It is time to wake up America

Remove all ads!

For those of you who are against the US military presence in the Middle-East, and claim that we are only going to encourage more terrorist attacks against the US, I think the following shows that it has already been getting worse because we ingored it for so long

So the question in, do we have the fortitude to see this through, or do we just want to hit the snooze button again. Remember, next time the alarm clock goes of, it might be a nuclear buzzer!

[ April 12, 2003, 22:59: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

 

IMO...as long as we have a government that won't stand together on any issue unless bombs are dropping on their heads at that very moment, I'd have to say no.

Until the leadership of our government can truly "lead," commanding our collective resolve and support with fire in their eyes, making us all stand up and take action without question that we're doing the right thing, I'd have to say no.

As long as congress continues to pull the funding on military operations when they aren't seeing immediate results, unwilling to stay the course, and being more interested in pleasing their constituants before re-election than they are in doing what is needed, I'd have to say no.

 

Darkwolf -- I have to take it that this is directed at those of us who believe that the Iraqi War is a BIG mistake. I know that we do not see eye-to-eye on many of the issues. Nevertheless, I admire your conviction and your willingness to agrue passionately for those convictions, Darkwolf. But it really is a bit much the way in which you are willing to follow this president and his cronies.

I don't know the entire background on these guys, but I am almost willing to bet, with the exception of Colin Powell, that they all did their best to avoid serving in Vietnam.

We all know how Bush got out: Somehow he mysteriously got to the head of a list of thousands of those who had apllied ahead of him to the Texas Air Guard. Gee, I wonder if family connections helped? Then to add insult, he went AWOL. And republicans call Bill Clinton a draft dodger. How about Rumsfeld? Cheney? I'm curious if you know if these guys were willing to do what they are asking of others when it was their turn.

My opposition to this war can best be illustrated by the recent incident with Bravo Company. Captain Johnson, manning one of the checkpoints for 3rd Infantry Division, had to give an order that he will regret the rest of his life.

A Toyota stuffed with Iraqi civilians, bore down on his checkpoint - there was confusion and things went badly. The end result was that he ordered the death of an entire family who had packed their belongings into the famlily Toyota and were probably fleeing the destruction and misery of war, including several children under the age of five.

They probably wanted the same thing you want, Darkwolf -- just a chance to live in peace with a fair degree of security. Well, they are gone now. And Captain Johnson and some of the other guys in Bravo Company will have to live with that the rest of their lives. Johnson will have to spend many sleepless nights second guessing what he ordered, for I'm sure the dead children he saw through the wreckage of that Toyota will haunt him the rest of his life.

As for Bush, Cheney and the gang, they will go off to their multi-acre ranches, enjoy their family fortunes and be recorded in history for whatever verdict it renders on this "grand endeaver." But they will be remembered. How many will remember Cpt. Johnson and that Iraqi family? I know Bush and Cheney never saw the horrors of Vietnam, but you would have thought that they had at least heard about them.

[ April 02, 2003, 16:58: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

So what is the solution? More interference in the Arab world or backing off? If the US continues with its heavy handedness then of course terrorism will flourish, what is it to lose one's life if a foreign power has taken everything from you? I don't agree with nor support terrorism btw, that is how some people in the world are going to see it.

I think that if the US acted truly in the way it claims to, then other nations will accept them and terrorism will die a natural death.

As you said, wake up US stop bullying the world!

 

Terrorists are political animals. They kill for achieving a political goal. That's why they make their demands and threats after blowing people up.
Killing them off is no way to success - the israelis do so for decades now - and only breed new ones. A political solution is the most promising one, yet I don't know a political solution. But one thing's clear for me: By shelling and bombing people you don't make them friends.

One of the keys to peace in the middle east is a fair solution for the palestinians. The israelis don't want a fair solution though. And other arabs don't want a solution without them gaining power. Most of the terror attacks mentioned by darkwolf were committed by palestinians. Most of their terror strikes were connected with demands to israel to withdraw from occupied territory, or to release prisoners.

The terrorists make their attacks for various other reasons - take Beirut for example: The GIs were sent to Lebanon as peacekeepers, joined a side after a while and the US public wonders when they're beeing shelled and bombed? The same lesson is received in Mogadishu (and still not understood) : Welcomed as peacekeepers they become enemies when taking a side. Neutrality is the key for peacekeepers. But the US have never been peacekeepers, peacemakers rather. It's a philosophy conflict.
The Khobar towers and african embassy bombings were connected with the demand to leave holy islamic soil - the "response" was to fire a couple of cruise missiles to sudan and afganistan. That only enraged the locals there as they rightfully felt they didn't had much to do with terror. Emotions of locals have an influence that shouldn't be underestimated and ignored when the US don't want to be perceived as ignorant, insensible and brutal crusaders.

The US side with israel which is brutally quelling palestinians - and get their share of the hatred. The US side with the repressive gvt's of the middle east and get their share of the hatred. The US, the "bringer of light" and democracy are not very demanding when it comes to their allies methods as long as they are useful.

What is good for the US isn't good for everyone else - democracy is no fit-all solution for every region in the world, the more tribal the societies there are the less suited it actually is (look at Somalia and Afganistan and the various african so-called democracys but de-facto kingdoms). When the US come to afganistan to bring western lifestyle (and perhaps even christianity) they shouldn't wonder when some of the locals don't like that. It's no excuse for terror but an attempt to explain it.

[ April 02, 2003, 10:21: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Has anyone considered that the terorrist situation is worsening because the more people are getting tired of U.S. policy?

[ April 02, 2003, 10:32: Message edited by: Charlie ]

 

Chandos,

What you fail to mention are the many signs, in Arabic, that warn people long before they get to these checkpoints, the millions of leaflets dropped regarding the checkpoints, and the week or so that the coalition has been broadcasting warnings on 5 radio frequencies about these checkpoints. If I would have given that order, I would feel bad about it, but I don't believe that it would eat me alive. They were warned.

Everyone used every connection they could to get out of going to Vietnam; it was an acceptable thing to do at the time. That doesn't mean that it is an easier for Bush to give the orders that he has given.

I do not "follow" the President and his cronies. Just as you believe that they are wrong for your reasons, I believe, in the case of Iraq they are right for my own reasons. There are many things that I do not believe the President is correct in, for example, the detainees in Guantanamo. Charge them with something or release them. That is not what America is about. I am also very frustrated with the administration continued attempts to eat away at the Bill of Rights. We do not need big brother sticking his nose into everything that everyone buys, sells, rents, says, reads, and believes. I am also very unhappy with his refusal to consider tighter controls on who gets into America. Immigration is one of the things that made America great, but just like medicine, too much of a good thing can be bad. It is time to shut the floodgates, and past time to start kicking some people out. I would prefer a system such as Australia has.

There are many other differences that I have with the Bush administration, but I still much prefer it to the Clinton era.

 

Why because everything was doing it or that going was voluntary suicide

 

Ragusa,

Without support from the governments in the region, these attacks could not be pulled off, at least not in the scale that they currently are. There is a large level of funding, training, and organization that must be coordinated to successfully mount such attacks. The fact is, terrorism will never be completely eliminated. Even if the "west" was to completely walk away from the Middle East, the area would explode, and that instability would spread. After the fallout (and I mean that is a literal sense as well) the nations that were left would still resent the west, and would begin making extravagant demands (extortion), and the enforcement of these demands would come in the form of terrorism. The alternative is to systematically eliminate the support that these terrorist organizations need to operate. This is not going to be an easy or short undertaking. It will involve diplomacy, economic leverage, and even military action.

You may disagree with the theory, but it is a consideration, and I believe that it is the US government’s intention to follow this doctrine. History will determine if it was a folly.

Sorry for the second quick post, but I just now had a chance to read and consider Ragusa’s post.

 

I think it is good that the USA attacked Iraq, the iraqi people will be better off without their fuggin' "president".

 

If you think this war is about 'liberating' the Iraqis from their 'fuggin' president', then you need to scrutinize more carefully (or start at least). The states doesn't give a rip about the Iraqi people. It's a constant power struggle to keep the states on top and 'safe'. The can't stop the inevitable (that being a nuke going off in downtown New York), it's only a matter of time. They're really grasping at anything to keep the US as a world power.

 

Quoting Mystra's:

Is it just me or did that have a just a little vitriol in it?

 

Mystra's Chosen -- It is not inevitable that nukes would be used on any city in the US. Consider that the US has enough nukes to destroy the entire world several times over.

If millions of people die in a US city, you can be sure that every suspected party will receive pretty much the same, and very quickly -- including Iran, North Korea and other targets that are loaded into the targeting system at NORAD. With something of that magnitude there will be no second guessing. What you are suggesting is that the doomsday clock is running for most of the civilized world. I pray it is not for everyone's sake.

Note: When Bush was asked in his recent press interview -- the one with Tony Blair - if nukes were being considered for Iraq, Bush would not answer the question directly, but started talking on another subject. I found that very troubling.

[ April 03, 2003, 07:05: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

I read a very interesting commentary in an IEE journal recently. It made the case FOR using nuclear weapons in the fight against Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein. First off, you have to realize that not every nuclear warhead is a hugely powerful city-buster like the ones dropped in Japan. Smaller nukes could be used to take out bunkers or networks of caves; since the majority of the radiation would be contained underground, it ouldn't have to be widely detrimental. Also, the author pointed out that a nuclear weapon would be the only way to destroy a biological weapons facility without spreading the toxins into the environment - conventional weapons wouldn't generate enough heat to kill the bad bugs.

This isn't necessarily a decisive argument, but it is something interesting to think about.

 

Small nukes do not work this way. Firstly, according to this article written by a retired officer of UK army, small nukes cannot penetrate deep enough to destroy underground bunkers.

Also, as far as the danger of nuclear pollution is concerned, the report , which is used by the author of the above article states the following:

 

Are we heading for darker times? Some are already calling for a jihad: http://www.englishsabla.com/forum/showthread.php?s=e499e48ab7838f82bda1f90c99b49f86&threadid=11973 . It might be nothing new, but we don't know if this time Muslim nations will take it seriously and actually go into holy war.

 

Darkwolf have you or any US citizen considered this question; what has the US done to provoke this hatred from the rest of the world; Because my friend you must know that there is no reaction without an action, it is a fundamental life truth. Is it that US has munipulated these regions (Middle East, Asia, Africa) for her own interests far too long and too much; Or do you think that the people of these regions woke up one day and said what a nice day let's f*** USA today; And if you don't believe me why don't you start reading Chomski (i believe you have heard of him) and learning the news from another source other than US. You can't imagine how different are the news presented in my country for example. I don't imply that terrorism is justified but noone can judje the terrorists until he has seen their point of view. And don't forget that because your country has a working way of life the whole world must or wish to have the same way of life. Personally i believe that your way of life is worse than mine and far more restrained by your goverment. And one more example: Why the terrorists don't strike Germany's or even England's targets; Is it because they are more powerfull than US or is it because they don't affect their lives as US does; You must understand that noone dislikes the people of USA it's the USA goverment and foreign politic we dislike. No nation, person wants USA as an enemy, just sometimes there is aline in how much one can take and these people have taken too much i persume.

 

What a load of tosh. Firstly there is no such thing as a "life truth" other than death and taxes, secondly the laws of action and reaction are physics. Nothing more, nothing less - physics.

You cannot apply physics to human psychology because we have choices and a free will to make those choices. Within physics there are no choices.

Has it ever struck anyone that some of the richest countries in the world breed the most terrorists? Why do these people not have a better life given the oil riches? I'll tell you why - They're being raped by their own leaders and religion. It really has nought to do with the west, but we're a damned convenient scapegoat when their leaders wallow in riches and the people are being ruled by an iron hand. Their countries' resources are being wasted instead of building them up.

Look at the difference in Saudi and Iraq compared to Malaysia (which is also Muslim). Going back 50 or so years these countries were pretty much on a par in terms of poverty and unemployment.

How are we (the West) to blame?

 

Mith,

I have to say that an unlikely white knight championed for me above (thanks Viking, I have to say that you never cease to amaze me), he answered many of the points in a similar manner as to how I would. I will not re-hash.

I would like to respond to a couple of statements you made:

I don't know how you can say this when bin Laden is seen on al Jazeera condemning all Americans to death. He states that women and children are valid targets.

In addition, there are reasons that other nations (other than Israel) are not being targeted as often as the US. One of the largest of these is because we are the most visible western nation. The US was not even a nation when the events that started the distrust and even hatred of the west started in the Middle East. Unfortunately, those in the Middle East see us as the overlords of the west, and consequently we are the target. I admit that we have never done very well at improving our image in the Middle East. There are a lot of reasons for this, but that is for another thread. However, I believe that we have a unique opportunity in Iraq to show that we can be trusted. The people there are already starting to sway. We have already been planning for an Iraqi government. The fundamentals of it are already being implemented in the US using Iraqi expatriates. Hopefully we are learning from our miserable failure in our attempts to set up a new governmentin Afghanistan. Some of this has to do with the relatively primitive social conditions there. In Iraq we have a better chance of establishing a modern representative government. We may fail here as well, but if we succeed, this could lead to a shift in the geopolitical ideals in the region.

At this point, I believe that stopping the war would create even more distrust, and certainly a major loss of respect of and for the US.

 

You know very well that Bin Laden is radical and would say that. However, it is true that most who do not like the U.S. dislike its policies, not the people itself.

It's actually more than that. For centuries, Middle Eastern nations have a reason or two to hold a grudge against Europe, yet it seethes when it comes to the U.S. They see the U.S. as more than overlords of the West, but as actually a nation which is out to carve an empire for itself.

Actually, contrary to what you say, Iraqis dislike the U.S. intrusion. One Iraqi, which our mediamen (I am from Asia, BTW) interviwed, intimated that he doesn't like Saddam, but then he resents American intrusion to what he says is an internal problem. What he said should be seen as a danger for Americans who think they're seen as "saviors" or "liberators": "Saddam is our problem, so let us deal with him our way." This intrusion plays well into the hands of Saddam. Far from a welcome, Americans are now faced with an Iraqi populace who is contemptious of them, and regard this as an invasion rather than liberation.

This plan, unfortunately, might be doomed to fail: some months back, if I am not mistaken, Newsweek carried a story that showed that Iraqis distrust these expats even more than they distrust Saddam, since they are not sure what their agendas are. At least with Saddam, they know what they're up to. Again, it goes back to letting them deal their problem their own way.

This is naive. Middle Eastern people do not like the intrusion, are revolted by the thought of America ruling over Iraq, and would like nothing more than kick the U.S. out of the region. Their leaders, as some say, are however to be faulted for letting Americans into their lands. We are actually witnessing a volcano waiting to erupt, not the liberation that many Americans naively think they're bringing.