Why United States is going to lose the War on Terror

[freeandfun1]

Critics of the administration's bellicose language on North Korea say that the problem was not that Mr Rumsfeld supported the Clinton-inspired diplomacy and the ABB deal but that he did not "speak up against it". "One could draw the conclusion that economic and personal interests took precedent over non-proliferation," said Steve LaMontagne, an analyst with the Centre for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation in Washington.

Actually, one could conclude that Rumsfeld, not being in the government at the time and working for a business, was doing his job. It was clear the Clinton admin was going to go forward with the deal, so, if anything, Rumsfeld just made sure or tried to make sure, that his EMPLOYER won the deal. That was his job.

 

[dilloduck]

As long as the United States is perceived by most of the people in the world as a nation of terror with its foreign and military policies. We are in a no win situation were we will win military battles while losing the war. The double standards in the application of our foreign and military policies have created more enemies than allies in the war on terror. Our financial and military support of the State of Israel is one of the clearest examples of this. It is the policies and actions of the United States and Israel that has divided the world, us verses them. Even in the nations whose governments support the United States war in Iraq the majority of people in these nations do not.

The United States war in Iraq is seen as one of the greatest modern day military mistakes by most people in the world lowering the bar to a preemptive unilateral war of choice. Between the military actions of the United States and the State of Israel the rest of people in the world are united like never before against us. If the people in the world were surveyed and the question whether Saddam or Bush was or is the biggest threat to global peace and security, Bush would win. As long as the American people deny the realities to the perception of the rest of the people around the world things in America will only get worst.

By no means was Saddam a good leader of Iraq but it was the United States policies and support of Saddam during his worst years that enabled him to become the tyrant he became. It is the United States government?s track record in the support of tyrants such as the Shaw of Iran, Saddam, Marcos of the Philippines a list too long to mention that undermines our credibility with the people around the world.

I'm sure you recognize your original post. It is a simple statement to say we will lose the war on terrorism becuase it only takes one freaking nut with a rock to commit an act of terrorism. So yes--it will never end. I see you still believe that appeasement solves problems-try it on your own but please don't involve my country. You will lose.
Terrorism has been FINALLY taken on in front of God and everyone and I thank Bush for that. It may take some time to get it right but its the right thing to do. YOU would rather do what? Be nice and hope they go away?

 

[wade]

That 'diplomatic' solution was doing nothing more than letting NK continue a weapons program. Now, they have a possible 6 to 8 weapons instead of 1 or 2. How many of those do you think they will sell for some much needed cash? Who will they sell them to?

All that 'diplomatic' solution would have accomplished was strenghten North Koreas military aggressiveness and put them in a position where they could actually demand things instead of coming to the table for talks.

Actually, NK had agreed to end its nuclear weapons program, end its missile program for all missiles with a range exceeding 300 miles, and scuttle all existing missiles with a range greater than 300 miles. This all for a gradual admittance into the international community.

If you study the NK leader, Kim, it all makes sense. This guy is not really a communist at all.

Bush didn't want this because he didn't want a more secure world. Bush's whole thing is about maintaining a level of fear that diverts the attention of America from what he's doing to America. A reduction in world tension does not suit him at all.

Wade.

 

[freeandfun1]

Actually, NK had agreed to end its nuclear weapons program, end its missile program for all missiles with a range exceeding 300 miles, and scuttle all existing missiles with a range greater than 300 miles. This all for a gradual admittance into the international community.

If you study the NK leader, Kim, it all makes sense. This guy is not really a communist at all.

Bush didn't want this because he didn't want a more secure world. Bush's whole thing is about maintaining a level of fear that diverts the attention of America from what he's doing to America. A reduction in world tension does not suit him at all.

Wade.

He wasn't abiding by the agreement. Who gives a shit what the agreement was if he wasn't abiding by it. DOH!

He had to stop his nuclear program and in return, the US and SK were building him reactors for peaceful uses. Do you read or just suppose?

 

[wade]

The problem is that as NK develops a serious nuclear capability, Japan will become threatened and probably feel the need to likewise arm itself. With Japan arming itself, China will feel threatened... and we have an arms race...

Wade.

 

[freeandfun1]

The problem is that as NK develops a serious nuclear capability, Japan will become threatened and probably feel the need to likewise arm itself. With Japan arming itself, China will feel threatened... and we have an arms race...

Wade.

Exactly why the Bush admin is trying to resolve this situation in concert with the Chinese, Koreans and Japanese.

Japan's domestic economy pretty much sux, but they still weild a LOT of power throughout Asia economically. Also, I am pretty confident that Japan and s Korea already have nuclear programs to some extent. The Koreans are now free to develop their own space program (missile technology) and they have around 20 nuclear plants already in operation. Japan also uses a lot of nuclear power and they too already have pretty decent missile technology. You would be surprised how good the Japanese and Koreans are at playing the bluffing game. I have done business with both countries for YEARS and they are masters at negotiation and at keeping secrets.

 

[Annie]

Actually, NK had agreed to end its nuclear weapons program, end its missile program for all missiles with a range exceeding 300 miles, and scuttle all existing missiles with a range greater than 300 miles. This all for a gradual admittance into the international community.

If you study the NK leader, Kim, it all makes sense. This guy is not really a communist at all.

Bush didn't want this because he didn't want a more secure world. Bush's whole thing is about maintaining a level of fear that diverts the attention of America from what he's doing to America. A reduction in world tension does not suit him at all.

Wade.

Please provide links for what you are saying. This flies in the face of all that I've seen.

 

[freeandfun1]

Please provide links for what you are saying. This flies in the face of all that I've seen.

He is right that they did "agree". But he is leaving out the part about their not abiding by their agreement.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

More left wing hypocrisy.

Clinton made the deal with Lil Kim but somehow managed to miss the fact that NK did not keep up their end of the bargain. Now that Bush is trying to use China/SK/Japan & Russia to pressure Lil Kim to give up his nukes they are not happy. I guess they want us to invade?

 

[wade]

Please provide links for what you are saying. This flies in the face of all that I've seen.

"In early March, barely a month into Bush's term, Kim Dae Jung, South Korea's president, made a state visit to Washington. On the eve of the visit, Powell told reporters that, on Korean policy, Bush would pick up where Clinton had left off. The White House instantly rebuked him; Bush made it clear he would do no such thing. Powell had to eat his words, publicly admitting that he had leaned "too forward in my skis." It was the first of many instances when Powell would find himself out of step with the rest of the Bush team--the lone diplomat in a sea of hardliners. " http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.kaplan.html (see the section "Sunshine and Moral clarity" for the Bush position/actions).

more links:

http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/2001/mj01/mj01sigal.html

http://www.cia.gov/nic/confreports_northkorea.html (bout as conservative a source as you can get!)

Here are some more links: (in historic order)

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2000_11/albrighttalks.asp
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2001_03/northkorea.asp
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2001_04/korea.asp
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2001_06/korjun01.asp
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2001_07-08/northkoreajul_aug01.asp

You can certainly look for more info yourself. You will see it is true. Madaline Albright, under the Clinton Adminstration, had gotten a deal on the table where Kim Il Sung had agreed to suspend NK's nuclear program, stop development and production of long range (more than 300 miles) missiles, and not to export any missiles or missile technology. Bush scuttled this deal without even seriously considering it!

I have to say I do not believe President Bush wants a "safer world". If he did, he would have at least considered the deal the Clinton Adminstration left on the table for him to pick up - something Powell was so sure he would do that he said as much w/o consultation only to find himself rebuked.

I think in his heart he is thankful for 9/11, without it his presidency would have been about the economy and there would have been no way for him to achieve his real goals if the publics attention were not diverted to "the war on terrorism". Fear is a tool he is using to obscure his real agenda.

======

Free and Fun,

The deal that was on the table had two sides to it, NK was to get normalized relations with the international community and talks were to begin concerning reunification of Korea at some point (many years) in the future. Of course Kim didn't uphold his side when the US backed out of the deal, would you expect different?

Wade.

 

[tralsace]

'I have to say I do not believe President Bush wants a "safer world". If he did, he would have at least considered the deal the Clinton Adminstration left on the table for him to pick up - something Powell was so sure he would do that he said as much w/o consultation only to find himself rebuked.

I think in his heart he is thankful for 9/11, without it his presidency would have been about the economy and there would have been no way for him to achieve his real goals if the publics attention were not diverted to "the war on terrorism". Fear is a tool he is using to obscure his real agenda.'

I know here on internet forms we often say things in wide strokes...but really I want you to at least look at the last half of your statement.

an american is thankful about 9/11?
well if in all honesty you believe that...and i have no way of knowing your mind...just like i would offer you don't bush's...then you are right to be agianst him...but with what you say as the supposition...that is a large leap in faith...at least!

The economics of the world were devestated by 9/11 no doubt...but largely recover no?
Actually the fall of wall street in terms of the Tech bubble started before long before...the third and fourth quarter of 2000 economically gave a great notice as to what was to come...it had nothing to do with Bush...unless you somehow believe Bush controls all the economic factors...which would mean the protections that our fore fathers put in place were false.

I understand you have your opinions for what they are...but if you really want to examine the economics of the past 20 years and put them in context with who did what when...let's do.

For instance...some of Enron's greatest gains were made by extorting India...that came about by Clinton's pressuere on India to use Enron...how about we talk about that?

Bottom line I'm saying is if you want to fight and compare...lets compare 96 economy with now...that would be the end of clintons first term to now 2004 with Bush's...let's do that ok?
on unemployment...stock market the whole thing don'tcha know...you up for that?

 

[wade]

Clinton entered a bad economy and it got better over time. Bush entered a good economy and it got bad. I'm not saying that either was responsible for what actually occured, that's a complex discussion in itself.

And I'm not meaning to say that Pres. Bush is happy about the specifics of the attacks, but rather that he is glad his Presidency can be about the war on Terror, and not on domestic issues. And there is at least some evidence that he turned a blind eye to potential terrorist actions waiting for one to occur so he could go ballistic, but if he did I don't think he expected the WTC to be destroyed, but rather something more like the Cole incident.

As he fights his war on terror, he undermines every other aspect of US society with his tax cuts for the rich, generally bad economic policies, and raping of the environment, education, health care issues, general freedoms, etc...

And as I have pointed out, he didn't just drop the ball w.r.t North Korea, he threw it in the trash.

Wade.

 

[freeandfun1]

Wade, you are an idiot.

the economy started tanking in 1998 when the Asian currencies took a dive after George Soros shorted the Thai Baht.

Kim Jong Il was NOT abiding by the agreement. That is why Bush backed out.

I do business in Korea and I travel there often. The Korean people agree with Bush's stance. They will tell you that we cannot trust Kim Jong Il.

Once you know what you are talking about, I will reply. Until then, I am done as you obviously have no clue what you are talking about.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

And there is at least some evidence that he turned a blind eye to potential terrorist actions waiting for one to occur so he could go ballistic, but if he did I don't think he expected the WTC to be destroyed, but rather something more like the Cole incident.

Clinton turned a blind eye to terrorism for 8 years, and I didn't hear the Democrats warning us about terrorism.

Clinton entered a bad economy and it got better over time. Bush entered a good economy and it got bad. I'm not saying that either was responsible for what actually occured, that's a complex discussion in itself.

As freeandfun pointed out and as anyone who doesn't try to rewrite history to make Bush look bad will tell you, the economy really was not that good in 2000. But don't let facts get in the way of your argument.

Also, a lot of the numbers like unemployment and other economic statistics are not much different than they were under Clinton. That's pretty good considering 9/11, corporate corruption, and the constant threat of terrorism (if a Democrat was in office, the biased media would be saying the same thing).

As he fights his war on terror, he undermines every other aspect of US society with his tax cuts for the rich, generally bad economic policies, and raping of the environment, education, health care issues, general freedoms, etc...

A lot of the so-called rich really are not that rich and many of them are small business owners.

What are these "generally bad economic policies" you speak of?

How exactly has he raped the environment? Give me specific examples.

I'm pretty sure that a lot of money is spent on education (although throwing money at the problems there often has not solved anything).

As far as health care issues go, what do you propose? What about how the Democrats said they would do something about it but didn't from 92-00?

What "general freedoms" are you talking about? I always hear people mention this, but they usually can't give examples.

 

[Zhukov]

I'm pretty sure that a lot of money is spent on education (although throwing money at the problems there often has not solved anything).

And you're right. Federal expenditures in the Dept. of Education have (unfortunately) gone up every single year Pres. Bush has been in office.

FY2001= 73.9 B
FY2002= 86.4 B
FY2003= 96.5 B
FY2004P= 105.2 B
FY2005E= 111.0 B (a 50.1% increase in spending since 2001)

Dept. of Ed. Budget

Of course there is the possibility that what he meant by "raping....education" was 'giving them more money'....

 

[Daniel]

It is the nature of governments, all througout history governments have killed their own people for political gain, but for some reason people refuse to see what is happening right here in America, our OWN government gone bad.

Governments, sadly, stand to gain from a terrorist incident.

Take a look at this article, it was reported on many mainstream sources.

Bush took FBI agents off Bin Laden Trail.

http://www1.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/articleshow?art_id=1030259305

And this article, keep in mind that this group was labeled a terrorist organization.

US grants People's Mujahedeen members protection

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200407/s1163249.htm

Both political candidates this year are Skull and bones death cult members, what are the odds of that?

Skull and bones chooses 15 members per year, and out of millions of americans we get 2 elite skull and bonesmen who have no interest in helping america.

Skull and bones was admitedly formed to overthrow the American government.

I guess its like the new movie AVP, no matter who wins You lose. The New World Order wins.

My friends, as long as the elite bankers who own the military industrial complex, who own America, own the world for that matter, are in control, the war on terrorism will not end, afterall anyone who is pro NWO will tell you that wars are not meant to be won. They are needed to further agendas.

 

[Zhukov]

Better start ingratiating yourself before the feet of your corporate overlords.

Understanding, as you do, the Machiavellian dynamics of contemporary geopolitics and global economics, you'd be foolish not to take advantage of it.

 

[Daniel]

Well, I'm not sure what you mean when you say take advantage of it, but i do want to get our country back, I want to help reclaim our God given rights in the constitution. If we continue to let this government do what its doing, we will be slaves, we will have a cage for our minds, and the scary part is that alot of people wont even realize that they are enslaved.

There will be citizens spying on citizens (which we already have), there will be total and complete information sharing that will leave every piece of your personal life out in the open for all to see, you will be tracked everywhere you go, shopping records recorded, eating habbits recorded.

Even now we can see the beginnings of the Mark of the beast (RFID) chips being implanted in prisoners, in mexico judicial workers need the chip to access records.

Soon all will have a national ID card, which the 9/11 commision "reccomends"

Already signs are going up in the south that read "NO ID NO FOOD"

I can see the day when those will read "NO CHIP NO FOOD"

A domestic CIA that fights terrorism AND crime

And all this will be done with the backdrop of terrorism and 9/11 in the backs of peoples minds, keeping them on the edge, always afraid....

Welcome to 1984!

 

[Annie]

Well, I'm not sure what you mean when you say take advantage of it, but i do want to get our country back, I want to help reclaim our God given rights in the constitution. If we continue to let this government do what its doing, we will be slaves, we will have a cage for our minds, and the scary part is that alot of people wont even realize that they are enslaved.

There will be citizens spying on citizens (which we already have), there will be total and complete information sharing that will leave every piece of your personal life out in the open for all to see, you will be tracked everywhere you go, shopping records recorded, eating habbits recorded.

Even now we can see the beginnings of the Mark of the beast (RFID) chips being implanted in prisoners, in mexico judicial workers need the chip to access records.

Soon all will have a national ID card, which the 9/11 commision "reccomends"

Already signs are going up in the south that read "NO ID NO FOOD"

I can see the day when those will read "NO CHIP NO FOOD"

A domestic CIA that fights terrorism AND crime

And all this will be done with the backdrop of terrorism and 9/11 in the backs of peoples minds, keeping them on the edge, always afraid....

Welcome to 1984!

C'mon, you are too funny! :clap1: jimnyc, fess up, you're paying for this?

 

[dilloduck]

Well lay it on us, Daniel . How do I stop all this from happening before I go to prison ?