What countries are fighting our fight on Terrorism?

[Redz]

I do not fault Europeans for their opposition to US actions; after all, there is a natural tendency to believe your own leaders before believing some other nation's leaders (it is the same in the US). I suspect the Europeans would have a different view had some of their cities been attacked on the same scale that New York was attacked, and additionally, been promised more and bigger attacks by the terrorists on a regular basis.

At the risk of sending this thread off on a tangent; i do not agree that it is fair to say that Europe has better quality media. I do think it is probably adequate, but your statement indicates the underlying arrogance that many Americans find distasteful in many European citizens. It is ironic that many Europeans are quick to point out American arrogance without recognizing their own.

i personally don't think europeans opposition to the iraq situation stems from their leaders, for example in both england and spain(b4 the election), the general populace opposed the war.
this natural tendancy to believe our leaders, is dangerious in my view, and i personally distrust all politicians. in terms of being attacked, the u.k was subject to horrible terrorist attacks for a quater of century by terrorists from my country, ireland, however the approach they used, and their reaction to being attacked was different, and in the longer term was successful.
the european media does have a liberal bias, but in terms of newsstyle and lenght of programme between ad breaks, i believe there are advantages.
for example we have 4 advert breaks an hour, as opposed to your 8, on major networks. indeed no adverts on the BBC. i think this longer period of programming(15mins) allows more complex debates, as opposed to the more soundbite style of us political media, perhaps driven by the shorter timescales in which one can make a point on mainstream media.
true it may be arrogant to point this out, but i am quite proud of irelands media position, as we get all english television and our own, as well as fox news!
in addition there are more stringent media ownership rules in many european countries

 

[CSM]

the broader the view the view the more simplistic the viewpoint somtimes.
i think my point is valid that Sauid arabia is a more legitimate target than iraq as real conclusive evidence exists for their support for terrorism.
i am clearly more sceptical in terms of iraqs role, certainly there were good reasons for removing hussain, i just don't think terrorism was the valid.
i worry that those in power are using americas legitamate fear and hurt following 9/11 to further their own ends, iraq being an example of this.
europeans have shown themselves to be able allies in afganistan, where french and german troops fight side by side with your forces. the war on terror can only be successful if it has the support of as many nations as possible. the efforts in iraq while worthwhile in many ways have detracted from the overall war on terror. its my view that military intervention in the middle east will not help the rising tensions between the muslim world and the west, as military occupation and inevitable civilian casualitites will be used by fundamentalists as evidence of the wests imperial ambitions, regardless of the occurance of free elections in iraq in jan, a coalition military presence will remain for many years.
i think the current direction and american and british policy will only sideline the moderate muslim groups that are essential if we are to avoid the clash of civilisations. military action in my view has the same effect as the israeli military response to palestine terrorism, in that it will create more extremists and more terrorists.
btw what is your view of the neo conservative influence in the bush administration?
and what do you think the straussian myth they may be using is?

First let me say that when I advocate the broader view, I mean that rather than simplifying the causes would be a mistake. It is a complex and far reaching problem.

Second, we could debate the prioritization of our approach to the war on terror until the cows come home. I happen to believe that our current approach is the correct one. Moderate Muslims were already sidelined, long before the US took action, by the very fundamentalists who took control of countries like Afghanistan; Saudi Arabia was/is heading down the same path with the Wahabi fundamentalist.

As I have already pointed out, military action by the United States has not detracted from the war on terror but is an integral and critical part of the entire war, though it is but one assault or front if you prefer.

Lastly, I should point out that you are currently carrying on a discussion with a person who would be consider by many to be a far right winger, and much much more mislead and misguided than any neocon. Having said that, I think this neocon stuff is a load of propaganda. What I perceive it as is really a reaction to the current trend towards socialism that some in this country advocate. In my opinion, the so called neocons are more independent minded, want less reliance on government programs, with a strong dose of nationalism thrown in. The fact that President Bush has chosen his advisors as he has reflects that. It is, by the way, a viewpoint that I am in vehemnet agreement with.

 

[CSM]

Damnit I missed this whole debate...

I dont believe we are quite finished yet!

 

[Redz]

:rotflmao:
Yeah...Okay. I guess you still don't understand....WE DON'T CARE WHAT THE EUROPEAN PUBLIC THINKS.
And that's my nice way of saying it.

say it any way you like, but its still not a real point, just a dismissal. again why do you think the europeans, both government and public were with you in afganistan, but not in iraq? what the difference?

 

[wolvie20m]

what the difference?

Still got to work on your english there bro.

There is no diffrence Iraq posed a danger and we cripled it before it came to US soil. No difference.

 

[CSM]

i personally don't think europeans opposition to the iraq situation stems from their leaders, for example in both england and spain(b4 the election), the general populace opposed the war.
this natural tendancy to believe our leaders, is dangerious in my view, and i personally distrust all politicians. in terms of being attacked, the u.k was subject to horrible terrorist attacks for a quater of century by terrorists from my country, ireland, however the approach they used, and their reaction to being attacked was different, and in the longer term was successful.
the european media does have a liberal bias, but in terms of newsstyle and lenght of programme between ad breaks, i believe there are advantages.
for example we have 4 advert breaks an hour, as opposed to your 8, on major networks. indeed no adverts on the BBC. i think this longer period of programming(15mins) allows more complex debates, as opposed to the more soundbite style of us political media, perhaps driven by the shorter timescales in which one can make a point on mainstream media.
true it may be arrogant to point this out, but i am quite proud of irelands media position, as we get all english television and our own, as well as fox news!
in addition there are more stringent media ownership rules in many european countries

I remember quite well when British troops were all over the place in Ireland. As you surely know, it was not simply the military occupation which resulted in the current status quo in Ireland, and that is my point.

Since I don't want to divert this thread, I will discontinue the discussion of comparison of European/US media, though would be glad to discuss it in a different new thread.

 

[wolvie20m]

Theres a difference...hmmm...thats a new one for me. :happy2:

 

[CSM]

say it any way you like, but its still not a real point, just a dismissal. again why do you think the europeans, both government and public were with you in afganistan, but not in iraq? what the difference?

I have to point out that while European troops are now in Afghanistan, they were not there at the start; nor were they there in Kosovo and Bosnia. It was only after the US had done the majority of the warfighting that European troops were deployed (mostly as part of NATO) to those countries. As for European public support in our actions in Afghanistan, I do not believe the European public gave a rats ass about what we did in Afghanistan one way or the other because Europe had absolutely NO interest there at all. In Iraq and Dafur and other places though, they had a vested interest (particularly finanacially) in what happened. The biggest difference was the financila investment that many European countries had in Iraq while they had NONE in Afghanistan. That alone leads many Americans perceive Europeans as hypocritical.

 

[Redz]

I happen to believe that our current approach is the correct one. Moderate Muslims were already sidelined, long before the US took action, by the very fundamentalists who took control of countries like Afghanistan; Saudi Arabia was/is heading down the same path with the Wahabi fundamentalist.
Lastly, I should point out that you are currently carrying on a discussion with a person who would be consider by many to be a far right winger, and much much more mislead and misguided than any neocon. Having said that, I think this neocon stuff is a load of propaganda. What I perceive it as is really a reaction to the current trend towards socialism that some in this country advocate. In my opinion, the so called neocons are more independent minded, want less reliance on government programs, with a strong dose of nationalism thrown in. The fact that President Bush has chosen his advisors as he has reflects that. It is, by the way, a viewpoint that I am in vehemnet agreement with.

for what i've heard the moderate muslims were winning the fight for the soul of the middle east until recently, for instance the collaspe in popular support for fundamentalist islam in both algeria and eygpt in the late 90's, however i believe the current military action in the middle east will revitalise these movements unfortunatly.
Saudi is on a dangerious path, but the option of military action there is not, because of its sensitive religious sites, so what to do there?
i agree that the neo con stuff is a load of propaganda, and thats why i'm worried. several in the administation are admitted followers of the theorys of Leo Strauss, i suggest you research strauss and his straussian myths. their view point really scares me, i do think they are motivated by good intentions, but their view of the majority of the population as too stupid to deal with the moral complexity of the world really annoys me.
a right wingers you may be, but you are clearly intelligent and well informed, and i urge you to learn more about this group at the heart of your administration.

 

[Mr. P]

say it any way you like, but its still not a real point, just a dismissal. again why do you think the europeans, both government and public were with you in afganistan, but not in iraq? what the difference?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Clear?

 

[Redz]

Still got to work on your english there bro.

There is no diffrence Iraq posed a danger and we cripled it before it came to US soil. No difference.

difference is that iraq posed a potential threat, the potential of which your administation decided. afganistan harboured the terrorists responsible for 9/11 and thus was a clear and present danger

 

[Redz]

I remember quite well when British troops were all over the place in Ireland. As you surely know, it was not simply the military occupation which resulted in the current status quo in Ireland, and that is my point.

Since I don't want to divert this thread, I will discontinue the discussion of comparison of European/US media, though would be glad to discuss it in a different new thread.

brit troops left southern ireland in 1922. they remain in north ireland even today. the current status quo only came about through political negotiation, it was terrible for the victims of terror, as convicted killers were released en masse, however it has been good for the future. however many believe that that you cannot negotiate these muslim terrorists, thats an oversimplification and your smart enough to know it

 

[CSM]

for what i've heard the moderate muslims were winning the fight for the soul of the middle east until recently, for instance the collaspe in popular support for fundamentalist islam in both algeria and eygpt in the late 90's, however i believe the current military action in the middle east will revitalise these movements unfortunatly.
Saudi is on a dangerious path, but the option of military action there is not, because of its sensitive religious sites, so what to do there?
i agree that the neo con stuff is a load of propaganda, and thats why i'm worried. several in the administation are admitted followers of the theorys of Leo Strauss, i suggest you research strauss and his straussian myths. their view point really scares me, i do think they are motivated by good intentions, but their view of the majority of the population as too stupid to deal with the moral complexity of the world really annoys me.
a right wingers you may be, but you are clearly intelligent and well informed, and i urge you to learn more about this group at the heart of your administration.

I am well aware of the group involved in the current administration and Leo Strauss. I happen to like the current array of advisors and think that you may have heard a little too much rhetoric regarding their views. If anyone believes the majority of the population in the US is stupid and incapable of taking care of themselves it would be the so called liberals. We have seen them advocate the view that they obviously know better than most and thus must protect the average American from himself through broader government and social programs. They think that the the US citizen cannot discern the difference between political and religious agendas and the the US citizen is too dumb to make economic decisions for themselves. In my opinion, it is the liberal Democratic Party point of view that assumes the lack of intelligence in the American people, and relies heavily on an apathetic citizenry. This last election goes a long way in proving that point of view as incorrect.

 

[wolvie20m]

So you advise we wait till someone has the power to threaten us before we attack? Pre-empted strike was nessacary Saddam violated one after another after another sanction. So how long are we supposed to take this? We're not the UN. Fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame me.

 

[CSM]

brit troops left southern ireland in 1922. they remain in north ireland even today. the current status quo only came about through political negotiation, it was terrible for the victims of terror, as convicted killers were released en masse, however it has been good for the future. however many believe that that you cannot negotiate these muslim terrorists, thats an oversimplification and your smart enough to know it

The fact that British troops are still in Northern Ireland illustrates my point ath military occupation does not necessarily mean that terrorism will increase or continue. It really does depend upon what other avenues/methods are employed in addition to the military option. In the case of Ireland, it is clear that diplomacy alone, nor politics alone nor militayr action alone would or could have worked.

 

[Redz]

European public support in our actions in Afghanistan, I do not believe the European public gave a rats ass about what we did in Afghanistan one way or the other because Europe had absolutely NO interest there at all. In Iraq and Dafur and other places though, they had a vested interest (particularly finanacially) in what happened. The biggest difference was the financila investment that many European countries had in Iraq while they had NONE in Afghanistan. That alone leads many Americans perceive Europeans as hypocritical.

many europeans supported the war in afganistan. i think its unreasonable to expect european public support to reflect the vested secret interests of their nations, particulary considering this involved shady dealing with a murderious dictator, hardly the kind of thing to motivate people to go to protest marches in the rain is it?. the biggest difference from a european perspective were the reasons for the war. it was simply not a justifable as the afgan conflict.

 

[Redz]

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Clear?

you should consider making real points, not oversimplifications

 

[CSM]

So you advise we wait till someone has the power to threaten us before we attack? Pre-empted strike was nessacary Saddam violated one after another after another sanction. So how long are we supposed to take this? We're not the UN. Fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame me.

I dont think he said that, though one could read that into it. Obviously, each nation and situation has to adressed individually as no approach will work equally well in each circumstance. Iraq in my opinion should have been pre emptively struck long before we did. 12 years was far too long to tolerate that situation.

 

[wolvie20m]

I dont think he said that, though one could read that into it. Obviously, each nation and situation has to adressed individually as no approach will work equally well in each circumstance. Iraq in my opinion should have been pre emptively struck long before we did. 12 years was far too long to tolerate that situation.

I agree the citizens of Iraq wanted us to come help after Dessert Storm, Bush's father should have done it back then.

 

[Redz]

I am well aware of the group involved in the current administration and Leo Strauss. I happen to like the current array of advisors and think that you may have heard a little too much rhetoric regarding their views. If anyone believes the majority of the population in the US is stupid and incapable of taking care of themselves it would be the so called liberals.

your view about the liberals may well be correct, and you are clearly in a better position to judge. if you are aware of Leo Strauss, then you know what i mean. its in his theorys clear as day. in an effort to prevent the general public from going all nihilist, they advocate using a straussian myth, so what do you think this administrations straussian myth is?