Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by OutThere, Apr 18, 2004.
Yes! Yes! Yes! Excellent!
While getting troops out of Iraq is good, my only fear is that terrorist organizations are learning that the more they terrorize, the more governments are willing to meet their demands...
But under that logic, the Iraqis shouldn't feel compelled to obey the American occupiers of their country, right? I mean, isn't war just terror on a larger scale?
Its okay I'm sure the other 'colation of the willing' will send more troops...
Like the U.S...
The most important thing is that we cannot fail. If the terrorists see us a weak it will only embolden them. Terrorists only understand power and bold actions.
Yeah, those damn Limeys should've taught those slimy colonist terrorists a lesson, and crushed the movement. Allowing them to find their own way and make their own mistakes was the worst thing to have happened since the fall of Rome.
Too bad the terrorists didn't even strike because of the Iraq war. The planning for the terror attacks in Madrid began long before the war in Iraq was even a serious option, possibly even as early as summer 2002. The current line of thought is that the North African terrorists' "fundamental objective was to reclaim Muslim control of Spain" (NYTIMES). Makes you feel sorry for the Spaniards who thought they'd be able to avoid terrorism.
Regardless of when the terrorists planned the attacks, it sure appears like Spain is backing down because of the bombings in their country.
And NO, war is not terrorism on a larger scale. If thats your line of logic, the US never should have entered WWII, and even more Jews should have died, and Hitler should have taken over the world. There is a time and place for war, and its the job of the leaders of ELECTED governments to determine when to take action. Now, was G.W. right about going into Iraq? I dunno. But dont say there is no reason for war. War is awful, agreed, but sometimes the actions of tyrants need to be stopped, and the only way for that to happen is to have them overthrown by force. The fault then, lies with the tyrant, not the ones who initiate action against them.
And Im DEFINITELY not a huge war supporter, but in some cases, war is necessary. But to call soldiers who's objective is to secure peace, "terrorists on a larger scale" is completely wrong.
The new Spanish Government is following through on a pledge it made more than a year ago and in agreement with the overwhelming majority of the Spanish people who have never supported the idea of troops in Iraq in these circumstances. If that is giving in to terror then we might as well allow al Qaeda to dictate our own policy. Whatever they say we must obviously do the opposite or we are giving in to terrorism. Iraq has never been about the war on terror or al Qaeda and just because we have an administration that likes to confuse the two doesn't make it so.
The new government has also made it clear that terrorism is their top priority and has backed that up with a pledge for more troops in Afghanistan. This is not the policy of appeasement, but it is also not the policy of doing whatever George Bush thinks must be done in the world. If Bush wants to really get the Spanish to stay in Iraq, as well as many of our other allies, then he needs to turn authority over to the UN. Under a UN mandate many nations would willingly participate, as the Spanish government has made clear.
I absolutely agree. While truly defining "terrorist" is actually harder than one might think offhand (what with "one man's freedom fighter being another man's terrorist"), it is clear that the distinction lies in the intentional targetting (with intent to kill or maim) of non-combattants vs. targetting military resources. For example, if Al-Queda had managed to hit the Pentagon without USING civilian resources (plane and lives) in the process, that could be considered an act of war. But targetting non-combattants (eg. World Trade Center) to acheive any goal is terrorism. While I think Bush's explanation for going into Iraq has clearly been shown to be bunk, I absolutely believe that our military did its utmost to minimize collateral damage (i.e. UNINTENTIONAL or reasonably unavoidable hitting of civilian targets in an effort to hit military targets), to an extent never before seen in history (they had to, it was LIVE on TV around the world!) So please refrain from trying to argue that the US is using terrorism unless you have some proof of Americans suicide-bombing Iraqi cafés or something... the distinction between terrorism and war is not a matter of "scale".
As for Spain, pulling their troops really does make it look like they're bending to the will of terrorists (whether that's true or not), and that is not only weak and cowardly, but puts everyone else in greater danger.
Either that, or the Spanish government is saying that international organizations such as the UN or NATO exist for a matter. I am lead to believe the latter. The Spanish PM has clearly stated he would support Spanish troops in Iraq under a TRUE international agreement, which is not the current status of the situation. As a Spaniard, I support him in his decision.
What I do not support him in is in his decision to do it now. He should be sticking to the very agenda that he imposed to himself. Troops were supposed to be withdrawn on June IF the UN did not take control of the situation. Not waiting until that date because, literaly "the situation does not lead to preview that the UN will be effectively taking control", makes it look like you are really more interested in withdrawing the troops than the UN taking control of the situation, and gives opponents to UN's control over Iraq the excuse to say that it is we, Spaniards, who are not willing to participate in an international forum.
Look, I think its fair to say that in some ways, Spain is doing the "right thing" by pulling troops out. But the war in Iraq is already happening, and pulling out now isnt opposing the war, its leaving the Iraqi people. Right now, more than ever, the people of Iraq need stability, and pulling troops out doesnt help them at all, not to mention bending to terrorists desires.
And no, maybe Iraq had nothing directly to do with 9/11, but lets not avoid the truth: Iraq was/is a monetarily/geographically safe haven for AlQueda, and AlQueda believes that the US is evil and will do anything to get them out of Iraq. They are, if not directly, indirectly related.
I respect Spains decision, but I just fear that it will do more harm than good, for both Iraq and the rest of the world. Whether or not a country believes in the war on Iraq, now is the time to step in and help fix the mess, if not for the sake of the world, but for the people of Iraq. Dont say, "Its America's war, let them fix it," say "It was America's war, lets show them how it should be done." Governments can be grudge-holding-hillbillys all day, but that doesnt help the world or Iraq.
Under, again, the sole command of the US? Thanks, but no thanks. So the UN or any single country are supposed to take the risk of loosing human resources and money, but not to have the right to deciding on the process, huh? The US has already offered the UN such participation and the UN has obviously rejected. If you are going to take on the possible mistakes you can make, you'd better have the right to decide on making them.
It all depends on which side you look it from. The US government could easily say "OK, we engaged this solo and it has earned us (and them) nothing but casualties and an added image damage, let's show them how it should be done, and bring this international affair to an international forum, the way it should have been done from the beginning" but instead they are choosing not to. Why? Beats me, but if I am risking my life I'd better have a vote on deciding under what circumstances and for what purpose.
I am no fool (or so I believe). I do not, at all, consider that the current chaothic situation in Iraq is because the US is commanding the situation NOW. It would be pretty much the same whether it is the US or the whole UN (chiis and sunis do not really give a damn who is "occupying" them), but responsible countries must try to write history under the table of what is fair and what is not, and such a subjective attittude can only be excused when it is driven by what the widest possible international community agrees on. That is the same reasoning that drives democracy, and it is the best we have, even if it not always leads to the best decisions.
I consider myself in no way anti-USA. I spent a pair of summers when I was a teenage there to learn English and it was a wonderful experience with wonderful people. I admire lots and lots of things that come from that country. I am not starting to make a list because I do not thing this is the point, I am simply not quite fond of many other aspects of the US society, and that includes some (lots of) aspects of its foreign policy.
I still wonder, though, why some people from the US try to put the focus of the problem on why the new Spanish government's decision is wrong or not instead of trying to focus it on debating what is wrong or not with the US handing control over to the UN.
How about the firebombing of Dresden during WWII? Hiroshima? Nagasaki? All deliberately targeted civilians. WWII was not different from any other war. It should've been ended before it started, by way of Wilson's fourteen points. It was avoidable, just like the Iraq War. Perhaps if the US had joined the League of Nations and insisted on weapons inspectors in Germany, Hitler would never have gained the power to kill as many as he did. War is always a failure, even under the best intentions.
We're still working as a worldwide culture to figure out how to live with eachother without being at eachother's throats. Bush and his ilk don't help.
Link please? The only story I ever saw was a three year old meeting b/t Saddam and an al-Qeada lieutenant that went nowhere.
Yes everything is avoidable if we lived in a perfect world. If you have studied WWII history you must understand the crushing poverty that the people of Germany faced, they looked to wherever they could find it. The Germans were hit so hard with Allied reparations the government collapsed. Hitler appeared as a strong leader and people were so desperate that they would take anything they could to get them out of poverty. Wilson had excellent points in his 14 points, however he did not have the support at home, also on top of that Great Britain, and France wanted a harsh reparations plans because they had been put through hell and back, that does not justify their actions, but you have to understand what the public opinion was at the time. Also the League of Nations would have held even less sway then the UN does today, weapons inspections would have been worthless for one no power at the time would have ever agreed to it, by the time weapons inspections would have even become practical it was too late. On top of that what authority did anyone have to kick Hitler out? No one could ever enforce the inspections, Great Britain and France were in no financial shape to challenge Hitler, and people would have not been willing to risk war by doing theoretical weapons inspections. In addition Hitler had far too much support at home, people looked up to him as a strong leader, as horrible as this may sound this is the truth. Modern principals of diplomacy would not have worked in those times.
Lets just hope not too many countries follow Spain's example, and pull out of Iraq. Iraq is going to take many years to rebuild, and if we all packed up and left now, it'd turn into the craphole it was before. We can't allow some thug to try to grab power in Iraq, and start to take over the country. That's the last thing we need. And if we withdraw our troops, that's what will happen.
I've spoken with soldiers back from Iraq, and they say that they need us there, or else thugs will take over, and scare the Iraqi people into submission, like their previous dictator did. The Iraqi people need a force there that will protect them, and not oppress them. They need to learn not to be afraid of the government, and it's not going to happen overnight. And until they are on their own, and not under the rule of a tyrannical dictator, we must stay there to make sure none arise.
Oh yeah, and if you're leaving the Iraq war now, you're a bit late. The war ended some time ago. This is the occupation, and rebuilding. The only thing that makes it seem so tragic these days is the Iraqi mobsters who are trying their best at a power grab, and our wonderful media, that knows that "10 Coalition Soldiers Killed in Iraq" sells more than "More Iraqi People have Power and Water than before"
The Spaniards, like all the others who pledged their support to gw, were misled. There are no WMD, SH did not support terrorism directly, the Iraqis do not want us there. The bulk of the Spaniards, like the bulk of the Brits, did not support going to war in Iraq. Who knows what the outcome of the election would have been had it not been for the bombing in Madrid, but the people of Spain spoke and they spoke for withdrawal.
Had gw gone in with a viable post-war plan, much of the chaos occurring now probably wouldn't be happening. Even Kofi Annan is voicing doubts about the UN taking the reins in the near future.
This could well be only the beginning. The UK foreign office has advised all British companies doing business in Iraq to pull out until the CPA can somehow slow the violence. The US is responsible for the mess and they should be responsible for fixing it.
do a google on salvador allende, the gulf of tonkin incident, the independence of panama, and youll see why many people distrust us foreign policy
"freedom" and "democracy" are marketing terms to sell the war to the people
the bush regime should just admit that the iraqi occupation has to do with using iraq as a base of operations from which to shape/control the region
history has shown that the us does not care about a nation´s form of government in place and any crimes they commit, so long as it is pro-us according to the prevalent foreign policy.
the war is far from over. this last "combat phase" was but one campaign against radical islam.
just my 2 pesos
Care to check your sources of info again?
Iraq DID HAVE WMD at one point. Saddam used them against his own people. Whether or not he had them at the time of invasions, we will never know for sure, but we sure haven't found them.
Saddam DID DIRECTLY SUPPORT TERRORISTS. He paid money (what was it? $25,000?) to the families of suicide bombers. Maybe you don't call these people (someone who straps a bomb to themselves and finds a group of people to kill) terrorists, but i sure do. If you don't call that support, what do you call it?
the only part religion has in this is that these terrorists have the same beliefs. they believe that people should not be free. they believe women have no rights. they believe women are property. they believe that if you do not think like them, you must be killed. they believe it is ok to sell drugs to finance more killing. they enjoy the killing of innocent civilians.
really pious huh?
you really think the thugs in iraq care if it is the US or the UN they are fighting? you think they would lay down their arms tomorrow if the UN was in control? notice the UN is mostly a non-arab christian entity?
religion convinces them that they are right and that the whole world is wrong
they believe they are on a god-given task to kill all the infidels
its called extremism, and thats the real enemy
check this article out here
these god fairing people removed a fallen police officer from his tomb, drug the body around and set him ablaze.
Yes, but at the time we went in, there were none. There is also a great deal of doubt as to whether it was Iraq or Iran that is responsible for the deaths of the Kurds.
Our definitions of support must differ. After the fact support to the FAMILIES of the suicide bombers is hardly support. These people although desperate, starved and in many cases without hope would certainly not do what they did for a check. Support means up front and before the fact in my book. Other than that there has been no proof whatsoever that SH was an active force in international terrorism.
that has nothing to do with iraq, religion, or spain withdrawing troops
it is not known who did it yet