Bush must resist retaliation

myles

Bush must resist retaliation

Bush faces a pretty difficult decision as the demand for action gets huge! While a military top-gunesque strike may provide a vent for rage and grief, it is unlikely to stop the terrorist threat!!
Never mind the whole f*n countries behind them!!

As the blazing towers on telly are replaced by a mounting death toll and tales from survivors, the reaction, both in America and over here, will be emotive. A co-ordinated response - against an unknown enemy who has committed an act which is both indefensible and impossible to defend against - is hardly possible!!!
The demands for revenge and retribution, which already clog the airwaves of radio talk shows and phone-in programmes all over the bleedin shop, betray a feelin of urgency. As America wakes up every morning, the task for Bush will be to channel this rage without meeting the demand for a voilent response. Yea, we can all suss that an immediate reaction would provide emotional relief and earn political capital and all that, but it would do f uck all, if anything, to alleviate the danger...... or the teach monkeys who masterminded this horror!!


Emotionally, such an attack would doubtlessly be gratifying - fulfilling a general desire to "do something" and a clamour for action rather than words. But, if anything, it could achieve the opposite - creating enemies not just among governments but their citizens as well. Then think of the racist sh ite we'd all be in!
painting all muslims with the same brush and visa versa!

Politically, an attack could reap rewards. This would be a supreme test for any leader, let alone a man who has been in the job only seven months and is generally seen as a bit of a bleedin mullet head! As the shock turns into a giant hangover the nation will turn increasingly in his direction for leadership. Words will suffice for only so long.

But to start a worldwide scrap in response to such pressure would be a big f*n mistake. For when the applause for such an act of theatre is over the threat will still exist. Imagine..

The last time the America public reacted in this way the US military went and pummled Khartoum, Sudan and Kandahar, Afghanistan. That was payback for the bombing of those American embassies in Dar es Sal...whatever u call it and Nirobi. The bully'ish missile response achieved massive support, but, as yesterday's events prove, it achieved absolutely F*ck all.

So this fella Bush now has a choice. To either mediate the demand for swift retaliation in favour of a longer-term, reasonable response or to go and f*n meet it. To mediate it will demand political skill (BUSH?) and a massive personal effort to reassure his nation in a time of need. But it is necessary if Bush is going to break the cycle of violence and move towards a long term solution to the Land of plenty's safety.

To meet it would be far more straightforward, demanding little more than the flick of a switch aimed at a spot on a map. It would bring short term political gain and provide a gory solace for a mourning people. It would also further unleash a spiral of violence across the globe leaving an open question: who will strike and be struck next. (I'm already makin my tin-foil suit.)

Right now America needs a statesman, but wants the terminator. Bush must steer himself to lead, not allow himself to follow.

Monkey

the shame is Bush is a moron and a republican (or are those the same thing? ). I saw some ex-big wig politician who used to work for George Bush Senior and he was laughing at the notion of not reacting violently.

It seems some people have a warped view of justice. They'll attack some middle eastern country and kill loads of innocent people and they think that is justified.

Its like the Oklahoma bomber thing - the atf (gov body) attacked a the church of a cult at a place called Waiko (spelling?) because they were horading weapons. They killed loads of the religious fanatics inside including women and kids. Tim Mc Veigh (Spelling?) saw this as the gov violating people's right to bear arms so he blew up a gov building killing innocent citizens he saw this as justice (an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth and all that). and the the gov go and kill the guy because that to them is justice.

Tim thought he was balancing out the wrongs done by the atf by killing and the gov thought they were balancing out the wrongs done by tim mc Veigh by killing him.

lamda

Well said Myles. A knee jerk reaction will only bring us further down the road to chaos but I really don't have much confidence in Bush...let's hope he proves me wrong...

velouria

agreed lambda and miles, military action is the stupidest that could ever be done now, but good ol george will probsee it asd the next logical step. i'm sure you've all heard those very worrying threats on the news- we will find the terrorists and punish them. they practically confirmed osama bin ladne as their target now they are begging for the all-clear so they can go blow him up like good war-craved citizens. where has the notion of peace and non-agressive action gone? there are other ways to deallwith this

Horgenstein

codswollop...gas masks for all I say!!:D

hoolia

ok, i don't believe that mass violance is the answer, but the ppl who have lost loved ones are goin 2want revenge...it's an understandable reaction.

so what is bush the pro nuke pres going 2 do...follow his gut(basically blow the world 2pieces) and do what the ppl want or choose the political way-god only knows how he would react(maybe try his hand at it for a couple of hours-run out of the building b4 the othe leader has a chance 2 get out and blow him up...is more the bush response)

i hate 2 say it but while bush is in power i think that war is the only answer, for him 2 rid the world of these "folks" he must go2 war:(

Nellys Belly

What folks?

Monkey

Bush referred to the terrorists as "folks"

o sleep

bush seems to react to every difficult situation with reference to the chance of being reelected and not to how the world will view him in 50/100 years. this was proven in his treatment of the Kyoto treaty, which was essentially appeasing all the right people and giving two fingers to the rest of the world.

therefore, i can only see one solution that he would see to the problem. i hate to say it, but i think he's already hinted at it in his promise of dealing harshly with those countries who might harbour the terrorists. it's obvious from these statements that bush needs a country to attack rather than a handful of ****ed of terrorists.

apparently hate crimes against muslims are beginning in america. because to the average (retarded) american, muslim = evil = fundamentalist. it's even happening here (to a lesser extent): a costumer came in to my work today, with a copy of the star in his hand, telling everyone who would listen that america should just nuke all the islamic states.

the irony of this all is that america is hardly innocent in all this. of course, this doesn't justify in any way whatsoever all those people killed in the twin towers and on the planes, but the reaction of bush as some sort of shocked leader, who must heroicly defend the 'free' world against this threat is ****ing laughable. especially when you consider the deliberate genocide of civilians in vietnam, columbia and palestine, the overthrow of Allende in Chile, their disgusting bay of pigs operation in Cuba, the invasion of panama (for purely financial reasons), and of course the bomb on Hiroshima. and the final and most poignant irony: that america actually trained the very same terrorists they believe to be involved in the twin tower disaster in order to overthrow the socialist regime in afghanistan.

question: if bush really is going to attempt to eradicate terrorism in the world, does this mean he'll order an attack on israel? terrorism is terrorism, even if it's state sponsored ... or maybe not.

anony

What would the world be like if the Americans had decided not to retaliate when japan attacked Pearl Harbour?? apart from one less crap movie, Europe would be run by the Nazi's.......

Bush is not stupid or wrong to be in favour of revenge for what these psychopaths done.....the world would obviously be a better place without them.....the problem is getting rid of the guity parties without murdering the innocent....

Monkey

"Bush is not stupid" - ha ha ha ho ho ho

yes he is

thedrowner

afghanistan are rumoured to be extraditing omassa bin Laden (the main suspect) to america to avoid a war

what was so sad to watch was thje pallestinian people rejoicing that america had suffered such a blow....these people make me physically ill

mimi

Gentle People

I know
we were
a gentle people
once,
but they have
made us fighters,
fighters better than they;
and we will fight
so that we can become gentle people
again.

B.P. Flanigan.

Despite what this implies, I strongly oppose any violent action against innocent people who haven't comitted any crime. Justice, not Vengeance.

myles

O SLEEP deserves a - here here.

Samba

It certainly is a very delicate situation,

If the USA were to take military action against anyone, there would only be one possible solution to succeed in doing this and that would require pinpoint targeting of various targets without civillian casualties.

Now i still recall images of the American embassy being attacked in China due to the fact that the Americans bombed their embassy in Kosovo(not 100% sure there) so therefore the type of military action which would be required is pretty much impossible.


I don't think the world would ever be the same if the USA were to unleash a full scale attack


Nostradamus has said words about the East and the West rising up against eachother.

knobbles

Originally posted by anony
What would the world be like if the Americans had decided not to retaliate when japan attacked Pearl Harbour??

...it's true. Extreme measures were neccesary in WW2 as are now. No leader, in our time at least, will ever attempt what Hitler began over 60 years ago - only to a much smaller scale and usually without success. That war was won for future generations. If Milosevic was about 100 years ago, he'd probably want to have a go at half of Europe. But WW2 changed the world a lot. And further changes are now in need. Words wouldn't have worked 60 years ago and, unfortunately, they won't suffice here either. The innate hatred of these terrorists accepts or offers no compromise to America. What they caused this week was no cry for help but a revenge mission to wound America. They show no mercy and would stab again. Hitler's regime was eliminated, when at times it seemed unlikely, and these groups must also be eliminated - they can't be tamed. But, given the chance, their future generations can be a part of more united world...no cheesy talk here - seriously, if you find a map of the world from a 100 years ago it's full of empires, empires formed from wars where the goal was to expand and dominate - WW2 suffocated that notion of war and we won't see it happen again.

Now, as they're saying, it's a "new war" we're dealing with and, unfortunately, extreme measures will again be called for. Afghanistan is a very poor country and to see it's peaceful civilians suffer from their already dictated lives would completely defeat the purpose of Americans "save the world" mission. But i fear this week won't be the last tragedy in this "war", form both sides. But it can't be avoided now.

The music talk seems to have subsided around here recently. I was never mad about them but they played that Manics tune
on the radio today and it ain't bad - "If You Tolerate this then your children will be next"

knobbles

...and wud ye ever let poor Nostradamus rest in peace. Between East and West rising against each other and the brothers falling and cities burning, arghhhhh, it's fairy tales -v- reality

Aspro

The desire for revenge is a natural instinct but where does it lead to? More conflict, more death, more revenge and back again. If you were to take the plans of the U.S. administration to its logical conclusion (bomb Iraq, bomb Afghanistan, bomb the Middle East, bomb every Arab etc.) then surely they should have supported a bombing attack by Britain on Ireland after the Canary Wharf bomb. After all, it was a terrorist attack by Irish extremists on Britain. But oh no, I forgot. All Irish people aren't the bad guys. Irish terrorists aren't representative of the mass of the Irish population. And the same goes for the Middle East, Mr. Bush.

Monkey

"what was so sad to watch was thje pallestinian people rejoicing that america had suffered such a blow....these people make me physically ill" - for god's sake ! You did not see the pallestinian people rejoicing, what you saw was SOME people in Pallestine rejoicing. It doesn't mean they all support the terrorists it just means SOME do.

For ****'s sake, you can't see the world in black and white

o sleep

with regards to the palestinian people celebrating; you must be careful of what you see on the news, especially if it's CNN. okay, let's assume that this wasn't some celebration the palestinians were enjoying 3 weeks before the plane attacks and that they really were celebrating the destruction in NYC on tuesday. it's not right, but we do the same. people celebrated the nuclear bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki (this was before it was known the war was over); devestation far greater and more despicable than that which occured on tuesday. also, we remain silent at america's continuing attrocities throughout the world. no, we're not celebrating, but what the **** are we doing to prevent it?

as for the person who sent me a private patronising message (i think his name was 'patriotic american' or something) america's foreign policy is not a means to achieve world peace or to fight for the right of people's freedom and democracy. as i've said before it's all about money. would america try and help free the afghanistans from the taliban regime? god, no, but when bin laden is suspected of bombing their embassies, then they'll send in a couple of missiles at 'suspected' sites where america 'thinks' bin laden is hiding. as for the taliban regime, who are systematically raping the country of all hope or desire for resistance, america couldn't give a ****. because it wouldn't be economical to do so.

Gar_ptc

i think a retaliation is demanded by the popular opinion in USA,but not a mass-vietnam stle attack.
i mean,have you seen afghanistan??it's desertland!they've been at civil war for years,apparently.

but also who can they attack when they dont know who it is?

let the question linger.
although it's most likely bin laden,how can they be 110%?
but in reality a reprisal is needed,just not the one i anticipate the USA is going to carry out.

Monkey

this website would suggests that the footage you saw of celebration in Palestine was not recorded after the twin towers attack but rather 10 years ago:
http://www.chicago.indymedia.org:8081//front.php3?article_id=4395

needsome

Make what you will of this...just received it by email....
Taliban


> Hello everyone,
> The following was posted here by a co-worker on our companies internal. It
> comes from her friend, Tamim, a writer and columnist in San Francisco.
> Incidentally, Tamin is originally from Afghanistan. It is a very well
> thought out, rational and thought provoking commentary.
>
> --- In light of Tuesdays tragedy and the unthinkable idea of what is yet
> to come, I thought I should share this with as many people as possible.
> I've been hearing a lot of talk about "bombing Afghanistan back to the
> Stone Age." Ronn Owens, on KGO Talk Radio today, allowed that this would
> mean killing innocent people, people who had nothing to do with this
> atrocity, but "we're at war, we have to accept collateral damage. What
> else can we do?" Minutes later I heard some TV pundit discussing whether
> we "have the belly to do what must be done." And I thought about the
> issues being raised especially hard because I from Afghanistan, and even
> though I've lived here for 35 years I've never lost track of what's going
> on there.
>
> So I want to tell anyone who will listen how it all looks from where I'm
> standing. I speak as one who deeply hates the Taliban and Osama Bin
> Laden. My hatred comes from first hand experience. There is no doubt in my
> mind that these people were responsible for the atrocity in New York. I
> agree that something must be done about those monsters.
>
> But the Taliban and Ben Laden are not Afghanistan. They're not even the
> government of Afghanistan. The Taliban are a cult of ignorant psychotics
> who took over Afghanistan in 1997. Bin Laden is a political criminal with
> a plan. When you think Taliban, think Nazis. When you think Bin Laden,
> think Hitler. And when you think "the people of Afghanistan" think "the
> Jews in the concentration camps." It's not only that the Afghan people had
> nothing to do with this atrocity. They were the first victims of the
> perpetrators. They would exult if someone would come in there, take out
> the Taliban and clear out the rats nest of international thugs holed up in
> their country.
>
> Some say, why don't the Afghans rise up and overthrow the Taliban? The
> answer is, they're starved, exhausted, hurt, incapacitated, suffering. A
> few years ago, the United Nations estimated that there are 500,000
> disabled orphans in Afghanistan--a country with no economy, no food. There
> are millions of widows. And the Taliban has been burying these widows
> alive in mass graves. The soil is littered with land mines, the farms were
> all destroyed by the Soviets. These are a few of the reasons why the
> Afghan people have not overthrown the Taliban. We come now to the
> question of "bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age". Trouble is,
> that's been done. The Soviets took care of it already. Make the Afghans
> suffer? They're already suffering. Level their houses? Done. Turn their
> schools into piles of rubble? Done. Eradicate their hospitals? Done.
> Destroy their infrastructure? Cut them off from medicine and health care?
> Too late. Someone already did all that. New bombs would only stir the
> rubble of earlier bombs. Would they at least get the Taliban? Not likely.
>
>
> In today's Afghanistan, only the Taliban eat, only they have the means to
> move around. They'd slip away and hide. Maybe the bombs would get some of
> those disabled orphans, they don't move too fast, they don't even have
> wheelchairs. But flying over Kabul and dropping bombs would not really be
> a strike against the criminals who did this horrific thing. Actually it
> would only be making common cause with the Taliban--by raping once again
> the people they've been raping all this time. So what else is there? What
> can be done, then? Let me now speak with true fear and trembling. The
> only way to get Bin Laden is to go in there with ground troops. When
> people speak of "having the belly to do what needs to be done" they're
> thinking in terms of having the belly to kill as many as needed. Having
> the belly to overcome any moral qualms about killing innocent people.
> Let's pull our heads out of the sand. What's actually on the table is
> Americans dying. And not just because some Americans would die fighting
> their way through Afghanistan to Bin Laden's hideout. It's much bigger
> than that folks. Because to get any troops to Afghanistan, we'd have to go
> through Pakistan. Would they let us? Not likely. The conquest of Pakistan
> would have to be first. Will other Muslim nations just stand by? You see
> where I'm going. We're flirting with a world war between Islam and the
> West. And guess what: that's Bin Laden's program. That's exactly what he
> wants. That's why he did this. Read his speeches and statements. It's all
> right there. He really believes Islam would beat the west. It might seem
> ridiculous, but he figures if he can polarize the world into Islam and the
> West, he's got a billion soldiers. If the west wreaks a holocaust in those
> lands, that's a billion people with nothing left to lose, that's even
> better from Bin Laden's point of view. He's probably wrong, in the end the
> West would win, whatever that would mean, but the war would last for years
> and millions would die, not just theirs but ours. Who has the belly for
> that? Unfortunately, Bin Laden does. Anyone else? In Peace, Tamim Ansary
>

Gar_ptc

a bloody good letter from someone who has more than a clue bout the country.
also she mentions the phrase "bombing (them) back
to the stone age..."

bombing BACK???
they're pretty much there as it is.

vietnam...all over again...

maybe this will inspire another hippy movement,know what i mean?