What countries are fighting our fight on Terrorism?

[Redz]

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.

point taken, from my perspective your administation seems to be following the military strategy only, which i don't think will work. though i do think in the case of iraq military occupation will and has swollen the ranks of the terrorists

 

[Redz]

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

yeah that what they should of done

 

[CSM]

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.

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. The argument for action in Iraq seems as compelling to me as was the argument for action in Afghanistan. On the other hand, I saw no compelling reason for the US to take action in Kosovo and Bosnia other than humanitarian ones; and that generally is not enough for me to approve of the scrifice of American lives.

I believe the European public reflected what their governments took as a stance on the issue, bringing me back to where I came into this discussion: the European community naturally believes their leaders before believing some other nation's leaders.

 

[CSM]

point taken, from my perspective your administation seems to be following the military strategy only, which i don't think will work. though i do think in the case of iraq military occupation will and has swollen the ranks of the terrorists

You are either mistaken or misinformed if you think this administration is only pursuing the military option. There have been many news stories here about the closing of financial pipelines to terrorists (at least here in the US), stories of counterintelligence efforts against the terrorists, etc.

I view the hieghtened terrorist activity in Iraq as a natural effect of our invasion as well, but feel it is temporary. I do not believe it is a coincidence that the level of terrorist activity (other than in Israel) in other parts of the world has lessened since we took action in Iraq.

 

[Redz]

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. The argument for action in Iraq seems as compelling to me as was the argument for action in Afghanistan. On the other hand, I saw no compelling reason for the US to take action in Kosovo and Bosnia other than humanitarian ones; and that generally is not enough for me to approve of the scrifice of American lives.

I believe the European public reflected what their governments took as a stance on the issue, bringing me back to where I came into this discussion: the European community naturally believes their leaders before believing some other nation's leaders.

reasons for afganistan much more compelling and real than the iraq reasons. yes kosovo seemed humaintarian, was technically illegal tho(another day)
i think the fact that the public opposition to war was much higher than support for govt, or for example here 80% against war, but our govt were for it, allowing our airports to be used by us military. same in england, govt for war, public against.same in spain. so how are the public reflecting their govts stance?
in terms of believing our leaders, yes it is a good point, but all nations do this, particularly a nation at war. i just think we ALL need to be more critical of our governments, politicans and their policies. as they all have hidden agendas.
all politicans are by definition power hungry, this is bad. i think the best leaders are those who don't want power, just respect!
tough debating with ya
have a good weekend
Redz

 

[CSM]

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?

You missed my point here. I do not think the administration has a Straussian myth that they are implementing. I do not think the current administration is overly concerned that the general public in this country is becoming predominantly nihillists and the recent election results as well the current observations about evangelic voters etc tend to support my view.

 

[CSM]

reasons for afganistan much more compelling and real than the iraq reasons. yes kosovo seemed humaintarian, was technically illegal tho(another day)
i think the fact that the public opposition to war was much higher than support for govt, or for example here 80% against war, but our govt were for it, allowing our airports to be used by us military. same in england, govt for war, public against.same in spain. so how are the public reflecting their govts stance?
in terms of believing our leaders, yes it is a good point, but all nations do this, particularly a nation at war. i just think we ALL need to be more critical of our governments, politicans and their policies. as they all have hidden agendas.
all politicans are by definition power hungry, this is bad. i think the best leaders are those who don't want power, just respect!
tough debating with ya
have a good weekend
Redz

You as well; very nice debate indeed and I enjoyed it!

 

[Redz]

You missed my point here. I do not think the administration has a Straussian myth that they are implementing. I do not think the current administration is overly concerned that the general public in this country is becoming predominantly nihillists and the recent election results as well the current observations about evangelic voters etc tend to support my view.

i think its illogical to assume that admitted followers of a particular theory, would not, when in power, impliment the central concept of that theory in some way, otherwise they would not in fact be followers of that theory. and so why would they say they were. it only gives nuts like me ammo.
a recent BBC documentary "the power of nightmares" said the administrations straussian myth is the notion of al-queda as global terrorist network!!!!!
controversial, not saying its true, but it is interesting
the evangelical voters were given the marrige amendment to lure them to vote. this of course alienated the gay republicans, but there are way more evangelicals.so to hell with the gay republicans. ruthless but effective

 

[CSM]

i think its illogical to assume that admitted followers of a particular theory, would not, when in power, impliment the central concept of that theory in some way, otherwise they would not in fact be followers of that theory. and so why would they say they were. it only gives nuts like me ammo.
a recent BBC documentary "the power of nightmares" said the administrations straussian myth is the notion of al-queda as global terrorist network!!!!!
controversial, not saying its true, but it is interesting
the evangelical voters were given the marrige amendment to lure them to vote. this of course alienated the gay republicans, but there are way more evangelicals.so to hell with the gay republicans. ruthless but effective

Some very circular logic in your leading statement here; what I call a self licking ice cream cone. The original premise is that the current administration members have admittedly adhered to a particular theory based on the musings of Leo Strauss. I challenge that premise.I would request from you some substantiating credible evidence showing that the current administration believes as you have implicated.

Next, I would submit that the Al Qaeda terror network is indeed a global terrorist network. There is a substantial body of facts that collectively provides some compelling evidence that Al Qaeda has and is planning and executing terrorist attacks on a global scale. They are certainly more restricted than they were, but they cannot be allowed expand to their former expanse and reach, and hopefully, through multiple courses of action, be restricted even further.

Addressing the gay marriage amendment, I remind you that the current administration did not initiate that movement. I also point out that while some discussion has taken place regarding Federal action in that area, the current situation and stance on gay marriage is largely being affected on a state and regional level and not nationally.