Why al-Qaeda is winning

[Ithaca 37]

Here's what the
Asia Times has to say about Bush's crusade. Like it or not, this is what they read in Asia:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FI11Ak03.html

"Three years after September 11, President George W Bush's crusade is a failure. "War on terror" is a meaningless myth: you can't combat a supple attack machine like al-Qaeda with shock and awe. What should have been a long, meticulous police operation was turned by Bush - instigated by his foreign policy adviser, God - into an illegal, preemptive attack on a nation that had nothing to do with terror.

This policy has actually increased terror attacks around the world. Last year in Cairo, on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, Sheikh Yamani, a man who knows one or two things about Arabs, violence and oil, said the invasion would produce "one hundred bin Ladens". They are here, and they have no one else but Bush to thank........."

 

[Nemont]

Ithaca,
Yes that is what they are reading in Asia. Have you read what they read in Germany, France, Saudi Arabia, Russia etc., etc.? Every country has a media and every media has some kind of bias.

Do you believe that 100 Bin Ladens would not have been produced in the Madrasses and slums of Pakistan, Afgahnistan, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and so on? They are and have been producing 100,000 bin Ladens whether we are at war with them or not.

I am curious what your solution would be? Do you think the war on terror should be a police action or military action? Should be pursue the terrorist where they live and train? If you say you would then you agree that preemption is an acceptable tool. If you we shouldn't pursue them, then do you advocate waiting until we are attacked?

Do you believe we are engaged in a world wide war against terrorism? I am just curious.

Nemont

 

[Ithaca 37]

"Do you believe we are engaged in a world wide war against terrorism?" Yes and I believe in attacking them where they live and train. I'm pretty sure, now, we were too early in our attack on Iraq, but that's with the benefit of hindsight. We probably should have waited til Afghanistan was stablized and given the UN weapons inspectors more time and tried to build more support. I think we were too hasty. We easily could have waited another 6 months.

All that is with my 20/20 hindsight now, but there were plenty of people who were saying those things at the time, too.

As for police or military action; we're going to have to use both and any other options we have, too. We're going to have to be flexible and use whatever tool is best for the situation-----probably a combination of many efforts for many years. Force, diplomacy, sanctions, education and anything else we can think of.

I didn't post that stuff from the Asia news because I agree with it all, neccessarily. Mostly I'm often surprised at what other opinions are expressed around the world. It's helpful to be aware of them, even though we may disagree.

One of my own solutions in Iraq would be to tell everyone who wants to live to get out of Fallujah and register with the Iraq troops on the way out. Give them plenty of time to take any belongings they cherish. Anyone who wants to stay in Fallujah and fight is welcome to stay. Then flatten the whole city.

 

[feclnogn]

I think we were too hasty. We easily could have waited another 6 months.

Didn't the intel at the time contradict this statement??? We went I thought based on the intel we had which gave us a sense of urgency. Didn't Tennet say to Bush it was a slam dunk?? At the time it was the right thing to do, looking back like you say maybe we should have waited, but if the intel would have turned out to be true and we waited we would be discussing how Bush failed and let the US down like we were doing when Clark was making his accusations.

 

[Ithaca 37]

fecl, some intel said it was urgent. Some people said the intel was incorrect. I just think Dubya was too anxious to get started, and I think part of his urgency was a personal dislike for Saddam and wanting to clean up the mess Bush senior left. Once again, all with hindsight. But I'm not the guy who was getting paid the big bucks to make those decisions at the time. Who knows what I would have decided if I had been able to listen to all sides of the argument at the time, but I bet I would have been more objective and less biased than Dubya.

 

[feclnogn]

Who knows what I would have decided if I had been able to listen to all sides of the argument at the time?

I would agree with that.

 

[Delw]

Why al-Qaeda is winning

cause we didnt nuke the SOBS.
we had to listen to the liberial BS and france and germany and everyone else as to why we shouldnt do what we did. if we didnt try to play nice we would have clobbered there ass's immediatly

Asain times germany times london times they cann all kiss my Fat riding atv ass. I dont care what other countries think of us, this includes CA and canada


Delw

 

[JoseCuervo]

Fecl,

What was the urgency for Iraq??? I thought we had them bottled up with the No-Fly zone, they were starving, couldn't sell much oil. Why not just let the eventual coup take place??? IF the citizens didn't like being tortured, why didn't they rise up, or join the Kurds??? They sure seem good at fighting militaries now....

Del,

Who would you Nuke???? You gonna Nuke all of Afghanastan, just to see how many women in Burkas and children you can kill???

That is how 100 more Bin Ladens get created, by killing innocent children in Islamic countries.

 

[MarlandS]

It would seem the urgency for Iraq was, in part, all the quotes from Clinton etc from 1998 or so on about Saddam HAVING WMD's and needing to be taken out.

It would also seem that THE failure was debating the War for such a long time prior to the invasion. Suppose the reports of Saddam shipping everything out because he knew the attack was imminent were true? He did bury those fighter jets, hoping to weather the storm. What else is buried in the sandbox?

The "no fly" zone didn't cover the roads, there should have been a blockade at all the border crossings which could have halted any removal of weapons.

The radical Islamists declared War on us long ago , we should have taken it seriously then and maybe , just maybe mind you, we wouldn't be in the fix we're in now.

There had been 10 years to gather the intel, six months wouldn't have made a whole lot of difference except by then Saddam would have had it looking like he was Mother Teresa.

The Intel was more right than it is being given credit for, let me put it this way , The CPO's (the US) has spoken to your hunting buddy (France , Germany, Russia, whoever)that you (Iraq) about you having poached animals in your freezer they have said that in six days they are going in to look. You do have poached animals , your buddy has told you of the impending investigation, do you leave the animals or do you move them?

 

[JoseCuervo]

MarS,

Even you get confused on the War on Terror and the Iraqi Occupation. In your 4th paragraph, you switch to "radical Islamists" after 3 paragraphs of Saddam/Iraq and then follow back up with more on Iraq.

YOu just kind of shown Dubya's failed logic of tieing Iraq to the War on Terror. It doesn't stop terrorists, it creates them.

 

[FLIPPER]

I'm with you Del...

Let's start where the sand begins in the west and go to where it ends in the east...93% of the worlds problems solved

 

[FLIPPER]

Originally posted by ElkGunner:
That is how 100 more Bin Ladens get created, by killing innocent children in Islamic countries.

Uh....that is called "Preventive Maintenance!"

Get them before they grow up to be just like grandfather and father...Terrorists

 

[whitedeer]

I agree Flipper - look at Uday and Qusay.....they are prime examples of what are being groomed by law breakers, whatever the country.....we have plenty of these examples in our own country if they would get control....."Kill them all, and let God sort them out!".....there are no innocent children in a terrorist household! Only future terrorist.....Oh yes, Gunner.....let us take the high road.....so out children and grandchildren can live under bootheels of the leftist elite.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Whitedeer and Flipper,

YOu guys are as confused as Cheney is....

If you are trying to get terrorists, you go after Bin Laden. And that should be easy to find the Bin Laden family, as they are generally where you find Bush Sr. YOu might look at Kennebunkport if you really want to find Bin Laden's family....

Flipper,
As for your preventive maintenance, I pray that the terrorists you want to kill don't start "preventive maintenance" at our schools, killing our children. What a horrible idea you have to start killing children.

WD,
HOw do you expect Del's nuke weapon to only kill the children in the terrorist households, but not the other 99% of the children that would be killed???

Let's hope if Dubya is re-elected, he listens to people like Colin Powell and not people like you.

 

[whitedeer]

"America has a message for the nations of the world. If you harbor terrorists, you are terrorists. If you train or arm a terrorist, you are a terrorist. If you feed a terrorist or fund a terrorist, you're a terrorist, and you will be held accountable by the United States and our friends."

'Nuf said!

 

[MarlandS]

Originally posted by ElkGunner:
MarS,

Even you get confused on the War on Terror and the Iraqi Occupation. In your 4th paragraph, you switch to "radical Islamists" after 3 paragraphs of Saddam/Iraq and then follow back up with more on Iraq.

YOu just kind of shown Dubya's failed logic of tieing Iraq to the War on Terror. It doesn't stop terrorists, it creates them.

No Gunner, you are the one who is confused , I was responding to individual thoughts in prior posts , don't worry the authors of those thoughts I was responding to probably know who they are . I have no problem keeping concepts separated but it's really nice to see that you are an equal opportunity offender.

 

[Delw]

Who would you Nuke???? You gonna Nuke all of Afghanastan, just to see how many women in Burkas and children you can kill???

That is how 100 more Bin Ladens get created, by killing innocent children in Islamic countries

Really, I havent seen many japanese blowing up buildings and killing americans lately


Yes

 

[JoseCuervo]

You are absolutely right Del,.... As I am pretty sure that most of the 19 terrorists had connections to Saudi Arabia. Don't think many of them were Japanese....

But could you answer the question on your "nuke 'em all" as to how you are going to not kill innocent children and not create "100 more bin Ladens"? Isn't it kind of hard to meet Dubya's goal of "winning their hearts" if you are nuking civilian populations????

 

[AprilW]

Originally posted by ElkGunner:
Flipper,
As for your preventive maintenance, I pray that the terrorists you want to kill don't start "preventive maintenance" at our schools, killing our children. What a horrible idea you have to start killing children.

Elkgunner,

The terrorists did kill our children: in the Trade Center and on the planes.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Not in the manner that Del is advocating...