Do you have the GUTS...

[Spiderman]

I already said that I think it's just strong rhetoric, but only time will tell...

My take on the situation and your interpretation: I think it is pretty black and white the way Bush put things, but I don't think it's going to come down like you say. There are too many fine issues to be resolved; first and foremost, what exactly IS terrorism? Second, what does "being with us" mean? That's why I say this is all rhetoric.

I still have not seen anything in the papers about Russia flat-out refusing to "help" (and whatever "help" means). I've seen that Iran has refused to let US airplanes use its airspace, but I've also seen that they will refuse sanctuary to bin Laden; they're aiming to be neutral.

I have seen no information that is linking Iraq to the attacks except for one report that says bin Laden might have met with Iraqi leaders for something or another. However, US officials have pretty much discounted Iraqi involvement in the WTC attack.

So anyway, my opinion is that it's all words right now. I know it might be too late by the time we see action that equals the words, but I guess I'm more of the optimistic view that "everything will turn out for the best".

 

[DÛke]

...I hope it turns out for the best of everybody...

 

[EricBess]

Duke,

I just barely got on again. Give me a chance

First off, my point about the source was that most people like to see things for themselves. I didn't mean to imply that you hadn't given one, just the reasons behind wanting it.

Anyway, I did see Bush's address to congress and I remember him saying "If you're not with us, you're against us." He said that in his press conference to the US people earlier this week as well.

I don't think your interpretation is way off base, but I think you may be taking it a bit far. Basically, I see this as a message to Afghanastan and the Talaban government that they need to turn over Bin Laden or we will hold them responsible as well. I don't see this as really applying to any other country, though he may have had a few others in mind.

Basically, the war is on terrorism. Any country not willing to lend support in this war is effectively not willing to take a stand against terrorism. Terrorism doesn't just go away, so this is tantamount to supporting terrorism.

But let's not jump to conclusions about what it means to lend support. Give Bush a chance to demonstrate what he is implying. Just because someone doesn't want us to use their bases doesn't mean they aren't supporting the effort and I'm sure the government realizes that.

But like I said, I believe the statement itself to be a clear message to Afghanastan.

 

[DÛke]

...again, I hope you're right, Ericbess. I hope he's not applying it to other countries.

Ericbess:
Basically, the war is on terrorism. Any country not willing to lend support in this war is effectively not willing to take a stand against terrorism...

Not true. Just because they don't want to help the U.S., doesn't mean anything. The U.S. hasn't been nice to everyone, so why should the countries, who are effectively against terrorsim but against U.S., help the U.S.? I think that those who do not want to aid should be left alone, not threatened in any way, which is the case between the U.S. and Pakistan. They shouldn't be seen as being WITH terrorsim...they shouldn't be seen as anything. They're official countries...all you need to do is respect their judgments...

 

[EricBess]

Duke,

I would agree with you except for one thing. Terrorism, if left unchecked, will spread. Now, some countries may feel that they are small enough that the terrorists will leave them alone. In these cases, I'll grant you your point, but I think that such countries are deluding themselves.

Besides, I didn't say "help", I said "support". I don't think that the US will be looking for active involvement from all countries of the world. If a country doesn't feel that they should send troops, I'm pretty sure that Bush doesn't plan on bombing them.

Historically, when a conflict breaks out of this nature, countries start choosing sides and things get ugly. Just look at WWI and WWII for examples. Each country sides with whichever cause they feel is the correct one, or at least the one they feel will gain them the most power.

I think Bush wants a "commitment" from each country saying that they support the US's efforts. Not necessarily with man power or anything phisical, but that they won't get on the US's case for dealing with the threat.

Look at it realistically. Say France (just as an example, I chose them because of their history of neutrality) decides not to get involved, but they don't have a problem with the US doing something and don't want to interfere one way or the other. If Bush were to declare them as an enemy as well, how many of the other supporting countries would go along with that? None. The government knows that and so they aren't going to try to force any country to do something that they aren't willing to do.

At least, as you said, I hope so.

Now, with some of the Middle Eastern countries, Bush might expect more out of them because of history and proximity. I don't have enough information or background to comment, so I won't. But I think that the situation is being handled with enough care that I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt until I see otherwise.

 

[Spiderman]

Hmm, the problem here is that terrorism is usually against some "target" in mind. bin Laden is against the US, the Japanese Red Army is against Japan, the Basque separatists were against Spain, the IRA is against England, the Tamil Tigers are against Indonesia(?)...

So far there is no great "unifying force" that pits terrorists in general against the "world" and established governments. The US has at last been attacked on its own soil so now it declares a general war on terrorism. But I bet some people are asking where was it when the IRA was and is setting off bombs?

I think terrorism spreads because people have a different idea on how to do/run things and they've chosen violence as a way to accomplish their ideas. So as long as people disagree, I think we'll have terrorism.

 

[NeuroDeus]

So please...

1. Palestine is not the CULPRIT... why? the cheering people YOU all saw on tv was a group of rebel soldiers fighting against israelist armies that were not under the control of Arafat. One video that propbably none of you saw was about 50 children dressing in USA rememberence cloths PRAYING for all those who died in the WTC.

2. Pakistan is not a EVIL, not even AFGHANISTAN. Its like saying... Canada? that part of the USA... just like Cuba

3. Muslim Holy War... can I laugh? please I need too.

4. and all those who want to destroy the west bank, afghanistan, the islam world etc... can please come first and kiss my beautiful oink... Its terrorism that needs to be destroyed and not nations... with innocent people...

 

[Baskil]

Originally posted by Dementia
It could nuke us all the way to hell if it wanted to.

Um. No, they couldn't.

Pakistan may have nuclear weapons (read: WARHEADS), but their carrier systems are severly lacking. They only have a few warheads, which is enough, I know, but their carrier systems are limited to Scud missiles(range <500 miles) and short-range bombers(range <1000 miles). So even if they wanted to launch a nuclear strike, they wouldn't be able to. They could probably hit Diego Garcia, but that's a bit of a stretch.

Now, about GW's quote...

/em sighs deeply.

Those words were harsher than GW thinks.

This is the wrong attitude to have at a time like this. Lets look at it this way. One of our weakest supporters (pick one), who doesn't harbor terrorists or support them, decides that they aren't going to back us with any support, and are not going to condone what we are doing. What now? They aren't supporting terrorism, but their not supporting us either. Should we impose sanctions on them to get them to support us? Or what about countries that stay neutral in all circumstances? Or what about countries that don't like the idea of the US staging attacks from their soil? Or countries that fear that standing up to terrorists only will cause more terrorism in their countries?

Granted, we will take these on a case by case basis, but them are fightin words that could anger countries that we wouldn't even target anyway (namely China, Iran, ect.).

Glad to be overweight and flatfooted,

 

[Thallid Ice Cream Man]

Spiderman, I hope you don't mind if I rephrase your last remark (not to misquote you, but because I agree with it; I want to broaden it as well):

So, as long as people exist, we'll have terrorism.

We must establish as soon as possible that this is not a war on terrorism.

If we wanted to truly end terrorism, we'd have to slaughter every human being who isn't in an iron lung (slight exaggeration there).
In one sense, everyone is capable of terrorism.
And even killing everyone in all the known terrorist groups that exist won't end terrorism.

New people are born a lot. They might decide to become "terrorists." What would we do then? Kill them?
Other people would come along and purposely become terrorists - the first 'terrorists' to die would become martyrs.
All holy wars create martyrs. And that's what this supposedly is - a holy war.

Then, why doesn't the US go and kill people in the right-wing groups that Timothy McVeigh was an avid fan of? Why don't they deport all the Communists in this country to Cuba or China?
Because they weren't directly linked to the crimes, you say? Good. That is a sane reason.
Then why is there talk of bombing places in Afghanistan?
As MrXarvox(I think; it might have been Azreal) said somewhere, only 8% of the people in Afghanistan recognize the Taliban as the official government there. The other 92 percent (or at least most of them) recognize another government (I don't remember the name).
(As a side-note, I only found that out on French national television, where they had a story about the fact that the real government's defense minister had just been assassinated.)
So, basically, if we bombed somewhere in Afghanistan, we'd be killing a large number of people, ~92% of whom do not support the ideas behind the attack (the figure may be different depending on the number of Taliban supporters in the area) and about .1% of whom may have somehow been involved with the incident.

If this were truly a war of principles, we'd be bombing just about every country in the world.
So this isn't about justice, or principles, or an end to terrorism.
This would have been like using nukes on Waco, Texas.

 

[DÛke]

...I agree about mostly everything said above, by everybody.

Let's face it...as long as there is existence, there will always be terrorism. Not Bush, not God, can help it. Bush's quote, like Baskil said, will and in fact already has angered some people. Bush said it so people living the U.S. be comforted...I don't think he had in his mind that the whole world will be watching. I, for one, I'm offended.

I really don't want to jump into conclusions...and I'm even thinking that I maybe putting Bush way down. I'm trying to have some faith in him...but sorry, I just can't bring myself to it. Everytime I calm down, he'd say something really stupid. His words by themselves are anger evoking, so I'm fearing his actions too. Just like there's a "ripple effect" here in the U.S., there will be a "ripple effect" when Bush takes the wrong road and maybe decided to go off on Iraq and some other countries too. I even heard on CNN today that they're reconsidering Iraq as a target now...for NO reason at all. Bombing more than needs to be will create one of the greatest "terrorist" groups the world has ever seen. I will NOT call them terrorists...they don't have the material to fight back instantly, so they plan carefully. When they hit the U.S., it's not terrorism, no, it's a payback from some past mistakes.

Again, I hope Bush is better than he makes himself seem. Only time will tell. However, I still don't see any reason for the current millitary action. There's a game being played, and we're not seeing it...they don't want Bin Ladin (which is STILL just a prime suspect), they want something else...believe me...

 

[FoundationOfRancor]

(Im refering to the beggining of this thread and all of the accusations stated in the first post)

If the US landed in Pakistan when they werent voluntary letting them, it would be pure hell for the americans. Gurellia warfare anyone? In TWO countries instead of one? Because of the sure stupidity of this move, I have conclude that the reasons this thread was started for is utter crap.

Now, I could be wrong because I havent checked it out or anything (But then again, Ive been watching the news alot lately and havent heard anything about this. And no, all american media doesent = media propaganda. If anything, the media would publicize our mistakes so more people would watch.)

Then again, I think the whole "With us or against us" thing was a very dumb move as well, so maybe they the americans did make the threat.

The conclusion? After having a fake thread like this from the same poster, and seeing NO ONE come up and verify and/or second this information, I have to consider it to be fake.

Hopefully no offense to anyone here. Didnt mean to if I did.

 

[DÛke]

...yeah, it IS fake. I just started this thread because I felt like, somehow, I must persuade the American Magic public to be on my side. I want to be the Yawmogth, dang it...and you all can be my slaves...

Again, I have no intent, whatsoever, to lie...I don't need aid in lying in order to prove my point. The U.S. is getting into a war that's not even supposed to be...period. I stand true on my opinion, and I don't care who agrees or not, muchlessly, I wouldn't bother with lying to persuade a bunch of...Magic players...

Attack on U.S.===>U.S. responds carelessly===>U.S. wins===>random people across the world get mad===>some take it to the extreme and start a terrorist group===>have a solid plan===>Attack on U.S.===>U.S. rsponds carelessly===>U.S. wins===>random people across the world get mad===>etc...etc...etc...

In one shape or another...that's the way it seems to be...until the U.S. greatest president is born. Sadly, it's not Bush Jr. Just from the way of his speeches, I can tell you, this is gonna be one mad and pointless war...all because baby Bush wants his milk, and nobody is letting him suck it...

 

[Multani]

Warning: Possible conspiracy theory. Proceed at your own risk.

DUke:

they want something else...believe me...

The answer is territory. That's right. You heard me: Territory. The U.S. is slowly, inch by inch, conquering the world.
Don't believe me?
The U.S. practically owns the Atlantic Ocean, and has so many bases in the Pacific, that it would take a major campaign simply to wrestle the Pacific Ocean away from the U.S.
She has multiple bases and troops trained for rapid deployment in Europe, including Yugoslavia.
Finally, she also has a significant military presense in Iraq and Saudi Arabia as well as among other Gulf Nations. The U.S. also has bases in Japan. Why do you think they want Taiwan to be independent so badly? Why to put a military presence on China's doorstep, of course. For every attacked third world country, the U.S. is in fact finding an excuse to place a foothold in that country. That is why people like Rumsfield want to attack Afghanastan so badly. They need a more significant military presence in Asia, and the Middle East.
Even with out Nuclear weapons, the United States has a strategic position Napoleon and Alexander the Great could only dream of. With Nukes, and a massive Navy, the U.S. is next to invincible (on paper that is) in a conventional war. In reality, the United States would be difficult to defeat. With a massive Nuclear Aresnal, the U.S. is near impervious. Of course, then there's MAD. That's why ABM is so important to the U.S. It will be the final element needed to conquer the world; to establish a U.S. hegamony/Empire. The U.S. media even now spews many distortions as to the U.S.'s true rule and actions in the world. George Orwell's nightmare is slowly manifesting itself...
Example: Few in the U.S. know that NATO keeps troops in Yugoslavia. Why? CNN doesn't report that. English sources don't report that.
Look at the current U.S. influence. At least 75% of the world is somehow directly influenced one way or another by the U.S. Another 50% is influenced politically as well. Finally, the U.S. has much political leverage on most significant third-world countries.

I estimate that in 100 years, the U.S. will either be destroyed, or we could be looking at the first global empire ever to exist; and all this is happening very slowly. The U.S. is playing this like a chess game. She's moving all her pieces into play without anyone noticing. Worst, we don't even know what some of those pieces are. We don't even know when she will strike and what strategy she's using. However,there is hope.
Throughout the process aquiring those, countries have been disgruntled, and a U.S. conquest of the world will be met with some if not, extreme resistence. The U.S. will find it difficult to establish a complete and true Hegemony.

End Conspiriacy Theory

 

[Spiderman]

TICM: Sorry, that's why I disagree with you broadening my remark and rephrasing it. If you say "as long as people exists, terrorism will exist" and then try to use the argument that we need to kill all people on that basis, it's obvious (to me) that it's false. That's why I said as long as people disagree, because people themselves can exist and there doesn't have to be terrorism.

Why do I say that? You have to look at my sentence before that... people have a different idea on how to run things and have chosen violence as their method to change the current way of during things. The key word is "different idea", i.e. disagreeing.

Multani: Are you throwing that theory out as a general possibility, and/or do you personally subscribe to that theory?

 

[DÛke]

...

Multani, I have also heard of that theory, from my parents and a couple of others. I was going to share it, but I feared more unwanted negative accusations. I'm so glad there's another person in the CPA that's heard the stuff...

...what else have you heard or know? I've heard a lot from terrorism analysts talk about a lot of unbelievable things, from the Arabic channels. I'm not going to share them simply because I can't back up my words with a "solid" proof for all of you that accuse me of "not lying," but "mishearing", "reinterperting", or as Mr. FoR calmly put it, "faking."

Multani, please PM me or something, I want to have a little talk...that is, if you don't feel comfortable talking on the boards.

 

[Spiderman]

You just gotta love the people who can think up this stuff...

 

[DÛke]

...

Spiderman, they live to "think up the stuff." Actually, they're experts. Do you belive that some experts have practically predicted this tragedy - no, not like us - like what was to be destroyed? Yes, that is how much of professionals they are. They do not analyze issues from 5 years ago and 5 years to come. Rather, they see its roots from, say, 50 years ago, and they see the outcome for even 20 years from now.

Of course, I can understand your reaction...

 

[Spiderman]

Finally, she also has a significant military presense in Iraq and Saudi Arabia as well as among other Gulf Nations.

The US is actually supporting Iraq and Hussein, in fact supplying him with arms and promised him they would not interfere if he invaded Kuwait. Once he did so, it played right into the US' hands because they now had the excuse to increase their presence there. Under the guise of protecting the Kurds, the no-fly zone lets them maintain their military presence.

The U.S. also has bases in Japan. Why do you think they want Taiwan to be independent so badly? Why to put a military presence on China's doorstep, of course.

Not only that, but it turns out China was actually behind the terrorist attack on the WTC. Why? Because not only did it kill American citizens, it allowed them to offer "support" to the US and thus get off all of the banned trade sanctions that have been currently imposed on them (this last is in today's Washington Post about China offering support and what the US is now willing to give them).

For every attacked third world country, the U.S. is in fact finding an excuse to place a foothold in that country. That is why people like Rumsfield want to attack Afghanastan so badly. They need a more significant military presence in Asia, and the Middle East.

This is correct. Despite Afghanistan's Taliban being recognized by only THREE countries in the world, the US is now ignoring Pakistan and India, two NUCLEAR powers in that part of the world (let alone China) and hoping to get their grubby little paws on Afghanistan, one of the most religious oppressed countries in the world. The Christian coalition is actually the driving force behind this initiative.

xample: Few in the U.S. know that NATO keeps troops in Yugoslavia. Why? CNN doesn't report that. English sources don't report that.

I don't even know what this is referring to. What is "few"? How many people are watching CNN? What exactly is going on in Yugoslavia that needs reporting on right now?

This is like not reporting that there have zero break-ins on the 1600 Pennsylvania block in Washington DC and thus there has to be something to hide because of the lack of reporting.

Look at the current U.S. influence. At least 75% of the world is somehow directly influenced one way or another by the U.S. Another 50% is influenced politically as well. Finally, the U.S. has much political leverage on most significant third-world countries.

Um, because it's a superpower? As I recall, the Asian economic crisis could have been much bigger in the world had not the US stepped in and made sure it didn't follow. That's just one example.

I estimate that in 100 years, the U.S. will either be destroyed, or we could be looking at the first global empire ever to exist; and all this is happening very slowly. The U.S. is playing this like a chess game. She's moving all her pieces into play without anyone noticing. Worst, we don't even know what some of those pieces are. We don't even know when she will strike and what strategy she's using. However,there is hope.
Throughout the process aquiring those, countries have been disgruntled, and a U.S. conquest of the world will be met with some if not, extreme resistence. The U.S. will find it difficult to establish a complete and true Hegemony.

I predict that in 100 years, the world would have changed but not due to the US. Increasing fights over water and food resources and the disappearance of the world's forests will lead to new alliances that might lead to the breakup of the US or its dominance of the world, but not from what is being interpreted from above.

Well, I kinda got off-track with my conspiracy theories. But for the first two, how'd I do?

 

[Multani]

Spidey:

Are you throwing that theory out as a general possibility, and/or do you personally subscribe to that theory?

Let me put it this way. I'm throwing it out as a strong possibility. Whether you think I 'subscribe' to it or not, shall be your opinion.

The US is actually supporting Iraq and Hussein, in fact supplying him with arms and promised him they would not interfere if he invaded Kuwait. Once he did so, it played right into the US' hands because they now had the excuse to increase their presence there. Under the guise of protecting the Kurds, the no-fly zone lets them maintain their military presence.

Actually, the U.S. was supporting Iraq because it wanted Iran gone; an excellent example of the U.S. playing power games in the middle East. And answer, me why is the U.S. so concerned about the condition of the Middle East? Oil is not big enough of an excuse.

Not only that, but it turns out China was actually behind the terrorist attack on the WTC. Why? Because not only did it kill American citizens, it allowed them to offer "support" to the US and thus get off all of the banned trade sanctions that have been currently imposed on them (this last is in today's Washington Post about China offering support and what the US is now willing to give them).

Yeah...and China also knows that if the U.S. finds out China attacked the U.S., missiles will go flying and China's economy would be in shambles. Not exactly the most beneficial course of action for China, is it? On the other hand, China's removal from the international scene will put the U.S. in a COMPLETELY undisputed state. No one will dare challenge the U.S. in any major way.

This is correct. Despite Afghanistan's Taliban being recognized by only THREE countries in the world, the US is now ignoring Pakistan and India, two NUCLEAR powers in that part of the world (let alone China) and hoping to get their grubby little paws on Afghanistan, one of the most religious oppressed countries in the world. The Christian coalition is actually the driving force behind this initiative.

Pakistan and India mean nothing because while they are nuclear powers, they lack the ability to fire those nukes at long distances, and also lack the ability to adequately defend themselves from a sustained conventional assault. On the other hand, the Christian coalition theory does have merit...and I'll take it into account.

I don't even know what this is referring to. What is "few"? How many people are watching CNN? What exactly is going on in Yugoslavia that needs reporting on right now?

Many people watch CNN Spidey...and many people watch Fox and MSNBC which are carbon copies of CNN. Nevertheless, how can you explain that most people don't know the U.S. have troops in Yugoslavia? After all, there is a new puppet leader and the Albanians are free and attacking Serbs with wild abandon. What need is there for NATO troops?

Well, I kinda got off-track with my conspiracy theories. But for the first two, how'd I do?

Actually they're very insightful. Now if only you could open your mind to the possibilty of conspiracy theories, then you might realize things you've never considered before.

DUke: I'll contact you as soon as I can.

 

[Thallid Ice Cream Man]

Multani: Unfortunately I think Spiderman was trying to be sarcastic.
That said, I think your conspiracy theory is a real possibility.
It would certainly fit in with the theme that has been subtly recurring throughout US history ever since the Mexican War (or beforehand; I don't remember) - that extending the US's borders is our "manifest destiny."

Spiderman: Sorry about taking that last sentence. I won't do that in the future.

But we must define exactly the difference between "As long as people disagree" and "As long as people exist."

Anyway, I think I was probably taken a little out of context (not that that's anyone's fault; it isn't).
My point was that this "war on terrorism" will not end terrorism. No way, no how.
Probably the only way everyone could possibly agree completely on everything (which, as you said, would be the only way to end violent reaction to any decision once and for all) would be to somehow usher in some sort of utopia ( - or kill everyone capable of violence).

Obviously I am not advocating that we rend 99.9999% of the Earth's population from life and limb. That possibility is out.

The only way I could see that people could exist (the same number that do now, that is) without terrorism or violence, for that matter, would be if some perfect society started treating everyone with kindness, compassion, and equality.
I'm not ruling that out. I would like that to happen as much as anyone else.

But I don't foresee it happening soon.
And if it happens, it will not have been as a result of some "war on terrorism." Something which only serves to destroy can not create standing peace.

So this "war on terrorism" has about 0 chance of achieving its goal.

While many of them are stupid, I doubt that the US government is stupid enough not to know that we can't end terrorism in one presidential term. At least, some of the people in it aren't.
So probably it was decided to do this war with other motives in mind.
Exactly what they are, I'm not sure.
In one sense, it's probably been done to help 'make America a safer place, and make a brighter future' blah blah blah. (aka for the PR value.)