Newsflash: George W Bush has declared war .....

corkie

'We are at war' - President George W Bush

US President George W Bush has declared war on "the group of barbarians that
declared war" on the American people.

Speaking from Camp David today, after a lengthy meeting of his National Security Advisors, President Bush also named Osama bin Laden as the official suspect in this "despicable attack of terror" on America Tuesday.

"Make no mistake about it, underneath our tears is the strong determination to win this war. The American people do not only seek revenge but to win a war against barbarianism," he said.

Above from The Examiner

Bush says US attack will be broad and sustained

Listen: Bush pledges decisive response
The US president is holding top-level talks on how to respond to Tuesday's attacks, after Congress authorises the use of all necessary force.

Blair holds attack talksbbc.co.uk
Prime Minister Tony Blair has given his unflinching support to Mr Bush over any US response to the attacks which have left thousands dead, including many Britons.

????? If there is a "war", what will our own Irish stance on it be?
Do we stay neutral? Given that Irish people have died! Can we keep choosing to declare ourselves 'neutral' if we get involved?

Additional News Links added on 17th: -

Dirty little secrets about terrorismThomas Walkom for Toronto Star Newspapers Limited

Alternative-medicine guru helps people come to terms with terror attack

Paleface

Your jumping the gun a bit. Its still way too early to say that there will be a war. Forget listening to what Bush has to say. Colin Powell is the man of the moment. He says that America is at war with terrorism. Its a figure of speech. There basically saying that they will take action but on what grounds it is as yet unknown. War does not necessarily mean rush in with guns blazing, diplomatic war will be the key factor in deciding just how serious a reaction America will take.

Hobbes

He hasn't declared war. He has said they are at war.

Declaring war is a BIG difference and causes major changes over here (eg. Draft).

Drakus

When Bush says he is declaring war on all terrorists around the world and any country that gives them a safe haven I wonder how Ireland stands in all of this. Nobody could argue that the real I.R.A. are considered terrorists just as the Provos were/are before the good Friday agreement and what about Farc in Columbia and similar organisations around the world. So do you have to be an Arab terrorist to qualify for a cruise missile or directly associated with Bin Laden or maybe you have to threaten the U.S.A. directly. As we have all seen one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Where ever you have a dictatorship(or such) you are inevitably going to have terrorists of some sort, terrorists so called by the regime in power. It just seems to me this declaring war on terrorists is a lot more complicated than the rhetoric would suggest.

corkie

Yes I know it is not ' A war' in the traditional sense of war.
I have been pulling media title's and rehassing them.

There is no one country/countries to target.

So how is this fight against 'terrorism' going to be fought?

An elite squad or assasin attempt of the main suspect would be illegal by US Law.

It is a bold statement by him to elimate 'Terrorism'.

To do that you would have elimate the root cause of it.

And while we still live in a 'World of inequality' their will always be people and groups who can be misguided and influenced in to commiting 'wrongs' against other people.

We have bared witness to great tradegy on the 11th. And Yesterday we saw people off all walks of life, mourning the same event.

Why does it allways take a wake up call of such tragic nature to unite people?

Let us see in the coming weeks/months the people who organised this event brought to justice, but in doing so may no more innocent's be harmed.

bugler

He means terrorists who are at odds with the US, yes. The US Government has no problem with terror per se, they have a problem with terror aaginst themselves though.It's a bit rich to talk about the evils of terror when you allowed CIA -trained operatives to bomb Cuba from Florida(by air), claiming you can do nothing about it.Or indeed to bomb what turned out a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan, and then block the inquiry at the UN.Or train and arm various death squads in Latin America, not to mention the infamous Indonesian "Kopassas" commandoes in East Timor, etc.....

How the US fights this "war" will decide how many attacks on US civilians there are.If the US "war" is a dirty, inaccurate series of attacks which claims many civilian lives, then the fire of militant Islamic fundamentalism is kept burning bright, and more vicious attacks on US soil can be expected.

Manach

My feeling is that we should take the US side on this. Both at a diplomatic level (UN security concil) & allowing transit of forces through Irish air space.
Why - they are friends in need.

bugler

In need of what? Revenge? Some dead Arabs?

The irish will of course take the US side in this, but I'd like to see some conditions imposed.Namely that strong precautions against civilian casualties are implemented.Otherwise, I'd rather not have the US's forces fly through my town.This is all wishful thinking of course, the Irish support will be unquestioning, whatever the US's intentions or attitudes, its nice to dream though.

Superman

when will the the world learn that an eye for an eye is wrong in every sence. a prime example is the north since the very rickety peace process kicked off a few years back things have got a lot better. (ok we may have some trouble but alot less than possible)

Hobbes

Originally posted by Drakus
*snip*

Remember that some Arab Terrorists have sent money/guns to the IRA to attack Britain for thier support for the US in hitting terrorists before. So yes, I do see all the NI terrorists being SOOL when it comes to help from the US.

Just remind the US they funded NORAD, they won't do it again.

Hobbes

Originally posted by bugler
It's a bit rich to talk about the evils of terror when you allowed CIA -trained operatives to bomb Cuba from Florida(by air),

Only that?

Lets hope the American people actually cop onto what thier goverment gets up to and do something about it.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Hobbes, all Western intelligence agencies actively engage in espionage, destabilization and black operations designed to cause terror. They also sponsor such activites through proxies. I can't say I approve of it, but there's not a lot more I can do to be perfectly honest. I can at least console myself of the fact that it's a lot better since the Cold War, when nations from both sides actively participated in destabilization, proxy and espionage campaigns. The very nature of the way that government views these activites makes them very hard for them to be influenced in any way by the electorate. As long as these agencies are acting in our broad self-interest, I can't honestly say that it bothers me too much. Morally it's simply deplorable, but pragmatically, we're not going to maintain a current world order with the US at its axis unless we pursue such policies. Immoral it might be, but it's human nature to want to get to the top, and even more so to do anything to stay at the head of the proverbial food chain. I don't have to like it, but that's the way it is- it's nice to dream as bugler says, but I like to keep my political fantasies in the closet when discussing a topic seriously.

Now that that period is over though, it's fair to say that we can move on- the Soviets comitted a lot of atrocities in the name of "preserving the socialist state" and we did likewise in the name of "destroying the threat of communism". All that's in the past- look back far enough, and state-sponsored terror has been committed by every government in some shape or form. As far as current US policy goes, it should change, but chances are it won't. A balance must be struck between judicious retribution and foriegn policy review. The evils you speak of bugler, were not committed by this government. I therefore do not understand on what basis you refer to them as "the same people that did...X"

Are you saying all US governments are the same? Or that all Americans think and act the same as regards terror? As far as huge inaccurate air-strikes that have the potential to harm innocent civilians, that seems unlikely from the statements that have been coming out of the President's War Cabinet at Camp David. The message seems to be: be prepared for US military casualties, which to me, is the same signal his father sent before the Gulf War. That means ground troops, an idea I oppose in principle, but recognize the practical need for in this case. The added element of cooperation afforded by Pakistan and other neighboring nations will provide said troops with accurate intel and lend their own experience to the fight.

That's in theory. The reality is, that there will be atrocities of war committed by both sides, the worst by us, as we aren't bringing along many innocent civilians for the ride. But that is something that you accept as a side-effect of war- tragic, but inevitable in such a situation were it to arise. A military and diplomatic campaign against terrorists is our government's safest and lowest-risk option bugler. The amount of fallout that we would have to deal with, diplomatic especially, would not be worth a change in stance to be blunt. The same is true of most other governments. A military option provides a patriotic and make-shift short term quickfix for a far more complicated situation.

Drastically altering our foreign policy in other areas in order to hopefully remove a cause for terror attacks on the US simply doesn't work, given historical examples. A strategy of appeasement hardly worked for Hitler in 1930's Europe now, did it? Give them an inch, and they'll claim a yard. "Freedom fighters" they might be, but reasonable individuals, they are not. Even if we did somehow manage to disengage through a policy of appeasement, the target would simply switch to Tel Aviv. And for every Israeli citizen singed, we can guarantee at least 10 Palestinian police in the ground, the occupation of more West Bank territory and the shooting of rioting youths on a larger scale.

In short, a military strike allows the US to actively pursue its own interests without sacrificing the potential for a foreign policy review( a minor and confrontational one, I predict). Such a strike allows us to strengthen and form strategic alliances. It allows a demonstration of US power, and allows our government to maintain their place at the hub of the new world order. None of this may be morally solicitous to many reading this, but I offer merely what is likely to happen, not what I think should happen. Such speculation is idle indeed, if there is not going to be systemic change.

Hindsight will not be kind to either side in this conflict- and as for history- well, it's written by the victors, and I think we all know in our heart of hearts, who they're going to be. I just hope Chaumsky slags them off in apathetic fashion (again) after it's all over.

Occy

bugler

It's "Chomsky".

Ignore a governments past just because it doesn't really suit at the moment? No, I think not.Shall we forget about Bloody Sunday? Seen as it's all in the past.I think it's easy for you Bob, as an american, to talk about the irrelevance of the past.Try to understand however that for others it is not so easy to forget, and that is why the US has come under attack. By looking to the past we can solve problems in our present, but that might be a bit too sensible for George W I know.Besides, are the Iraqi sanctions in the past? What about the US's role in Colombia?

Soviet interference and activities were of a significantly lower level than the US's, the US liked to stir up the fear of Soviet involvement at certain flashpoints though, which is necessary when you are asking for huge defence spending, you need to justify it.

I'm a little disappointed with your apathy about what governments get up to, yes it is immoral, and standing back saying nothing doesn't set you up as a character of the highest moral standing either.

The evils you speak of bugler, were not committed by this government. I therefore do not understand on what basis you refer to them as "the same people that did...X"

Are you saying all US governments are the same? Or that all Americans think and act the same as regards terror?

Most recent governments of the US have been fairly similar in their approach to foreign policy, would you not agree?
Sanctions were imposed on Iraq under Bush Snr, were held in place by Clinton, and are still in place under Bush Jr. Colombia has held the support(both military and diplomatic) of several successive US administrations, with Clinton increasing that support beyond even Bush Snrs levels.For how far back has the US given its unfailing support to Israel? Is Cuba not still under sanctions, after almost half a century? Please tell me if I'm living in the past here.

A strategy of appeasement hardly worked for Hitler in 1930's Europe now, did it? Give them an inch, and they'll claim a yard.

Comparisons with Hitler are a little absurd.I'd phrase it, "Give them fair treatment at the UN, give them the right to a country, give them compensation for land seized from them, give them medicine for their dying kids, give them relief from cruel ineffective sanctions, - and they'll claim a yard (God forbid,they might get crazy notions about pulling out of poverty or something)

Or would giving arabs in various countries the above rights be considered as appeasement?

The lack of scruples you claim to hold as to what your government gets up to is a little disconcerting, especially coming from a doctor.

I just hope Chaumsky slags them off in apathetic fashion (again) after it's all over.

Thats right, the US will ride in on their steeds and destroy the "terrorists", thus rendering it "all over", and we'll all live happily ever after.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Yes bugler, we put the past behind us (not necessarily forgetting it) and move the hell on. I don't propose we forget the past- merely that we don't use outdated foreign policy examples at a time when the Cold War power struggle dominated world politics. I think it's fair to say that's no longer the case, wouldn't you?

The lack of scruples you claim to hold as to what your government gets up to is a little disconcerting, especially coming from a doctor.

Yes, bring my profession into it, really relevant that. No need to get personal now. I never said that I stood back apathetically- read what I said not what you want to hear. I've voted Libretarian as far back as I've been able to head down to the polls. Would you call that apathetic? I give monthly to the Red Cross, and numerous other charities. I spent the early part of my post-college days working with MSF in deprived areas, so don't tell me I'm apathetic as regards the situation- you don't even know me. Read my post bugler. I never said I hold with the actions of my government- I merely point out the harsh realities of the situation. You also misappropriate my arguments quite seriously throughout your post, and I resent that.

Speaking of apathy by the way, while the US has acted as it damn well pleased, what has Ireland done to uphold the morals which you so loftily proclaim bugler, hmmm? They've sided with us- isn't that morally deplorable? Why not slag off your own spineless government instead of shouting to the skies and all who will listen that the US is abusing its power? Wow, a powerful nation that abuses its power...how historically rare, eh? Have you visited the Planet Earth recently bugler? You seem to think that world politics has a moral or social conscience...how quaint. Why the hell do you think colonizing powers did what they did bugler? Because they could- plain and simple. Not because they were "bad" or "evil" people, simply because they had the power to do so. Power is inevitably abused, absolute power especially so- that is an inevitable truth of world politics- it's all very well speaking out with "strong rhetoric" as you love to do bugler- but what are you as a person doing aside from spreading the word? In fact, what can you do?

I'm protesting the situation with my vote- it's one of the most effective ways I know of that can influence the situation. As an Irish citizen commenting from an armchair historian's perspective, you are powerless to change the situation. Your own government is hardly doing more than most- spouting a few words of rhetoric at every atrocity and sitting firmly on its hands while the US and other nations that shape the world battle out their differences. Until these governments step off the sidelines, their citizens could do worse than look inwards to their own governments' apathy in reacting to what, as you say is an immoral state of events.

Comparisons with Hitler are a little absurd.I'd phrase it, "Give them fair treatment at the UN, give them the right to a country, give them compensation for land seized from them, give them medicine for their dying kids, give them relief from cruel ineffective sanctions, - and they'll claim a yard

I was referring to terrorists bugler, not innocent civilians- and both you and I know that even if the US disengages from the Middle East that terrorist attacks will continue. Do you honestly think that terrorist groups all share the same motivations? That by appeasing one group we appease them all? Get real. Appeasing terrorists isn't just morally distasteful, it's not going to work either. They've been brought up to believe America and Americans are evil- it's going to take a lot to convince them otherwise. Realistically speaking, it's just not going to happen, is it?

Apathy is only an issue if there is something to be done about it bugler- I'm doing all I can at the moment. It's all very well to dream, as you say we should, but we live in a harsh and unforgiving world, we always have done throughout history. Not in some Utopian arborretrum where no one is hungry or disillusioned. Here's a little proverb that might help you bugler:

God Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

-Reinhold Niebuhr

That's how I try and live my life bugler, with a realistic sense of what I can change. The humility that comes from the realization that there is only so much we can do that is effective, is really quite liberating- you should try it sometime.

Occy

bugler

Oh put away those claws, Bob. This whole week and how it has affected you isn't representing you in a very good light to be honest.

I don't propose we forget the past- merely that we don't use outdated foreign policy examples at a time when the Cold War power struggle dominated world politics. I think it's fair to say that's no longer the case, wouldn't you?

The cold war is gone, and yet the US still has sanctions imposed on Cuba.The cold war was never really an issue in Columbia, aside from the left-wing politics of FARC, and yet the US's support of a brutal regime has been constant.The Iraqi people are still suffering from sanctions being held firmly in place by the US and the UK.What about the Cold war? It ended 10 yrs ago, and yet there are still plenty of examples of the US's support of brutal regimes and the US still implements unfair and cruel measures against certain countries.

Opting out of matters by saying "theres not alot I can do about it" isn't an attitude I find particularly impressive or endearing.The fact that you choose to attack those who don't feel this way -and do condemn these government practices- is disappointing. I think your profession is someway relevant, considering the acts the US(and yes other governments too) support(ed) or engage(d) in include torture and deprivation of medicines or medical equipment.

Speaking of apathy by the way, while the US has acted as it damn well pleased, what has Ireland done to uphold the morals which you so loftily proclaim bugler, hmmm? They've sided with us- isn't that morally deplorable?

Ireland, as I expected, has done nothing startling.Are you suggesting I shouldn't be allowed my own ideals/morals if they don't fit in with my governments? Did I once in my posts, claim Ireland held any moral superiority over the US? Did I once say that if it was Ireland in the US's position things would be different? I have often attacked Irelands role as an international sheep. I recall attacking Ireland on this very board when it abstained from a UN Security Council vote on whether to allow UN monitors into Palestine.It didn't matter that they abstained, for even if they voted for it it would still have been wrecked by the US's veto.But the moral cowardice was evident, and it made me ashamed of my country. Also,If you would care to read my post, I never said that military action would be deplorable, I stated that I hoped it wouldn't entail a loss of civilian life.

Why not slag off your own spineless government instead of shouting to the skies and all who will listen that the US is abusing its power?

What more can I say? I have slagged off my government when its actions have come to my attention.If you can tell me what massive human rights abuses Ireland has played a direct role in, or what brutal puppet regimes it has put in place and supported I'll only be too happy to attack the Irish government.

You seem to think that world politics has a moral or social conscience...how quaint.

I think it should have a conscience.Excuse me if I don't share your cynicism.

As an Irish citizen commenting from an armchair historian's perspective, you are powerless to change the situation. Your own government is hardly doing more than most- spouting a few words of rhetoric at every atrocity and sitting firmly on its hands while the US and other nations that shape the world battle out their differences. Until these governments step off the sidelines, their citizens could do worse than look inwards to their own governments' apathy in reacting to what, as you say is an immoral state of events.

This doesn't stop me from stating my opinion, even though it would seem you'd like to think the fact I'm irish means I shouldn't be allowed to criticize other countries actions.I have wrote to the Taoiseachs office, and various branches of government on different matters, most related to the Middle-East.I have taken and interest in and expressed disgust at my own countries actions, but Ireland is indeed powerless on the world stage, precluded from making any huge difference to global matters.

I was referring to terrorists bugler, not innocent civilians- and both you and I know that even if the US disengages from the Middle East that terrorist attacks will continue

So you were likening a relatively small group of terrorists to Hitler, fine.Don't bother trying to separate the events in Palestine, Iraq and Israel from these terrorist groups.How did these people get the idea that the US was evil, or Satan himself? Did it just pop into their heads one day? Or was it their kids dying from malnutrition or simple disease due to sanctions? Or suffering torture at the hands of the US's spartan ally? Or having their friends blown up while herding sheep? The ordinary people who the US has punished are easy prey for the extremists.

I was going to quote more that paragraph you wrote but its just tripe.Are you seriously claiming that if the US was more impartial in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, removed the sanctions that punish innocent people in Iraq, and maybe actually tried helping reformers in Iran(rather than imposing sanctions that give the hardliners more sway) that this would make no difference and these terrorist attacks would continue unabated?

Get real.

Americans need to grasp that having suffered a terrible atrocity doesn't make them very special, or indeed more deserving of sympathy than say around a million dead Iraqis, or several thousand dead Sudanese.More importantly, they need to grasp why it happened, or else it will happen again.Try and kill bin Laden, and good luck to you.If you think that solves your problem, you are sorely mistaken.

You generously gave me some wisdom(though I totally reject its message), so I think I should return the favour, I believe these two pieces are Kurdish proverbs, and what other people could be more suited to warn us of the dangers that lie ahead?

Avoid the evil, and it will avoid you.

Do not throw the spear which will return against you.

Shinji

Yes bugler, we put the past behind us (not necessarily forgetting it) and move the hell on. I don't propose we forget the past- merely that we don't use outdated foreign policy examples at a time when the Cold War power struggle dominated world politics. I think it's fair to say that's no longer the case, wouldn't you?

Ah yes. "We've stopped doing it now, let's all forget about it eh?"

It would seem that all the children orphaned, all the villagers bombed, all the people oppressed and all the human beings whose lives were destroyed by American foreign policy are a little less prepared to let bygones be bygones.

That the World Trade Center lies in ruins is a terrible and horrific thing, but lets not pretend that the USA is an innocent victim here. You can only kick a dog for so long before it bites you in the ass.

Speaking of apathy by the way, while the US has acted as it damn well pleased, what has Ireland done to uphold the morals which you so loftily proclaim bugler, hmmm? They've sided with us- isn't that morally deplorable?

Yes, it is. I am sickened to my core by the unquestioning support the USA has received from European nations in the past few days. Messages of condolence, absolutely; a resolve never to let this happen again, absolutely; but certainly the country which I live in now, the UK, has gone a hell of a lot further than that. Blair has promised military support for whatever the USA chooses to do now.

Two countries brought together by a shared recent history of damn dirty dealings. How sweet.

Ireland may be unquestioning, but at least the policy of neutrality keeps it from being an active supporter either. I've never been that fond of neutrality - until now...

Paladin

The American government so far hasnt really shown any foresight into what results their actions might have.

Why were there terrorist attacks on America? Because there are people that hate them that much. Attacking Afghanistan militarily to destroy "terrorists" will terrorize the common people. These people, their younger generations, will remember this and grow up hating America, and so more terrorists?

Thats what I see happening should an invasion of Afghanistan go ahead. Its what Bin Laden wants. America will merely stir up more hate if they attack Bin Laden. So what to do? Let him get away with it? No. I rekon its time to put your money where your big ass capitalist mouth is.

An invasion force to capture Bin Laden? Maybe, but I would suggest thet force be followed VERY closely by military aid workers. Why? The Afghan people are starving and need FINANCIAL help. If a western army (Europe also) was to enter the country, catch terrorists and give AID in huge and appreciable amounts, then what will they younger generation remember?
They will remember an army fighting through terrorists to give them HELP, to give them food, clothes, medecine. An army that helped to build shelters, install plumbing, help to farm the land with machinery and maybe fund an educational system?

This would of course cost a lot of money, but in the long term it WOULD actually help people and I would be pretty certain that these people would not resent the west as they grow up. They would appreciate the west, and hopefully in the future join them economically.

A simple assault will result in a terrorist war against the west. There is no way you can win against people willing to die (with a smile) for their cause. To be honest, I am scared of a terrorist and/or international backlash because of this "war" Bush talks about. The middle east is a dangerous stick of dynamite just waiting to be set off and start a huge regional war.

Victor

Originally posted by corkie
An elite squad or assasin attempt of the main suspect would be illegal by US Law.

Not quite, it would only be contrary to Carter's presidential directive. If I am right (and others subscribe to the concept), Bush would only have to issue a new directive.

mneylon

Over the last few days we have seen and heard a lot about how the Americans are thinking of retaliating.
We have heard of the suffering. We have seen the touching moments. We have all mourned for their and our loss.
However the majority of the media with a few notable exceptions (eg. Robert Fisk) have concentrated more on the retaliation - "kill the Arab" type coverage, rather than asking why anybody would hate them enough to carry out such an act of terrorism.
A very good, and well thought out article is posted below:
Alternative Opinion

Elias

I think what Paladin is saying makes a tremendous amount of sense. Blowing stuff up is alwas negative, it is only by building up an understanding that things will ultimately improve. Take Japan and America in WW2 for instance, if America had simple walked away after destroying there country they would be bitter enemies today, but they didn't and look at how much both nations prosperd as a result.

A quick gun-ho response will be desastorous. Can we trust George Bush to act in a manner that will win American votes or will he act in a manner which will aid peoples lives.

Lets not forget that it was the CIA that sponsored these terrorists in the first place but that was supposedly OK because they were fighting againts the Russians.

As much as I sympathise with those who are suffering as a result of this I do hope that perhaps, Americas realise a little more clearly what happens when you go in and bomb the crap out of some place. Although we might take a strategic view and say that it was for the greater good, the people that emerge from the rubble don't really care what our motives were. They only want bloodly revenge. So as Americans are looking at the wrecked Twin Towers and asking themselves why, they need only look at themselves screaming for revenge to see why this atrocity was carried out.