USA - General discussion (Part 1)

[spyretto]

Give me the quote of Bush saying that and a link to the source. I find it hard to believe. Bush clearly indicated during the debates, as far as I remember, that the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq is important for security and other such blah-blah.

That was in the news a couple of days ago. I thought you're following both candidates

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLIT....ap/index.html

Or did Kerry say he's gonna take the troups off Iraq in the 3rd of November? Maybe after a week? two weeks? a month? If so, he's lying.

Unjustified or not, people died in Afghanistan too. Did Kerry and the Democrats cast their positive vote for the US envasion in Iraq? Yes they did. Now they say they didn't have the full picture? They should know better. Nothing indicates that they'd have reacted any differently.

[Kate]

Originally Posted by spyretto

Unjusified or not, people died in Afghanistan too.

So they did in those Twin Towers. The terrorists didn't think that U.S. would ignore the attack, did they?

Originally Posted by spyretto

Kerry and the Democrats casted their approval for the US envasion of Iraq?

That was back when Bush said there was a threat of WMD. Now it is just an excuse... they could well have said that they send the troops to Iraq for exercise (I read this comment somewhere on CNN.com).

Originally Posted by spyretto

Nothing indicates that they'd have reacted any differently.

In fact, there are quite a few things that do indicate that. Most important indication of all, Kerry said that he would have been more diplomatic and investigated around to find the weapons to make sure they existed before he make any serious decisions.

Edit: I finished reading the article you gave link to.

Originally Posted by George W.

"I think the Iraqi people want us to leave once we've helped them get on the path of stability and democracy and once we have trained their troops to do their own hard work."

He doesn't say when the "helping" out will finish. I guess that goes hand in hand with the availability of oil - once the oil's gone, Iraqis won't need anymore of Bush's helping out.

[spyretto]

Originally Posted by katbeidar

So they did in those Twin Towers. The terrorists didn't think that U.S. would ignore the attack, did they?

But the attack was not conducted by the Taliban. How was the US retaliation justified in Afghanistan and not in Iraq. To me it's the same. Bush rhetoric included the suppression and atrocities committed by both regimes which were not directly related to the attack. That's why the regimes fell like crumbling castles but the terrorists "live and prosper". They went on a speculative basis, did not have the evidence that the network was based there. By the same token they could have invaded Iran or Syria, or any other country of the "axis of evil" for which they had indication but not apt proof they harbor the pepretrators of the attacks.

That was back when Bush said there was a threat of WMD. Now it is just an excuse... they could well have said that they send the troops to Iraq for exercise (I read this comment somewhere on CNN.com).

In fact, there are quite a few things that do indicate that. Most important indication of all, Kerry said that he would have been more diplomatic and investigated around to find the weapons to make sure they existed before he make any serious decisions.

Maybe yes, maybe no. As far as I'm concerned he gave his unanimous support for the US invasion in Iraq.

He doesn't say when the "helping" out will finish. I guess that goes hand in hand with the availability of oil - once the oil's gone, Iraqis won't need anymore of Bush's helping out.

Did Kerry say when it will finish? Show me the article, then. I think you may not want to see it but it's plain that the two candidates have little or no difference in their approach, the American people see little reason for a perilous change so they'll go for the safe and tried method, that is GW Bush. The masterplan for the oil must be the long-term plan then, at the moment the price gravitates at around $60 a barrel and the global oil crisis continues.

[Kate]

spyretto, I thought that bin Laden took the blame for the attack upon himself?

Originally Posted by spyretto

As far as I'm conerned he gave his unanimous support for the Us invasion in Iraq.

As I said, only because he was mislead like most of us were at that time. He was told there was a threat, and he voted for it, just like the rest of the people who allowed George W. to start the war.

Btw, see my post above, too, I edited it with a little comment.

[spyretto]

Originally Posted by katbeidar

spyretto, I thought that bin Laden took the blame for the attack upon himself?

As I said, only because he was mislead like most of us were at that time. He was told there was a threat, and he voted for it, just like the rest of the people who allowed George W. to start the war.

Btw, see my post above, too, I edited it with a little comment.

If he can be mislead so easily then the Americans are right to go for the tried and safe way. But, seriously, I think he genuinely believed Iraq had wmd and was a threat, and so did Blair and so did Spain, Italy, Australia and the 30 other leaders of the coalition force. And as a matter of fact Iraq was indeed a potential threat and the situation over there proves just that. The action against Iraq was preventive and it may have prevented another 9/11. The number of Iraqui civilian casualties was extremely low taking into account the circumstances of a full scale war.

[Kate]

Originally Posted by spyretto

And as a matter of fact Iraq was indeed a potential threat and the situation over there proves just that.

Well, so are a lot of other countries, like North Korea. Should the U.S. go kill some people there, too?

Like I said, there's no excuse for misleading the senate and getting permission to go to war only to find out that the "cause" doesn't exist. A lot of people died because of those non-existant WMD! Be it 10 lives that were lost, or 10 million, it's all the same - people suffered.

[spyretto]

North Korea is not a real threat. We're talking about Islamic fundamentalism and global terrorism here. What do you say about the other countries who have participated in the coalition? It's not only the Twin Towers. It's Bali, Madrid, Chechnya. It's a global phenomenon which threatens our very existence and it's the responsibility of the civilised world to eradicate it. If Iraq was of no interest to the terrorist networks, they would have let the democratisation process take place after the fall of Saddam Hussein. Instead we have whole cities conspirating with the terrorists, who have made it clear they have no respect for the lives of the innocent and would do anything to achieve their goals.

[thegurgi]

oooo! that was good spyretto! you sound like my mom! (strange as that my sound, it's a good thing)...

Originally Posted by katbeidar

North Korea. Should the U.S. go kill some people there, too?

It's statements like these that REALLY piss me off. We aren't the ones killing people in Iraq... the Iraqi's are! at least the extremist fundamentalist terror crazy ones are... but the Soldiers of US are told specifically not to harm anyone else they are being attacked. Any offensive is on known locations of those places where the terrorists are. (i know we've made mistakes, but no one is perfect, and we take complete responsibilty for it... unlike other groups)

This is something i'm not sure i've said yet, but make sure you remember that the war of the leaders aren't necessarily the war of soldiers... and, ahem, it's the soldier over there, and i for one think they're doing a good thing

(responding to things on the page previous
i find it funny that people who aren't even eligible to vote do more research on the election than most of the people who WILL vote. Most of us just do it based on a gut reaction, which i actually think is better. Your insticts don't usually lie to you ... at least, for the most part.

[Kate]

thegurgi, instincts are based on your knowledge and life experience. If you don't have neither, then your guy instinct will most likely be wrong. It is good to know all information available, process it and then form your own opinion. My that's just my point of view.

[thegurgi]

if you don't think that people don't make gut judgements of people as they see them, i don't think you're human. hahahahaha.

and i thought that insticts were things you were born with, you like what you like and you don't like what you don't like and you do what's logical for you to do (fight or flee kind of things) simple as that. and that's how most people vote and decide things...

[Kate]

thegurgi, gut judgements are always made, but they should be refined by information that is available.

[thegurgi]

well yeah, but usually, not matter what you try to feed yourself you'll go with your instinct. I find it hard to go against what my gut tries to tell me, and whenever i do, it's wrong (as it always goes for tests) ... i really think that this is how humans work... i mean, i even wanted to vote for Gore in 2000 (but i was too young)... even back then i didn't like Bush, it wasn't just this war thing, but just him, something i didn't like.

[Kate]

thegurgi, well, I think that sometimes it is best to do what logic tell you to, and not your gut. Cuz gut instincts can hurt other people etc, and you have to take that into account. I made a fair share of mistakes using my gut instincts, so I use logic and careful consideration now.

Anyway, back to topic.

[luxxi]

Originally Posted by katbeidar

And who knows, 9/11 might not have happened under Gore! He maybe would have paid a little more attention to the threats that Bush chose to ignore.

Are you serious? Do you honestly beleive Al Qaida would call whole thing off becasue Gore would be in White House?

As for ignoring warnings. Who ignored them in 1993-2001 period? And who was vice president then?

Originally Posted by spyretto

But the attack was not conducted by the Taliban. How was the US retaliation justified in Afghanistan and not in Iraq. To me it's the same.

Taliban were harbouring Al Qaida and refused to hand them over. If police is looking for a murderer and they see him in a house where people living there treat him like a guest than it's safe to assume they are cooperating with him.

Originally Posted by katbeidar

I thought that bin Laden took the blame for the attack upon himself?

No. Al Qaida never took responsibility for their actions. The only thing that links OBL to 11.9. is some tape where he talks to some Afghan cleric and he says some things only people who planned attacks could know.

Originally Posted by spyretto

North Korea is not a real threat. We're talking about Islamic fundamentalism and global terrorism here. What do you say about the other countries who have participated in the coalition?

Which countries? Only meangfull partners were Brits and Aussies. Brits will do what US asks them and Aussies contributed due totheir old alliance with US. Other coutnries are either contributing small contingents or US pays for the cost (as in case of Poland).

Originally Posted by spyretto

It's not only the Twin Towers. It's Bali, Madrid, Chechnya. It's a global phenomenon which threatens our very existence and it's the responsibility of the civilised world to eradicate it.

But why did US ignore global terrorism phenonmenon? That is around since 1960s

Originally Posted by spyretto

If Iraq was of no interest to the terrorist networks, they would have let the democratisation process take place after the fall of Saddam Hussein. Instead we have whole cities conspirating with the terrorists, who have made it clear they have no respect for the lives of the innocent and would do anything to achieve their goals.

Did you think for a second that not everyody is as thrilled with our system of democracy as we are? Or that insurgents are simply people p/o at Americans killing their clan members, kicking in doors, cuffing them etc. Or simply normal reaction of anybody who occupies your country?

It seems US made every possible mistake in post-war Iraq. As if they were actually trying to provoke insurgency.

[Kate]

Originally Posted by luxxi

Are you serious? Do you honestly beleive Al Qaida would call whole thing off becasue Gore would be in White House?

Well, according to some sources, Bush recieved some papers that indicated that there was a terrorist attack planned three months before 9/11. Bush ignored those papers. Who knows, maybe Al Gore would have handled the threat differently, increased security etc, and 9/11 would never have happened. It sounds a bit far fetched, but you never know.

[luxxi]

Originally Posted by katbeidar

Well, according to some sources, Bush recieved some papers that indicated that there was a terrorist attack planned three months before 9/11. Bush ignored those papers. Who knows, maybe Al Gore would have handled the threat differently, increased security etc, and 9/11 would never have happened. It sounds a bit far fetched, but you never know.

Seeing how warnings and such were ignored under clinton I doubt they would be treated differently under Gore.

[spyretto]

Taliban were harbouring Al Qaida and refused to hand them over. If police is looking for a murderer and they see him in a house where people living there treat him like a guest than it's safe to assume they are cooperating with him.

Point noted. But then again the invasion of Afghanistan did not lead to a breakthrough and the eventual collapse of the terrorist network. Though the US are greatly in control of that country, the perpetrators of 9/11 have got away. The US intelligence still believes that Bin Laden may be somewhere in Afghanistan.

No. Al Qaida never took responsibility for their actions. The only thing that links OBL to 11.9. is some tape where he talks to some Afghan cleric and he says some things only people who planned attacks could know.

I also thought so but it seems that they did.

http://www.rediff.com/us/2002/sep/09ny.htm

Which countries? Only meangfull partners were Brits and Aussies. Brits will do what US asks them and Aussies contributed due totheir old alliance with US. Other coutnries are either contributing small contingents or US pays for the cost (as in case of Poland).

Meaningful? What do you mean by that? Each country contributed what they can. The war is led by the US, and it was started without the UN approval. Some provide troops as well as humanitarian aid, others just humanitarian aid. Humanitarian workers and people who are trying to rebuild Iraq are also under the risk of getting captured and killed, purposely. Does this make any sense to you as a kind of reaction to somebody who occupies your country? Have those French journalists anything to do with the conflict or is it simply what the insurgents can get their hands to?
Apparently it's a tactic that pays off.

Did you think for a second that not everyody is as thrilled with our system of democracy as we are? Or that insurgents are simply people p/o at Americans killing their clan members, kicking in doors, cuffing them etc. Or simply normal reaction of anybody who occupies your country?

No, I think they're a lot more sophisticated than that but in essence they're enemies of the west - I'm not convinced they wouldn't go against neutral western states - and I'm yet to be convinced they aren't common criminals fighting behind a religious pretext. As with any terrorist group, they have an ideological agenda, in this case it seems to be jihad and the perpetuation of a fundamentalist islamic state. I also don't think they're simply resisting an occupation, at least not the ones who are mercenaries of the terrorist network and fight wherever there's a need. They're still fighting in Afghanistan, they're fighting in Iraq, they'd bring the jihad over to the US, or even to France and Germany if they could. I don't think we as Westerners can have a grasp of the situation, sitting in the coziness of our homes. Nor understand their way of thinking.

It seems US made every possible mistake in post-war Iraq. As if they were actually trying to provoke insurgency.

I hope they learn from their mistakes. They simply underestimated the enemy.

i think we're getting off topic in a thread that's about the US elections

[luxxi]

Originally Posted by spyretto

Point noted. But then again the invasion of Afghanistan did not lead to a breakthrough and the eventual collapse of the terrorist network. Though the US are greatly in control of that country, the perpetrators of 9/11 have got away. The US intelligence still believes that Bin Laden may be somewhere in Afghanistan.

Though a lot of high and middle ranking AQ folks were captured or killed.

Originally Posted by spyretto

I also thought so but it seems that they did.

http://www.rediff.com/us/2002/sep/09ny.htm

I think we are talking aobut same video. He doesn't claim responsibility directlly but talks about things only organisers could know.

Originally Posted by spyretto

Meaningful? What do you mean by that? Each country contributed what they can.

Compare the numbers, will you? US contributes some 90% of troops.When countries like Azerbaijan contribute 20 troops they are not contributing anything menigfull. they are there because US pays for them and US can then claim more ocuntries are contributing troops.

Originally Posted by spyretto

The war is led by the US, and it was started without the UN approval. Some provide troops as well as humanitarian aid, others just humanitarian aid. Humanitarian workers and people who are trying to rebuild Iraq are also under the risk of getting captured and killed, purposely. Does this make any sense to you as a kind of reaction to somebody who occupies your country?

Yes, it does. They want foreigners out.

Originally Posted by spyretto

Have those French journalists anything to do with the conflict or is it simply what the insurgents can get their hands to?
Apparently it's a tactic that pays off.

Apparently they were taken by mistake. It seems kidnapers didn't know who they captured until later. After that they couldn't let them go so they made some impossible demands. Ever wondered why they are still alive? Other hostages were kileld fairly quickly but these are alive for more than a month. Think about it.....

Originally Posted by spyretto

No, I think they're a lot more sophisticated than that but in essence they're enemies of the west - I'm not convinced they wouldn't go against neutral western states - and I'm yet to be convinced they aren't common criminals fighting behind a religious pretext.

Or maybe they are jkust p/o at foreigners occupying their countries. Ever thought of that?

And it's so easy to dismiss them as criminals, terrorists and such. That way you don't have to recognise that they might have legitimate complaints.

Originally Posted by spyretto

As with any terrorist group, they have an ideological agenda, in this case it seems to be jihad and the perpetuation of a fundamentalist islamic state.

Didn't you claim they are just criminals couple of sentances ago? So now they are religious fundies, eh?

Originally Posted by spyretto

I also don't think they're simply resisting an occupation, at least not the ones who are mercenaries of the terrorist network and fight wherever there's a need.

And how many of them are foreigners? What percentage?

Originally Posted by spyretto

They're still fighting in Afghanistan, they're fighting in Iraq, they'd bring the jihad over to the US, or even to France and Germany if they could. I don't think we as Westerners can have a grasp of the situation, sitting in the coziness of our homes. Nor understand their way of thinking.

Of course they are fighting. Their countries are occupied, aren't they? Or they don't have right to resist occupation?

Originally Posted by spyretto

I hope they learn from their mistakes. They simply underestimated the enemy.

And you obviously do as well. Packing everything into nice cliches. Nevermind that they aren't correct, but that's much simpler....

[haku]

Originally Posted by spyretto

If Iraq was of no interest to the terrorist networks, they would have let the democratisation process take place after the fall of Saddam Hussein.

There was never going to be any "democratization process" in Iraq, even without the involvement of terrorist networks. Shiites are the large majority in Iraq, if there was a real "democratic" election, they would be in full power and would immediately install an Islamic Republic, just as in Iran.

Terrorist networks have moved a part of their operations in Iraq because Iraq has become the front line between the US and the Muslim world, just like Korea or Vietnam were the front line between the US and the Soviet block. This front line was already open in Afghanistan, now it's been extended to Iraq, and it will further extend to Iran, Syria and ultimately to Saudi Arabia which are the obvious next targets for the US.

Originally Posted by thegurgi

It's statements like these that REALLY piss me off. We aren't the ones killing people in Iraq... the Iraqi's are! at least the extremist fundamentalist terror crazy ones are... but the Soldiers of US are told specifically not to harm anyone else they are being attacked. Any offensive is on known locations of those places where the terrorists are. (i know we've made mistakes, but no one is perfect, and we take complete responsibilty for it... unlike other groups)

Well, the US have invaded a country that did not attack the US, so US soldiers did harm people who did not attack them. The US army is a powerful army that uses powerful weaponry, it uses massive bombings on civilian areas to eradicate its enemy. I have no doubt that a few enemy fighters are killed in each bombing, but how many collateral damages is there for each enemy killed? We will never know of course since once people are dead it's easy to say that they were all terrorists.

I don't doubt that most US soldiers are decent guys, but the main problem is that almost none of them speak Arab or have any knowledge of Arab culture. For example, i remember seeing US soldiers searching civilian houses for weapons with *dogs*. This is a mortal insult in Arab countries. US soldiers probably don't know it, but Arab people don't know that US soldiers don't know it, so Arab people think that US soldiers are doing that on purpose to humiliate them, and of course that create resentment.

In the end, this war remains an illegal invasion by the US of a foreign country, there was no WMD, it was all a lie, and the US army is now just an occupying force.
The way this war has been led by the US administration is appalling, now Ben Laden has become a hero for many Arab people (he was barely known before), Al Qaeda is considered as a noble organization that "defends Muslims against the invasion of Crusaders" (Bush saying several times on TV that this war was a new "Crusade" was such a *stupid* thing to say, that's unbelievable!).
Even here in northern France, i have seen several times messages praising Ben laden and Al Qaeda painted on walls, they have become quite popular among the French Arab youth and some of them have actually gone to Iraq to fight with the Iraqi resistance.

Like i've said several times, there is indeed a war going on between the West and Muslim fundamentalists, but opening a front line right in the center of the Middle East was such a strategic mistake, and we have Bush to blame for that. The war against Muslim fundamentalists should have been led like the Cold War was led: infiltration of enemy networks, targeted assassinations, special forces striking precise locations, etc.
Instead we have that giant mess that is Iraq, a mess that is going to spread to other countries. I don't trust Kerry more than Bush in that area though, i don't think Kerry has a good comprehension of international matters either.

Originally Posted by luxxi

Are you serious? Do you honestly beleive Al Qaida would call whole thing off becasue Gore would be in White House?

We'll never know. Al Qaeda agents had been dormant in the US for years, i do think that Al Qaeda was waiting for a Republican president to strike the US, Al Qaeda knew it would get a more violent response from a Republican (Bush was a perfect president for Al Qaeda's plan, not only he's a Republican but he has that dumb Texan cowboy attitude, just perfect) and Al Qaeda wanted a violent response, it's goal was to start a Holly War with the leader of the Christian world. It succeeded.

[luxxi]

Originally Posted by haku

We'll never know. Al Qaeda agents had been dormant in the US for years, i do think that Al Qaeda was waiting for a Republican president to strike the US, Al Qaeda knew it would get a more violent response from a Republican (Bush was a perfect president for Al Qaeda's plan, not only he's a Republican but he has that dumb Texan cowboy attitude, just perfect) and Al Qaeda wanted a violent response, it's goal was to start a Holly War with the leader of the Christian world. It succeeded.

Do you honestly beleive Aq would terminate operation that was planned for several years just because democrat would be in White House?

As for waiting for republican president.... How do you explain first WTC attack, USS Cole bombing and bombing of embassies in Africa which were all done under democrat president?