Print

[MrWizdumb]

QUOTE

QUOTE if u agree this is a "war on terrorism" what about the other national terrorist groups? taliban (if u consider that a terrorist group) and al-qaeda are 2 of many. People complain that we're spending too much money on the "war on terrorism" (maybe we are). But they got wrong when they then ask why we're not simultaneously attacking every bad guy on the planet. Can't have it both ways, folks.

but everyone's solution for taking down terrorists is getting rid of all threats.. which is fucking impossible.  i wish i could believe there was a central base or something we could attack, but that isnt the case at all.  i overall just think its sort of useless thinking we'll accomplish a lot against terrorists with what we're doing.  i wish it could work of course, but i dont think it will.

[nemt]

There was no guerilla uprising in postwar Germany...what are you..an idiot?

Yes, there was violence in divided Berlin...but it wasn't politically/religiously motivated.

[pug_ster]

The Bush admin say that 'We must fight the war on Terror.'  Currently we are fighting a war in Iraq.  So most of the Joe Schmoe's in the US who don't follow the current events believe that Iraq=Terror.

I think the Bush admin duped most of the American public for this when the real enemy is Al-Qaeda.

[dss311]

QUOTE

People complain that we're spending too much money on the "war on terrorism" (maybe we are).

Estimates say the annual cost of the war in Iraq is about 50 Billion.  The cost for "containment" of Sadam was approximatley 25 Billion annually.  In the long run, the cost to liberate Iraq and get rid of Sadam will easily justify the amount spent when looking at it just in financial terms.

Also, someone in an early thread was talking about the cost on Desert Storm.  This bill was paid for by 95% of the other countries in the region.

[rocky_2197]

The war in Iraq needs to be thought of as a deterrent more than a war on terrorism.  By liberating the Iraqi people and ridding the area of a cruel dictator (who supported terrorists) we send the message that if you support terrorists than we (the US) will not stand for it.  The deterrent is similar to having the nuclear weapons that we (US) used in the cold war and to the present day to deter nations from attacking us.  Since the enemy these days are not Nations rather they are individuals,  makes the weapons useless as a deterrent.  The mixture of having individuals not a nation to fight against and the fact that  many nations have nuclear technology, makes nuclear weapons as a deterrent in effective.  So now, we go to war in Iraqi (the small guy) and relative easy country to fight so to speak.  This is now a deterrent, “our new nuclear weapon.”  By toppling Saddam, the US send the message that we will even go to war to protect our country.  This a scare tactic to  show, other countries like Iran, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia, that if you support terrorists, the US will not stand for it and will go to any lengths to protect our freedoms of our country.  The nations of the world see the war and think we don’t want to fight against the US and then start to rid there own countries of the terrorist scum.  So in essence end justifies the means.

[hardcoregamer]

QUOTE (pug_ster @ Sep 14 2004, 11:06 AM)

The Bush admin say that 'We must fight the war on Terror.'  Currently we are fighting a war in Iraq.  So most of the Joe Schmoe's in the US who don't follow the current events believe that Iraq=Terror. I think the Bush admin duped most of the American public for this when the real enemy is Al-Qaeda.

Al-Qaeda recieved money weapons and training from Iraq. Zacharias Mussawi recieved medical attention as a favor from iraq when he lost his leg in afghanastan.
There are terrorist in iraq, and that is who we are fighting.

[dss311]

rocky_2197


Those are good comments and I like the different angle you have suggested in your post.  We do need to use "deterrents" and any other means to deal with the crazy world of terrorist.  Libya has already began to change their ways after they saw our resolution to deal with the terrorist.

[pug_ster]

QUOTE (rocky_2197 @ Sep 14 2004, 08:19 PM)

The war in Iraq needs to be thought of as a deterrent more than a war on terrorism.  By liberating the Iraqi people and ridding the area of a cruel dictator (who supported terrorists) we send the message that if you support terrorists than we (the US) will not stand for it.  The deterrent is similar to having the nuclear weapons that we (US) used in the cold war and to the present day to deter nations from attacking us.  Since the enemy these days are not Nations rather they are individuals,  makes the weapons useless as a deterrent.  The mixture of having individuals not a nation to fight against and the fact that  many nations have nuclear technology, makes nuclear weapons as a deterrent in effective.  So now, we go to war in Iraqi (the small guy) and relative easy country to fight so to speak.  This is now a deterrent, “our new nuclear weapon.”  By toppling Saddam, the US send the message that we will even go to war to protect our country.  This a scare tactic to  show, other countries like Iran, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia, that if you support terrorists, the US will not stand for it and will go to any lengths to protect our freedoms of our country.  The nations of the world see the war and think we don’t want to fight against the US and then start to rid there own countries of the terrorist scum.  So in essence end justifies the means.

I would disagree on that.  Bush said himself that Saddam has no connection with Al-Qaeda.  Yes, he was cruel to its own people, but Saddam has nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

The government of Iran is working with Al-Qaeda in connection with the USS Cole and the 9/11 attacks so the US should attack them instead of Iraq.

http://www.msnbc.msn.../site/newsweek/

[rocky_2197]

In regards to pug_ster's post what exactly don’t you agree with?  My whole statement?
Did Saddam not pay suicide bombers families to attack other nations?  Were there not any terrorist training camps in Iraq?  Now if there was, then wouldn’t that mean him (Saddam) supported the terrorist?

Now Bush said him self that Saddam had no Direct connection with 9/11.  But Saddam still supported the terrorist, there for he was the “small guy” out of the many nations that support terrorist organizations.  So we the US made an example out him and used the war in Iraq, as a deterrent to the other nations.  Thus, making it (the war) our new Bomb!

TO dss311 thanks for the support on this post.  The need of deterents in a war like this are much more valuable then any thing else we can do.  Nuclear weapons are just not effective as a deterent  and we can not just buy off every nation to support us, the US just doen't have that much money to give.  Libya is just the start of  things, more nations are folling suit and we will have pleanty of support soon.  This is still going to be a long drawn out war, but in the end the world will be much safer, and hopefuly a better place.