War on terrorism?

[brgnorway 0]

Shouldn't Bush & Company back off a little? Wouldn't it be a better idea to promote and negotiate peace instead of waging "war on terror" against the "evil axis"?

I have a feeling this will make the situation even more difficult in the middle east.

"Former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright called Mr Bush's comments "a big mistake".

Also, Italy and Russia said they would not back an operation against any of those countries unless US could provide solid proof.

What do you think?

Article here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi....104.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi....034.stm

[Assault (CAN) 1]

I agree brgnorway.

The U.S. should forget about the "axis of evil" for a little while and focus on their original objective. Finding or killing Osama Bin Laden. They haven't even accomplished that yet, and the American people seemed to have forgotten about it. Now Bush wants us to think that the "axis of evil" is the new problem. Everyone seems to be beating their chests over defeating the Taliban and they want more.

What should the U.S. be so proud of? So what, they beat a bunch of half-civilized and under equipped tribesmen with the strongest army on Earth. But they still can't find one single man.

I think that Bush made a mistake in that speech. No evidence linked Iraq, Iran, or S.Korea to the attacks of 9/11, that was and still is an immagration problem, not a military one. He is widening the "war on terror" without solving anything.

What is needed instead is a full and open investigation on the events of 9/11. We still don't know how the Al Qaeda operated right under the noses of the American people. Billions of $$$ have been spent on the "war on terror" to no avail. IMO, the U.S. is throwing money at the wrong problem.

Just my opinion....

Tyler

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Feb. 04 2002,05:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I agree brgnorway.

The U.S. should forget about the "axis of evil" for a little while and focus on their original objective. Finding or killing Osama Bin Laden. They haven't even accomplished that yet, and the American people seemed to have forgotten about it. Now Bush wants us to think that the "axis of evil" is the new problem.  Everyone seems to be beating their chests over defeating the Taliban and they want more.

What should the U.S. be so proud of? So what, they beat a bunch of half-civilized and under equipped tribesmen with the strongest army on Earth. But they still can't find one single man.

I think that Bush made a mistake in that speech. No evidence linked Iraq, Iran, or S.Korea to the attacks of 9/11, that was and still is an immagration problem, not a military one. He is widening the "war on terror" without solving anything.

What is needed instead is a full and open investigation on the events of 9/11. We still don't know how the Al Qaeda operated right under the noses of the American people. Billions of $$$ have been spent on the "war on terror" to no avail. IMO, the U.S. is throwing money at the wrong problem.

Just my opinion....

Tyler<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, thats my point of view as well. I guess you will stir up a few people here though?

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> I guess you will stir up a few people here though?<span id='postcolor'>

LOL, where's Wobble?

Tyler

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Feb. 04 2002,06:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> I guess you will stir up a few people here though?<span id='postcolor'>

LOL, where's Wobble?  

Tyler<span id='postcolor'>

He'll go ballistic!!! Hehe

[silent wings 0]

no y slow down??they r terrorists cos they wont listen to reason ,extremists,idiots,etc they should be exterminated.....not reeducated,,,oh how i long for the days when i will rule the world!!!

[christophercles 0]

I dont think they should start waging war against any of the "evil" countries, but they should still keep a very steady proactive thrust against terrorism.

[foxer 0]

I think he said north korea ,because they have missiles,and nukes(?).they sell the missiles to anyone that has the money.Iran because they are taking in the people fleeing afghanistan.Iraq,of course saddam.

I only see one country we would probably go after,and thats iraq.

[KingBeast 0]

South Korea is the one that has been named

**Edit

Actually I think I lie, please hit me

[MrLaggy 0]

Yes, let's bomb South Korea! Since the US already has tens of thousands of troops in the country it won't be hard... of course it will upset all the chip and electronics companies who get their products manufactured there.

Obviously you meant North Korea, though after the CIA targeting the Chinese Embassy in Serbia I wouldn't be entirely surprised if they did get North and South confused and bomb the wrong country. However, the only reason North Korea is in the list is to justify the tens of billions of pork dollars that Bush wants to spend on a useless missile defence system. How anyone could call them a threat to America with a straight face is beyond me... they're a communist basket case who pose a threat only to the US troops in the south and only if the government decided to commit suicide and go out with a bang.

Realistically, the US economy is tanking, Bush and friends may well be deeply entangled in the Enron scandals, Afghanistan is descending into civil war, and the US military has utterly failed to capture bin Laden and friends: so Bush needs _something_ to distract the media and keep his ratings up. Why not attack Iran, Iraq and North Korea? Who cares if it starts a widespread war in the Middle East so long as it keeps the bad news off the front pages for a while?

[Pukko 0]

I'm glad to see that no one here yet supports a war on Iraq, Iran and North Korea.

I dedicate the tiny space below to the millions of people that will be (and are) suffering form USA:s "War o terrorism":

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[foxer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm glad to see that no one here yet supports a war on Iraq, Iran and North Korea.

I dedicate the tiny space below to the millions of people that will be (and are) suffering form USA:s "War o terrorism":

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.<span id='postcolor'>

Most of those millions are americans.Soldiers get sent to a hell hole,sailors get sent out to sea,airforce get sent out.All the wtc ,pentagon victims(remember this is a war),the people on the plane that crash,the people that heard their last calls from their love ones on the planes,wtc,pentagon(?).N.korea,we have to build them a nuclear power plant soo they will stop their research on missiles(japan and korea is paying i believe half or more of it),they also have long range missiles that they will sell to anyone.Do i feel we need to attack n.korea ? No,it would be stupid.Iraq We should,and maybe go after.Iran i don't think we should,unless they do something really crazy.

[Pukko 0]

Already about 10 000 civilians have died in Afaganistan because of US presence (see an older thread around here). One may argue that USA has done them a favour if you are cold hearted (personally I dont view the Talibans as any worse than our western world when it comes to oppression -we in the western world only do it in an other way - by using symbolic violence).

Even if I live in Sweden I know a woman whose father died in WTC. Sure its terrible with all the americans suffering from WTC - but how many will have to pay for it (during what is officially called and justified as 'war on terrorism', but in the practice probably will be yet something real disgusting serving US interests)?

[foxer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pukko @ Feb. 05 2002,20:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Already about 10 000 civilians have died in Afaganistan because of US presence (see an older thread around here). One may argue that USA has done them a favour if you are cold hearted (personally I dont view the Talibans as any worse than our western world when it comes to oppression -we in the western world only do it in an other way - by using symbolic violence).

Even if I live in Sweden I know a woman whose father died in WTC. Sure its terrible with all the americans suffering from WTC - but how many will have to pay for it (during what is officially called and justified as 'war on terrorism', but in the practice probably will be yet something real disgusting serving US interests)?<span id='postcolor'>

In a perfect world no one would die,no one would die,no one would die.No one would die.Then i wake up,this ain't a perfect world.

How many in those 10,000 were men ? How many were younger then 14 ? how many were women ? How many were children.How many kids been killed on bikes,car accidents,hit by a car,yet you shed no tear for them,Why ? because we get use to it.

When is the last time , your country went to a 3rd world country and try to fight a warlord ? How many i ask you.Probably 0 or 2.You think that the west is the problem,true sometimes it is,most of the time it's not.Do you know how many times england and america team up to take care of europe's back yard or other countries problems? LOTS.Why is it always england and usa,why can't other countries help ? I'am not talking about peace keepers.Why won't other europe countries do their fair share ?

Afghans been dying for years and years,millions and millions people have died,yet you get on here and say "10,000 people died,damn you america,i'am anti-america".Why don't you tell your country to do something,other then sit on their a$$.Why won't other countries go put their own troops on the line ? Why won't they defend another country ? Why won't they defend their own country ? I can name soo many conflicts that your country and probably another country can go in,but your leaders are scared to act,because they don't care.Most of the time europe only fights ,if america fights.

I know you said west,but lets get real you meant america.

There are some europe countries that have the balls to put troops on the line,but there are some that aren't.

Remember,Afghanistan wasn't america fault,or russia fault,but their fault.

[foxer 0]

One more thing,if the terrorist blew something up in europe,who would they be calling ? That's right AMERICA(then england).

[Silencer 0]

call russia we have only one asnwer from war.

"NUKE NUKE! USE THEM!"

now at limited time offer nucluer warheads starting only 1200$

sold everywhere in russia as easy as selling bread.

[red oct 2]

dont forget your nuclear physicists for hire either

[Silencer 0]

don't make fun of the east!

we have nukes and we are not afraid to use them!

fear the east!

[red oct 2]

this is just another thread that discredits and blames my country for all the worlds problems. we do something you get a hair up your ass about it. we dont do something you whine and bitch that we dont care what happens to those "poor unfortunate people" there is no winning with you ppl is there? i tell you what, lets just pull out of these shit holes and see you do something better. lets see how you will react when terrorists start blowing up your people. than maybe you will see just how difficult these situations can be. some of you seem to think that reasoning works. well we tried a few ppl just dont want to reason. just bare in mind that you have dirt under your rug as well.

[Silencer 0]

there is a weapon that will solve alot of problems and you don't even need to sacrifice soldiers!!

you know what it is!?

nucleur warheads lets russia the 2nd country to use nukes on other countrys

make a large crater in afganstan pretty simple!

[red oct 2]

you starting to sound like someone if that of course is you in the first place. nuking afganistan wont solve shit and just cause more damage. and of course make lots of ppl angry

[Silencer 0]

then why did USA made nukes in the first place!!!?

nukes are made just for that!

[red oct 2]

cuzz during the time it was thought that it would be the ultimate methood to end the war when all it did was cause great misery. after the nuke was use somebody had to claim responsibilty for the aftermath. which is why no country today would be ballzy enough to want to use the nukes.

[Wobble 1]

Fuck these terrorist countries..

10,000 people died from "us preasence" well guess what shitheel, according to all the UN about 70,000 people PER YEAR had been died in Afganistan since the taleban took power.. most of the the elderley and children. from starvation since the wonderful taleban choked robbed the country blind if what little productivness it did have... not to mention all the women, men, and children who were murdered.. etc etc.. for such horrible crimes as goint to school, teaching.. or showing their face..

I get so sick of all these piss and moan fuckwits.. if the US does something you cry stamp like true morons about it, if we dont you accues of us turning our back and letting shit happen..

FUCK OFF, you think you could do better? its about fucking time you even tried.

[Pukko 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">cuzz during the time it was thought that it would be the ultimate methood to end the war when all it did was cause great misery<span id='postcolor'>

Well, one can look at sept 11:th as a modern variant of Hiroshima/Nagasaki. A try to end the misery the western world forces the muslim world to live in.

Foxer:

A bicycle, car etc. accident is by far a better way to lose relatives than by having them blown to pieces as colateral damage by bombs dropped by a nation that acts sole out of own interests. An normal accident is not as meaningless as a bomb you know....

And the western world is all countries under great influence by USA (and that is, in different ways, the whole world). I really long till Europoe gets free enough from USA:s, primary economical, influence to be able to say NO to USA. This world coalition against terrorism is terror in it self - "either you are with us, or you are agaist us" says Bush - and no coutry dares to do anything other than the mighty USA says; coz they spend most money in the world on military equipment and are important for most economies coz USA have a tendency to get a finger in all parts of the world.

If USA would not actively work against the UN, it could finally start working as intended; a fair (for all parts) "world police". As for now, the very reason for sep 11:th is USA:s earlier actions around, primary middle east, the world - if not to 100% then to a great part; dont say anything else. And since the western world is closely realted to USA, USA will drag them with it. You can continue believe that most of USA:s military actions the last 50 years are justified, and neended since no one else would do anything.

War is a concrete REAL cheap way to get public support - because the people beholds the leaders as strong. Actually its so cheap that here in most parts of Europe it dont work anymore. If Sweden (in peace for soon 200 years) would go to war for some vauge justified rasons - it would be a revolution here. Most of us, not all though, believe in peaceful negotiations. Paeaceful dealings demands its citisens though - since the leaders dont look as strong when dealing in abstarct ways instead of concrete.

Now, the biggest differance between abstract and concrete actions, at least in the question of international conflict, is that abstract actions have got some chanse to succeed in the long run - concrete actions have about none.

Can someone please refresh my memory the last time when Europe whined about USA NOT taking military action?