Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Winning the War on Terror
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

mindmetoo

Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 3:43 pm Post subject: Re: Winning the War on Terror

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

They still would love to strike in the US.

Come on you can do better than that Smile

Sure they would. But first they would like to defeat the USA in their own backyard. The clear thinkers in Japan didn't want to attack the USA, knowing once you awoke the sleeping giant there would be no way a nation could stand. Bin Laden awoke the sleeping giant and it laid waste to Afghanistan. But terrorists are not nations and they can pop up anywhere. The jihadists are in the fortunate position that the giant is seeking to go back to sleep again. I would think if I'm smart enough to see that, they are too.

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 7:36 pm Post subject: Re: Winning the War on Terror

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Not as repugnant as not doing what it takes to win, all the other side has to do is give up their war. This is not a war to conquer them , it is a war to make them give up their war.

Strawman. I'm not advocating doing nothing. Wasting billions is bad enough, but supporting human rights violations is abhorable.

Quote:

I don't think the US ought to pull its punches against the enemy. No more force and violence than is necessary to win. But it is neccessary to win. To win WWII the US did the Dresden bombings and Hiroshima. Same case here. Sorry.

Save your hyperbole. Terrorism is not comparable to WWII.

Quote:

Well there is a war going on . Al Qaeda would be just as cruel as Karimov if not more so if they got their way. All they got to do is give up their war.

You do realise that most of the people Karimov is eliminating are more interested in democracy and reform than an Islamic state. He's trying to avoid a repeat of Ukraine and Kyrgystan. Why should we fund his grasp on power to prevent some amorphous AQ take over?

Quote:

Really? So now that Iraq is "under control" there should be less terrorism. True?

Different case/ different situation. If Iran is under control then Hizzbollah another fascist hate group will be under control.

You dispute that?

If putting Iran under control means the same as putting Iraq under control. Which is what it will boil down to if they don't succumb to US pressure.

Quote:

Drugs is different situation and it has to do with demand

Drugs are integrally tied into organized crime. You don't get to pick and chose which effects support your agenda. Fact is, RICO is not able to stop organized crime any more than the FA will stop terrorism.

Quote:

At any rate no Al Qaeda massive attacks since the Patriot act. It is disingenuous say that doens't mean anything .

It is disingenious to say that it does. Look up ceteris paribus for starters.

Quote:

What is it cause Al Qaeda decided to give peace a chance?

If AQ really wanted to execute a terrorist attack, they could.

Quote:

Which is, "Will we win the war on terror?" You say we will, given fancy new space weapons

Fancy space weapons and hypersonic cruise missles will take Iran out of the equation.

Sure, keep believing the hype. Space weapons will provide very few military advantages that we do not already possess.

Quote:

perhaps but the US can bring it down to a point where it is far less serious than it is now.

And how serious is it now? One preventable attackon US soil in the last decade.

Quote:

Mideast regimes also control the media and the education systems when the media teaches hate or when their schools do so it cause the governments encourage it or allow it. They can put a stop to it.

Sure, no doubt they do better operating in the open. But moving them underground isn't going to squash them.

Quote:

The US won WWII and the Cold war and if the US really goes all out they will win this one two or a least get it down to the level of the 70's or 80's.

I'm not convinced "going all out" is going to help solve the problem.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:22 pm Post subject: Re: Winning the War on Terror

Quote:

Strawman. I'm not advocating doing nothing. Wasting billions is bad enough, but supporting human rights violations is abhorable.

Allowing Al Qaida or Khomeni lovers or Bathists their way means human rights violations, leting them win or not doing everything that can be done against the is abhorable.

Beisdes it is no tragedy when Al Qaedists , Bathists or Khomeni followers have their human rights violated. Just like it is no tragedy if a member of the Klan has their rights violated.

Quote:

Save your hyperbole. Terrorism is not comparable to WWII.

9-11 was worse than pearl harbor. There is a war being waged against the US it is comparable to pearl harbor and the US ought to do whatever it takes to win.

Quote:

I wasn't taking about him in particular what I was saying is that it is not a particularly bad thing Al Qaeda supporters have their rights violated.

Quote:

If putting Iran under control means the same as putting Iraq under control. Which is what it will boil down to if they don't succumb to US pressure.

If Iran won't give up their war then they ought to be forced to . This time with different and the far more powerful systems.

If Iran does anything like Khobar ever again they lose their nuclear program and their military. And the US ought to go for their supreme leader.
]

Quote:

We RICO has helped and the Patriot act seems to have helped.

Quote:

At any rate no Al Qaeda massive attacks since the Patriot act. It is disingenuous say that doens't mean anything .

Quote:

It is disingenious to say that it does. Look up ceteris paribus for starters.

It is disingenous to say that there is no emperical evidence. You are saying that has done nothing I am saying that that there have been no attacks is something to consider.

Quote:

Sure, keep believing the hype. Space weapons will provide very few military advantages that we do not already possess.

Well here is one. The US will be able to nuke a country and then claim "we didn't nuke anyone" .

Iran now has to consider that there a real chance that the US will hit them with something similar to a nuclear weapon.

Nuclear weapons are a politcal problem , and if the US has something more or less as powerful then other countires have to consider that the US might just well use it.

It gives the US the ability to destroy Irans' nuclear program and probably their miltiary too) anytime for any reason and their would be nothing Iran could do about it.

It would give the US a major advantage over Iran.

The wasn't able to use nuclear weapons to destroy North Korea's nuclear program because or worries about radiation poisoning South Korea.

Something that improves the US strategic postion and make Iran uneasy is probably a good thing.

But there is no such problem with this system.

I would be against war to steal a nations oil or force them to accept capitalism or democracy. However forcing Bathist , Khomeni supporters or Bin Laden followers to give up their war is morally justified and anything the US does to force them to is ok.

All they have to do is give up their war.

Hypersonic cruise missiles travel at 8x the speed of a regular cruise missile that means if the US sees a target it can get to it fast real fast.

In 1998 cruise missiles took three hours to reach their targets , this would get to the target in 20 minutes.

Quote:

And how serious is it now? One preventable attackon US soil in the last decade.

I think 9-11 was very serious. It means that the many thing that terror attacks and suicide bombings are a tactic they can use to pressure the US. It is not acceptable if the other side feels that way.

Quote:

Sure, no doubt they do better operating in the open. But moving them underground isn't going to squash them

.

Do you know of any disadents in the mideast? In the mideast they have taken out every domestic threat to their governments why do you think they could not take care of those who support the terrorists if they choose to do so?

Quote:

I'm not convinced "going all out" is going to help solve the problem

Well it worked in the last two wars the US was in.

Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:36 pm; edited 1 time in total

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:29 pm Post subject: Re: Winning the War on Terror

mindmetoo wrote:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

They still would love to strike in the US.

Come on you can do better than that Smile

The attacked in Spain and in England , and just recently they were planning to attack in Spain again. Clearly Al Qaeda would love to attack in the US again.

gang ah jee

Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:43 pm Post subject: Re: Winning the War on Terror

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Quote:

Strawman. I'm not advocating doing nothing. Wasting billions is bad enough, but supporting human rights violations is abhorable.

Joo, what would you say to the suggestion that US-sponsored violence and human rights abuses may actually have the effect of increasing support for terrorist groups?

I'd say that thinking of the current situation in WWII terms is only playing into the hands of figures like bin Laden. Here's the equation: tiny little al Qaeda attacks the US, the US attacks entire Muslim nations, the Muslims fight back, bingo we have a war of civilisations, which is exactly what revolutionary Islamists want - antipathy and distrust escalated into outright hostility on both sides. There have been enough f--k ups already, and now the focus needs to be on de-escalation and repairing the damage already done, not your repulsive fantasies about global space war.

mindmetoo

Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 1:11 am Post subject: Re: Winning the War on Terror

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

mindmetoo wrote:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

They still would love to strike in the US.

Come on you can do better than that Smile

The attacked in Spain and in England , and just recently they were planning to attack in Spain again. Clearly Al Qaeda would love to attack in the US again.

But Spain and the UK are not the USA. And I don't think the UK job was a catholic Al Qaeda project. Spain is already fighting a terrorist war on its home front and it might have been a strategic move before an election: Do you really want to be fighting a two front war on your home turf? Pull out now. And they did. And so what, ultimately? So what if Spain didn't pull out and upped its commitment. It wouldn't be a drop in the bucket compared to the 100K US troops already there.

But let me ask you, what do you think the reaction of the American people would be to the war in Iraq in the event of another 9/11? Do you think people would call for a greater response? Or call for a pull out?

gang ah jee

Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 1:56 am Post subject:

Here's a fascinating article from the Atlantic. It's on the lengthy side (7 pages), so Terror Warriors with short attention spans need not apply.

Declaring Victory
James Fallows
September 2006

"The United States is succeeding in its struggle against terrorism. The time has come to declare the war on terror over, so that an even more effective military and diplomatic campaign can begin."

Some excerpts:

Quote:

�Does al-Qaeda still constitute an �existential� threat?� asks David Kilcullen, who has written several influential papers on the need for a new strategy against Islamic insurgents. Kilcullen, who as an Australian army officer commanded counter-insurgency units in East Timor, recently served as an adviser in the Pentagon and is now a senior adviser on counterterrorism at the State Department. He was referring to the argument about whether the terrorism of the twenty-first century endangers the very existence of the United States and its allies, as the Soviet Union�s nuclear weapons did throughout the Cold War (and as the remnants of that arsenal still might).

�I think it does, but not for the obvious reasons,� Kilcullen told me. He said the most useful analogy was the menace posed by European anarchists in the nineteenth century. �If you add up everyone they personally killed, it came to maybe 2,000 people, which is not an existential threat.� But one of their number assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife. The act itself took the lives of two people. The unthinking response of European governments in effect started World War I. �So because of the reaction they provoked, they were able to kill millions of people and destroy a civilization.

�It is not the people al-Qaeda might kill that is the threat,� he concluded. "Our reaction is what can cause the damage. It�s al-Qaeda plus our response that creates the existential danger.�

Since 9/11, this equation has worked in al-Qaeda�s favor. That can be reversed.

Quote:

Shibley Telhami, of the University of Maryland, has conducted polls in six Muslim countries since 9/11, gauging popular attitudes toward the United States and toward al-Qaeda. �If their aim was to be the source of inspiration for the Muslim world,� Telhami says of al-Qaeda, �they are not that.� Telhami�s polls, like those from the Pew Global Attitudes Survey, show a steady increase in hostility toward the United States�but no surge of enthusiasm for Taliban-style fundamentalist life. �What we see in the polls,� Telhami told me shortly before al-Zarqawi was killed, �is that many people would like bin Laden and Zarqawi to hurt America. But they do not want bin Laden to rule their children.� In his polls, people were asked to identify which aspect of al-Qaeda they most sympathized with. Only 6 percent of respondents chose al-Qaeda�s advocacy of a puritanical Islamic state.

�The things we have done right have hurt al-Qaeda,� says Caleb Carr, who strongly supported the reasoning behind the war in Iraq. By this he means the rout of the Taliban and the continued surveillance of Pakistan. �The things they have done wrong"�meaning the attacks on mosques and markets��have hurt them worse.�

�There is only one thing keeping them going now,� he added. �That is our incredible mistakes.� The biggest series of mistakes all of these experts have in mind is Iraq.

Quote:

The final destructive response helping al-Qaeda has been America�s estrangement from its allies and diminution of its traditionally vast �soft power.� �America�s cause is doomed unless it regains the moral high ground,� Sir Richard Dearlove, the former director of Britain�s secret intelligence agency, MI-6, told me. He pointed out that by the end of the Cold War there was no dispute worldwide about which side held the moral high ground�and that this made his work as a spymaster far easier. �Potential recruits would come to us because they believed in the cause,� he said. A senior army officer from a country whose forces are fighting alongside America�s in Iraq similarly told me that America �simply has to recapture its moral authority.� His reasoning:

The United States is so powerful militarily that by its very nature it represents a threat to every other nation on earth. The only country that could theoretically destroy every single other country is the United States. The only way we can say that the U.S. is not a threat is by looking at intent, and that depends on moral authority. If you�re not sure the United States is going to do the right thing, you can�t trust it with that power, so you begin thinking, How can I balance it off and find other alliances to protect myself?

America�s glory has been its openness and idealism, internally and externally. Each has been constrained from time to time, but not for as long or in as open-ended a way as now. �We are slowly changing their way of life,� Michael Scheuer�s fictional adviser to bin Laden says in his briefing. The Americans� capital city is more bunkerlike than it was during World War II, he comments; the people live as if terrified, and watch passively as elementary-school children go through metal detectors before entering museums.

Well worth reading.

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:16 am Post subject: Re: Winning the War on Terror

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Quote:

Strawman. I'm not advocating doing nothing. Wasting billions is bad enough, but supporting human rights violations is abhorable.

Allowing Al Qaida or Khomeni lovers or Bathists their way means human rights violations, leting them win or not doing everything that can be done against the is abhorable.

Allowing human rights violations is one thing. The US is not responsible for protecting the rights of everyone in the world. Condoning and enouraging such violations is unforgiveable. There's a huge difference between the two. And anyone who defends Israel's actions knows exactly what it is.

Quote:

Beisdes it is no tragedy when Al Qaedists , Bathists or Khomeni followers have their human rights violated. Just like it is no tragedy if a member of the Klan has their rights violated.

Do you seriously think the henchmen you want to do your dirty work will only violate the rights of terrorists?

Quote:

Save your hyperbole. Terrorism is not comparable to WWII.

9-11 was worse than pearl harbor. There is a war being waged against the US it is comparable to pearl harbor and the US ought to do whatever it takes to win.

Oh please. We're not comparing 9/11 with Pearl Harbor. We're comparing terrorism with WWII. One has had a handful of tragic strikes in the West. The other encombassed the globe and led to over 50,000,000 deaths. No comparison.

Quote:

We RICO has helped and the Patriot act seems to have helped.

Simple question. Have we won the war on organized crime? Yes or no.

Quote:

It is disingenous to say that there is no emperical evidence. You are saying that has done nothing I am saying that that there have been no attacks is something to consider.

Statistically, the "empirical evidence" is meaningless.

Quote:

Sure, keep believing the hype. Space weapons will provide very few military advantages that we do not already possess.

Well here is one. The US will be able to nuke a country and then claim "we didn't nuke anyone" .

Oh, joy. We haven't nuked Iraq either. But I don't think anyone but you is going to fall for the "not a nuke" story.

Quote:

All they have to do is give up their war.

You make it sound like "they" are a unified organization that acts as one. You blame all of them for 9/11 and you want to punish all of them for it. Unfortunately, they are not a "they" and punishing people who, albeit not completely innocent, were not involved is counterproductive.

Quote:

Sure, no doubt they do better operating in the open. But moving them underground isn't going to squash them

If I knew about them, they wouldn't be underground any more, would they? Look at all of the anti-Bathists who came out of the woodwork after Baghdad fell. There are plenty of people who are at least sympathetic to the dissisdents, and they know enough to keep their mouths shout. Just beause you don't see them doesn't mean they don't exist.

Quote:

I'm not convinced "going all out" is going to help solve the problem

Well it worked in the last two wars the US was in.

WWII had fronts and recognizable objectives. Terrorism does not. WWII is not analagous. Vietnam and Iraq are more appropriate comparisons. Even they fail to capture the situation.

thepeel

Joined: 08 Aug 2004

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:45 am Post subject:

Every time I read this title of this thread I'm more supirsed that it isn't "Winning" the war on "terror" or Winning the "war" on "terror" or "Winning the "war" on "terror" or Winning the war on "terror" or ect ect

gang ah jee

Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 3:01 am Post subject:

BJWD wrote:

Every time I read this title of this thread I'm more supirsed that it isn't

"Winning" the war on "terror" or
Winning the "war" on "terror" or
"Winning the "war" on "terror" or
Winning the war on "terror" or
ect ect

You missed:

Winning the War of Terror

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 3:10 am Post subject: Re: Winning the War on Terror

Quote:

Joo, what would you say to the suggestion that US-sponsored violence and human rights abuses may actually have the effect of increasing support for terrorist groups?

It would nothing more severe that what mideast regimes are already doing.

Mideast regimes when they have gone after groups they did not liked they sucessfully crushed them. I don't know if support will go up or not but the record shows that anti US regimes in the mideast have 100% record of staying in power.

Quote:

I'd say that thinking of the current situation in WWII terms is only playing into the hands of figures like bin Laden. Here's the equation: tiny little al Qaeda attacks the US, the US attacks entire Muslim nations, the Muslims fight back, bingo we have a war of civilisations, which is exactly what revolutionary Islamists want - antipathy and distrust escalated into outright hostility on both sides. There have been enough f--k ups already, and now the focus needs to be on de-escalation and repairing the damage already done, not your repulsive fantasies about global space war.

I agree on the other hand the situation was already unacceptable and there was already a high level of support before 9-11.

In 1990's the record will show that 70,000 trained in Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan.

It is repulsive to use such weapons to steal oil force , make them sell it too you nations to accept caplitalism . It is NOT repulsive to force groups elites or nations to give up their war. Sorry. When some group or regime is after you fighting for a sinister cause it is okay to go after them w/o holding anything back

Futhermore Iran is trying to change the strategic equation with their nuclear weapons program , Space based weapons will force the equation back in the US favor.

Iran can have nuclear weapons, but a government like theirs can not be permitted to enjoy strategic benefit from them. With the right weapons the US can prevent Iran from gaining strategic benefit from ther nuclear program. That is not a bad thing.

Such is a course of action in between bombing Iran and accepting their war against the US.

Such a plan gives diplomacy a chance to work , but it also clear that if Iran doesn't give up their war that they face a very unpleasant future.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 3:25 am Post subject: Re: Winning the War on Terror

Quote:

Not against Al Qaeda supporters. It is nothing that mideast regimes don't alread do.

I don't know what Israel has to do with this.

]

Quote:

Do you seriously think the henchmen you want to do your dirty work will only violate the rights of terrorists?

There are very few liberal reformers free and alive in the mideast. No , on the other hand Al Qaeda supporters go free in the mideast.

Quote:

Well Al Qaeda has a similar plan for the US as imperail Japan did for the US or worse.

There is a major war beging fought against the US and the US ought to hit back. Cause Al Qaeda doesn't yet have the industrial base that our word war enemies doesn't mean that the US ought to go all out.

Simple question. Have we won the war on organized crime? Yes or no.

Quote:

It is disingenous to say that there is no emperical evidence. You are saying that has done nothing I am saying that that there have been no attacks is something to consider.

Quote:

Statistically, the "empirical evidence" is meaningless.

How do you know that , How do you know that the Patriot act has done nothing , I am saying it might based on the fact ther have been no attacks since is was inacted.

We also have know that the US justice system was not up the job of going after AQ before the Patriot act.

Quote:

Oh, joy. We haven't nuked Iraq either. But I don't think anyone but you is going to fall for the "not a nuke" story.

Each situaton is different , If Saddam had nuclear weapons we might have had too.

But the bar is lower for the US of such weapons.

Quote:

What I mean by "they" is Bathists , Khomeni supporters and Al Qaedists.

They all teach hate and incite violence and fund terror as a military strategy. In todays world that is a kind of war. and they ought not be allowed to do it anymore.

To be a Bathists , Khomeni supporters Al Qaedists is to be a member of a hate group and a war criminal.

Quote:

How may liberal reformers do you see in the mideast alive and free in nations hostile to the US?

Quote:

WWII had fronts and recognizable objectives. Terrorism does not. WWII is not analagous. Vietnam and Iraq are more appropriate comparisons. Even they fail to capture the situation.

As for Vietnam the US won the cold war. Keep that in mind.

Tell you what if the US has a virtual gun pointed at Iran's head Iran will think twice about supporting terror. That is a better situation than the US has today.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 3:31 am Post subject: Re: Winning the War on Terror

Quote:

.Suicide bombers attack Casablanca
Email Print Normal font Large font April 14, 2007 - 9:09PM

Quote:

Two suicide bombers killed themselves near US diplomatic offices in Morocco's commercial hub Casablanca, four days after three similar suicide blasts in the city, police sources and witnesses said.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Suicide-bombers-attack-Casablanca/2007/04/14/1175971418333.html

It wasn't before any election.

Al Qaeda and the Basque rebels have nothing in common.

Please explain Catholic AQ project.

Also since AQ fights for the Caliphate getting the US out of the mideast is a necessary condition for them.

Quote:

Portugal says to boost EU-Africa anti-terror ties
Tue 17 Apr 2007, 5:30 GMT

[-] Text [+] By Henrique Almeida

RABAT (Reuters) - Portugal said on Monday one of its goals when it takes up the European Union's presidency in July will be to strengthen EU ties with Africa to help fight terrorism.

"Together we can search for a solution for this international problem (of terrorism)," Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Socrates said at the start of a visit to Morocco, which has been rocked by several suicide bombings.

"We condemn these attacks and stand by Morocco's people and government in their fight against terrorism," Socrates told reporters in the capital Rabat.

Last week, two suicide bombers killed themselves in an attack on U.S. diplomatic offices in Morocco's commercial hub Casablanca in the first such targeted bombings in four years.

The attack occurred after three suicide bombers killed themselves in a poor neighbourhood of Casablanca when police raided a house and shot dead a fourth bomber.

Analysts say the suicide bombings in Morocco and twin blasts that killed 33 in Algiers last week mark a sharp expansion in the threat from armed groups seeking to establish Islamic rule in North Africa.

Al Qaeda has said it also plans to re-establish Islamic rule in parts of Spain and Portugal, governed at times by Muslims for eight centuries until their defeat in 1492 by Christian forces.

Quote:

But let me ask you, what do you think the reaction of the American people would be to the war in Iraq in the event of another 9/11? Do you think people would call for a greater response? Or call for a pull out

I think American people would another attack on the mideast naton in response to it. More Amercans would think the Iraq war was not a good strategy on the other hand more would agree that the mideast is major threat to the US.

Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Wed Apr 18, 2007 3:40 am; edited 2 times in total

thepeel

Joined: 08 Aug 2004

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 3:34 am Post subject:

We support your war Of terror!

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 3:41 am Post subject:

Quote:

Why? Because there were actually four reasons for this war: the real reason, the right reason, the moral reason and the stated reason.

The "real reason" for this war, which was never stated, was that after 9/11 America needed to hit someone in the Arab-Muslim world. Afghanistan wasn't enough because a terrorism bubble had built up over there ?a bubble that posed a real threat to the open societies of the West and needed to be punctured. This terrorism bubble said that plowing airplanes into the World Trade Center was O.K., having Muslim preachers say it was O.K. was O.K., having state-run newspapers call people who did such things "martyrs" was O.K. and allowing Muslim charities to raise money for such "martyrs" was O.K. Not only was all this seen as O.K., there was a feeling among radical Muslims that suicide bombing would level the balance of power between the Arab world and the West, because we had gone soft and their activists were ready to die.

The only way to puncture that bubble was for American soldiers, men and women, to go into the heart of the Arab-Muslim world, house to house, and make clear that we are ready to kill, and to die, to prevent our open society from being undermined by this terrorism bubble. Smashing Saudi Arabia or Syria would have been fine. But we hit Saddam for one simple reason: because we could, and because he deserved it and because he was right in the heart of that world. And don't believe the nonsense that this had no effect. Every neighboring government ?and 98 percent of terrorism is about what governments let happen ?got the message. If you talk to U.S. soldiers in Iraq they will tell you this is what the war was about.

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/06/04/nyt.friedman/

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 3 of 5

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe