TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- What is Bush doing?

What is Bush doing?

Bush has been played right into the trap of the terrorists. Very unfortunately, but realistically, his war on terror has failed. And as saddened as I am, it seems that the poor handling of the diplomacy over Iraq and other matters have just created more hatred and more reasons to attack the US. Now, after the most recent attacks on Americans, he has restated his commitment to eradicate terror from the world.

What concerns me is that he is now trapped. To keep his political savvy, he must continue his hard stance on terror, otherwise he will look weak. I do believe, however, that his calls for "war on terror" actually serve as calls to war for terrorists, as well. They let not only the good people trying to stop terror that they must fight, but they also let those who hate the US know that they are being attacked. Bush's heated rhetoric can only inspire terrorists to fight. Does he really think he can sacre them? They are trained to be scared of nothing. They are not scared to die.

What I think would be more appropriate would be to work with political leaders more covertly to stop terrorism, and increase the pressure there, but give up this "Axis of Evil" and "War on Terror" crap. This kind of rhetoric can only villify the US more in the eyes of skeptics and terrorists, especially if they are told they are being attacked. And as this warlike rhetoric might push hatred towards America underground, it will not get rid of it. It will only "prove" to the terrorists and citizens of the Middle East that the US is out to get them.

oh please, the war on terror is working just as good as the war on drugs

Re: What is Bush doing?

quote:

Originally posted by cougar23 Bush has been played right into the trap of the terrorists. Very unfortunately, but realistically, his war on terror has failed. And as saddened as I am, it seems that the poor handling of the diplomacy over Iraq and other matters have just created more hatred and more reasons to attack the US. Now, after the most recent attacks on Americans, he has restated his commitment to eradicate terror from the world. What concerns me is that he is now trapped. To keep his political savvy, he must continue his hard stance on terror, otherwise he will look weak. I do believe, however, that his calls for "war on terror" actually serve as calls to war for terrorists, as well. They let not only the good people trying to stop terror that they must fight, but they also let those who hate the US know that they are being attacked. Bush's heated rhetoric can only inspire terrorists to fight. Does he really think he can sacre them? They are trained to be scared of nothing. They are not scared to die. What I think would be more appropriate would be to work with political leaders more covertly to stop terrorism, and increase the pressure there, but give up this "Axis of Evil" and "War on Terror" crap. This kind of rhetoric can only villify the US more in the eyes of skeptics and terrorists, especially if they are told they are being attacked. And as this warlike rhetoric might push hatred towards America underground, it will not get rid of it. It will only "prove" to the terrorists and citizens of the Middle East that the US is out to get them.

I'm not speaking for Bush's war on terror, but I most certainly think that there should be a war on terror. Let's face it, some of the root causes for terrorism are never going to change and some of these root causes should not be changed. An absence of action is not going to provide resolution to the probelm. I'm not calling for more Iraq wars (which will undoubtedly increase anti-US resentments) but rather increased cooperation to proactively conduct military operations against terrorist cells. Terrorists in the world should know that the entire world is out to get them (rather than just the US). The increased cooperation between the Saudi gov't and the US is a good sign that pretty soon these terrorists won't have any base of operation to conduct their activities.

Re: Re: What is Bush doing?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I'm not speaking for Bush's war on terror, but I most certainly think that there should be a war on terror. Let's face it, some of the root causes for terrorism are never going to change and some of these root causes should not be changed. An absence of action is not going to provide resolution to the probelm. I'm not calling for more Iraq wars (which will undoubtedly increase anti-US resentments) but rather increased cooperation to proactively conduct military operations against terrorist cells. Terrorists in the world should know that the entire world is out to get them (rather than just the US). The increased cooperation between the Saudi gov't and the US is a good sign that pretty soon these terrorists won't have any base of operation to conduct their activities.

I understand this, and I believe that every effort should be undertaken to destroy the power of terrorist cells. I just think it would be better to turn down the warlike rhetoric. Bush shouldn't be making the war on terroism such a big deal in the eyes of the public, as this also calls terrorists to war. But I definitely think we should give every effort to uproot these cells. I am afraid that with more intense rhetoric, citizens in Arab countries will be even more motivated to join and attack America. The less they hear about America cooperating with their governments, trying to destroy their allies, etc., the less they will care to attack it.

Re: Re: Re: What is Bush doing?

quote:

Originally posted by cougar23 I understand this, and I believe that every effort should be undertaken to destroy the power of terrorist cells. I just think it would be better to turn down the warlike rhetoric. Bush shouldn't be making the war on terroism such a big deal in the eyes of the public, as this also calls terrorists to war. But I definitely think we should give every effort to uproot these cells. I am afraid that with more intense rhetoric, citizens in Arab countries will be even more motivated to join and attack America. The less they hear about America cooperating with their governments, trying to destroy their allies, etc., the less they will care to attack it.

True ... I think part of it is that he is talking a lot of crap so he can portray to the american public that he is doing something about terrorism and he's not backing down from a fight. C'mon, you know how politicians are. He has to say something to address the latest attacks, and for bush that means standing at the podium and spouting about the war on terror again and again and again.

^^It depends on what you mean by "a war on terror". The trouble is that "terrorism" isn't something tangible that can be prevented via the use of force (though it can be indefinately subdued so long as the war is precise and sustained enough) but rather it is an ideology, held primarily by "the common man", meaning that even the deposition of an official body - such as government, military etc. - is no guarantee that the ideology can be prevented from spreading. So, when you speak of waging a war on "terror", what should the military force be directed against? Did the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq impact severely on the terrorist organisations' ability to operate, or did these wars merely intensify the hatred? The US (and it's coalition - the UK, Australia etc.) are fighting a war that they cannot possibly win. All they can do is target the physical manifestations of this extremist ideology (in the form of "terrorists", training camps, arms dealers etc.) but you cannot prevent the spread of an ideology through military force alone. Just ask the Isrealis on the board if 30 odd years of dismantling Palestinian terrorist organisations (the manifestation of the Palestinians' hatred for Isreal) have been successful in preventing terrorism from occurring on their own soil.

There's no easy way out, but there are steps that can - and I agree, should - be taken to prevent terrorist attacks and also, hopefully, prevent the spread of terrorist ideology. Firstly, I agree with you Occrider that the scourge of terrorism is a global problem and that co-operation between nations is needed to dismantle the larger, international, better organised groups. This means - are you listening George? - you do not go around threating members of the UN (or, in another instance, the entire globe - "you're either with us or against us") or declare a nigh on divine right to pursue these matters unilaterally, without the support of other (pertinent) nations. Consider how many terrorist arrests were made in Germany in the period after Sept 11 and before the commencement of the Iraq war debate: do you think the US are going to get the same level of help and co-operation now that the Germans have been dismissed as an irrelevent part of "old Europe"? This demonstration of neo-con US "diplomacy" is not constructive in the war on terror, it only seeks to divide a coalition who, otherwise, pose a much greater threat to the operability of terrorist organisations.

So a willing coalition (made up of more than three nations offering active support and a coalition led by Rwanda and Iceland offering "moral" support) is the first step. This probably won't prevent the spread of terrorism or terrorist activity, but it will almost certainly prevent the possibility of large events such as Sept 11 - which require huge amounts of willing personel, huge amounts of money and, above all lots of time - from happening again.

Once we have a large coalition behind us, each committed to actively weeding out would-be terrorists, we then need to ask the question that has not been asked enough - why do they hate us? Why do they want us dead? Posing this is not an attempt to appease the terrorists or to negotiate with them, merely to understand the psychology of the average terrorist and how we may be able to prevent this disease from spreading, or even from being formed in the first place. Where does this immense pool of hatred originate from?

I don't think I have any definitive answers. It probably has a lot to do with the west's history of intervention and colonisation in the Middle-East, which - in the eyes of Muslim fanatics at least - still continues today. Even though we may not understand it, the mere presense of western troops in Islamic nations (particularly in Saudi Arabia) angers many Muslim people greatly, much more so when - if the reports I read post-Sept 11 are true - these troops are American and are stationed near holy sites. Amrozi - the man currently on trial for the Bali bombing - said that his hatred of Australians stemmed from their impious immorality (which is why a night-club was targetted) and, primarily, because he saw the massive influx of Australian tourists to the area (which means that many parts of Bali - given its dependancy on tourist dollars - resemble Australian culture much more than Indonesian culture) as an affront to his culture (both Muslim and Indonesian) and, you guessed it, as an attempt at "western imperialism". Now given this, do you think that western intervention in Islamic territories and nations is wise or in any way necessary? Would Bin Laden's hatred of the US be so fervent(i.e. fervent enough to manifest itself in ways we know all too well), for instance, if the US hadn't stationed large amounts of troops in Saudi Arabia against the populations will? Would there have been a terrorist attack against Australian's if we didn't flock en masse to a small Indonesian island for our holidays in complete ignorance of local customs and culture?

I think the west needs to realise it is not any more "enlightened" than any other race, civilization or generation in history, and that our "disdain" - for want of a better word - for the idea that the Arabic people are fit to rule themselves - and that we must therefore "guide" them towards "democracy" and "freedom" by slicing up territories into arbitrary new nations (no, I'm not talking about Isreal) and alternatively backing/deposing equally dispicable governments - constitutes - let's not gloss it over - a vivid example of perceived cultural superiority. The Brittish did it in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and the US have been doing it for the past 50 years. I think in this sense I can sympathise with the western-hating Muslims (not the terrorists): what other feeling am I supposed to have towards a coalition of nations who have a long history of oppressing my people and launching wars against them since the 11th century; who continue to occupy my land and support/decry local regimes I despise/love?

This is just a start, but I don't feel that any amount of "action" can ease the anti-western sentiment the necessarily precedes the sorts of terrorist activity we see today. The key to preventing the spread of terrorism is not to murder all would be terrorists and the rogue governments that support them (or, alteratively, to appease any of these bodies) but merely to prevent - as best we can - the possibility of anti-western ideologies forming in the first place. Much damage has been done, but I don't think it's too late.

Oh, and to finish off with, I though it was worth pointing out that the war on terror - aimed at preventing the deaths of innocents - has so far killed in the vicinity of 10,000. Terrorism, on the other hand - even if we include Bali and the completely unrelated Chechnyan seige - has claimed about 1/20th of that total by my estimates over the same period, even with liberal figures. There's a reason we view the former total as "necessary collateral damage" sustained in the pursuit of a higher, greater aim and the latter as utterly, morally reprehensible, but it's too late on my side of the planet to get into cultural theory for the time being methinks. :-/

havent read thorougly but the way Bush is fighting terrorism absolutely sucks and wont do jack shit. War on Terrorism should be done quitely not publicized or goin on TV saying it is gonna happen. You have to strike when it is least expected. Second since terrrorism is outsind the US it is very important to get the help of the arabic countries because there intelligence knows much more about the terrorists and there networks than US intelligence. Thats how you do it not on TV. being from egypt i saw the war on terror in my country and we cleaned it out good..We didnt go on TV shouting we are gonna get you and shit like that..we just did it quitely and without any attension.

well, without attention is fine, but unfortunately operating in foreign countries requires a little more effort than if you are dealing with an internal affair. covert operations w/o government assistance can create increased tensions between countries and often so-called 'terror-states' do no fully cooperate.

there's some very good points renegade has brought up and i think i need to read it more throughly before i post something on that.

- Nice posts guys. Anyways, why hasn't it been mentioned about Bush's " war on terror" In Iraq is currently a failure?!?!?!? .. IM sick of the crap that people that will either say this here in the US will be called " UNPATRIOTIC" by the republicans. I mean, whats up with that ??! that's all I can think about of the "why" it has not been talked about, except for the editors and opinions on the Local Newspapers. Anyways, it's been said, and I will say it again, it's all about the ratings. As long as Bush has the fears of americans strangled over War and Terrorism, he will have every one sucking up his toes. ..

wars like that wont be done silently, cause politicians need to brag so they can keep the ratings high, in politics survival is highest priority.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.