|
Post by K on Oct 3, 2004 12:04:27 GMT -5
How do you feel about Iraqi terrorist Zaraqawi who kills Americans who work in Iraq? Zaraqawi has their heads chopped off. And we should be good guys and stand by while it happens? Americans should be able to work in Iraq without the fear of their head being chopped off, don't you think? Americans don't kill Mexicans who work in our country. I think you are a nice person who has been misled by the media and governments of Europe. I just want you to see the other side. America has a right to defend itself. And weed out Muslim terrorists wherever we see them. Look at events in Iraq, Russia, India, Pakistan, and Sudan. It is not just in Iraq. Syria and Iran need to be dealt with also.
|
|
|
Post by Bertine Louise on Oct 3, 2004 15:01:33 GMT -5
K, we all agree that terrorists are bad, bad, bad. There's no discussion there. We also agree that America has the right to defend itself. No discussion there either. We also agree terrorism is a serious global problem that needs to be dealt with. No discussion there either
The discussion is about how *we* best fight terrorism!
Invading Iraq like that has not been in America's best interest, it only endangered Americans more! The beheadings are one sign of how things are terribly out of control!
My government supported Bush and his Iraq war! The majority of the Dutch didn't though.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Oct 3, 2004 16:19:46 GMT -5
How do you feel about Iraqi terrorist Zaraqawi who kills Americans who work in Iraq? Killing is bad. It is bad if a man is beheaded or if a child is killed by a landmine. We don't have to be there. It is, after all, their country. No. American's do not have the God-given right to work wherever they wish. No, we deport them. But the people in Iraq cannot deport the American's. I think Bertine is a nice person too who does see the other side or things, something you have never been able to grasp. Just because America and American;s do or say something does not mean it is always right or the best course of action. Especially when the leader if a man who cannot admit he has made mistakes.
|
|
|
Post by HA on Oct 3, 2004 16:47:58 GMT -5
As Solomon said hundreds of years ago Surely the churning of milk bringeth forth butter, and the wringing of the nose bringeth forth blood: so the forcing of wrath bringeth forth strife. We can now add that «invasions bringeth forth beheadings».
|
|
hmm
New Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by hmm on Oct 3, 2004 23:19:11 GMT -5
Could have used some of that manpower from Iraq to round up terrorist in Afganistan (spelling) instead of abanding it and rushing to Iraq if our primary goal was to fight terrorism.
|
|
|
Post by no name on Oct 10, 2004 0:57:39 GMT -5
Actually, the beheadings are one sign that the terrorists are desperate to stop the progress being made in Iraq. Just another sign that the fight against them is working; in their desperation to stop the progress of freedom in Iraq, they resort to more and more barbaric methods. This doesn't mean "things are terribly out of control"; it means we're making more progress than the evil Militant Islamics are happy with, and they'll do everything they can to stop that progress, including intentionally killing innocent Iraqi children getting candy from soldiers.
Smart leadership there. Thank goodness.
Guess the Dutch government wasn't bribed/paid off by Saddam like the U.N., France, Russia, and Germany were.
|
|
|
Post by Bertine Louise on Oct 10, 2004 6:13:44 GMT -5
Nice to see you again No Name:) Actually, the beheadings are one sign that the terrorists are desperate to stop the progress being made in Iraq. Just another sign that the fight against them is working; in their desperation to stop the progress of freedom in Iraq, they resort to more and more barbaric methods. This doesn't mean "things are terribly out of control"; it means we're making more progress than the evil Militant Islamics are happy with, and they'll do everything they can to stop that progress, including intentionally killing innocent Iraqi children getting candy from soldiers. My friend, you can spin it like you want, but when people (anyone muslim or not working with the Americans) keep being kidnapped and possibly beheaded, things are out of control. The Americans have a very hard time securing the country. The US military top is not happy at all with the whole Iraq situation. Paul Bremer wasn't happy at all either, I'm sure you know. Well the majority of the Dutch was fiercely against the war. That's why our government only gave political support, and wouldn't commit troops for the war itself. What the governments from the other countries decided at least corresponded with the wish of their people.
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Oct 10, 2004 8:57:10 GMT -5
War is generally unpopular and is viewed as a last resort by freedom loving people. Europe should be thankful however that the US has consistantly made the tough choice to go to war when necessary and stand up to tyranny. Afterall, you would likely all be speaking German over there if the US hadn't back in the 40's.
Robb
|
|
|
Post by Bertine Louise on Oct 10, 2004 9:05:02 GMT -5
War is generally unpopular and is viewed as a last resort by freedom loving people. Europe should be thankful however that the US has consistantly made the tough choice to go to war when necessary and stand up to tyranny. Afterall, you would likely all be speaking German over there if the US hadn't back in the 40's. Robb We actually do speak German anyway, we all have to learn it at high school, as well as some other languages! Bush' war on Iraq was not a last resort. There was no imminent threat. It was illegal. That's why we don't like it. We didn't mind Afghanistan. Oh, and my part of the country was liberated by the Canadians. In my town they get a parade every year.
|
|
|
Post by lol on Oct 10, 2004 20:50:02 GMT -5
Europe should be thankful however that the US has consistantly made the tough choice to go to war when necessary and stand up to tyranny. Afterall, you would likely all be speaking German over there if the US hadn't back in the 40's. Robb Hahahaha, you sound about as informed as "k".
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Oct 10, 2004 21:17:24 GMT -5
Thank you.
Robb
|
|
|
Post by American on Oct 11, 2004 18:20:34 GMT -5
Nobody complained about Afghanistan or thinks that was the wrong choice.
The same can not be said about Iraq.
What is the difference?
Seems to me we rushed to war in Iraq (to sum up a lot of issues and things). Bush supporters another reason for the discrepancy?
|
|
|
Post by no name on Oct 11, 2004 23:02:07 GMT -5
My friend, you can spin it like you want, and I realize that on the SURFACE it appears that everything is out of control because of the beheadings. But the kinds of things they are doing is predictable -- in the sense that when one realizes they are losing in their objective, then their actions become more bold, horrific, extreme, etc. It is not surprising to see the low level the Militant Islamics have stooped to. They haven't succeeded in pushing out the coalition -- the more they realize they aren't successful, the more they will attempt to destroy the people's will. A cornered (and losing) animal fights back ferociously. No one with a rational mind should have expected that things wouldn't get worse before they got better. The day Saddam's statue fell, I knew it was going to be an even longer road ahead of Iraq. But as one Iraqi mentioned, despite some of the things that have gone on in Iraq -- at least the people now have HOPE. Something they never had before, under Saddam. Depends who you are talking about, and what source you get your news from. I imagine that the news outlets in your country will primarily put forth a left-leaning, Anti-American position, so their take on the "news" will be different from the reality. At any rate, opinions/outlooks can differ among the military, but most of the military agrees that the "world" is only seeing the bad images in Iraq -- that there is great progress being made there. The violence is limited to a few areas, not the entire country -- Iraq is not in the constant turmoil that it's represented to be in the news. If situations were as horrid as the "media" would have us believe, the military wouldn't be so inclined to support a President that they may perceive as having gotten them into a "quagmire". But the fact of the matter is that the military supports Bush by an OVERWHELMING majority -- 4 to 1. And these are the people who are in the thick of it; so you see -- things aren't as dire as some on the left would have people believe. Bremer also said that the media misrepresented what he had to say. Not surprising. The media here in the U.S. is desperate for Kerry to win; their hidden left-wing bias emerges more and more these days. So much so that a major news organization here was caught using false documents in a piece they aired against Bush. The left is coming unglued. Much like the terrorists, who feel they are losing in Iraq, the left is getting even more desperate in their attempts to oust Bush. Yes, I know. Many Europeans can be pacifistic to a fault. Seems the lessons of WWII have already been forgotten. Not necessarily. I don't think there was huge popular support for the war at ALL in places like Spain, Australia, and Italy. Whether the whole world wants to admit it or not, this IS a worldwide conflict that will eventually demand the attention of even those very countries that want to shy away from the battle. The sooner everyone wakes up to the reality that this war with Militant Islam is ultimately a battle to stop their attempts at (world) domination, the better off everyone will be.
|
|
|
Post by Brick on Oct 12, 2004 1:07:41 GMT -5
Seems to me we rushed to war in Iraq (to sum up a lot of issues and things). Bush supporters another reason for the discrepancy? Au contraire, s'il vouz plait. The war on Iraq was long overdue. The previous administration was content to fight a political war on terror: add sanctions to Iraq, lobb a few cruise missiles in the general vicinity of OBL. These actions were a show of force. An attempt to show American citizens and the world that we were retaliating against Saddam and OBL. However, we didn't have sufficient Intel to do any real damage to our enemies. This lack of Intel is the reason we are in this war on terror in the first place. There's lots of blame to go around. You can go all the way back to Jimmy Carter's administration and start there. He was served notice that we needed better operational Intel including human intelligence in the Middle East following the Iran hostage crisis. Unfortunately, JC was too busy negotiating with the Soviets to be able to address the growing threat in the Middle East. As was Reagan during his two terms in the White House. The first Bush was forced to confront Saddam. There was little choice in the matter for him. And that was the end. Clinton had very little interest in doing anything that wasn't in his own personal interest and the quiet, secret work of increasing our Intel assets is not something that will get you elected, so that was not one of his priorities. Nine months following his departure, OBL sent us a reminder that he was still in business and still meant business. Well, yeah. We went after him in grand style, ousting the Taliban and putting Al Qaeda on the run. We then had to consider the hypothetical: what if terrorists possessed WMDs? Not good. How could they obtain them? Well, as Sen. Kerry stated, there are a number of countries with WMDs or the technology, but none as geographically, culturally likely to provide them to terrorists as Iraq. Iraq was already providing asylum to notorious terrorists, such as Abu Abbas, the mastermind behind the hijacking of the Achille Lauro, and Abu Nidal, terrorist and assassin of the first degree. Based on the intelligence that came out of the Clinton administration’s resources, we all thought Saddam possessed WMD’s. Why else would he continuously attempt to thwart the efforts of the UN weapons inspectors? So we went to war to prevent WMD’s from getting into the hands of terrorists. The fact that we haven’t found any doesn’t diminish our reason for going.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Oct 12, 2004 8:58:20 GMT -5
We then had to consider the hypothetical: what if terrorists possessed WMDs? Not good. How could they obtain them? Well, as Sen. Kerry stated, there are a number of countries with WMDs or the technology, but none as geographically, culturally likely to provide them to terrorists as Iraq. Iraq was already providing asylum to notorious terrorists, such as Abu Abbas, the mastermind behind the hijacking of the Achille Lauro, and Abu Nidal, terrorist and assassin of the first degree. So we went to war to prevent WMD’s from getting into the hands of terrorists. The fact that we haven’t found any doesn’t diminish our reason for going. Do you have a reason why Saudi Arabia was not the target? It was the homeland of most of the terrorists who actually attacked the US. It was known to be funding the terrorists. It is also in the right geographic area. It was the same culturally as Iraq. As far as the WMD - the UN inspecgtors said there were none. Had they not been ordered out of the country by Bush they could have continued their work and we would know what we now know, althought without the deaths, that there are no WMDS there and had not been for some time. Think about it. The poll was done by a US army agency. Funded by the government. Troops asked by their government how they feel about their superiors. The surprise is that they could only muster 75% support. The report even calls itself a non-scientific survey and stated that it doubted that Bush would get that high a percentage in the actual voting.
|
|
|
Post by Bertine Louise on Oct 12, 2004 18:48:07 GMT -5
Seymour Hersh, an American top investigative journalist. He was one of the guests at my currently favourite TV programme that covers the American Elections. It's a dutch programme based in New York for the occasion. Hersh said he had talked to some high military officials. You can watch it here if you like: www.nos.nl/amerikakiest/nova_new_york/NOVA-reportages.htmlPresentation is in dutch but interviews are in english. I read he said there weren't enought troops to secure the country? Is that misrepresented? Sometimes I think you are villifying the left a bit. Both parties have their beliefs and will be passionate about it! They both have their merits, neither is 'the bad one'. The left has every right to want to oust Bush just like the right has every right to counter Kerry. And the Republicans can go just as low and tasteless in their attacks on Kerry. It's a close call and both parties are getting desperate if you ask me. Even you seem desperate for Bush to win Why do people keep forgetting the great support the US had when they invaded Afghanistan? The protests against Iraq is not just about war in general, it's about the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time! (Yes Kerry mantra, so shoot me ) As for WWII, I think there's a difference there between Europe and the US. America has (thankfully) never really had a full war going on on on their own soil. We've been there. We know what it's like to have bombs crashing in on our countries spreading death and destruction. And that's why we want to be so very, very careful before we ever resort to war. Nope, support was no where to be found! I was talkin about France and Germany. The only countries whose civilians are happy with their govt's policy on Iraq. I think many Americans don't realise that the rest of the world does realise this is a worldwide battle! And it is being fought all over the globe! The matter is - I keep repeating it- what is *the best* way to fight terrorism?? Iraq doesn't qualify as a good example, I think it only endangered Americans more.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Oct 13, 2004 9:11:52 GMT -5
The protests against Iraq is not just about war in general, it's about the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time! (Yes Kerry mantra, so shoot me ) That's alright! After listening to the debate the other night it seemed like one of the phrases Bush had memorized as well.
|
|
|
Post by no name on Oct 22, 2004 12:27:26 GMT -5
Brick, you're awesome. My dear, you need to get your news from more outlets than just Seymour Hersh. Paul Bremer: What I really said about Iraq L. Paul Bremer 3rd NYT Saturday, October 09, 2004
The U.S. occupation In recent days, attention has been focused on some remarks I've made about Iraq. The coverage of these remarks has elicited far more heat than light, so I believe it's important to put my remarks in the correct context.
In my speeches, I have said that the United States paid a price for not stopping the looting in Iraq in the immediate aftermath of major combat operations and that we did not have enough troops on the ground to accomplish that task. The press and critics of the war have seized on these remarks in an effort to undermine President George W. Bush's Iraq policy.
This effort won't succeed. Let me explain why.
It's no secret that during my time in Iraq I had tactical disagreements with others, including military commanders on the ground. Such disagreements among individuals of good will happen all the time, particularly in war and postwar situations.
I believe it would have been helpful to have had more troops early on to stop the looting that did so much damage to Iraq's already decrepit infrastructure. The military commanders believed we had enough American troops in Iraq and that having a larger American military presence would have been counterproductive because it would have alienated Iraqis. That was a reasonable point of view, and it may have been right. The truth is that we'll never know.
But during the 14 months I was in Iraq, the administration, the military and I all agreed that the coalition's top priority was a broad, sustained effort to train Iraqis to take more responsibility for their own security. This effort, financed in large measure by the emergency supplemental budget approved by Congress last year, continues today. In the end, Iraq's security must depend on Iraqis.
Our troops continue to work closely with Iraqis to isolate and destroy terrorist strongholds. And the United States is supporting Prime Minister Iyad Allawi in his determined effort to bring security and democracy to Iraq. Elections will be held in January and, though there will be challenges and hardships, progress is being made. For the task before us now, I believe we have enough troops in Iraq.
The press has been curiously reluctant to report my constant public support for the president's strategy in Iraq and his policies to fight terrorism. I have been involved in the war on terrorism for two decades, and in my view no world leader has better understood the stakes in this global war than President Bush.
The president was right when he concluded that Saddam Hussein was a menace who needed to be removed from power. He understands that our enemies are not confined to Al Qaeda, and certainly not just to Osama bin Laden, who is probably trapped in his hide-out in Afghanistan. As the bipartisan 9/11 commission reported, there were contacts between Al Qaeda and Saddam's regime going back a decade. We will win the war against global terror only by staying on the offensive and confronting terrorists and state sponsors of terror - wherever they are. Right now, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Qaeda ally, is a dangerous threat. He is in Iraq.
President Bush has said that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. He is right. Zarqawi's stated goal is to kill Americans, set off a sectarian war in Iraq and defeat democracy there. He is our enemy.
Our victory also depends on devoting the resources necessary to win this war. So last year, President Bush asked the American people to make available $87 billion for military and reconstruction operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The military commanders and I strongly agreed on the importance of these funds, which is why we stood together before Congress to make the case for their approval. The overwhelming majority of Congress understood and provided the funds needed to fight the war and win the peace in Iraq and Afghanistan. These were vital resources that Senator John Kerry voted to deny our troops.
Kerry is free to quote my comments about Iraq. But for the sake of honesty he should also point out that I have repeatedly said, including in all my speeches in recent weeks, that President Bush made a correct and courageous decision to liberate Iraq from Saddam's brutality, and that the president is correct to see the war in Iraq as a central front in the war on terrorism.
A year and a half ago, President Bush asked me to come to the Oval Office to discuss my going to Iraq to head the coalition authority. He asked me bluntly, "Why would you want to leave private life and take on such a difficult, dangerous and probably thankless job?" Without hesitation, I answered, "Because I believe in your vision for Iraq and would be honored to help you make it a reality." Today America and the coalition are making steady progress toward that vision.
L. Paul Bremer 3rd was the administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq from May 2003 to June 2004. Sometimes I think you are villifying America and Bush a bit. Actually -- I do view the extreme left has having bad and wrong ideas for our country. I believe they do not have the ability or true desire to protect us. I think that in some twisted or utterly sick way, the extreme left feels bad or guilty that our country is an awesome superpower, and that we almost deserved to be taken down a notch by the terrorists. The LEFT -- yes -- but NOT the media! That's not their place, but the liberal bias has always been there -- it's just becoming more and more apparent now. I am praying that Bush wins, because I do not have confidence in Kerry's ability to lead our country in this war we're engaged in with Militant Islam. I do not think Kerry will protect us very well. You keep asking me to shoot you for some reason -- are you wanting to be shot? What the heck . . . . ?? We may have had more support for going into Afghanistan, but what some people fail to recognize is that fighting the war on terror extends beyond Afghanistan. You SAY that people know it's a worldwide problem, but the only real issue you can raise is: "what is *the best* way to fight terrorism??". Asking this question over and over doesn't get us anywhere . . . Long-lasting solution won't come until the Islamic world aggressively begins their own campaign against the cancer growing in its religion. Until that happens, and takes better root, we are left with physically protecting ourselves, and trying to help spread freedom to those areas affected. In recent modern times, no -- but we most certainly have had full wars taking place on our own soil. And that's why you wait too late before effectively taking action, thereby causing further death and destruction that could have been avoided if you hadn't been afraid to take a stand in the first place. Again, you'd have thought Europe would have learned the lesson of WWII -- i.e. it's NOT good to drag feet too long, and trust in the "goodwill" of maniacs; that just emboldens them further. An anonymous poll, which yieldes a higher percentage of honest results. Think about it.
|
|
|
Post by Bertine Louise on Oct 22, 2004 18:21:38 GMT -5
You don't like Seymour Hersh? I think it's pretty clear that the Americans have trouble securing Iraq. American troops are overextended. And then you complain about Darfur. The US probably wouldn't even be able to send troops to do something there even if they wanted to, cos they got their hands tied in Iraq. I think America as the world's only superpower can do much good and much bad. (is that english? lol) I think Bush is a darling, I really do. He's a warm and friendly person. I do believe he has a good heart and good intentions. I just think that having a person with such simplistic ideas to hold the most powerful position in the world, is just dangerous. Ofcourse. Same goes for extreme right. That's what you get with extremes! Shouldn't you be praying for God's will to be done? Oh well, either way God works in mysterious ways;) Kerry will still have to prove himself. Bush already put America in more danger by fuelling anti-americanism worldwide and helping Al Qaeda get more recruits. I was awaiting a tirade of yours towards Kerry mantra's Do you honestly think Iraq got you anywhere in the war on terror? A current majority of your countrymen think it wasn't worth it.
|
|
|
Post by bryan2 on Oct 22, 2004 18:44:18 GMT -5
Why do you view our president’s ideas as simplistic? And what would you do to make his ideas more complicated?
More leftwing hysteria… Of course Al Qaeda will recruit more people… the world is in the middle of a war and it would be foolhardy to think the enemy wouldn’t recruit more individuals… Also, it would be stupid to base policy on whether or not Al Qaeda is acquiring more recruits… I mean where do you come up with this logic?
you know... maybe we shouldn't have entered WWII because in doing so it helped fuel anti-americanism, no?
Yes….
I would hate to think our president would base his decisions on poll numbers… wouldn’t you agree?
|
|
|
Post by Answer on Oct 23, 2004 21:22:46 GMT -5
you know... maybe we shouldn't have entered WWII because in doing so it helped fuel anti-americanism, no? Not as compared to starting war with Iraq did.
|
|
|
Post by Is it not his duty on Oct 23, 2004 21:58:16 GMT -5
I would hate to think our president would base his decisions on poll numbers… wouldn’t you agree? I thought in a goverment "of the people, by the people, and for the people" that what the people wanted would be on what the president based his decisions. That is, after all, what he was elected to do. That is the definition of a republic. The supreme power lies in the body of citizens who are entitled to vote. The officers and representatives are responsible to the voting citizens. Please explain again why Bush doesn't base his decisions on the wants of the citizens.
|
|
|
Post by no name on Oct 23, 2004 23:08:50 GMT -5
Do you honestly think Iraq isn't part of the war on terror?
|
|
|
Post by Bertine Louise on Oct 24, 2004 6:55:50 GMT -5
Do you honestly think Iraq isn't part of the war on terror? Iraq did not pose a credible direct threat to the US or the world. No WMD's remember? www.accuracy.org/bush/It wasn't part of the war on terror until Bush invaded it and made it a magnet for terrorists. Effect on al Qaeda of the Iraq war, according to International Institute for Strategic Studies: “Accelerated recruitment” As of May 2004 there is an estimated number of 1000 Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq. Where is your logic?? This is not a 'regular' war where your enemy can hold a draft or something! Members have to be motivated so much they want to die for their cause. When your goal is to rid the world of terrorists, increasing recruitment is not helpful! In Dutch we say: It's mopping the floor with the tap open. Bush's Iraq war has driven Muslims into the arms of Al Qaeda. Not good.
|
|
|
Post by no name on Oct 24, 2004 21:31:48 GMT -5
But if Iraq had nothing to do with "terror" and supposedly wasn't a threat, why the worry that "more terrorism" would occur when we acted against Saddam? If Iraq had nothing to do with "terror" the terrorists wouldn't even be there today.
The assertion that Saddam was NO threat, and that Iraq isn't part of the war on terror is incorrect.
No. The evil ideology of MILITANT ISLAM has driven Muslims of like mind into the arms of Al Qaeda. Not good.
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Oct 25, 2004 1:02:11 GMT -5
So true.
Robb
|
|
|
Post by HA on Oct 25, 2004 2:06:20 GMT -5
Dear Bertine,
why do you lose your time and energy with american psychotic fasicts? Let them and their Big Leadre be happy in their ignorance and arrogance.
|
|
|
Post by Bertine Louise on Oct 25, 2004 8:37:07 GMT -5
But if Iraq had nothing to do with "terror" and supposedly wasn't a threat, why the worry that "more terrorism" would occur when we acted against Saddam? If Iraq had nothing to do with "terror" the terrorists wouldn't even be there today. Becos the US waged war against and was occupying a muslim country and that makes the US even less popular (and that's an understatement) in the muslim world. Terrorists are not in Iraq now becos Iraq has something to do with terror, but becos Iraq has got something to do with Americans now, they are in it! Ok, rephrase: The war on and occupation of Iraq has driven muslims towards MILITANT ISLAM and thereby into the arms of Al Qaeda. Still not good;)
|
|