraq that I believe will have a brighter future.




I hope USA can leave Iran for the countries there to deal with. Lets face it , if all area's police their own and demand behavior as we see in terrorist stop. USA can come home, as can British and Poland. Everyone in the nation wins. All I'm saying is power over corrupt, deadly people should fall on each area to take care of in the future. No one country should own the earth or be better than another.



Carol

Oh I see. The coalition are similair to the allies in WW2 !!!

The war in Iraq did not have to happen.
Half a million civilians did not have to die.

There is no comparison with what is happening in Iraq at the moment.
WW2 was about a crazy dictator who had military supremacy wanting to impose his will on soverign states at the cost of innocent lives....oh wait...hold on a minute........

You don't think Saddam was crazy?

jesus h. christ lady, how heck do you think Saddam came into power in the first place?

Yes, Saddam was nuts.
The half a million civilians I am referring to were killed in a war that did not have to happen and one that was orchestrated from the Whitehouse.

The difference celinski is that Hitler had aspirations to conquer the world, as did Stalin. Megalomaniacs hellbent on imposing their respective philosophies on the world. Saddam didn't threaten global chaos. If America was so altruistic and concerned about the fate of normal Iraqi's, why didn't it go in b4 and take him out? The Genocide Convention was formed in 1948 after all. Oh, the war on terror script hadn't been perfected at that point.

Whatever he was,he did not start the war.

'not getting it' has nothing to do with not trusting the other side's sources - 'not gettin it' is a mindset that people are unable to break out of

Guess he shouldn't have made threats and said he had WMD. So it was OK with how he segregated and killed? And as for the terrorist groups there, we should just leave them to run Iraq? I am sure if we just up'ed and left there would be ones taking your place and saying that was wromg.

Thats the justification for the war, the civilian deaths ?? This was found to be untrue prior invasion but the Bush administration were already hell bent on war.

Thats whats happening on a greater scale now, remember the link you posted earlier about militias?

They weren't there before the war.

BTW Oil reached $100 a barrell for the first time today.