War against Terror?

[PoisonedX]

War against terrorism started after 9/11, do you think currently the world is doing enough to fight terrorism?

I don’t think so, I think to fight terrorism, you should fight the reasons people are becoming terrorists in addition to fighting the terrorists.

No matter how much we fight the terrorists, if the main problems are still there, we can’t do much because new groups will show up.

[InsanitysAngel]

War against terrorism started after 9/11, do you think currently the world is doing enough to fight terrorism?

I don’t think so, I think to fight terrorism, you should fight the reasons people are becoming terrorists in addition to fighting the terrorists.

No matter how much we fight the terrorists, if the main problems are still there, we can’t do much because new groups will show up.


Like treating the symptoms and ignoring the disease, yes, interesting way to look at it.

I don't know what could ever be done to truly address the reasons people are becoming terrorist, some of their ideas are pretty fanatical from what I've read.

[vervilledeb1]

Like treating the symptoms and ignoring the disease, yes, interesting way to look at it.

I don't know what could ever be done to truly address the reasons people are becoming terrorist, some of their ideas are pretty fanatical from what I've read.

Yes fanatical but we need to remember in many of these countries this begins when they are children..they are brainwashed to hate the US. Many of these people KNOW they are going to die.

[WileyCoyote]

How about if we give them what they claim they want? Freedom from Western values. Isolate them. The Bible says, "Resist ye not evil". Don't play by their rules. They want to kill and destroy anything that makes them pissed off. So does Dubya. We should take our ball and go home.

So it's great that Saddam has been deposed. But the fundamental issues remain. People who are unwilling to fight for themselves. Ridding Iraq of Saddam was not our job. It was the job of the people of Iraq. Had we not built him up to fight with Iran he would have had no power. We need to go back to being isolationist.

Isolate ourselves from other people's issues and isolate the crazies from civilized society. Blockade Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria, et al until they either destroy themselves or get their act together. We have known for at least 30 years that dependency on Middle East oil would compromise our freedom and integrity and we've done squat to deal with it.

[beachlover1222]

It seems like these days we're fighting with everyone on the map. What happens when our troop levels are so spread out that we have to institute a draft to replenish?

[blaze]

It seems like these days we're fighting with everyone on the map. What happens when our troop levels are so spread out that we have to institute a draft to replenish?

That is a scary thought!
I think we have that many countries to call upon though with large armies that this will not happen.
Is there anywhere we can find out exactly how many troops are currently deployed world wide?

[vicki2]

All those tax dollars which go toward new weaponry isn't for nothing. Iraq was and is a mess, but the high tech stuff worked well in Desert Storm and to a decent extent in Afganistan.

I don't think we planned on hand to hand combat in Iraq.

[Kokotai]

I believe that we really should just leave the other countries alone. One of the reasons that other countries hate the United States is because they are in everyone elses business all of the time. The US doesn't have to "save the world from itself", if they stayed tom themselves, sure other countries might expereince suffering but at least they could work it out on their own. What amazes me is that the US would never stand for someone else coming onto their soil and telling them how to run things yet they do exactly that to everyone else.

[Whirling Dervish]

I believe that we really should just leave the other countries alone. One of the reasons that other countries hate the United States is because they are in everyone elses business all of the time. The US doesn't have to "save the world from itself", if they stayed tom themselves, sure other countries might expereince suffering but at least they could work it out on their own. What amazes me is that the US would never stand for someone else coming onto their soil and telling them how to run things yet they do exactly that to everyone else.

On top of this, Kokotai, I recall reading that we put Saddam in power long before we thought we had to yank him out.

Anyone recall that? I can't remember where I read it or I'd back up my farfetched claim.

[vicki2]

It's one of those haxy areas, Dervish. And, we've been caught in that before where if a country is in trouble, the thought that a possible leader may calm things down and make it more stable will help. I honestly think that decisions like that can't be avoided because it's an initial attempt to let a country work out its own problems.

If we did back Saddam, it's pretty likely that whoever the opponent was ...was probably a lot worse lol.

[Franklin]

In 1983, Ronald Reagan dispatched Donald Rumsfeld to Iraq to meet with Saddam to restore diplomatic relations in an attempt to ensure Iraqi victory in the war between Iraq and Iran. At that time, there were already allegations of Saddam's use of chemical weapons. The dictionary shows a picture of Rumsfeld under the entry for "hypocrite".

[vicki2]

The obvious question I have to ask you then is who was the alternative for Saddam Hussein when your alleged meeting with Rumsfeld took place. Let's talk about which one might have been a better choice at the time. Sometimes, it's called diplomatic relations.

[Franklin]

Hi Vicki,

I must take exception to your use of the phrase, "your alleged meeting...", which seems to imply that I made it up. A simple Google search on "Rumsfeld Saddam" will yield many pages supporting this FACT, as well as photos of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand. That Rumsfeld met with Saddam is a fact - whether or not making a deal with the devil was noble is an opinion.

You also seem to be jumping to a conclusion which you apparently have no evidence to support - that the alternative to supporting Saddam would have been worse. Given that you weren't even aware of the alliance with Saddam, I find it hard to believe that you would have information sufficient to support such a conclusion.

[vicki2]

If, perhaps, in your mind, I was not clear ...let me put it in question form for you? When the meeting between Saddam Hussein and Rumsfeld took place, who was Saddam's opposition? I think it would be interesting to know, and since you've done the research, I thought I might get an answer. That's all.
I don't think it's an unimportant aspect of the story.

I also ask because there have been other times in history with other countries where the U.S. has backed the leader of a country ... not because we agreed with their policy but because it seemed the most stable for that country given the options.

[NicoMoon]

This is a pretty dry read, but it seems to provide a fair outline of the US support for Iraq during the Iran Iraq war.



Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein:
The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984


http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

I found this quote to be stunningly relevant:

"While condemning Iraq's chemical weapons use . . . The United States finds the present Iranian regime's intransigent refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of eliminating the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq to be inconsistent with the accepted norms of behavior among nations and the moral and religious basis which it claims"

According to the article: "Almost all of the primary documents included in this briefing book were obtained by the National Security Archive through the Freedom of Information Act and were published in 1995 "

Lots to digest in this article. I think it's a good insight into the workings of diplomacy and national defense. I am not an isolationist, the US Government is charged to defend and protect the citizenry, and clearly that will involve engaging in these kinds of judgement calls and negotiations with leaders of states that we might not be in full aligment with. Sometimes you have to pick your poison, and in this case, that's a literal statement.

What bothers me the most about the situation is that the US clearly did not act in the most appropriate way to Saddam's use of chemical weapons against the Iranians. However, it's also interesting to note that the situation certainly provides insight into why the current administration had valid concerns about the presence of WMDs in Iraq.

All things considered, however, I see nothing in this article that would indicate hypocrisy on the part of the US for ultimately taking a stand against Saddam.

[Whirling Dervish]

Thanks for clarifying, Nico. I was racking my brain trying to remember how all this went down and all I could come up with was that we supported him at one time.

Any updates recently on the WMD hunt? Last I heard several people were admitting there weren't any, but I haven't heard much from there. Seemed to jus tdrop right out of the hole in the bottom of the news.

[NicoMoon]

Thanks for clarifying, Nico. I was racking my brain trying to remember how all this went down and all I could come up with was that we supported him at one time.

I needed a refresher course myself. Trying to sort through the middle east mess is a full time job. I still don't have a clear position to take on this, unless it's "why can't we all just get along?" But I guess that one isn't going to float any boats! :D


Any updates recently on the WMD hunt? Last I heard several people were admitting there weren't any, but I haven't heard much from there. Seemed to jus tdrop right out of the hole in the bottom of the news.

This is something else I have to research. I keep hearing that they have been finding WMDs all along, and continue to, but it is true that Rumsfeld agreed that they're weren't any at one time. I can't say that I find him to be any icon to honesty or accuracy, that's for sure. Rumsfeld creeps me out. I have no sense that he actually gives a crap about being honest or straightforward, he seems like one of those grinning contemptuous frauds to me. It could be that he lies when the truth would serve him better, who knows?

We're in a very frustrating and confusing situation here, that's all I can say. I don't know that it's possible for us to ever know the truth.

[vicki2]

Thanks for the link, which was dry reading but interesting too. The handshake with Saddam was a part of normal diplomatic relations and should be understood for what it was at the time. Things change and Saddam was certainly one of them!

[NicoMoon]

Thanks for the link, which was dry reading but interesting too. The handshake with Saddam was a part of normal diplomatic relations and should be understood for what it was at the time. Things change and Saddam was certainly one of them!

Yes, it did put some perspective on all the claims that the US put Saddam in power, etc. The difference between rumors and facts is really amazing.

I think the reason that so many people don't bother to research the facts is because they're emotionally attached to certain rumors and don't want to risk rattling their own cages. Which is a shame, because the facts are so much more useful than rumors are, if we actually do care about knowing the truth.

I do wish that more people operated with clearer heads. I think that would solve a lot of the world's problems.

[WileyCoyote]

We had to go into Iraq, even though the evidence was spotty, because the risk was so high. Even a relatively small chance that Saddam had WMDs was cause for alarm. Hmm, was the risk greater than Global Warming, assuming that there is anything to Global Warming? The predictions of dire circumstances caused by Global Warming by those who believe it to be real are at least as alarming as the notion of Saddam having WMDs. But there's no proof. Oh, so we need proof when the threat is one that concerns the Left, but if the threat is one embraced by the Right, one mercenary informant's word is good enough. Even though there were many in the intelligence community that expressed doubts.


Let's see: To defend ourselves against Saddam's alleged WMDs, we need to send over 100 thousand troops to Iraq for years, disrupting the eco-system there, causing massive loss of life, economic upheaval, short-term (we hope_ instability in the Middle East, Al Qaeda recruitment propaganda, loss of political capital throughout the world. If we're wrong about the threat, we make fools of ourselves, destroy many lives and waste vast sums of money.


To defend against Global Warming, we need to drive less, make more fuel-efficient cars, develop alternate energy sources and abide by the Kyoto agreement, which would earn us the respect of other countries. If we're wrong about the threat, we still become less dependent on foreign energy, making us safer, we garner respect and political capital around the world, we get to breathe cleaner air.


Yep, makes sense to me that the Shrub would choose to focus on the alleged threat posed by Saddam.

BTW, even if WMDs are eventually found, Dubya is not off the hook. He claimed we knew where they were. He was sure they existed. How sure could he be if no one saw them? Maybe he technically didn't lie. He wasn't sure that there were NOT WMDs. But I contend that he lied to himself, at least. To refuse to look objectively at ALL the data is to be dishonest.

[vicki2]

I don't think Bush lied to himself about WMD, but I think what creditable information we did have was twisted to fit the need. That's almost more stupid than lying to oneself because it's easier to discount over time.

In talking with people who know about WMD, I am told, and I believe them, that too often we see Weapon of Mass Destruction, and assume it to be like a missle silo or something huge. IN the case of what Iraq probably had, their WMDs could often have been gotten out of the country in a large piece of luggage ...and proably was long before we attacked.

Of course, they had months to do this with good old Hans Blix and his team sniffing around openly over there. I have never understood what all that wasn't factored into the decision to attack. I also miss the good old days of the CIA ability to go in and assassinate a leader ..it was better then.

[NicoMoon]

I don't think Bush lied to himself about WMD, but I think what creditable information we did have was twisted to fit the need. That's almost more stupid than lying to oneself because it's easier to discount over time.

Bush didn't have to lie to himself in order to come up with a compelling argument in favor of taking out Saddam. The attacks on the World Trade Center fueled the terrorist movement, and Iraq under Saddam's leadership was a strategically advantageous scenario for the proliferation of activities, including access to the resources needed to build nuclear weapons. I could never figure out why Bush didn't make this argument, instead of simply claiming that there were WMDs present in Iraq at the time.

Benjamin Netanhayu, former Prime Minister of Israel was all over this country making his case in favor of a pre-emptive strike against Saddam, and it was a compelling one. I don't know why Bush didn't bother himself by providing us with the full reasoning that did support a strike against Saddam at the time. He shot himself in the foot with that one, IMO. I'm looking for a more comprehensive article than this opinion by Netanyahu, but it does show that Bush didn't just dream up reasons to go into Iraq.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002303

Of course, they had months to do this with good old Hans Blix and his team sniffing around openly over there. I have never understood what all that wasn't factored into the decision to attack.

I always thought that the inspections were a joke for the same reasons. Iraq is a huge country. As Netanyahu points out in another argument "Two decades ago it was possible to thwart Saddam's nuclear ambitions by bombing a single installation. Today nothing less than dismantling his regime will do. For Saddam's nuclear program has changed. He no longer needs one large reactor to produce the deadly material necessary for atomic bombs. He can produce it in centrifuges "
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002303 (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002303)



I also miss the good old days of the CIA ability to go in and assassinate a leader ..it was better then.

Amen to that! It certainly beats the heck out of going to war! Do you know how and when this function was denied? That would be interesting information.

[vicki2]

I'll have to do a bit of research, which I can't do today, but there was a law made limiting the covert activities of the CIA some years ago. The law especially forbid assasinations.

I can see the point, but I am certain in the old days, we were saved wars from time to time not to mention a few good movies later on!

[beachlover1222]

I see no end to the madness. Not as long as you have uncivilized people willing to kill each other. The maniacs over there are totally unrational. We have two choices-- either take over all the countries where these maniacs live, or just leave them to kill each other. Either way works for me.

[Fluffernutter]

Iraq wasn't a threat to anybody. We've vastly increased the terrorism in that part of the world and totally destabilized and wrecked Iraq by the invasion, which had absolutely not the slightest thing to do with Iraq being a threat to anybody. Iraq being a 'threat' was just a pretense to invade the country. If Iraq hadn't been oil rich, we wouldn't have gone anywhere near the place. The real terrorists were in Afghanistan - instead of doing careful intelligence work to find and capture the real terrorists in Afghanistan, we just bombed the country indiscriminately, killing thousands of innocent people, thus allowing the terrorist leaders (such as bin Laden)to escape.