The War on Terror

Big Ears

omnicorp wrote:

So why doesn't Bush go into Northern Ireland and sort out the "real IRA"?
Or why doesn't he go to Checnya to sort out the problems there?
Hmmm?
Maybe because they don't have oil?

em Checnya does have oil , why the hell else do you think Russia still wants it ?

Big Ears

Champ wrote:

Bush attacked for admitting war on terror cannot be won
From:ireland.com
Tuesday, 31st August, 2004
http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/topstories/3902249?view=Eircomnet

Nice to see what Bush himself thinks of it.

Well i don't think thats one of the better things to say before the election; given Americans seem to credit Bush with better handling of homeland security than Kerry (correct me if i'm wrong); and that's one of his stronger points in getting re-elected.

so he's saying the war on terror is so people in the west won't like terrorists ?

SkepticOne

Flukey wrote:

We have to reduce the amount of reasons for people to hate the west. In many situations this apporach has worked. We know the difference in Ireland over the past 10 years as a result of th process of trying to address the problems at the root of Northern Ireland. We are in a much improved situation as a result. Tackling apartheid made a big change in South Africa. There are other examples. Neither places are totally free of violence, but things have considerably improved.

However, with the armed struggle in South Africa, the specific goal was the end to apartheid. Once that had gone the ANC became a political party. In the case of the North, a compromise was reached that allowed for the (at least partial) peace between the factions.

What then do we make of those who kidnapped and are threatening to murder the French journalists if the ban on veils in schools is not lifted. Would it not be immoral of the French to bend to pressure of this sort and lift the ban? Yet, for these particular terrorists, killing journalists to bring about a change in another country's school regulations is simply part of their Jihad.

omnicorp

Well. Mr. Bush isn't known for his intelligence... Maybe he didn't know that the War was wrong?

Nick_oliveri

Wtf? War on terror. Right, America and Britain invaded Iraq, occupied it and whatever. Does this mean the Iraqis are all terrorists, or just the ones they blew up in their "precise" attack? Four more years? National identity cards, many more countries to fcuk up, and a whole lot of gullable mofos to manipulate into believing they are in danger. What a wonderful world. Evolution has probably come to a halt and is backtracking. I thought people were supposed to get smarter, build utopias and sh!t. Rise up against oppressors, denounce greed and feed those with famine. There was always some fcuking place being bombed all across the world, but a large scale american and foreign interest explodes (Again) and all of a sudden everyone gives a sh!t and the world isn't safe, and these "weapons of mass destruction come out from nowhere", with danger of "imminent threat". Who funded the Al Queda? 45 minutes wasn't it? That Saddam could load up an imaginary nuclear bomb in a giant elastic catapult and hurl it over to America. All because of mass government and media manipulation. Deal with the problem at the source, infiltrate "terrorist" cells, actually charge them with terrorist activities with evidence to back it up, dont just leave them in a camp on an island outside of Cuba without charge rubbing anti-humanitarianism in everybodys face. More Micheal Moores are promised to do the very same as the Bush administration, EDIT the thruth. Tell us theres a big conspiricy going on. When the thruth is obvious, stupidity. Confuse and stupify us all they will. So who, of all world leaders will guide us through all this "chaos" with thruth, dignity, morality and peace? Bush, Putin, Chirac, Blair, Ahern, the Pope or little green men on mars? So they deal with the problem by making it worse, and somehow manage to not deal with the problem.... at all. Hmmmmm.

Shopping list

bit of a revolution - 0$
bit of love -0$
bit of peace -0$
bit of logic -0$
bit of equality -0$
bit of morality -0$

Question - Would you let your kids watch Sky news or CNN?
I wonder what little Danny's reaction was at two in the afternoon when he saw the charred corpse of an American soldier being dragged through the streets of iraq. With that disturbing streak of blood going down the road. off topic i know but thoughtfull nonetheless.

omnicorp

You forgot a bit of Socialism.

Now, why don't we all stick out 2 fingers and declare:

"Two more months!"

That's right, 2 more fcuking months in office,
in that office that now represents lies, war, deceit, blood, treachery and Death.

Lord Usurper of the world throne, The right dishonourable Mr. Bush.
Hail Bush

Big Ears

omnicorp wrote:

Hail Bush

Just to correct you there , hang would be the word you're looking for .

Batbat

Big Ears wrote:

Just to correct you there , hang would be the word you're looking for .

hang is too good for that scum

Stabshauptmann

Batbat wrote:

hang is too good for that scum

I disagree, I dont believe that even Bush deserves the death penalty. Even if we accept for the purpose of debate that he is guilty of war crimes and partly responsible for the thousands of deaths since the begining of the war on terror, I wouldnt approve the death penalty.
I believe that nobody can definitivly judge another person since we dont and can never know all the circumstances of an action or thought. I also strongly disapprove of absulutes, which the death penalty is.

Stabshauptmann

As for War on Terror; War: A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious. I think it would be accurate to say that the american ppl by and large are very much afraid or dare i say terrorised. Wether this is justified or not we'll discuss in a moment, but just to point out, that if the efforts of Mr. Bush have not made the american ppl FEEL any safer then it is failing.

Do american ppl have a good reason to be afraid: Yes. That is to say, its understandable. American soil hadnt been attacked in nearly two centuries.* The american mentality was one of invincibility then all of a sudden there are three attacks from unknown emenies.** Its not just the attacks; an entire idea has been shattered.

Now the war drums are beating and american soldiers are comming home in body bags, new stringint measures are in place for your safety but you are constantly reminded to be vigillant because even these arent enough. The President even confided in you that this is a war we mat not be able to win.

It is terrifying.

Should the war be fought: ie should Terror be stopped: Yes.
Can it be stopped: Probably.
Is america winning the war: No.
Is america going about the war the right way: No.
Does Bush want to win the war: I dont think so, but then again I read too much orwellian litriture



*Pearl Harbour doesnt count since it was not american soil per say and it was a military installation.
**9/11, The anthrax scare, The washington sniper.

ionapaul

Necromancer wrote:

The President even confided in you that this is a war we mat not be able to win.

Bush made a mistake telling the truth there. Truth has no place in a political campaign! If FF, FG, Labour, PDs, SF, et al ever told the truth during a campaign they would be wiped out. I don't even think that 'effective leader' and 'honest person' are particularly compatible anymore, and at least are not attractive to the average Joe Schlub on the street. Honest Abe Lincoln wouldn't get out of a city council these days - not enough spin for the masses to lap up!
Unfortunately I think the 'War on Terror' will have an extremely long life, while being only partially successful. I do believe it essential to counter the terrorists though, despite sowing seeds for future problems - 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' situation

steviec

Billy Kovachy wrote:

It is obvious the war on terror is losing.It can be clearly shown in the last week with the recent Airplane crashes in Russia,the French Government being held for ransom (over scarfs next theyll be asking for the coversion of Bush to Islam) with the captured of french hostages.A strong international agreement and cooperation is needed which will not happen in the near future.

Russia and France haven't exactly stood shoulder to shoulder with America in the war on terror have they? If they did then things may or may not be going better for them.
America hasn't been attacked since the 'war on terror' began, of course you could argue it hadn't been attacked for a fair while before September 11th either, but really the only way Americans can rate the success is by the fact they haven't been attacked.

Billy Kovachy

Unfortunately even if you are against war in Iraq as was France and Russia terrorism still affects their citizens and lands with extreme prejudice. I believe that the military effort is only one part of the solution the other is to isolate the fundamentalists within the Muslim/Islamic from the main majority of moderates within the religion. Along the similiar lines the French are following with clergs and Palestine leaders for the release of their citizens by having prominate members of the muslim society side against terrorism instead of remaining silent on the international stage. However American diplomacy has never been their greatest asset with this region due to ties with Israel. However talks will cease against views held by Al quieda and the black widow groups. That is why I believe the French reporters have been murdered like previous internationals. I do hope iam wrong. There needs to be an increase urgency to get law and order enforced in Iraq, woefully dire at the moment. Bush should not be re-elected (although something tells me he will be, once again hope iam wrong).Military wise tring to take out terrorists cells an international intelligence co-operation is needed however the intelligence scene is full of inadequacies and failings. So really things can only get worse, with terrorists increasing attacks on soft targets such as reporters,red-cross other NGO members and opportune attacks like that seen in spain and more horribly (even if these events are equitable) in Russia. These relentless meaningless attacks will continue the war on terror is already losing. Maybe iam wrong.

arcadegame2004

Billy, you are approaching this issue primarily as a security problem. It is also a political issue. Putin brought all this on Russia and himself by invading it and massacring tens of thousands of innocent people. He should also be seen as a terrorist.

popinfresh

Haha, nice to see a thread without any pumped up pro-Bush supporters. As for the war on terror, yes i'd agree with what most of you are saying. Unfortunately though, the war on terror, or the war on Infadels as the arabs are probably calling it, has been launched. What we are probably going to see for the next 30 years is a tension similar to the one in N-Ireland, only on a world-wide scale. Not only was "the war on terror" the wrong course of action for America, it was probably the worst possible course they could have taken. To be honest, I find it an insult to our intellegence that the US could invade Iraq and say it is a war on terror. Personally I refuse to beleive the American government could really be so naieve as to invade Iraq, unless of course it had something to do with oil. Oh and yes, America is going to benefit form Iraq's oil reserves. Did you know that with America's current economic situation, if the world were to start trading oil in euros as opposed to American dollars, the US would see another wallstreet crash. So the US has to gain more control of middle eastern oil. Plus, reserves are going to start getting tight soon enough. I beleive the Iraq war was about oil because it would make a lot of sense if it was. And I simply refuse to beleive that the US government would really be so stupid as to invade Iraq in order to slow down terrorism

omnicorp

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Billy, you are approaching this issue primarily as a security problem. It is also a political issue. Putin brought all this on Russia and himself by invading it and massacring tens of thousands of innocent people. He should also be seen as a terrorist.

Sort of have to dissagree there,
Terrorists or "Freedom Fighters" try to force their views upon others through war, violence and Guerrilla Warfare.
Not through botched up anti-Terrorism acts.

And on another note note,

How did you get such a bad reputation?

Stabshauptmann

Are you jealous of it?

Terrorists try to use force or the threat of force to influence political decisions. How this is different to warfare is that the terror is directed against civilian populations.

This definition does not match all freedom fighters and is why bush is sometimes labeled a terrorist.

omnicorp

popinfresh wrote:

Haha, nice to see a thread without any pumped up pro-Bush supporters. As for the war on terror, yes i'd agree with what most of you are saying. Unfortunately though, the war on terror, or the war on Infadels as the arabs are probably calling it, has been launched. What we are probably going to see for the next 30 years is a tension similar to the one in N-Ireland, only on a world-wide scale. Not only was "the war on terror" the wrong course of action for America, it was probably the worst possible course they could have taken. To be honest, I find it an insult to our intellegence that the US could invade Iraq and say it is a war on terror. Personally I refuse to beleive the American government could really be so naieve as to invade Iraq, unless of course it had something to do with oil. Oh and yes, America is going to benefit form Iraq's oil reserves. Did you know that with America's current economic situation, if the world were to start trading oil in euros as opposed to American dollars, the US would see another wallstreet crash. So the US has to gain more control of middle eastern oil. Plus, reserves are going to start getting tight soon enough. I beleive the Iraq war was about oil because it would make a lot of sense if it was. And I simply refuse to beleive that the US government would really be so stupid as to invade Iraq in order to slow down terrorism

It's rumoured that "President" Bush doesn't actualy read the papers handed to him.
In fact, he probably doesn't read at all.

So is it any surprise that he's stuck in his own bubble, unaware of reality?

Stabshauptmann

omnicorp wrote:

It's rumoured that "President" Bush doesn't actualy read the papers handed to him.
In fact, he probably doesn't read at all.

So is it any surprise that he's stuck in his own bubble, unaware of reality?

This is based on what exactly?

omnicorp

Yes, actualy, I am jealous.
ArcadeGame2004 seems to be one of the more intelligent and open-minded posters on this Forum.

Bush is as bad as Osama Bin Laden.

Stabshauptmann

omnicorp wrote:

Yes, actualy, I am jealous.
ArcadeGame2004 seems to be one of the more intelligent and open-minded posters on this Forum.

Bush is as bad as Osama Bin Laden.

Again what on earth are you basing these wild statements on??

flogen

omnicorp wrote:

Sort of have to dissagree there

Omnicorp versus Arcadegame2004?
Oh my god, its like clash of the morons or something.

The fact is the war on terror is an unbeatable war, Bush has admitted that, and thats why he's followed this path.
As long as America is at war, his supporters can go nuts at anyone who criticises him. I dont know how many times I've heard Fox News condemn people for attacking Bush during a "war-time".
And as long as Bush and co. can keep fear instilled in Americans, and keep the reality as far from them as is possible, they will keep supporting him, because questioning him would be unpatriotic. This is the way America seems to work. Neo-Conservatives can ignore the economy, as long as they distract people with a war. They can blame a bad economy on terrorism, spend loads of money on weapons to fight terrorism, attack oil rich countries in the name of terrorism, and unless the opposition grow some teeth and hit the right buttons, they can do this without comeback.

flogen

omnicorp

Necromancer wrote:

This is based on what exactly?

the fact that he admitted that he was a functioning Illiterate

omnicorp

flogen wrote:

Omnicorp versus Arcadegame2004?
Oh my god, its like clash of the morons or something.

The fact is the war on terror is an unbeatable war, Bush has admitted that, and thats why he's followed this path.
As long as America is at war, his supporters can go nuts at anyone who criticises him. I dont know how many times I've heard Fox News condemn people for attacking Bush during a "war-time".
And as long as Bush and co. can keep fear instilled in Americans, and keep the reality as far from them as is possible, they will keep supporting him, because questioning him would be unpatriotic. This is the way America seems to work. Neo-Conservatives can ignore the economy, as long as they distract people with a war. They can blame a bad economy on terrorism, spend loads of money on weapons to fight terrorism, attack oil rich countries in the name of terrorism, and unless the opposition grow some teeth and hit the right buttons, they can do this without comeback.

flogen

That was a personel insult.
Didn't someone, Necromancer I think, Get banned for calling myself an "idiot"?

And why are some Americans so unaware of the world around them?

bonkey

flogen wrote:

Oh my god, its like clash of the morons or something.

No personal insults.

And Omnicorp - read the charter and check up how to report posts.

jc

Stabshauptmann

No I called flogen an idiot for feeding a troll after I posed Dont Feed Trolls.
So he gets a warning then whereas I got a ban?

I disagreed with your style of posting as I do here and will make the same advice. Make your posts longer and give some indication as to why you are making sweeping statements. He admited he was illiterate, very good, including that would have mage your post better IMO.

bonkey

omnicorp wrote:

And why are some Americans so unaware of the world around them?

Because such people exist in every nation?

There is nothing exceptional about the US, except that as a nation its decisions have perhaps more impact on the rest of the world than any other.

Ireland, for example, has no shortage of people who care about themselves and "their nation" first as well, and who are as equally "unaware" (or inconsiderate) of the world around them.

jc

omnicorp

I know, maybe flogen is a friend of bonkey.
hmm... power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Ah well, how does Mr Bush get away with every thing?

Stabshauptmann

bonkey wrote:

Because such people exist in every nation?

There is nothing exceptional about the US, except that as a nation its decisions have perhaps more impact on the rest of the world than any other.

Ireland, for example, has no shortage of people who care about themselves and "their nation" first as well, and who are as equally "unaware" (or inconsiderate) of the world around them.

jc

Im not sure I totally agree with that. I believe that there is an education problem in america which makes the problem more acute there

Stabshauptmann

omnicorp wrote:

I know, maybe flogen is a friend of bonkey.
hmm... power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Ah well, how does Mr Bush get away with every thing?

What has he gotten away with? If you dont make your posts more precise I cant follow them, maybe this is me but you ask too broad questions