War against terror

[miles teg 1]

Quote[/b] ]

I have a lot to respond to your post. However, I'm afraid that the rules of this forum don't allow me to fully state my opinion here.

 Why?  You can't state your opinions without insulting me or something?  Come on you write an intelligent reply when you don't let your emotions get the better of you.

Quote[/b] ]

Whatever it takes to defend your own. Whether this includes invading foreign lands or not, I leave up to military strategists. One need not only look abroad for enemies in this war.

You are correct, I agree there are terrorists or at least some Muslims who are at high risk of turning towards terrorism even here in America.  I do not dispute that, but again, I ask you, what are the solutions for fighting these extremists and those extremists in the Middle East and the rest of the Muslim world??

Quote[/b] ]

There are 2 definitions for "concentration camps": 1) extermination camps; 2) detention camps.

The first is an abhorent idea. The second leads to the question: then what?

Exactly.  That's what I'm trying to get you to think about....the "Then What" part.  Who's going to pay for housing millions upon millions of Muslims all over Europe and America in massive prison cities?  Will you forcefully sterilize all of their women so they can not reproduce???  Keep all the women seperate in their own prison camps??? Take their chldren and put them in Christian and Jewish homes to be raised to hate Islam?  All of this still leaves millions of Muslim men and women imprisoned costing billions of billions of dollars.  Then there are the billions in the Islamic world.  Do you think they would sit by and let this happen?

Quote[/b] ]

Never have I alluded to such attrocious ideas but thinking that I could advocate this comes so easy to your mind. This is not the first time.

It does come easy to my mind because I see this as the ultimate logical conclusion of the War on Terror which is seen more and more as a War on Islam in the Islamic world.  

How does military conflict othewise end the war on terror???

Try to look at this war in simple cause and effect relationships from both sides.  Do you think if we bomb Muslims enough they will eventually say..."stop stop have mercy!  We'll behave!  We're sorry!  Mercy! Mercy!" and tuck their tail between their legs and happily embrace Christians and Jews and other non-Muslims suddenly???  

All I ask is that you explain to me how military strikes, other then killing a few terrorists and occasionally their leaders, stops terrorism and what drives terrorism.  If this worked, then Israel would be the safest place on Earth.

But I am listening and willing to learn if you or anyone here has some kind of logical arguement of how military action will defeat terrorism.

I am glad that you do not think all Muslims are bad people, however I am a bit confused why I am wrong in how where you live does not effect your opinions of Muslims.

Quote[/b] ]

First, correctly define your enemy.

The enemy in my definition are terrorists who follow a militant intolerant interpretation of the Qu'ran based on the Wahabi/Salafi teachings originally based on the teachings of  Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab (1703–1792) but even further corrupted and made more militant by the teachings of Sayyed Qutb (An Egyptian Islamic "scholar" often refered to by Al-Qaeda, and who preached a radicalized militant interpretation of Islam).   However some are also Shi'a radicals but they are much fewer and in my opinion a much lesser threat with the exception of Iranian fanatics in the ruling Revolutionary Council of Iran.   But they are a much sneakier and subtle enemy who follow a specific Shi'a doctrine of deception that is a part of Iranian Shi'a religious studies (although I think it was based upon a modern Fatwah if I remember correctly).  

So basically my definition of the enemy are those who believe that killing Western civilians and Muslims who work with Westerners is the way to accomplish their political/religious goals.  

But what is more important is how you define the enemy.

So again, I ask you how do you defeat them as long as they keep teaching their doctrine and survivors of our military actions keep having babies and passing on their doctrine of revenge, hatred, and intolerance to future generations???

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Please factually prove all the points in the article I linked to as wrong and don't link me to sweeping generalizations issued a year ago that don't touch on any of the specifics.

The jist of the whole article seems to be:

Quote[/b] ] It's that the administration has not done a good enough job of probing and underscoring the nexus between the Saddam regime and al Qaeda. It is absolutely appropriate, it is vital, for him to stress that connection. This is still the war on terror, and Iraq, where the terrorists are still arrayed against us, remains a big part of that equation.

As my links show, any link between Al Qaeda and Saddam have been completely dismissed by the CIA, FBI, and British authorities. For sure, there were overtones some 4 years before 9.11, but as stated in my article they came to nothing.

Iraq is not part of the War on Terror, or at least it wasn't prior to the launching of GW2. For sure, Al Qaeda is in Iraq now for the simple reason that Bush and Co. failed to secure the country, allowing them to pour in.

But let us remember that Cheney and Co. stated that links between Al Qaeda and Iraq were "overwhelming" prior to the war's launch, despite intelligence to the contrary. The only way to define that is "a lie."

It has also been proven that Iraq had nothing to do with 9.11, yet that thought had been fostered in the people's minds by the Administration in the run up to the election. Another lie.

I'll take the word of seasoned analyists over your opinion piece anyday.

If "THERE ARE NO LINKS" is too much of a generalization for you, then I can't help you, and you can continue to live in your small world of mistruths.

[Garcia 0]

Quote[/b] ]Responding to a presidential tasking, Clarke’s office sent a memo to Rice

on September 18, titled “Survey of Intelligence Information on Any Iraq

Involvement in the September 11 Attacks.†Rice’s chief staffer on Afghanistan,

Zalmay Khalilzad, concurred in its conclusion that only some anecdotal evidence

linked Iraq to al Qaeda.The memo found no “compelling case†that Iraq

had either planned or perpetrated the attacks. It passed along a few foreign

intelligence reports, including the Czech report alleging an April 2001 Prague

meeting between Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer (discussed in chapter 7)

and a Polish report that personnel at the headquarters of Iraqi intelligence in

Baghdad were told before September 11 to go on the streets to gauge crowd

reaction to an unspecified event.Arguing that the case for links between Iraq

and al Qaeda was weak, the memo pointed out that Bin Ladin resented the

secularism of Saddam Hussein’s regime. Finally, the memo said, there was no

confirmed reporting on Saddam cooperating with Bin Ladin on unconventional

weapons.62

from the 9/11 commission report...

[SPQR 0]

If ideology was about nontolerance and killing all infidels then why is it that Bin Laden himself offered Europe a truce and in another statement explaind how certain countries such as sweden would not be attacked?

I do agree that ME should be left, but while still oil be found, oil that brings wealth and curse, problems won't disappear soon. And disappearance of oil may not fix all the problems. US bombs, firefights, and collateral damages only fuel more and more this unconventionnal war. And unconventionnal wars were never won through conventionnal means...

The Bin Laden's truce may have been more a diversion than a true proposal. Right before the scarf affair, and without being implied in Iraq, France, for exemple, is still threatened by bomb attacks. What is called AQ is just a conglomerate of franchised nearly independant cells, plotting attacks. Some are found before they act, some not :

For exemple, the GSPC ("Groupement salafiste pour la prédication et le combat" or Salafi Groupment for the Preaching and Combat) which prepared bomb attacks in 1998 during the Football World Cup and in 2000 against the Christmas Market in Strasbourg.

I'll add that Bin laden's friends in Iraq do currently kill more iraqi people than Coalition soldiers. Were they bad and perverted muslims ?

I should have post this answer in the "War on Terror" topic, but your post, python3 should have its answer near.

However, as the opinions of people from Muslim world is also important, I invite you to continue on the right topic (or copy and paste your post) with all of us. Thank you

[philcommando 0]

Everyone, no matter how skeptical he/she is, will agree history often repeats itself.

In 1940s, a struggling 5th rate artist pushed,shoved, and killed many with his gangsters to assume control of the most technologically advance nation on earth; Germany. His bible; - Mien Kampf, the purity of the aryan race. Many sane germans toed his line, either by ideology or by force.

While there were disagreements within the germanic tribes, many sought democracy and talks to bring him down or tame him, but unfortunately, that evil man and his gangsters made use of liberal democracy to hide and tame them instead. No one likes a fight for all are mortal. Better Heil than dead.

Grasping the great german people with his blood-stain hands, driven by an insane ideology, he had acess to a national treasure of armaments, which he used to subdue his neighbours, begining with poles, the racially inferior europeans in his demented mind.

England sought diplomacy to handle him as the threat grew from the evil man's expansionist man. Despite several warning signs that went unheeded, Chamberlin, the elected prime minister of England, dealed with the devil, but the devil charmed Chamberlin with lies of no further conquest to buy time as he continued expanding West till it reached France. Country after country fell to the devil, yet Chamberlin felt diplomacy was the best way to handle the devil.

Even Stalin, fell for the devil's trick; they shooked hands and Stalin agreed to turn a blind eye to the devil's conquest but as soon as his back was turned, when germany was ready, invaded and scared the hell outta Stalin. Next was England. Chamberlin, like Stalin, was convinced Hitler would not attack his country. But he did. Fortunately America got into the act, otherwise, present history would be very different.

Moral of this chapter of history:-

a.) diplomacy is meant for civilised humans of equal minds, not with beasts. For how can one talk to and convince beasts?

b.) Power is derive from the barrel of a gun. One has no need to use gun if the aggressor has no intention of using guns to settle matters. Unfortunately, how many dead will it requires for the one who defends to stop turning a blind eye the way Chamberlin did?

c.) Today, you are my friend because i need you. But once i have acheived my aims, i wont need you, so either you toe my line or you will be exterminated. Stalin failed to realise this.

d.) Ideology is a powerful weapon to use to contaminate one's mind and twist him to the master's bidding. Without an ideology, Hitler would never had risen so far, let alone became a 4th rate artist.

Deduce your own assumptions. Was war inevitable in such a situation? Was Chamberlin wise to let Hitler roam free and grow bigger till he was ready to swallow England and USSR?

Replace Hitler with Osama in the above text and you will see the similarity. Saudi Arabia to replace Germany. Its asset replace with oil. Stalin replace by Sweden's leader. Chamberlin replaced by France's leader. Poland replaced by the world. Actors changed but the situation for reference remains the same.

BTW, did Osama invaded the world?....Turn to your left and right in whatever country you hail from, you sure that nervous looking arab with a package is not a suicide bomber?

Why is Osama doing this?...ever asked why Hitler did what he did? Answer; they both believed in their crap crackpot ideas and sought to enslave others to their unbelievable insanity. Nothing will stop these mad men and their kind, no words or lies, but bullets and men who are equally prepared to die for a cause - on the side of freedom for humanity which the coalition against terrorists are all about, the way our forefathers fought the Third Reich and created 60 years of peace till the devil reborn in the form of Osama.

Edit:- what has this to do with the Iraqi war?

Sadam could easily fit the bill of a reborn devil but unfortunately, he was too materialistic to bother with ideology until too late. He took his faith for granted that adherents all over the world will flock to his cause. The coalition aint gonna take chances and wait for him to fulfil history's repetitive role. His stubborness at the UN table time after time for weapon inspection casted doubts and did him in. ( this has nothing to do with devil myths, but with history repeating itself. The devil used is meant for easier identification, not in the religious sense)

[SPQR 0]

YeeeeAAh, let's preemptively strike Middle Eastern world and Mecca with Nukes !!!

... 

First the historical conditions aren't the sames. Germany shortly after being defeated during WW1 lived in a near civil war, nationalists on a side, communists on the other. Neither side could be called peace-lovers. The Peace treaty costed also a lot to Germany, even if everything ordered to pay was paid back.

Later, was the great economic crisis of 1929, wrecking Germany's economy so much while democrats weren't able to resolve these problems.

Hitler also recieved a real huge support from great industry captains, fearing for their benefits and of a possible communist revolution.

The Army also supported Hitler, while they ask him for their support the elimination of Ernst Röhm praying for a nationalist revolution the others didn't want to happen.

Should the economic and political situation be different, Hitler's band would have never gain power. They just had the greatest luck of the world, seeing every door opened.

Stalin wasn't either an angel, hoping that Hitler with his war will weaken himself and other occidental countries so that he could send his troops to roam through Europa in order to create a great red soviet empire. However, occidental countries fell too fast, and Barbarossa happened too soon.

Quote[/b] ]Fortunately America got into the act, otherwise, present history would be very different.

Excluding the Pacific War, do you really think the USA alone destroyed the Nazi regime ? Yes, they helped to keep the West Europ free from a soviet domination, which would have surely happened if the US war machine didn't fight in the West. Western front was a small skirmish compared to the gory fights happening on the eastern front...

I'm sure someone as harley 3 1185, mastering Shakespear's tongue, would be able to explain it really better and more precisely than me

There's so much to tell about this era.

On the other hand, Middle East isn't a sole country, different branches of Islam exist there, and they are already able to gore themselves without Occident's help.

The only time "AQ and brothers" had a country in hand, using conventionnal means, they got smashed by occidental warmachine. Afghanistan liberation didn't much make a fuss in the muslim world, which is not the cas for Iraq.

While needing no lie to attack Afghanistan and chop talibans, TBA utterly lied for Iraq, with supposed WMD and links with AQ.

Most muslims in the world would just like to leave in peace, and are neither really fond of being killed of so-called faithfull jihadists nor considered as potential terrorist by people considering themselves as blessed by God, being in the side of Good, Freedom and Democracy (Oups, collateral damage, sorry   It's for Democracy... after all, they died... FREE   ).

And in order to conclude, before yelling History is happening again and how they will happen, we'd better understand why things happened.

"I'm the good, they the ugly" is not really an understanding of the occurring situation.

What happened today is a terrible and unforgiven drama. But don't forget it's happens every day in the world. This war needs cool-headed strategy, not hot-headed one, which would only fuel more this unconventionnal conflict and serve at their own hope and pleasure our enemy.

If Violence and retaliation were known as means to fix problems and assure peace, Israel conflict with Palestine would have been set for a long long time...  

[philcommando 0]

What is a car?

It's only a mechanical contraption for transportation.

Would that be a correct answer?

It only depends on what you are seeking. Do you seek a simple straightforward answer or an overly elaborated one like a thesis. Sorry for my bedroom sunday school approach for i am not writing a thesis or to impress but to only simply show a point of view. However neither is yours a thesis in your deluded sense of granduer in pushing someone down with uncalled for comments. It may be your barbaric style but it is certainly my right to let you know i dont accept your crappy style and find it utterly reprehensible, unbefitting of a civilise man.

Now, to really go indepth into the history will need more than a simple post here, so you are therefore deluded if you think that post of yours will give the entirety of the historical conflict that was created by Hitler.

I do find your post tiresome and did not read it in its entirety as i had a hard time keeping up with your deluded and unstructured opinions, but i guess even a monkey has an opinion, which i shall leave you to your delusions, though i doubt sincerly if you are adding any thing much to the topic.

[LennyD 0]

Today is a very sad day…

Again innocent people have suffered from terror. But after all it wasn’t different yesterday…or the day before. The thing so special about today is that it happened in Europe’s best guarded city.

As a part English part German I see this in two ways:

First of all I’m angry. I can’t imagine what I would have thought or done if a relative of mine had been hurt or even killed. My parents were in London last week. I probably would have tried to burned down a mosque, if something had happened to them.

But thinking of it again it seems like lowering myself onto the level of the terrorists and maybe killing innocent. So what remains first is some sort of fear that it happens again…harming the ones I love. So what can I do? Blaming the whole Arab world for being terrorists? One possibility, but certainly not the civilized one. Blaming the „free world“ for „driving“ these „poor people“ into killing civilians? Certainly not…talking crap like that shows the suffering from serious brain damage.

So…if I break it all down I come to one conclusion:

These blokes where lucky not to hit any of my relatives. And every bit of opposition for Troops being in Iraq or Afghanistan is gone ( not that I ever hat a lot of problems with that at all ). If they wanted to cause fear they failed, because a lot of Europeans have woke up today…and will be watching even more. If they wanted to cause disloyalty with our governments they failed, because I am sure now that there has to be an answer to terror.

So what ever you *** want…. just blow up yourself somewhere in the desert… I don’t care a bit any more.

This is my personal ( in some opinion maybe questionable ) point of view of this day.

[Akira 0]

I guess we will have to continue the London thread in here since a few idiots couldn't follow simple instructions. Bravo morons.

A giant manhunt is currently underway, which I suppose leads one to believe that the attacks were carried out a la Madrid. Therefore what I said in my previous post stands...

Least suicide bombers have some conviction in their actions...

[b_ringer25 0]

yes today was tragic, but it is time for some people to get their heads out of their ass. GB really needs to stop having all of these protests and start helping us in this war. They are out to kill all christians, not just Americans. Stop protesting and start helping.

[Panda-PL- 0]

This might sound a bit strange if I say it as I already got carried away and quarelled with some users.

Ashamed now.

Maybe we should wait with the discussion of London events for a day or two to let the emotions cool down.

[Garcia 0]

yes today was tragic, but it is time for some people to get their heads out of their ass.  GB really needs to stop having all of these protests and start helping us in this war.  They are out to kill all christians, not just Americans.  Stop protesting and start helping.

I'm sorry to tell you this, but IMO the "war on terror" doesn't really seem to work that well...Reports say that the number of reqruitment to terrorist organisations have gone a lot up since Iraq started...en the fact that London was hit today shows that it's not really working...Terrorism will never be removed totally...it's naive to think you one day will have no terrorism. And invading other countries is the totally wrong way of trying to stop terrorism. So you should get your head out of your ass and realise that you can't just rush into every country that US feels is a bad country and think that it will stop terrorism...

besides, most of the protesting is because US and UK haven't been able to find evidence of weapon of mass destruction, links to AQ and all that...which means they attacked Iraq based on really shitty intelligence, or that they lied to everyone just to attack...

[Shottie 0]

I agree with you Garcia. Fighting terrorism is like trying to find a niddle in a haystack that moves and blends into the hay. Its crazy how they do think they can stop terrorism when most countries that have been doing this for centuries. Also, I agree totally with the fact that the U.S. and U.K. can think they can just march into a country that is bad and is a "suspect of terroist attivites" and stop it.

[Bordoy 0]

yes today was tragic, but it is time for some people to get their heads out of their ass.  GB really needs to stop having all of these protests and start helping us in this war.  They are out to kill all christians, not just Americans.  Stop protesting and start helping.

Though I agree people should stop protesting, we can't force them. You say start helping yer? well what do you want, we've already sent soldiers to Iraq and Afghanistan. And the soldiers have gave their lives, what more do you want?

[Apollo 0]

Actually ,iraq is SERIOUSLY going wrong ,personaly i have read a number of books on the Vietnam war for ex. ,and i can draw important parrallells between both conflicts.

The most important parallel of all however is that ,just like in Vietnam ,the Iraqi's don't want the Americans there ,neither do they want to be forced with goverment that they do not want.The result ,and this is also in parallel with the vietnam war ,is an increasingly escalating conflict ,spiraling out of control.It's already getting out of control ,even american generals admit that ,the only temporary measurement will be an increase in troop number ,but that can't solve the deeper reasons why this conflict is escalating.Meanwhile the financial costs of waging that war are ever increasing.

America tried to install a democratic puppet regime in Vietnam to.It never worked ,Vietnamese didn't want this puppet regime ,foremost they wanted to be unified under a nationalistic movement ,that also was communist in name.The reason for starting the war was also dogmatic ,replacing the bad communist regime with the good democracy ,the war against terrorism is in some ways simmilary dogmatic ,and few nuancations are made in the different forms of terrorism that occur ,just as like in the cold war where communist systems were often very different from country to country.It might be different in Iraq ,while in Vietnam they wanted an unified country now in Iraq its almost the other way around.Even the South vietnamese army that the US created for its aid ,wich had substantial funding ,did never ammount to much ,i do not expect much better from the new iraqi army ,and im looking with grief to the rediculous amount of support and territory that they left Karzai with in Afhanistan.

Nevertheless noone can deny the fact that the war in Iraq is increasingly escalating ,and there is no hope on imporvement ,in fact if it continue's to escalate ,i see no option for the USA to withdraw from the region ,just like they did with Vietnam.You might laugh with this point now ,but lets see what happens in the next decade ,Vietnam took a few decades to before the USA realized the faced an fundamental problem that they couldn't overcome.And concerning Afhanistan ,well that project failed from the moment the USA left it.

[MilitiaSniper 0]

All of us here in the forums are from different countries.

Sometimes we bicker about topics.

But this forum shows, that people can get together and discuss issues.

Even on political crap!

I think most of us are civilized.

No matter what country we are from.

But these non human @$$holes, are not civilized!

If they so strongly feel for thier beliefs.

Then target the military.

Not civilians!

What I can't understand is.., why doesn't the Muslim world.

Condemn these attacks!

These non humans.., believe they are doing it in the name of Allah!

So it has become in their eyes.., a Holy War!

Yet the Muslim world.., keeps silent.

(And does really..? Nothing!

They know who's who!

I heard on the radio today.

Some people would call in.

And say, "This is why we need to pull out of Iraq."

"This is why we need to have tolerance. With the people."

I say..,

These people are the reason why we are fighting.

These people attacked FIRST! (Even before (9-11!

We tried the talks.

We tried the tolerance.

All it got us was a DEAD INNOCENT people!

Some want us to have forgiveness.

How can you..?

I don't hate Muslims.

But I do wish these terrorist!

Would just spontaneously combust!

It makes sense to me!

They want to blow themselves up!

But my heart goes out the families that have lost someone today!

God Bless them!

God Bless the people of the U.K.!

Sincerely, MilitiaSniper

   

[Badgerboy 0]

I think the attitude of the public on the street summed it up...

"We've seen it all before"

I got text messages off my friends such as 'Fucking terrorists have made me late for work!'

It was nice to see people acting calmly and sensibly, instead of running around like headless chickens.

I'm watching Condoleeza Rice bleating on about how now Brits know how the US feels! We've had 50 bloody years of it, just from different enemies.

We'll deal with it as we always have..... Sensibly.

[Garcia 0]

Quote[/b] ]It's already getting out of control ,even american generals admit that ,the only temporary measurement will be an increase in troop number ,but that can't solve the deeper reasons why this conflict is escalating.

Sending in more troops would only lead to more US soldiers getting killed (cause there would be more targets for terrorists) Iraq has a lot in common with Vietnam, but it'll never be as bad as Vietnam

[stgn 39]

Actually ,iraq is SERIOUSLY going wrong ,personaly i have read a number of books on the Vietnam war for ex. ,and i can draw important parrallells between both conflicts.

The most important parallel of all however is that ,just like in Vietnam ,the Iraqi's don't want the Americans there ,neither do they want to be forced with goverment that they do not want.The result ,and this is also in parallel with the vietnam war ,is an increasingly escalating conflict ,spiraling out of control.It's already getting out of control ,even american generals admit that ,the only temporary measurement will be an increase in troop number ,but that can't solve the deeper reasons why this conflict is escalating.Meanwhile the financial costs of waging that war are ever increasing.

America tried to install a democratic puppet regime in Vietnam to.It never worked ,Vietnamese didn't want this puppet regime ,foremost they wanted to be unified under a nationalistic movement ,that also was communist in name.The reason for starting the war was also dogmatic ,replacing the bad communist regime with the good democracy ,the war against terrorism is in some ways simmilary dogmatic ,and few nuancations are made in the different forms of terrorism that occur ,just as like in the cold war where communist systems were often very different from country to country.It might be different in Iraq ,while in Vietnam they wanted an unified country now in Iraq its almost the other way around.Even the South vietnamese army that the US created for its aid ,wich had substantial funding ,did never ammount to much ,i do not expect much better from the new iraqi army ,and im looking with grief to the rediculous amount of support and territory that they left Karzai with in Afhanistan.

Nevertheless noone can deny the fact that the war in Iraq is increasingly escalating ,and there is no hope on imporvement ,in fact if it continue's to escalate ,i see no option for the USA to withdraw from the region ,just like they did with Vietnam.You might laugh with this point now ,but lets see what happens in the next decade ,Vietnam took a few decades to before the USA realized the faced an fundamental problem that they couldn't overcome.And concerning Afhanistan ,well that project failed from the moment the USA left it.

1. Drawing parralells is one of the easiest things in this world.

2. I think you generalise just a bit too much. When reporters say they have talken to Iraqi's off record it is My impression that alot are happiere with the American's than with Saddam and reconize that they are need right now.

3. I think you are right that USA will withdraw form the region, I even think USA is planning on leaving the country when it can take care of it self.

About vietnam, wasen't the biggset problem the US public rather than the forces they where fighting?

STGN

[Apollo 0]

I think the attitude of the public on the street summed it up...

"We've seen it all before"

I got text messages off my friends such as 'Fucking terrorists have made me late for work!'

It was nice to see people acting calmly and sensibly, instead of running around like headless chickens.

I'm watching Condoleeza Rice bleating on about how now Brits know how the US feels! We've had 50 bloody years of it, just from different enemies.

We'll deal with it as we always have..... Sensibly.

I'm happy lots of Brits can nuancate these attacks and put them into perspective.

I was not surprized to see that the reaction of the USA against this perceived hughe threat was much more irrational and emotional than it was for the Brittish.It does remind me of the Cuban missile crises ,while East germany had been under constant threat from the USSR both unconventionaly and conventionally by a hughe land army sitting at its border for decade's ,the American public went Beserk with a few nukes placed in close range ,it seems the USA is much less reseliant against attacks on it's home soil than most of Europe seems to be ,on the other hand while the USA have been able to put themself in safe isolation for more than a 100 year Europe was always the center of almost constant war and security was always illusive for any european country.

I think there is a distincive difference in mindset when it comes to the USA and many European country's on the matter of warfare.While Europe have felt much of the consequences of hughe scale warfare at home ,when it came to WW1 and WW2 the USA could always campaign from a virtually secure homeland to a conflict abroad ,wich it could win with not a to hughe cost in terms of manpower and finances compared to it's potential.For Europe these wars were much more devastating ,a much higher amount of manpower lost for the country's involved ,same for infastructure ,and a victory that was illusive ,it's costs often to great.

The result is that Europe is genneraly much more weary of war ,having fought bloody conflicts in wich even the winner lost more than it gained.Compared to the USA wich actually gained a lot in WW1 and 2 ,both these wars eventually made the USA the dominating power in the world ,their victory's wern't illusive ,and the USA might have gotten the impression it could gain a lot with it's power ,while in Europe the merrits of war would have been much less if compared to the results at home.Well the hughe difference here was that the USA came as liberator's.

Even the vietnam war didn't learn the American's much about involving oneself in a conflict where their input is really not wanted.Much Americans still think the USA could have won that war if not for some "cowards" ,that failed to give the finnishing blow.

I think this is the big difference between europe and the USA ,and also somewhat between Europe and the UK ,continentel Europe didn't came out as victor's from both world wars ,and might look at war more as something were it's hard to get any possitive effects from.The UK and te USA on the other hand were more constant victor's ,and for them war migth seem a easy way to get their wishes done.

[Pathy 0]

Your right about the "normality" of it, our country has lived with the IRA threat, now its just a different group, with different ideologies and causes, but at the core same type of thing, and we are relatively used to it.

Quote[/b] ]yes today was tragic, but it is time for some people to get their heads out of their ass. GB really needs to stop having all of these protests and start helping us in this war. They are out to kill all christians, not just Americans. Stop protesting and start helping.

I'm sorry, but...

1) If we dont support the war we have our heads up our arses?

2) All these protests? What the hell do you know about GB? We dont go onto the streets every day and protest, no more than we all sit around in our manor houses, playing croquet, drinking tea and eating crumpets, and speaking like "jolly ho!" and all that crap that some Americans eat up.

Protesters are a minority besides, but dont you have them in the US of A? Maybe not, they're probably scared they will be labelled "unamerican" as they dont agree with TBA's views (To be a True American it seems, you have to agree with the action of the government, no matter how flawed it is)

3) Start helping? And what have our soldiers been doing already, did they just go out there to watch a football game or something?

[Apollo 0]

1. Drawing parralells is one of the easiest things in this world.

2. I think you generalise just a bit too much. When reporters say they have talken to Iraqi's off record it is My impression that alot are happiere with the American's than with Saddam and reconize that they are need right now.

3. I think you are right that USA will withdraw form the region, I even think USA is planning on leaving the country when it can take care of it self.

About vietnam, wasen't the biggset problem the US public rather than the forces they where fighting?

STGN

on 1: i wouldn't know ,doesn't present much of a point though from youre side doesn't it?

on 2: There are difference's there to vietnam ,yes the USA had more oppenents there against their puppet regime ,though granted the South Vietnamese did have a lot of supporters under it's poppulation ,more than you think.The matter however was that few were preppared to fight for the South Vienamese goverment ,while it had quite some supporters among the liberal emlements in the country ,this while recruits for fighting the USA were lineing up. I wander how many Iraqi servicemen will be so preppared to risk their lives against well armed and morale strong insurgents ,not afraid to die.

on 3: Thats a very commen misperception ,as i said made by most Americans ,a myth spread among American's to relieve somewhat the pain of the defeat.Yes the Americans were deadly flanked by the Ho Che Ming trial ,many believe that if the extension of the war to fight in cambodja had allowed to continue ,so that the USA could have bombed Vietnamese forces in Cambodja flanking the USA ,that as hence a valuable flank could have been taken out and that the war therefore could have been won. This perception and thought is not realistic though.Firts of all the aerial bombardments wouldn't have much eeffect on the trial itself in the firts way ,the Vietnamese were quite good at organizing that trial even under bombardment.Second of all the question arrirses if the USA wouldn't have been defeated regardless of the trial ,most historains would say that the trial only shortend the time for the Vietnamese to win the war.Afterall even withought the trial the war was from an American stand of view at it's best a stalemate ,there was no chance to actually head up north and decisivly defeat the Northern Vietnamese.At best a peace treaty could have been made ,but the Vietnamese would havve never accepted it ,in any case time was on the Vietnamese side at any time in the conflict.

The most important parallel however is the ever increasing escalation ,in Iraq just like it was in Vietnam.The longer that the USA puppet regime in vietnam lived ,the more recruits joined the ranks of the North Vietnamese ,the larger the scale of the war became.

If the war keeps escalating ,logical under the current trend ,then the USA will only have these options.

1: Leave the area all toghether ,withought chance of survival for the Iraqi regime

2: leave the area ,but with and Iraqi army in place to hold the nation toghether ,seems impossible to build such a strong Iraqi force ,and even if it would be build it would need USA funds to

be supported ,a recipe for disaster in itself ,their quality would be less so they would need more than the Americans now in place to control the country ,thats a quite large number of troops ,and these troops would also have to increase as the situation escalate's.Personally i think this option is impossible.

3:Stay in the country ,and by the escalation you are forced to constantly increase the number of troops there to keep the situation under control.

In fact ,these considerations are much the same to those that the USA had on the end of the Vietnam war.It had created the South Vietnamese in the first place for the mere reason to fight the war for them.And when the USA saw itself forced to leave the area ,it hoped the South vietnamese state that they so artificily created could live on it's own and possibly win the civil war ,if not defend its own home.However the South vietnamese goverment was that hollow ,and fell before the feet of the North vietnamese in no time after the USA had left ,while the South vietnamese army had quite large numbers of men and were equiped with fairly modern American equipment.

So deffinatly in the problems the USA faces in Iraq there are lots of good parallels to be drawn to the Vietnam war.

[General Barron 0]

My condolences to the people of Great Britain. Today is another sad day for human rights, as the ultimate right to simply LIVE has been eliminated for dozens of innocent people.

Damn Al Queida, and damn all the other Muslim extremist groups across the world. The people you kill have done nothing to you. We just want to be left alone to our 'Evil', Decadent lives.

One day their time will come. One day we will hunt down and kill each and every one of these terrorist scumbags.

I guess the only "good" thing that could be said is at least the casualties were relatively low, considering the kind of damage that could have been done.

[stgn 39]

I think the attitude of the public on the street summed it up...

"We've seen it all before"

I got text messages off my friends such as 'Fucking terrorists have made me late for work!'

It was nice to see people acting calmly and sensibly, instead of running around like headless chickens.

I'm watching Condoleeza Rice bleating on about how now Brits know how the US feels! We've had 50 bloody years of it, just from different enemies.

We'll deal with it as we always have..... Sensibly.

I'm happy lots of Brits can nuancate these attacks and put them into perspective.

I was not surprized to see that the reaction of the USA against this perceived hughe threat was much more irrational and emotional than it was for the Brittish.It does remind me of the Cuban missile crises ,while East germany had been under constant threat from the USSR both unconventionaly and conventionally by a hughe land army sitting at its border for decade's ,the American public went Beserk with a few nukes placed in close range ,it seems the USA is much less reseliant against attacks on it's home soil than most of Europe seems to be ,on the other hand while the USA have been able to put themself in safe isolation for more than a 100 year Europe was always the center of almost constant war and security was always illusive for any european country.

I think there is a distincive difference in mindset when it comes to the USA and many European country's on the matter of warfare.While Europe have felt much of the consequences of hughe scale warfare at home ,when it came to WW1 and WW2 the USA could always campaign from a virtually secure homeland to a conflict abroad ,wich it could win with not a to hughe cost in terms of manpower and finances compared to it's potential.For Europe these wars were much more devastating ,a much higher amount of manpower lost for the country's involved ,same for infastructure ,and a victory that was illusive ,it's costs often to great.

The result is that Europe is genneraly much more weary of war ,having fought bloody conflicts in wich even the winner lost more than it gained.Compared to the USA wich actually gained a lot in WW1 and 2 ,both these wars eventually made the USA the dominating power in the world ,their victory's wern't illusive ,and the USA might have gotten the impression it could gain a lot with it's power ,while in Europe the merrits of war would have been much less if compared to the results at home.Well the hughe difference here was that the USA came as liberator's.

Even the vietnam war didn't learn the American's much about involving oneself in a conflict where their input is really not wanted.Much Americans still think the USA could have won that war if not for some "cowards" ,that failed to give the finnishing blow.

I think this is the big difference between europe and the USA ,and also somewhat between Europe and the UK ,continentel Europe didn't came out as victor's from both world wars ,and might look at war more as something were it's hard to get any possitive effects from.The UK and te USA on the other hand were more constant victor's ,and for them war migth seem a easy way to get their wishes done in this war.

1. What do you base that on? Being more used to somthing is not that same as understanding.

2. You mean west germany right? Also years its very starnge that the US didn't like to have the russians suddenly being able to nuke em thats not stange at all. German's coundn't realy do enything about the russian army and problery learnt to live with it. The american's could do somthing about and offcause they did I think eny Nation set in that situation would have done somthing simular.

3. You problery right but it has never stoped us from killing each other now here your history could problery draw some paralells my dad prity offens says that the situation we have to day resemblens the state we had before WW1 and says that i might expirence a Inter European war in my life time.

4. I belive that if meany of the US troops in vietnam had not been withdrawn and had been used instead of starting the massive bombing of the north which was not theratent that much by boombing the US had, had a chance of winning but it would offcause had cost them meany lives.

5. Offcause they are different and the British have thier own Island for a reason but honestly I don't think that central europe look at war as a much worser think than the the US and UK its more a political thing and that Europe is more socialistic than the USA and the reasons the US fight for is not the same as a Socialist would fight for.

STGN

edit: clarified somthing

[Panda-PL- 0]

About vietnam, wasen't the biggset problem the US public rather than the forces they where fighting?

STGN

Who are Vietnameese anyway?

You ment South? The communists from north? Vietmin? South Vietnameese goverment? Clearyfy what you mean, because if you say "Vietnameese" it means nothing to me.

I mean I could try and guess, but in your nomenclature there were only one Vietnameese, who were all coimmunists and were terrorised by US...

The truth is that Vietnameese - both north and south - suffered alot from Vietcong too. The Communists organised massacres to terrorise and indoctrinate. They also used tortures to elliminate political opposition among their own nation.

The people in South Vietnam didn't care about Ammericans and commies at all. All they ever wanted was their fields and villages. It was Vietcong that came and terrorised them, stole their rice, indocteinated, took their men by force and incorporated them into their army. Then the Americans came and burned down what was left...

It was not a war between Vietnam and USA. It was a war between US together with South vietnam and the communists from North Vietnam.

The main problem in Vietnam was the lack of political conception on how to solve the crisis. The US goverment didn't wanted the conflict to escalate like it happened in Corea and so it restricted their military not to attack various targets, such as Hanoi port or airfields where Migs were deployed, and for some time even SAM launchers(!, because they were affraid that if they kill a military advisor from SU or PRC then the country would strike back. Later it was shown that many of NVA Migs were piloted by Chineese or Soviet "volunteers" anyway, but that's a different story. And on the other hand there were hippies (yay! who demanded all the soldiers to be moved out and the "american agression on Vietnam" to be stopped... So the army was limited from striking military targets or assaulting towns, while at the same time they didn't have enough people to effeciently wipe Vietcong out of Villages and cut their food supply.

As for the SV goverment - It'd be good if they DID install a puppet goverment. One of their biggest mistakes was leaving the corrupted and decayed SV politics and military leaders who didn't give a damn about neither their nation or the war going on - they stole the help recived from US...

The war was lost, maybe even before it started - due to the politicians and the communist repressions and terror taht followed the NV victory were awfull.

That's it about Vietnam and please don't bring this up. You misinterpret facts in both cases to show the terrorers as crystal clean freedom fighters.

BTW. There were terrorist strikes in Saigon using bombs in public places.

So please don't say  "Vietnameese", "Iraqi people" 'cuz I see you don't realise what you're talking about.

In the case of VGietnam you feel for communist propaganda (sorry, but I'm from Poland and we don't like them here - simply because it's an hearthless and merciless ideology), and you're just repeating their old thessis instead of getting a clear look on how it was.

Wonder from which country you are... Usually you can tell what people think based on that.

I don't want to get into quarrels. Last time it was someone who tried to blame terrorism on religion, now someone blames it on the US.

[Edit] Ok, I'll tell you something. I wanted to go to sleep but I can't.

Back then when I was a kid I was affraid to sleep because I thought there was a monster in my closet waitin for me to close my eyes. Right now I don't belive in monsters. Real monsters don't hide in your closet. No. And they are not affraid of being seen. They walk around in full light and they are more scarry then I could imagine back then.