What difference would it make anyway?
If (I'm assuming) this is an implication that there was some conspiracy between Bush and bin Laden, I would expect Bush (the "mass murderer") would avoid spending time with the family of his "coconspirator". Just couldn't keep away because they were so chummy?

True. But while we were bombing them and pretending to be the good guys they would broadcast how terrible the people there, especially the women, had it under the Taliban. The gist of it was that even though we were bombing them we didn't hate the people - we just wanted to get Al Queada and the Taliban. So they showed us all kinds of shocking ways the Taliban would oppress everyone and properly demonized the enemy. They showed us how the country had gone to hell because when the Soviet's gave up and pulled out they left the people in rubble. So the news talked about how once we drove out Al Queada and the Taliban we had to rebuild like we did Japan and Germany. Not just do what the Soviet's did and leave so it could become another breeding ground. There was talk of another Marshal plan and lot's to be done. It all made sense to me at the time.

I felt very patriotic. I was proud that MY country wasn't going to just blow things up...that's what sets us apart and makes us better than everyone else. We are about building things up not killing and destroying. We only do that if we have to and if we're attacked we will kick *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***. And then we make things better. Japan attacked us and we destroyed them. Germany was evil and we destroyed them too. But we stayed and built them back up after they surrendered. Things were settled and we went home heroes. America has been living off of that pride for close to sixty years. Vietnam was a fluke but we learned our lesson and that wouldn't happen again. This time we were attacked and we would do just what they did after WW2 and we would come out of this better than ever and so would the innocent people in Afghanistan who had it even harder than the Japanese and Germans did. We would give them back a life and this would mean that the American's that died in the attacks would not have died in vain. And it would be how we fought terror...by not lowering ourselves to being terrorists. At the time I knew all of this was true and that we were the good guys. I flew my flag and waited to start healing from the tragedy of 9/11.

We are all raised knowing that we are the good guys. The hero's. I don't think many of us have ever thought about it much...we just take it for granted and 'know' it's true like we know birds fly. If a fact comes along that doesn't support that belief we can find a way to justify it, forget about it, or just pretend it didn't happen. Everyone must have a different threshold for re-examining their belief systems.

Mine came at the end of that war when I realized we don't build things back up when we destroy them anymore. We haven't for a long time. Not only that but we now choose to 'pre-emptively' destroy things instead of waiting around for a good reason. Now we occupy people and tell them they're free. You don't know how hard it is to have to accept that or how angry I was. I still am.

Now we're trying to improve the country that didn't attack us. So Mrs. P, does that mean they didn't deserve to be bombed in the first place? Now we ask 'what's in it for us' before we consider whether we want to help. Bombing Iraq sounded good when we thought they could pay for all the damage themselves. Now people are starting to question why we have to spend all of our money on those people. Good question.

It's not like we really ever cared about them or that our staying will ever result in the kind of success seen by the Marshal plan. We can't even agree on why we're there in the first place. Rebuilding will become a nasty chore that we will start to resent. Iraqi's will end up baring the brunt of our resentment more and more.
They aren't safe with us there and things are deteriorating. So why not just leave them like we left those old rubble people that we also don't care about?

We could keep about 3,000 soldiers there to 'look' for Saddam like we're still 'looking' for bin Laden. Bush wants to give Afghanistan $1b from the $87b he's asking for...so give Iraq $1b too for restitution and then just walk out like we eventually will anyway. Save ourselves $85b plus $4b per month. We don't know how to build things anymore and America isn't the same country it was after WW2.

I thought it was but I was wrong.

Now, we're speaking of Iraq (which I wasn't in my post)? I never believed in the bombing of Iraq. I never supported any of our operations over there, in any way...for about a decade. I wasn't the least bit surprised that we encountered terrorism. I was more surprised it took so long.

As for Afghanistan, bin Laden is irrelevant. We toppled a hostile regime which supported, aided, and abetted in the slaughter of civilian Americans, virtually overnight. That was a battle won, as far as I'm concerned. That region is a total mess and there isn't a righteous person anywhere in sight to hand it over to. That's their responsibility. I wish them good luck..humanitarian aid, by all means...but don't mess with us again.

Danya, your honesty impressed me very much.

I too believed in the America you were talking about. America, as an example to follow.

Now things have changed. Unfortunately.

I'm sorry I misunderstood. I thought you supported the war on Iraq. I can see your point about Afghanistan...except I still agree with those that said we had to help rebuild so that it didn't just revert right back to a breeding ground for terrorist's and taliban. We haven't even pulled out completely and they are already returning. And what of the fact that they were the world's number one producer of opium last year? Couldn't our drug war be another justification for staying?

I think for me personally I had a lot of hope invested in our efforts. We all must have dealt with the shock and grief of 9/11 differently but that was how I was dealing with it. I connected it with the first ray of hope after devastation and seeing something good come out of senseless death. When we switched from Afghanistan and focused on attacking Iraq it was so unexpected and out of character that it threw me. Instead of healing I got an identity crisis. It may sound trivial and I never realized it until then how strong nationalism can be and how much it relates to who we are (or who we think we are).

Not long afterwards I watched our race to Baghdad. One of the first miscalculations the Pentagon made was that many of the conscripted soldiers would simply lay down their arms rather than die for Saddam. I knew why they were fighting and Saddam had nothing to do with it. We were threatening their nationalism and anyone would have done the same. The Pentagon continues to blame much of the resistance on Saddam loyalists. They still don't get it. But they're so dense and so bad at predicting anything I'm not surprised.

I was flipping channels and caught a documentary a few days before the 9/11 anniversary. The way that date was hijacked and endlessly repeated by politicians as a marketing or propaganda tool has left me numb to the thought of it. The sights and sounds and emotions of it are something else completely and far removed from a Bush soundbite. I was unprepared for my reaction to seeing it after so long but within five minutes tears were streaming down my face. I watched the entire program and cried through the whole thing. I hadn't healed.

I don't know how, as a nation, we can ever heal if we go on this way. If everything after that day is about fighting, death, fear, and endless war we are lost. No amount of bombs will change the fact that the terrorists won our soul.

One more thing I don't get. Bush seems to think using military force against nations we perceive as a threat or even a future threat makes us brave, shows strength and courage. But I can't reconcile how letting fear dictate our lives and killing people weaker than we are (but still scare us) equates to courage or bravery.

We won't heal because one way or another, there will be something that opens the wounds of that day. There is no need to feel lost because after basically crippling Al-Queda by killing it's members, capturing it's highest officials, and always staying one step ahead of them, we won't have to feel fear.

Here is the link to President Chirac interview with the New York Times. It's quite long, but it's worth the read.

Chirac interviewed by the NY Times

What does that have to do with the topic, Horyok? Also, please avoid posting the same post all over the forum. It looks like SPAM. You can link back to your original posting if it relevant to the debate.

If you check the link, Jaime, you'll see an obvious connection to all the topics in which I posted it. I wanted people to be aware of the French position. I certainly didn't do that to flood the board!!!

Except for those tapes that keep showing up, of course. You'd think if we were going to kill someone, we wouldn't be complete screwups about it, but twice in two years, we've utterly missed.

And I don't get how sending 2000 Tomahawk missiles on a target 600 miles away that you are not even sure is there is considered bravery, especially when you don't hit your target and kill innocent civilians in the process.

He's outta touch with his network....sorry...WHAT NETWORK? The network that's been shattered into pieces. Al-Queda member arrests are frequent and plots are thwarted. So what if the man is still alive? He doesn't have teh chance to be in the same place twice anymore like he used to before 9/11.

I voted "justified." A decade of attacks against our citizens including 9/11 are more than enough justification for war in my opinion. The Taliban were clearly complicit in the attacks by allowing Al Qaeda to operate freely from its borders. As an ally of Al Qaeda their overthrow was justified.

I think the war in Afghanistan was entirely justified and correct, and was the right response in the correct manner, afterwords, we are screwing up again of course, which is our track record for everything after the Korean war, no matter who is in charge. We should have concentrated on Afghanistan for some time before moving on Iraq at least, setting up some kind of stable system there.

I think it is very simplistic though to think of Al-quaida as a single entity- in fact it is a loose association with no central leader or funding. There are connections and heroes, but OBL is not neccesarily a GW or Arafat or Sharon, if he dies, there is no "cutting off of the head" of his organization. It is the Saudi's or the former Shah and Saddam or Hafaz Assad with thier secret police that has taught them very well to survive without a central command. They have adapted each time. We will never defeat "terrorists" until we get rid of the basic instability, corruption and poverty of the places they thrive. In fact, as the cartoon in doonesbury so perfectly pointed out, Iraq has become a new training and breeding ground for terrorists around the world, "Rummy world" is the perfect training ground for the future survival of Al-Quaida IMO

Hmm I should start charging for quote usage.. heh

If we are to sit here and discuss terrorism what we end up with is one definition we agree on but many ways of resolving it. There's your problem. I am favourable to standard european police/interpol tactics of apprehend and prosecute.A surprising number aren't and by making a show of force you end up recreating that which you sought to end. Guns aren't an effective way at stopping violent attitudes.

By no means should this come across as a passive boot licker mentality. Quite the contrary, if one is to stop international acts of violence, than one should have an international court of justice and the means to communicate cross borders. Here I thought the ICC was a step forward. Ask yourselves the reasons to what upsets a man enough to blow up two large buildings. The problem was a diplomatic failure. That is a foreign policy failure. The error was committed well before the falling of the buildings. The error of disregarding potentially explosive situations such as ignoring a revered holyland or taking an interventionalist view of democracy solves all will not prevail. Now is rearming every man woman and child going to fix a couple of politicians attitude's of "whatever" and "our interests come first"? Unlikely. Does the hard hitting MOAB solve the problem? Probably not. Communication, not whup *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** firepower is the problem solver.

I think it is important to note that this isn't ww2 anymore. It is one thing to make a show of force and pronounce to the world the fastest striking attack in history. Bravado isn't new. What is new is that the world expects what is destroyed to be fixed if you want to remain credible among the nations. As Powell is now demonstrating, the un is poor at striking out but since he's back one must acknowledge the repairative ability of the un as diplomats. And when the costs escalate enough and people get irritable, I doubt even the mighty american economy will show that they can go it alone. The long and short of it, a higher level of co-operation is needed between government agencies (not bogus ones like the office of special plans) and an understanding economic power isn't a right of way.

Trouble

well good! Keep them out of all the other places. The troops are there waiting for them.

Osama Bin ladan IS the head of the snake CR. He gave birth to Al Qaeda, funded it with his millions which enabled it to spread.
Some people just don't know what to do with their wealth.

and your right CR, the elevation of people out of poverty, from corrupt govt's, political and economic instability and oppression WILL no doubt work wonders towards the peace of the planet.

know your countries - know your leaders.
CR, could there be a correlation between poverty, corruption, oppression and instability AND certain regions, ideologies and ethnicities?

He is the man who made Al-Queda possible. He is the one with the training in logistics and he is what every Al-queda member looks up to and wants to impress. If Osama is dead, there will be a huge gap in the command structure of Al-Queda, thus creating the rest of Al-Queda to run in every direction and try to survive and take out as many American or American interest as possible.

As i have said, Osama is what every al-queda member looks up to. If he is dead, there is no reason to go on fighting because there is no one to impress

If Osama bin Laden is captured/killed, his death will be treated as martyrdom to the extremist Muslim cause. Another leader will take command. There will always be fanatics willing to blow themselves up presumably in the name of their god in order to rid their countries of "the infidels."

As long as the US remains allied with Israel, the US will be targeted. Did you ever hear the story of David vs. Goliath in Sunday School? Well, the Muslim terrorists characterize themselves as "David" fighting the evil giant US "Goliath."

This "war on terrorism" could last decades. I'm not so certain the economy will, though, at this rate.

I was thinking this theory one day. I just suddenly remembered it. Thank you for bringing it up

Actually, if you look at the spectrum of things, the terrorists are Goliath because they are bigger than our military power. They are spread throughout the globe, invisible until they are identified. Whereas we are spread throughout the globe but we are noticable right away. Anyway, they are bigger because they have more connections. Al-Queda is connected with the group responsible behind the Bali Bombing and that group is connected to another group which is connected to another group and so on.

Al Qaeda isn't remotely gone, neither are the thousands of other terrorist cells and groups all over the world. If Osama is out there (and not living in the Lincoln bedroom), he can easily commit more terrorist acts against the US.

Of course, the point is, Bush screwed up. Big surprise, right?

How did he screw up? He wasn't offered Bin Laden 3 times. Being as Afghansitan has a huge mountainous region & a few loyalists to Al-Queda in pakistan, he can hide from us. And jsut because he is not dead, doesn't mean he scewed up because as long as he is conducting this war on terror by dealing with Al-Queda and preventing another 9/11 (Let's not use this statement to argue about iraq) he hasn't screwed up

Bush's objective in going into Afghanistan was to get bin Laden. He was all talk and bluster, but he forgot about bin Laden pretty quickly once he got there and started with his REAL plan of action, removing the Taliban. Same goes for Iraq. He made a lot of noises about WMDs, but his real plan was getting Saddam. In both cases, his claims that they were huge threats to US security were swept under the carpet as he incompetently let them both go.

I guess some people's anti-Bush arguments are bolstered by the inability of the media to report what goes on in the world instead of focusing on the next big scandal or photo op.
American and coalition forces are conducting raids DAILY to eradicate Taliban and Al-Qeada, and oh by, the way look for OBL. Link to order of battle in Afghanistan
Blame the media for not giving you the full story, not the adminstration.

Yes it is true ONE of the reeasons for the war in afghanistan is to hunt for OBL but it was to also get rid of Al-queda as a group and to get rid of the government that housed them. He said it in some speeches that anyone who shelters terrorists are gonna be flushed. The Taliban fit nicely into that catagory.

im doing a debate on this topic and im on the yes side..does anyone have some "evidence" like articles or whatever that say American war on terroism is justified??

What's not to say that the war on terrorism is not justified? Whether we were attacked by Al-Queda or not, we need to stop terrorists because they are getting away with too many attacks and the deaths of thousands of innocent people.