I mean, in the beginning Bin Laden was a lonesome idiot, a single terrorist. And now he is considered to be the saviour of a billion muslims or so. He makes hearts of young muslims beat faster everywhere.
Problem: Bush should keep one rule in mind:
Never do, what the enemy wants.
But he just did what the enemy wanted: to provoke US into an attack on a muslim country without a real reason.
Yes yes, Iraq was a terrorist base under Saddam hussein and they had tons of WMDs. Yup, being far from reality like this even a superpower can lose a war.
Republicans, wake up, use this thing underneath your hat. And I am not talking about a new haircut.
Bob Hornblower
… and this is not only about Iraq. The Iraq war uses up all US combat power and thus works for ElQaida…
Whatever the US is doing, or has done, or wants to do in the Middle East, the Israeli’s have been there done that. For a moment, more sensible minds need to take that into consideration. Israeli’s are, after all, one of US’s staunchest allies. They’ve done a lot of bleeding and killing. I fear failure of lessons learned may see the 21st century version of this:
No wants a repeat of this, no matter what political stripe we happen to be.
It did not matter who was President: the attacks were planned long before Bush became president.
It did not matter whether the US & allies intervened in Afganistan and Iraq. If the fight did not take place there, it would have taken place somewhere else in the Muslim world, maybe Syria or Saudi Arabia. To prevent the terrorists from achieveing an easy and bloodless victory, intervention would have taken place somewhere sometime.
The choice for intervention was when: now or later. Now was picked to try and prevent the total takeover of the Muslim world before they became too powerful.
Anything the “warmongers” or the “peaceniks” try to do will not dissuade the terrorists from persueing their course. It is a religious thing which is a matter of faith, not logic.
They will not succeed as long as Americans and British have the balls to stand up to them. I only hope the rest of the world will wake up and help before its too late to stop them.
You had better hope the Iranians are prevented from developing nuclear weapons. You might be safe in Taipei for a while, but pity the people living in NYC, London etc, etc if they do.
I think I’ve heard all that somewhere before. Wait, I remember. It was 1095, in Clermont, France and Urban II was giving the speech then:
“Although, O sons of God, you have promised more firmly than ever to keep the peace among yourselves and to preserve the rights of the church, there remains still an important work for you to do. Freshly quickened by the divine correction, you must apply the strength of your righteousness to another matter which concerns you as well as God. For your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help, and you must hasten to give them the aid which has often been promised them. For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impurity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ’s heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it.”
Amidst the usual weeping & wailing and gnashing of teeth, lets look and see how the WOT is really plugging along.
Nobody said it ws going to be a quick endeavour. Nobody promised an end-time.
This is an on-going effort. But is is making progress. Look at what has been accomplished so far.
Yeah, and the only reason we were there in the first place was to protect the Saudis from Iraq. Basically, we just moved our troops over a couple hundred miles.
Osama and Company don’t really have reasons, they just have excuses. Four years ago it was the U.S. “occupation” of Saudi Arabia. This year it’s the U.S. “occupation” of Iraq and Afghanistan. Four years from now they’ll cite the December 26th 2004 tsunami, which killed off a quarter of a million Indonesians, as their motivation – after all, if the U.S. hadn’t detonated a “tsunami bomb” it never would have happened, right?
Tsunami bomb? Must be the twin of the Tequila bomb, my wife always wants to drink and nobody ever knows it.
Well, I am a supporter of a (limited I guess) strike on Iran. Only now after Iraq, it will be more difficult to explain to muslims WHEN a muslim country gets attacked.
When you have nuclear bombs (Iran)
When you may have nuclear bombs we will never find (Iraq)
If you attack us first (Afghanistan)
If you get on our nerves (Iraq)
The list would sound more convincing, if we could remove the (Iraq) parts. BinLaden is a great supporter of the Iraq strike, however.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]
Nobody said it ws going to be a quick endeavour. Nobody promised an end-time.[/quote]
“I can’t say if the use of force would last five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn’t going to last any longer than that.”
–Donald Rumsfeld. November 14th, 2002
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]
Nobody said it ws going to be a quick endeavour. Nobody promised an end-time.[/quote]
[quote=“sojourner”]“I can’t say if the use of force would last five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn’t going to last any longer than that.”
–Donald Rumsfeld. November 14th, 2002[/quote]
[quote=“President Bush on 20 September 2001”][url=http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=3490&keyword=war+on+terror&phrase=&contain=]Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them
George W. Bush, what’s the exact quote: “The war on terror is a war that does not end,” or “The war on terror is a war without end”?
[quote=“Sun Tzu: The Art of War”]
II. WAGING WAR
When you engage in actual fighting, if victory
is long in coming, then men’s weapons will grow dull and
their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town,
you will exhaust your strength.
[color=blue]Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources
of the State will not be equal to the strain.[/color]
[color=blue]Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped,
your strength exhausted and your treasure spent,
other chieftains will spring up to take advantage
of your extremity. Then no man, however wise,
will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.[/color]
Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war,
cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays.
[color=blue]There is no instance of a country having benefited
from prolonged warfare.[/color]
It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted
with the evils of war that can thoroughly understand
the profitable way of carrying it on.
The skillful soldier does not raise a second levy,
neither are his supply-wagons loaded more than twice.[/quote]
[quote=“mofangongren”]Perhaps it would have been far more accurate if Bush had said:
It’s really no secret that “the terrorists” want an all out war, and the “West” may just fall into the trap of giving it to them. But for the life of me, I don’t understand how you can be so confident that they will win.
I think you will agree that The Art of War was written with wars between states in mind.
As such, it isn’t exactly relevant in this case.
Unless total victory without regard to innocent civilians and civil rights at home is not a concern. We could end this quickly if that’s the type of war we want to fight.
[quote=“Tigerman”]I think you will agree that The Art of War was written with wars between states in mind.
As such, it isn’t exactly relevant in this case.
Unless total victory without regard to innocent civilians and civil rights at home is not a concern. We could end this quickly if that’s the type of war we want to fight.[/quote] Agreed, it is not exactly relevant, but informative and significantly revelant nonetheless. I went back a highlighted a few portions. My main concerns are these.
1: Resourses: this stinking war’s expensive. Think of all the good that could have been done at home with those funds. And it’s not over. Nor is it paid for.
2. “Other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity.” North Korean, Iran, both pushing the limits because they know that the US is tied down elsewhere. Who else? Who next? Who’s going to use the US’s own justifications to launch their own wars? Nobody, I hope.
3. “There is no instance of a country benefiting from prolonged warfare.” And ending it in a millisecond would simultaneously usher in the end of American global leadership. Either way, America loses.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s a fight that needs to be fighting. But not this way. I criticize, and attack, and ridicule those responsible for this mess because I think that America deserves better. And the rest of us need a better America.
