Terrorists - A reason for WAR?

[Presario]

Ok, I'm sad about 911. I don't like what terrorists have done all around the world. It is too late to blame US bypassing UN or UN doesn't do anything.
But can this be the reason US put the whole world on war? Yes, I know now is only Iraq, but who knows what tomorrow MR. PRESIDENT OF UNITED STATES will say? Now US invaded Iraq claiming that Iraq has WMD and link with bin Laden terrorists network, then he can say he suspects another country has WMD and link with terrorists network and 100,000 of soldiers will go to that country, no diplomatic way because US can always bypass UN.
Just like this: I THINK you have the potential to become a thread, then I just squezzzzzz you to death with bombs.
Well if this is the reason for war I'll have to congrat USA upgrading to USW -- United States of World soon because every country will be occupied by US military force.

 

[Trezza]

Welcome to AT.

May i be the first to tell you about truth.

First off the US did not attack or bring war to the world.
US is the military in the UN atleast 80% of it so the UN can't really tell the US not to do something...only suggest.
As for your "no diplomatic way" the US tried that it didn't work.

The reason Iraq was attacked is because it was in violation of the cease fire agreement from the end of the first gulf war, for have illegal weapon systems, not 100% cooperating with weapons inspectors and slaugtering Iraq's own people.

 

[ConclamoLudus]

A reason for war? Yes and no. A reason to pave over the entire Middle East? No. A reason to insure that WMD's do not get into the wrong hands? Most defenitely. A reason to make sure that country's that harbor terrorists cease to do so? Yes.

We have to remember that on 911 the weapons of mass destruction were BOX CUTTERS!
Imagine if they got their hands on a small nuke, let alone a kitchen knife!

My criticism of the Bush administration is that chasing down the terrorists is only half the war on terrorism (he's done a bang-up job on that part), but the other half of the war on terrorism is prevention. Which means he's got to make this Iraq situation the best thing that's ever happened for the middle east, and he's got to get the Israeli-Palestine conflict rolling. And maybe he won't be the president to do that, he might be the only one to finish the first part of it. Both parts are just as necessary. This is going to be crucial to how we are seen in the middle east. The battle for Baghdad is over, but the war on terrorism has a long way to go.

Chase down the existing ones, and heal up the wounds that cause terrorists as well, and a little modernization and democratization aren't going to hurt.

 

[Alistar7]

The US is still the only country to ever ask the UN to engage in war, 3 times, Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq, that's not even counting THIS time, when the question was never asked for obvious reasons.

Those are good ideas to go to war, alot better than waiting for some wacko to blow up a dirty bomb over NYC or release an airborne pathogen on the west coast.

 

[kylebisme]

the thing is that even if we would have wiped the middle east of the face of the map there would still be plenty of wackos pissed off about what we have done before that and wanting to blow up a dirty bomb over NYC or release an airborne pathogen on the west coast, or invasion of Iraq just adds fuel to the fire at this point. however, i must admit that if the reconstruction is handed well enough and especially with enough respect to the people there, this whole thing could be helpful. but, if Afghanistan is any indication of how things are going to progress; we just made another big screwup and terrorists are going to be recruiting in droves thanks to our mistake.

 

[ConclamoLudus]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
the thing is that even if we would have wiped the middle east of the face of the map there would still be plenty of wackos pissed off about what we have done before that and wanting to blow up a dirty bomb over NYC or release an airborne pathogen on the west coast, or invasion of Iraq just adds fuel to the fire at this point. however, i must admit that if the reconstruction is handed well enough and especially with enough respect to the people there, this whole thing could be helpful. but, if Afghanistan is any indication of how things are going to progress; we just made another big screwup and terrorists are going to be recruiting in droves thanks to our mistake.

Is Afghanistan going all that poorly? These things take a lot of time. I'm not being facetious, I really don't know how things are going in Afghanistan. The Smithsonian had a very positive article in it a couple of months ago about the process there and how the people are responding, but that is really all I've hear.

You are right there will always be wackos, I mean we can't forget Timothy McVeigh, unibomber, etc., but all we can do is prevent and defend. There will always be people that want to hurt us, but that is not a reason to give into some form of inaction (not trying to put word in your mouth). If we give in to inaction we surrender to terror. This is why I say only half the war on terror is about chasing them down, the other half has got to be prevention and getting to the root of "why?"

I'm an optimist though, I think we'll be happy we did this in 30 years. Short term is going to suck though.

 

[kylebisme]

unfortunately i don't come across much news on Afghanistan either ConclamoLudus, but what i have heard doesn't sound good to me. i just did a quick google search to see what i could come up with and this is the top news link, approximately 15 minutes old; Rights Group: 'Climate of Fear' Rules Afghanistan . i'm sure you can find more info if you dig around for it, im sorry i don't rightly save links for all that stuff.

oh and thanks for not trying to put words in my mouth, you would have been wrong to do so.

i am against inaction by all means, however i still have trouble justifying aggressive action. "prevent and defend" is great, if we had lived up to our plans for such things in the first place we would not be the thousands of lives and pair of wtc towers that we are today. i would prefer we worked more on getting that end of the act together and making things safe in our county and less going outside our boarders and provoking others with attacks.

 

[ConclamoLudus]

That's an intersesting and disappointing article, but at least we have 11,000 troops there still working out the wrinkles, and hopefully the warlords will be dealt with. I agree with the US going into other countries to prevent and defend, but I think we are in agreement when I say that we have to do it right and stay until the job is done. Its a messy business and there are a lot of ugly responsibilities that we have to live up to if we are going to be pre-emptive even in the least bit. We have a long, long, long, way to go. Its one hell of a PR battle as well.

 

[kylebisme]

sure ConclamoLudu, i find it disappointing as well; i think any reasonable person would. but even more disappointing is the fact that one has to actively search out such information as the major media tells us very little about what is going on in Afghanistan these days, it is all going on out of the public eye. another situation is Serbia, again i have been making an effort to keep up on these things and have been unimpressed with what i have seen; another google search brought up this two hour old article about what is going on there. i tend to think we are spreading ourselves so thin that we are on the verge of causing more trouble than we are putting a stop to; acting under the pretense of a new world order but effectively spreading disorder. granted, we can slow down and start working to set things right were we are; but the push of the administration is to keep marching on, the media is backing the business strongly, and the people seem inclined to follow.

 

[lowtech1]

Originally posted by: Trezza
Welcome to AT.

May i be the first to tell you about truth.

First off the US did not attack or bring war to the world.
US is the military in the UN atleast 80% of it so the UN can't really tell the US not to do something...only suggest.
As for your "no diplomatic way" the US tried that it didn't work.

The reason Iraq was attacked is because it was in violation of the cease fire agreement from the end of the first gulf war, for have illegal weapon systems, not 100% cooperating with weapons inspectors and slaugtering Iraq's own people.

Don't you think that every country break some kind of agreements & have illigal weapons. I would like to see the US do something regarding the Chinese, Russian, British, French, Israelis & Pakistan illigal weapons/breaking conventions.

 

[Presario]

US is the military in the UN atleast 80% of it so the UN can't really tell the US not to do something...only suggest

Is it the American way of doing things? It just like something we can interfere other countries inner affair while no one else can interfere our own bussiness because we have the strongest military forces in the world.

I would like to see the US do something regarding the Chinese, Russian, British, French, Israelis & Pakistan illigal weapons/breaking conventions

This will lead to World War III. And I believe one of the illegal weapons you mentioned is nuke, so basically what makes other countries a crime when they own nuke while US is the only country who has the right to own nuke?

Question: Why US didn't get rid of Saddam during the 1st Gulf War? He's not become a badass only till recently but long before the war on Iran. Is that US want to keep this threat in Mid East so you can sell more weapon to Arabian country?

 

[alchemize]

WWI was started by a terrorist attack. WW2 was a follow-up of the issues of WW1.

Maybe George wants WW3 will clean up the messes left by 1 & 2, and follow up wars (middle east, NK). That leaves Russia and China. But they will likely come around on their own...

 

[AndrewR]

I fail to understand the argument that doing something about terrorism will only cause more terrorism; therefore, we should do nothing. I may be extrapolating a bit there, but it's hardly a stretch for what some people say. We shouldn't attack anyone because it will only cause more terrorism? Weren't the sudden deaths of 3,000 people enough to take action, or is there another threshold we need to cross before action is warranted?

Seriously, I simply don't get it. We were attacked. We know who did it, and we have a good idea as to who wants to do the same thing and who supports them. Do we sit back and hope that the Border Patrol, Customs, and the Coast Guard stop another attack from happening, or do we go in and take them out at the source?

The argument is rather akin to a fireman saying, "Well, I don't think I'll fight the fire because it'll just starting burning somewhere else, too." We are forced to take action because doing nothing will only encourage others to launch an attack without fear of retribution.

 

[lowtech1]

Originally posted by: AndrewR
I fail to understand the argument that doing something about terrorism will only cause more terrorism; therefore, we should do nothing. I may be extrapolating a bit there, but it's hardly a stretch for what some people say. We shouldn't attack anyone because it will only cause more terrorism? Weren't the sudden deaths of 3,000 people enough to take action, or is there another threshold we need to cross before action is warranted?

Seriously, I simply don't get it. We were attacked. We know who did it, and we have a good idea as to who wants to do the same thing and who supports them. Do we sit back and hope that the Border Patrol, Customs, and the Coast Guard stop another attack from happening, or do we go in and take them out at the source?

The argument is rather akin to a fireman saying, "Well, I don't think I'll fight the fire because it'll just starting burning somewhere else, too." We are forced to take action because doing nothing will only encourage others to launch an attack without fear of retribution.

I feel that helping the government that harbours or infested with terrorists to better themself is the way to do it, because they are the people that have to keep the terrorists at bay when the US army are gone. And, randomly bombing countries or government that isn?t pro America is not the best way to make friends.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: AndrewR
I fail to understand the argument that doing something about terrorism will only cause more terrorism; therefore, we should do nothing. I may be extrapolating a bit there, but it's hardly a stretch for what some people say. We shouldn't attack anyone because it will only cause more terrorism? Weren't the sudden deaths of 3,000 people enough to take action, or is there another threshold we need to cross before action is warranted?

Seriously, I simply don't get it. We were attacked. We know who did it, and we have a good idea as to who wants to do the same thing and who supports them. Do we sit back and hope that the Border Patrol, Customs, and the Coast Guard stop another attack from happening, or do we go in and take them out at the source?

The argument is rather akin to a fireman saying, "Well, I don't think I'll fight the fire because it'll just starting burning somewhere else, too." We are forced to take action because doing nothing will only encourage others to launch an attack without fear of retribution.

That argument lacks merit for the Iraqi conflict, considering that to this point (to my knowledge) there has been no evidence linking Iraq or Saddam Heussein to al-Qaeda.

 

[Format C:]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: AndrewR
I fail to understand the argument that doing something about terrorism will only cause more terrorism; therefore, we should do nothing. I may be extrapolating a bit there, but it's hardly a stretch for what some people say. We shouldn't attack anyone because it will only cause more terrorism? Weren't the sudden deaths of 3,000 people enough to take action, or is there another threshold we need to cross before action is warranted?

Seriously, I simply don't get it. We were attacked. We know who did it, and we have a good idea as to who wants to do the same thing and who supports them. Do we sit back and hope that the Border Patrol, Customs, and the Coast Guard stop another attack from happening, or do we go in and take them out at the source?

The argument is rather akin to a fireman saying, "Well, I don't think I'll fight the fire because it'll just starting burning somewhere else, too." We are forced to take action because doing nothing will only encourage others to launch an attack without fear of retribution.

That argument lacks merit for the Iraqi conflict, considering that to this point (to my knowledge) there has been no evidence linking Iraq or Saddam Heussein to al-Qaeda.

Watch very much news?

 

[RyanM]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: AndrewR
I fail to understand the argument that doing something about terrorism will only cause more terrorism; therefore, we should do nothing. I may be extrapolating a bit there, but it's hardly a stretch for what some people say. We shouldn't attack anyone because it will only cause more terrorism? Weren't the sudden deaths of 3,000 people enough to take action, or is there another threshold we need to cross before action is warranted?

Seriously, I simply don't get it. We were attacked. We know who did it, and we have a good idea as to who wants to do the same thing and who supports them. Do we sit back and hope that the Border Patrol, Customs, and the Coast Guard stop another attack from happening, or do we go in and take them out at the source?

The argument is rather akin to a fireman saying, "Well, I don't think I'll fight the fire because it'll just starting burning somewhere else, too." We are forced to take action because doing nothing will only encourage others to launch an attack without fear of retribution.

That argument lacks merit for the Iraqi conflict, considering that to this point (to my knowledge) there has been no evidence linking Iraq or Saddam Heussein to al-Qaeda.

Wrong. Taking out a totalitarian state is an attack at terrorism at the source. By eliminating the oppression of a people and democratizing them, you give them an alternative way to voice their opionions besides becoming a fundamentalist and performing suicide attacks.

Poor, deprived, oppressed people who are angry and brainwashed by their government to hate the west BECOME terrorists. Period. You remove the oppression and create prosperity, and you remove terrorism, at least, in the incarnation that currently threatens us. Period.

Comprende?

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: AndrewR
I fail to understand the argument that doing something about terrorism will only cause more terrorism; therefore, we should do nothing. I may be extrapolating a bit there, but it's hardly a stretch for what some people say. We shouldn't attack anyone because it will only cause more terrorism? Weren't the sudden deaths of 3,000 people enough to take action, or is there another threshold we need to cross before action is warranted?

Seriously, I simply don't get it. We were attacked. We know who did it, and we have a good idea as to who wants to do the same thing and who supports them. Do we sit back and hope that the Border Patrol, Customs, and the Coast Guard stop another attack from happening, or do we go in and take them out at the source?

The argument is rather akin to a fireman saying, "Well, I don't think I'll fight the fire because it'll just starting burning somewhere else, too." We are forced to take action because doing nothing will only encourage others to launch an attack without fear of retribution.

That argument lacks merit for the Iraqi conflict, considering that to this point (to my knowledge) there has been no evidence linking Iraq or Saddam Heussein to al-Qaeda.

There is still ongoing exploitation of the northeastern terrorist training camp, as far as I know from the news. I believe preliminary reports were talking about links between Al Ansar (or whatever it was) and al'Qaida. There was also the information given to the UN by Secretary Powell, if I'm not mistaken, which stated that a senior al'Qaida official received medical treatment in Baghdad.

Regardless, I never remember hearing from the President that this was a Global War on al'Qaida Terrorism, only a Global War on Terrorism. There is NO doubt that Saddam was linked to terrorism after the capture of Abu Abbas and the senior Abu Nidal Organization member, not to mention the solid links between Iraq and the Palestinian Liberation Front's payoffs to the family members of suicide bombers in Israel and the West Bank/Gaza.

[edit] Lastly, the origin of this thread is not that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. The title of the thread is, quite specifically, "Terrorists - A reason for WAR?"

 

[NesuD]

Question: Why US didn't get rid of Saddam during the 1st Gulf War? He's not become a badass only till recently but long before the war on Iran. Is that US want to keep this threat in Mid East so you can sell more weapon to Arabian country?

-presario

Pay attention very carefully. The first gulf war was conducted with UN cooperation to enforce a UN resolution demanding that iraq get all its forces out of Kuwait. We did that. we pushed iraq out of Kuwait and that is it. Did we want to remove Saddam at that time? Yes but the UN would not support us doing that. Now 12 years later we finally have a President who realized that the UN is irrelevent and went a head and finished what should have been done years ago. The short answer because the UN didn't want us to.

 

[RyanM]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: AndrewR
I fail to understand the argument that doing something about terrorism will only cause more terrorism; therefore, we should do nothing. I may be extrapolating a bit there, but it's hardly a stretch for what some people say. We shouldn't attack anyone because it will only cause more terrorism? Weren't the sudden deaths of 3,000 people enough to take action, or is there another threshold we need to cross before action is warranted?

Seriously, I simply don't get it. We were attacked. We know who did it, and we have a good idea as to who wants to do the same thing and who supports them. Do we sit back and hope that the Border Patrol, Customs, and the Coast Guard stop another attack from happening, or do we go in and take them out at the source?

The argument is rather akin to a fireman saying, "Well, I don't think I'll fight the fire because it'll just starting burning somewhere else, too." We are forced to take action because doing nothing will only encourage others to launch an attack without fear of retribution.

That argument lacks merit for the Iraqi conflict, considering that to this point (to my knowledge) there has been no evidence linking Iraq or Saddam Heussein to al-Qaeda.

There is still ongoing exploitation of the northeastern terrorist training camp, as far as I know from the news. I believe preliminary reports were talking about links between Al Ansar (or whatever it was) and al'Qaida. There was also the information given to the UN by Secretary Powell, if I'm not mistaken, which stated that a senior al'Qaida official received medical treatment in Baghdad.

Regardless, I never remember hearing from the President that this was a Global War on al'Qaida Terrorism, only a Global War on Terrorism. There is NO doubt that Saddam was linked to terrorism after the capture of Abu Abbas and the senior Abu Nidal Organization member, not to mention the solid links between Iraq and the Palestinian Liberation Front's payoffs to the family members of suicide bombers in Israel and the West Bank/Gaza.

[edit] Lastly, the origin of this thread is not that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. The title of the thread is, quite specifically, "Terrorists - A reason for WAR?"

I think those facts are merely icing on the cake. As I said in the post before yours, we currently need to eliminate terrorism at the source - The oppressive regimes which fuel terrorism. Finding links in Iraq to known terrorists or groups is merely a bonus on top of the fact that by installing a democracy we'll by combating the core cause.

 

[Prototype]

Originally posted by: konichiwa
That argument lacks merit for the Iraqi conflict, considering that to this point (to my knowledge) there has been no evidence linking Iraq or Saddam Heussein to al-Qaeda.

Yes, you are correct.
There have been no proven links between Saddam and al-Qaeda.

In reality, this war has absolutely NOTHING to do with terrorism. The guise of 'The War on Terrorism' has only been used to sway public opinion for supporting the war (and from reading posts in this thread, it obviously worked). It's pretty sad that the government is preying on the emotions of Americans stemming from 9/11 to achieve its agenda.

There were some funny things said in this thread, such as needing to invade Iraq because they harbor many terrorists. Newsflash: everywhere in the world harbors these same terrorist cells, even many residing in the United States. Going after certain areas will not eliminate terrorism.

Also, somebody else said that we need to oust governments that breed Anti-American sentiment to their people, because it produces terrorist citizens. That's quite the oversimplification.
Doesn't seem like you know this, but A LOT of the world hates America. And this hatred doesn't just stem from the governments telling them to hate America...many have come to their own conclusions.

So what do you say we do? Bomb the rest of the world as well?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Prototype

Originally posted by: konichiwa
That argument lacks merit for the Iraqi conflict, considering that to this point (to my knowledge) there has been no evidence linking Iraq or Saddam Heussein to al-Qaeda.

Yes, you are correct.
There have been no proven links between Saddam and al-Qaeda.

In reality, this war has absolutely NOTHING to do with terrorism. The guise of 'The War on Terrorism' has only been used to sway public opinion for supporting the war (and from reading posts in this thread, it obviously worked). It's pretty sad that the government is preying on the emotions of Americans stemming from 9/11 to achieve its agenda.

There were some funny things said in this thread, such as needing to invade Iraq because they harbor many terrorists. Newsflash: everywhere in the world harbors these same terrorist cells, even many residing in the United States. Going after certain areas will not eliminate terrorism.

Also, somebody else said that we need to oust governments that breed Anti-American sentiment to their people, because it produces terrorist citizens. That's quite the oversimplification.
Doesn't seem like you know this, but A LOT of the world hates America. And this hatred doesn't just stem from the governments telling them to hate America...many have come to their own conclusions.

So what do you say we do? Bomb the rest of the world as well?

I will not let my hate of bush cloud my judgement, I will bomb for Oil and that's it.Text

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: Prototype

Originally posted by: konichiwa
That argument lacks merit for the Iraqi conflict, considering that to this point (to my knowledge) there has been no evidence linking Iraq or Saddam Heussein to al-Qaeda.

Yes, you are correct.
There have been no proven links between Saddam and al-Qaeda.

In reality, this war has absolutely NOTHING to do with terrorism. The guise of 'The War on Terrorism' has only been used to sway public opinion for supporting the war (and from reading posts in this thread, it obviously worked). It's pretty sad that the government is preying on the emotions of Americans stemming from 9/11 to achieve its agenda.

There were some funny things said in this thread, such as needing to invade Iraq because they harbor many terrorists. Newsflash: everywhere in the world harbors these same terrorist cells, even many residing in the United States. Going after certain areas will not eliminate terrorism.

Also, somebody else said that we need to oust governments that breed Anti-American sentiment to their people, because it produces terrorist citizens. That's quite the oversimplification.
Doesn't seem like you know this, but A LOT of the world hates America. And this hatred doesn't just stem from the governments telling them to hate America...many have come to their own conclusions.

So what do you say we do? Bomb the rest of the world as well?

Three glaring inaccuracies, among many others. First, while terrorist cells exist in many countries including the United States, they are not known and protected by the government as they were in Iraq and are elsewhere. Second, while there are certainly people around the world who hate the United States, only an exceedingly small fraction of those people take that hatred to the killing of women and children. Last time that I conducted an informal poll, the vast majority of people in the world do not condone the killing of innocents. Do you? Third, when did President Bush ever say that this was a Global War on al'Qaida Terrorism (you apparently missed my question above, so I'll repeat it for you)? Do you deny that Iraq was positively linked to terrorism?

What would you propose the U.S. do in response to terrorism? Live and let live?

I will not let my hate of bush cloud my judgement

One of the most blatantly false statements ever made on AT.