The UN, US and Iraq IV

And speaking to your question regarding how the American population might react given another terrorist response...I fear your conclusion is right. Israel is, of course, the precedent example.

0 Replies

Quote:

A new attack on NY would drastically prove the government's rhetorical assertions wrong, when it comes to how the Iraq war has supposedly dealt al-Qaeda a decisive blow - or even significantly hampered its operations

I don't think a terror attack would make the US/Bush look bad, or wrong about the threat of Al-Quaida. Just the opposite.

I don't think any reasonable person holds the US to a perfect record of combating terrorism. I think the funding for operations, and the cloak of safety in several countries having been lifted has significantly hampered al-Quaida's ability to carry out terrorism. Its puzzling to me how anyone could think these actions haven't hurt al-Quaida.

0 Replies

One of the best ways to wage war on al Qaida terrorism is to take away their funding. In this one area, the world community has been successful. More needs to be done.

0 Replies

If there was another attack on US soil and it was pinpointed to, say, the Phillipines or Indonesia -- then what?

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

Quote:
A new attack on NY would drastically prove the government's rhetorical assertions wrong, when it comes to how the Iraq war has supposedly dealt al-Qaeda a decisive blow - or even significantly hampered its operations

I don't think a terror attack would make the US/Bush look bad, or wrong about the threat of Al-Quaida. Just the opposite.

I was kinda (to myself) referring to a discussion I had with Timber the other day ...

Referring to hobit's claim that "the two wars" did no good, he posited that they have led to where "international terrorism has been hindered to the point of having been unable to substantively follow up on 9/11".

I replied, at the time, that "9/11 was a pretty much unique operation - nothing before it was anything like it, nothing after it's been anything like it. To credit that to current government policies seems reckless. On the same logic one could submit that Clinton had a really good anti-al-Qaeda policy, too, cause no 9/11 happened under his presidency. Both arguments are silly". To which he, in turn, countered that in his view, 9/11 was "a point in a progression which began with embassy bombings [etc]", whereas now, "following proactive American response, the efficacy, and audacity, of international terrorist action has declined".

Thats all perfectly in line with the Cheney-Rumsfeld assertions that the Iraq war has dealt a decisive blow to al-Qaeda and that thus, America can sleep a little more safely thanks to the war. And its in opposition to the impression of many of us here that the Iraq war actually, as the International Institute for Strategic Studies put it, "swelled the ranks of al-Qaida and galvanised its will" - increased the terrorist threat, thus - while diverting means and attention from the struggle against it by focusing them on Saddam's unrelated, supposed threat instead.

A major terrorist attack now (even more major than those on Riyad, Casablanca, Bali ..) would suggest the latter suspicion was right - and prove the Bush-government assertions wrong. Not that it would do anyone any good of course - one of the reasons we're so angry is cause we dont want anything like that to happen.

0 Replies

sofia

A page or two back are assessments from Brit intelligence that will resolve your puzzlement, or at least they ought to. The question isn't whether or not their operations have been altered or reduced or damaged, rather it is whether or not their immediate and longer term threat has been reduced - these are different questions. If, for example, we have forced them to rely on low-tech communications, that will make them even more invisible. If we have established an environment wherein recruitment is enhanced, then we may increase the size and dedication of our enemy.

LW

That's a bloody good question.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

If there was another attack on US soil and it was pinpointed to, say, the Phillipines or Indonesia -- then what?

It'd still probably be al-Qaeda - they're there, too, that's the scary bit. That's why the focus on Iraq was such a mistake.

What the Democrats should put out more clearly is that, by obsessing about Saddam's Iraq - which had no ties to al-Qaeda - Bush Jr has endangered the War on Terror, the war against those who did 9/11.

Let the Republicans be the party of the War on Iraq, and the Dems the party of the War on Terror.

Would help in the election, too.

0 Replies

nimh, Excellent idea! I wonder why the dems haven't taken up that call?

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

If there was another attack on US soil and it was pinpointed to, say, the Phillipines or Indonesia -- then what?

I think the Bush administration would follow the Afghanistan model.
They trace the terrorists to Indonesia.
They share the intel with the Indonesian government, and ask them to 'get' the terrorists.
If Indonesia does this, we probably do whatever it is we do to reward countries that help with terrorism.
If Indonesia balks, we remind them that whoever aids and abets terrorists are terrorists....

I think most countries are in line with this policy. And, I think it is justified. You?

0 Replies

Some are trying out that line, c.i. ... you didnt think I could have thought of that myself, did you? :-)

0 Replies

nimh, You deserve all the credit I throw your way. We all regurgitate something we've heard before - sometimes using different words.

0 Replies

Many people are under the impression that cleaning out Iraq is a huge step toward stablization of the ME, which should drastically reduce terrorism in the region, and the world.

0 Replies

The preceding is a very long term solution. Most people who believe in this strategy realize things would probably get worse before they got better.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

Many people are under the impression that cleaning out Iraq is a huge step toward stablization of the ME, which should drastically reduce terrorism in the region, and the world.

Many of these same people also believe the world is only 6000 years old, poverty=sinfulness, and that Jesus spoke Elizabethan English. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

sofia

If there is ANY consensus, it is that they key to middle east stability lies in resolving the Palestinian issue. We'll note that the neocon crowd doesn't share this view, but they are building up a dismal track record, as a lot of other folks predicted would occur (and that's why Wolfowitz, Perle, and Rumsfeld, etc are now no longer glowing, but beginning to stink to high heaven for Bush).

0 Replies

It's curious how, in all of this, the issue of Pakistan never seems to arise -- well, not never, but seldom.

0 Replies

hobitbob wrote:

Quote:
Were Saddam's totalitarian regime to be replaced by a state that respected human rights, enforced the rule of law and created a market economy, it could begin to transform that world." I still believe that.

I agree, now lets analyze this.

Quote:
Were Saddam's totalitarian regime to be replaced by a state that respected human rights

The Replacement, the US, has a lousy track record on human rights,and tends to support repressive regimes that do what we tell them to (Iraq, Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Panama, Honduras,etc...)

Quote:
enforced the rule of law

See above.

Quote:
and created a market economy

Ahhh..the real reason.

You really believe Jesus spoke Elizabethan English, hobit?

0 Replies

It was actually Scotch - the drinking kind.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

hobitbob wrote:
Quote:
Were Saddam's totalitarian regime to be replaced by a state that respected human rights, enforced the rule of law and created a market economy, it could begin to transform that world." I still believe that.

I agree, now lets analyze this.

Quote:
Were Saddam's totalitarian regime to be replaced by a state that respected human rights

The Replacement, the US, has a lousy track record on human rights,and tends to support repressive regimes that do what we tell them to (Iraq, Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Panama, Honduras,etc...)

Quote:
enforced the rule of law

See above.

Quote:
and created a market economy

Ahhh..the real reason.

You really believe Jesus spoke Elizabethan English, hobit?

Actually, I was referring to your compatriots, madame!

0 Replies

But, this: I agree, now lets analyze this...puts you right in the thick of us.

You agreed that the democratization of Iraq could begin to transform the world, as I stated earlier--and you poo'd on. Canna have it both ways, dearie.

0 Replies

The UN, US and Iraq IV

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know