Are you sick of the "War on Terror"??

bertiebowl

My own feeling is that the so called "war on terror" being waged by the US Administration and its global lackeys (toady blair etc.) is nothing but a disguised attempt to expand the American empire even further.......

But I'm interested to see what the Boards.ie users think of the matter, hence the poll.....

Chaos-Engine

SICK OF WAR
FULL STOP

the 'War ON Terror' should be renamed the "The War on Freedom, Peace and Independant thought"

SkepticOne

I'm sick of it. I'll be glad when it's all over and there's no more terrorists.

Zombrex

To me one of the most disturbing aspects of the "War on Terror" (other than all the innocent people getting killed) is that it has focused nearly the entire American media and political system towards one single view point. It seems that even if you don't agree with the War on Terror (quite an ironic name I think) it is unpatriot, harmful and even treasonist to speak out against it. The hatred and anger throw out at anyone who even dares question the direction America is taking (for example the French) is very disturbing and alarming.

sceptre

Originally posted by Wicknight
the War on Terror (quite an ironic name I think)

Start calling it the "Terror War" Or the Tyrants War (Rooseveldt wanted to call WW2 that but he died before christening it so it's still up for grabs). Consider carefully where to put the apostrophe in "tyrants" The French will understand it.

Biffa Bacon

Yes I am sick of the "War on Terror". I am sick of innocent people being murdered to serve the twisted goals of Islamofascism. I am especially sick of useful idiots in the West who offer aid and comfort to these people by constantly denigrating the US and Israel no matter what they do, when they are only trying to defend their citizens from being murdered.

sovtek

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Yes I am sick of the "War on Terror". I am sick of innocent people being murdered to serve the twisted goals of Islamofascism.

As opposed to innocent people being killled by sicko neoconservatives.

I am especially sick of useful idiots in the West who offer aid and comfort to these people by constantly denigrating the US and Israel no matter what they do,

Who might "those people" be?

when they are only trying to defend their citizens from being murdered.

By constantly invading other people's land and then putting their citizens in harms way.

Sleipnir

Biffa Bacon, when has Iraq murdered Americans on a scale even close to the number of Iraqis America has killed?
When was the terrorist attack by Iraq on America?
How many Palestinian childred have been shot by Israeli forces in the past 3 years?
How many times have they broken their own ceasefire(s)?
Iraq has broken 4 (I think 4, correct me of i'm wong) UN resolutions, which was the original reason for going to war on Iraq. Israel has broken 78 UN resolutions.
America supplied Iraq with weaponry and training to fight Iran in '79.
At the same time, they also supplied Iran with weapons to fight Iraq.
Britain, France and Germany have all all supplied pre-cursor bio weapons material and/or bio-weapons training to Iraq in the past.

You just think America is great because you've been told to think that way. You have obviously not looked for facts to better inform yourself.
This, I believe is the problem in America at the moment, Americans have failed to demand answers from their politicians.
They believe what they are told to believe without seeking the truth out themselves.

bonkey

Gimme a T.
Gimme an R.
Gimme an O.....

I'm sure you can guess the rest.....

Biffa drops some nice pro-USA soundbites in to the beginnings of yet another conversation, and people are just queueing up to get righteously indignant.

Lads - stick on topic. If anyone wants to discuss why Biffa is far more in favour of the War on Terror than most others seem to be, then go and start a thread about it. This is about whether or not you are sick of it...not about trying to prove that someone's stance is right or wrong.

jc

popinfresh

What exactly are the US trying to accomplish in this war. I mean seriously all they've done is INVADED and occupied two countries. They're not getting rid of terrorists, they're provoking more people to become terrorists. I mean what a joke this war is. In the last 2 years America has become one of the most hated countries in the world. Although they were hated before, now they're hated by European countries aswell as the middle east. All they're doing is provoking an edventual
ww3 style showdown.

canker

I am sick of this war on terror but at least it should die down once bush has the election in the bag. That is of course unless any other non-white non-christian leaders discover any nice big oil deposits.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by sovtek
As opposed to innocent people being killled by sicko neoconservatives.

There is nothing sick about neoconservativism. Neoconservatism stands for democracy, freedom and human rights. There is absolutely no moral equivalence with Islamofascism.

Who might "those people" be?

The millions around the world who condemn the US and Israel while completely ignoring the actions of the scumbags they are fighting against.

By constantly invading other people's land and then putting their citizens in harms way.

Again, you ignore the reasons why America and Israel invade other countries. Israel has never invaded a country from which it was not first attacked by people who wanted to destroy it and murder its people. The only countries America has invaded were those from which it had been attacked or that threatened the lives of its neighbours or even its own citizens.

Originally posted by Kananga
Biffa Bacon, when has Iraq murdered Americans on a scale even close to the number of Iraqis America has killed?

I can’t think of any major incidences of Iraqis murdering Americans. What’s your point? That this means war wasn’t justified? What about the millions murdered by Saddam’s regime? This isn’t justification enough to get rid of him?

How many Palestinian childred have been shot by Israeli forces in the past 3 years?
How many times have they broken their own ceasefire(s)?

I don’t know, you tell me. I am also positive you’ll explain the context in which those children were shot and those ceasefires broken.

Iraq has broken 4 (I think 4, correct me of i'm wong) UN resolutions, which was the original reason for going to war on Iraq. Israel has broken 78 UN resolutions.

The resolutions broken by Iraq were mandatory UN Security Council resolutions. There are no mandatory UN Security Council resolutions concerning Israel. They 78 you refer to are condemnations of Israel by a bunch of dictatorships whose opinions should not concern anyone.

America supplied Iraq with weaponry and training to fight Iran in '79.
At the same time, they also supplied Iran with weapons to fight Iraq.

I doubt it seeing as how they weren’t at war back then. I’m sure you will be able to cite references to back up your claim though.

You just think America is great because you've been told to think that way. You have obviously not looked for facts to better inform yourself.
This, I believe is the problem in America at the moment, Americans have failed to demand answers from their politicians.
They believe what they are told to believe without seeking the truth out themselves.

Of course, the opposite is true of you isn’t it?

Originally posted by bonkey
Gimme a T.
Gimme an R.
Gimme an O.....

I'm sure you can guess the rest.....

Biffa’s views are different from my views. Biffa dares to challenge the cosy anti-US consensus. I think Biffa must be a troll.

Gimme a break will ya?

canker

What about the millions murdered by Saddam’s regime? This isn’t justification enough to get rid of him?

Deposing saddam is now the stated reason for the war but the fact is this could have been done without invading a nation, killing thousands of innocents and destroying the lives of countless more.
In any case it's not up to america to decide what's correct and what is not. An attack on america by iraq may have warranted a war (it at least would have made one legal), having a bad leader certianally did not

Zombrex

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
There is nothing sick about neoconservativism. Neoconservatism stands for democracy, freedom and human rights. There is absolutely no moral equivalence with Islamofascism.

He never said neoconservatism is a sick idea, he said Iraqis are killed by sicko neoconservatives, which they were.

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
The millions around the world who condemn the US and Israel while completely ignoring the actions of the scumbags they are fighting against.

Don't you get it. It is only by seeing and completely condeming what the "scumbags" do can you also condemn the US for moving down to their level.

You are the one who is ignoring the actions of the scumbags. If you support the US governments methods for advancing their interestes by using death war and terror, then how can you condemn the Islamic fundamantalists for doing the same thing.

You condemn them while at the same making their methods acceptable for the other side to use which in turn must make their actions acceptable in the first place.

The people who condemn the US government for going down to the terrorsist level have by default condemned the terrorists.

People like you who do not condemn the US government or Israel governement for stooping to the level of terrorist, justify the methods the terrorist use.

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
The only countries America has invaded were those from which it had been attacked or that threatened the lives of its neighbours or even its own citizens.

What about the millions murdered by Saddam’s regime? This isn’t justification enough to get rid of him?

America has only ever invaded countries that directly threaten them or their neighbours.

Iraq didn't threaten America or its neighbours but it is still justifiable to invade it.

WTF?

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Biffa’s views are different from my views. Biffa dares to challenge the cosy anti-US consensus. I think Biffa must be a troll.

Gimme a break will ya?

Sure. I'll give you a break.

I'll give it to youi just when you show me how I generally support the "cosy anti-US consensus", and can also show me how your first post was supposed to make a coherent post rather than dropping in some antagonistically worded phrases.

I'll give it to you when you show any semblance of understanding what "take it to another thread is.

I'll give it to you when you show any possibility of being able to make an argument without referring - directly or indirectly - to those who oppose your point of view as "idiots", and in general start making it appear as though you just might be interested in having a discussion rather than ruining one for kicks.

When you start doing that Biffa, I'll be the first to give you a chance. In the meantime, though, I'm just doing for my forum what you praise the US to high heaven for - "protecting" those under my care against perceived threats in whatever human manner I deem fit.

Funny you want me to give you a break, whilst supporting them so wholeheartedly.

jc

Paddy20

Sorry, but I can not vote in the poll as the possible answers are not exactly imho very democratic, particularly the first option which is putting words in to peoples mouths. That is not a true poll?..

Paddy20.:(

swiss

Sorry, but I can not vote in the poll as the possible answers are not exactly imho very democratic, particularly the first option which is putting words in to peoples mouths. That is not a true poll?..

I agree. Firing up a poll with yes and no answers, with presupposed explanations for those responses doesn't leave much scope for debate or for the variety of reasons someone may have for voting for or against an assertion.

Anyway, this is getting a little out of hand. Biffa, we all know about your views on US foreign policy and Middle Eastern issues. Although I may not agree with them, it is your right to hold those views. However, spamming every applicable thread with inflammatory rhetoric such as

I am sick of innocent people being murdered to serve the twisted goals of Islamofascism

is trolling. The question is "Are you sick of the "War on Terror"?". I am sick of a war that does not seem to be yielding any discernable favourable results, except for US oil industries. I am also sick of terrorist organisations who use this aforementioned "war" to furthur their own terrorist agenda and recruit even more repressed people into their ranks. I guess you could say I'm sick of all the death and misery in the Middle East, and would wish that one side would have the courage and foresight to shout "stop" and declare a unilateral ceasefire. Of course, I don't expect to see anything like that anytime soon.

Oh, I also find it curious that you would call people who are against current US foreign policy "idiots" and yet take such exception to bonkey's inference that you were a troll.

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon:

Biffa’s views are different from my views. Biffa dares to challenge the cosy anti-US consensus. I think Biffa must be a troll.

Gimme a break will ya?

How ironic. bonkey has as much of a right to give you a break as you have of giving a break to other posters with whom you disagree. I'll leave you to decide exactly what kind of 'break' is deserved.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by canker
Deposing saddam is now the stated reason for the war but the fact is this could have been done without invading a nation, killing thousands of innocents and destroying the lives of countless more.

How?

In any case it's not up to america to decide what's correct and what is not.

Americans are perfectly entitled to make moral judgments on other nations and to conduct their foreign policy accordingly. I didn’t hear anyone complaining when the US placed economic sanctions on South Africa over apartheid.

An attack on america by iraq may have warranted a war (it at least would have made one legal), having a bad leader certianally did not

In my opinion, Saddam’s grotesque human rights record was sufficient justification to invade Iraq and overthrow his regime. In any case, the US did have legitimate security interests in removing Saddam given his violation of multiple mandatory UN Security Council resolutions, his financial support for Palestinian terrorism, his past aggression towards neighbouring countries and the urgent requirement to democratise the Arab world in the face of growing Islamist militancy.

Originally posted by Wicknight
He never said neoconservatism is a sick idea, he said Iraqis are killed by sicko neoconservatives, which they were.

Alright, so what’s “sicko” about them then?

If you support the US governments methods for advancing their interestes by using death war and terror, then how can you condemn the Islamic fundamantalists for doing the same thing.

The suggestion that there is any moral equivalence between the actions of the US and Israeli governments and the actions of Islamic terrorists is ridiculous. First of all, it must be recognised that the US and Israelis are the victims of terrorism, while the Arab/Islamic militants are the aggressors. Any comparison of their actions must be seen in this light. Second, the US and Israelis both try to minimise harm to civilians during their military operations, even to the extent of putting their own soldiers’ lives in danger, whereas the terrorists’ actions are deliberately aimed at causing the maximum harm to civilians possible.

Iraq didn't threaten America or its neighbours but it is still justifiable to invade it.

WTF?

Iraq threatened Israel through its support of Palestinian terrorists. Iraq threatened Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to the extent that the US was spending billions each year to maintain defensive garrisons in those countries. Iraq threatened its Kurdish and Shi’ite populations to the extent that the US was spending billions to enforce the no-fly zones in the north and south of the country.


bonkey and swiss:
I don’t see how what I wrote can be considered any more unreasonable or provocative than stuff like:

My own feeling is that the so called "war on terror" being waged by the US Administration and its global lackeys (toady blair etc.) is nothing but a disguised attempt to expand the American empire even further.......

the 'War ON Terror' should be renamed the "The War on Freedom, Peace and Independant thought"

Start calling it the "Terror War" Or the Tyrants War…Consider carefully where to put the apostrophe in "tyrants"

I am sick of this war on terror but at least it should die down once bush has the election in the bag. That is of course unless any other non-white non-christian leaders discover any nice big oil deposits.

Hence I can’t help thinking that the fact that I’m pro-US is why I’m called a troll.

On the “useful idiots” thing, this is a description allegedly used by Lenin to describe the Westerners who came over to the Soviet Union and extolled it’s virtues in the press on their return, without understanding the true nature of the regime. It’s a term in fairly common usage to describe those who give moral support to political groupings whose aims and methods they don’t understand but would actually oppose if they did.

Originally posted by swiss
However, spamming every applicable thread with inflammatory rhetoric such as

I am sick of innocent people being murdered to serve the twisted goals of Islamofascism

is trolling.

I don’t see anything inflammatory or unreasonable about that whatsoever.


Getting back on topic though, saying you’re sick of the “War on Terror” is nothing but blaming the victim for the crime. The US has no choice other than to fight this war, they didn’t start it. And the stakes are enormous. About 3,000 people died on September 11th. Realistically, 30,000 could have died that day, depending on the speed and direction in which the towers fell. If al-Qaeda could have killed 300,000, would they have refrained from doing so? How about 3,000,000?

Clintons Cat

And what did sadamn have to do with september 11th?

chill

It seems to me that the vote results to date is a reflection on the parochial and naive mentality that appears to be commonplace in Ireland today, in spite of our own recent experience in Northern Ireland.

There is an attitude that terrorism is something that exists 'out there' in the world and has nothing to do with us. The other attitude that has become commonplace is the casual anti americanism.

Terrorists trying to murder 50,000 people actually murder thousands in New York, after trying to do it a few years ealier. They murder thousands across the world; take over countries like Afghanistan and use it as a terrorism base and get a grip on places like Indonesia where the Gov is intimidated into inaction.

Terrorism is here to stay. If it isn't checked it will come to Europe in a big way one day soon and it'll be too late for these people to attack the Gov for not telling them sooner.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Clintons Cat
And what did sadamn have to do with september 11th?

Nothing as far as I know. But getting rid of him is a start to the democratisation of the Middle East, which will serve to drain the swamp in which Islamic terrorism festers.

Zombrex

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
How?

Well not putting him into power in the first place probably would have been a good idea.

Oh yeah, and maybe not funding his military and WMD programs for years too might of helped.

Just an idea.

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Americans are perfectly entitled to make moral judgments on other nations and to conduct their foreign policy accordingly.

Er, isn't that exactly what Al Qaida does? Make moral judgements on other countries?

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Alright, so what’s “sicko” about them then?

You mean other than they kill innocent civilians?

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
First of all, it must be recognised that the US and Israelis are the victims of terrorism, while the Arab/Islamic militants are the aggressors.

Funny, thats what the Arabs say.

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Second, the US and Israelis both try to minimise harm to civilians during their military operations

Well if that is true (its not) they are pretty crap at it. More innocent people have been killed in Iraq than New York. And that is just Iraq, and it hasn't stopped yet.

Are you saying it is perfectly acceptable to kill thousands of innocent people if activily make sure you don't kill tens of thousands?

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Iraq threatened Israel through its support of Palestinian terrorists.

And America (and Europe) supported Iraq ... so ... Israel should go to war with America for supporting Iraq which was supporting Palestine which was attacking Israel.

But of course America was also supporting Iran, which was fighting Iraq, which was supporting Palestine which was fighting Israel.

But then again Iran was supporting Palestine, which was supported by Iraq, which was fighting Iran.

So Israel and Iran should team up to fight Iraq .... no thats not right ... er .. American and Iran should team up to fight Israel .. no that won't work either ...

Ivan

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

Americans are perfectly entitled to make moral judgments on other nations and to conduct their foreign policy accordingly. I didn’t hear anyone complaining when the US placed economic sanctions on South Africa over apartheid.

OMG, please tell me you didnt just say that.

I'm sorry but its a BIG jump from placing economic sanctions (which was universally agreed upon by the UN) to waging a massive war (against the majority opinion) which resulted in the massacaring thousands of innocent individuals and will probably continue to fuel the terrorists propaganda machine for centuries to come, that and American cars.

canker

America can make whatever moral judgements they like but they cant just impose them on the rest of the world with their massive millitary power.

And Mr Bacon, do you really believe the only way to remove one man and his mostly hated regime is to destroy a nation?

sovtek

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Nothing as far as I know. But getting rid of him is a start to the democratisation of the Middle East, which will serve to drain the swamp in which Islamic terrorism festers.

You can't force a democracy on people.
And it's already created a situation where Islamic militants have been able to enter Iraq and possibly have been responsible for attacking US soldiers.
Thing is, after illegally invading Iraq, they can't call anyone a terrorist now.

sovtek

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon Neoconservatism stands for democracy, freedom and human rights. There is absolutely no moral equivalence with Islamofascism.

While they rhetorically refer to those morals their proposed methods are anything but.
They also arrogantly assert that they have the right to order the world in their own narrow view.

The millions around the world who condemn the US and Israel while completely ignoring the actions of the scumbags they are fighting against.

If everyone in the room is looking at you, odds are you aren't doing something right.

Again, you ignore the reasons why America and Israel invade other countries. Israel has never invaded a country from which it was not first attacked by people who wanted to destroy it and murder its people.

That isn't true at all. The state of Isreal was itself an invasion of refugees and fundamentalists who thought that they were returning to their "holy land" while removing the current population that had been there for centuries.
American has overtly or covertly invaded or attacked...
Phillipines, Cuba, Vietnam, Korea, Cambodia, Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Colombia, Angola, Iran, Venezuela and Iraq

The only countries America has invaded were those from which it had been attacked or that threatened the lives of its neighbours or even its own citizens.

For example?

I can’t think of any major incidences of Iraqis murdering Americans. What’s your point? That this means war wasn’t justified? What about the millions murdered by Saddam’s regime? This isn’t justification enough to get rid of him?

When you consider that America supported Saddam when he was committing his worst atrocities (also helped him to power when they overthrew/executed the previous leaders in '68)as well as selling him the weapons he used to "gas his own people" then one could justify attacking America as well. By your own rationale , ne could even argue that Sept 11th was justified.
When you also consider that other than the rhetoric of the Bush regime, their actions just don't show any concern for the Iraqi people at all...much less their neighbors or the rest of the world.

I am also positive you’ll explain the context in which those children were shot and those ceasefires broken.

One such context that has been repeated many times is IDF forces taunting Palestinian children with racial slurs. After which they throw rocks at IDF forces who in turn start shooting them.

The resolutions broken by Iraq were mandatory UN Security Council resolutions.

That was what the inspectors were in Iraq to confirm. They were never given the chance as well as the Bush regime trying to undermine their mission from the very beginning. They weren't allowed to finish and so far it looks as if Iraq wasn't in violation. Even so, the UN Charter states that no country can attack another without a Security Council mandate authorizing it.

There are no mandatory UN Security Council resolutions concerning Israel.

Not true. One such non-resolution (242) calls for Isreal to pull back to pre-1967 borders when it invaded Egypt and took territory.

bloggs

anyone ever watch Fox News, OMG, they even have theme music for the WAR ON TERROR!! They labeled the War in Iraq as both War on TERROR (in dramatic tone), and Operation Iraqi Freedom (yes drop the Liberation). They also have a business section called 'THE PRICE OF FREEDOM', where they show ups and downs in the stock market for weapon sales and oil dealers, quiet an unnerving thing if you have ever seen it.

Eg.

Fox guy: What would you put your money in Jim
Jim: Well the military fired a lot of cruse milliles at baghdad, and they are running low, i would suggest people put their money in there, as demand for that will certainly rise

Sarky

One way to help end the war on terror would then be to turn off the telly.

bloggs

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Nothing as far as I know. But getting rid of him is a start to the democratisation of the Middle East, which will serve to drain the swamp in which Islamic terrorism festers.

LOL! But Bush wasn't even elected, so how can he democratise the Middle East? Perhaps he could start with UN Electron monitors in Florida before telling the world that they should have 'freedom and democracy'

Look, this is how it works.

1. Big business/oil/weapons dealers/Israel tell Dubya, we will give you the old $$ if you do as we say when you are 'elected'
2. Bush gets in and the old croones come looking for the investments to be honored
3. Bush increased military spending, knocks Kyoto on the head, and increases 'aid' to Israel.

And that is how democracy works

Lemming

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Nothing as far as I know. But getting rid of him is a start to the democratisation of the Middle East

Quite ironically Iraq was, despite its rather poor 'calibre' of it's leadership, about the most secular state in the ME. Now that's in danger of changing for the worse as some of the more radical and extremist islamic elements within and without of iraq try to push their own agendas