Defeat in Iraq?

[cherdano]

And third, I think this will result into ZERO extra attacks on the western world. Terrorist organizations have their own schedule, they already know the western world is evil, they don't need wars to prove that. So they are going to use terrorism regardless of what we do. The solution is to find out about the plot before it happens, not attack countries afterwards.

But wars helps them to be a lot more popular, and helps them to recruit more members.

 

My perception (based on my limited knowledge of IRA, ETA, RAF, Hamas) is that prosecution is never enough to extinct a terrorist movement. Only when they lose sympathy of their followers (either because more people can see what the terrorists are doing is wrong, or because everybody can see that the political aims are better achieved without terrorism) they will eventually drain out.

 

Of course, the comparison is problematic. I admit I can see some politically motivated rationale behind the actions of IRA, ETA or Hamas, but none at all for Al-Qaeda.

[pbleighton]

"But wars helps them to be a lot more popular, and helps them to recruit more members."

 

Exactly. These groups don't exist in a vacuum

 

"I admit I can see some politically motivated rationale behind the actions of IRA, ETA or Hamas, but none at all for Al-Qaeda."

 

I can. They want to establish a theocracy across the Muslim world, and are willing to kill as many Muslims and non-Muslims as it takes to accomplish this.

 

Peter

[Winstonm]

I consider fundementalists Christianity every every bit as alien as fundementalist Islam, Hinduism what have. A pox on all your houses...

 

Extremism and intolerance become the religion, no matter what name it has as its mask.

[Winstonm]

We do keep coming back to this theme.....

 

Are we truly at war, some....full blown win or lose and die full blown war?

 

 

Mike, I can only give you my opinion, not facts. Personally, I do not accept the President's claim that we are at war, unless he is talking about a war of aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan begun by the U.S.

 

The only thing we should be, imo, is on a heightened state of alert for the possibility of terrorism. If a bank is robbed, the bank doesn't go to war against bank robbers - the bank increases its security to prevent a recurrence.

 

And by the way, there is now hard science on the towers destruction - a paper is being prepared by Dr. Steven Jones and his colleagues for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that shows that the collapse speed of the three buildings violates the physics concept of conservation of momentum, which rules out any type of pancake collapse, while tests done by Dr. Jones and confirmed by an independent laboratory on dust and slag from the sites shows a zinc anamoly, which is consistent with the hypothesis of the use of military-style thermite and its derivatives.

[helene_t]

We do keep coming back to this theme.....

 

Are we truly at war, some....full blown win or lose and die full blown war?

It probably depends on your definition of the term "War". You could also call it a Py-Party or a Strawberry Poridge or whatever. Nixon had his "war on cancer" so maybe the term "war" applies to any obcession of a U.S. president. Semantics, seschmantics.

 

I'm not sure what purpose it serves to call the campaign against terror a "war". Does it make some of the US government's dirty tricks easier to swallow?

[mike777]

"I'm not sure what purpose it serves to call the campaign against terror a "war..."

 

Excellent question Helene. Assuming it does serve some purpose can you think of any that are legitimate?

 

If not than it is obvious you do not thing we are at war hence my comment. :rolleyes:

[pbleighton]

"If not than it is obvious you do not thing we are at war hence my comment."

 

Speaking for myself, not Helene:

 

Our invasion of Iraq (which is a war) IS NOT PART of our effort against anti-Western radical Islamic terrorism, which is primarily against Al Quaeda. In fact, it has been counterproductive to that effort. This effort is often called a war. While not absolutely wrong, it is inaccurate, since wars are between countries or groups of countries.

 

Saddam Hussein was a secular tyrant with regional ambitions. He and Bin Laden hate each other. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Calling what we do against terrorism a "war" is a bad idea because sloppy language leads to sloppy thinking, such as conflating Iraq and Al Quaeda, and sloppy thinking leads to stupid, self-destructive actions, such as the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

 

Peter

[Al_U_Card]

If W cited Nostradamus and said that Saddam was the antithetical "Mabus" and we had to cleanse Iraq and the world of his influence "before" he rained down fire upon the "canyons" of the "new city"...he would have been rode out of Washington on a rail.

 

The whole mess is typical and completely understandable. Look to the reasons and you will understand the causes. The US is in its death throes as far as being a world power goes. The eventual confrontation between China and the "rest" of the world (those states that won't align themselves against the inevitable Chinese expansion into Korea, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan et al) only remains to be determined in terms of time and place. Get ready, for a world of trouble is a-comin'.

[Winstonm]

"I'm not sure what purpose it serves to call the campaign against terror a "war..."

 

Excellent question Helene.  Assuming it does serve some purpose can you think of any that are legitimate?

 

If not than it is obvious you do not thing we are at war hence my comment.  :blink:

The "War on Terror" is more than just euphanism - it was used to create the Militatay Commissions Act and John Warner Act as well as domestic wiretapping.

 

There must be a "war" to justify wartime presidential powers.

 

It is again interesting to find that the BBC reports that the ringleader in the infamous "liquid bomb" scare that had us all dumping our drinks before boarding a plan has been found to have absolutely zero ties to any terrorist organization and the "bomb" material cited was hydrogen peroxide. Of course, this won't be reported on Pravda....er....Fox News.....not enough scare value.