September 11th

deco

Just thought I'd put up a topic and get people impressions on how the terrorist attacks have effected the world, one year on.

Has anybody learned anyting?

Is Bush handling the situation correctly...

Should we be targeting a country like Sadui Arabia (where the majority of the hi-jackers came from) instead of Iraq?

Biffa Bacon

Should we be targeting a country like Sadui Arabia (where the majority of the hi-jackers came from) instead of Iraq?

I don't think the Irish army has the resources to mount an invasion of Saudi Arabia to be honest.

Sposs

Bush is an Idiot just like his father in the Gulf war was,he has no diplomatic skills and no understanding why Amercia is so hated in the middle east,His immmediate reaction after 9/11 was to go to all out war,it never occured to him to first sit down and think about catching these terrorists rationally,instead he sets off to disamate a country that already lies in Ruins,increasing the already feeling of hatred in the middle east towards Amercia.Now that his Gun ho actions have failed to catch Osama bin laden he has turned his attention to a more visible target ie; Saddam Hussain.He has yet to prove that Iraq had any knowledge on the 9/11 attacks and is merely saying that they are a threat to peace,these are blantent Bully boy tactics by Bush,which is why the surronding countries of Iraq and the UN have refused to Allowed such a strike.

deco

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
I don't think the Irish army has the resources to mount an invasion of Saudi Arabia to be honest.

You'd be suprised....

claire h

Bush is a warmonger and an idiot. He is completely incompetent of ruling a country. ("More and more of our imports are coming from overseas...") How he handled the September 11 attacks was disgusting. He's no better than the terrorists. "OK, some people killed lots of innocent Americans, what will I do? Oh, I know! I'll pick a country that I can blame, and kill lots of their citizens! Yeah, that'll work!"

What's truly scary is that many Americans support his actions and believe that they were justified, and the fact that other leaders are going along with his plans because if they don't, they're at risk of becoming a target. Not a huge risk, in all fairness, but the label 'war on terrorism' is a broad, broad term encompassing almost anything.

mike65

Afganistan was'nt decimated by Bush it was already wrecked by
25 years of conflict both internally and externally caused.

Bush has behaved much as anyone might have expected given his background ( he is a Texan!), its those around him like Rumsfeld, Cheney and Rice who can take what blame is going for the cack-handed polices since Sept 11 last.

Saudis leadership is appalling as is Iraqs the latter is much more attackable though, Saddam has been defying the US for years
and has the mentality to use a nuclear device whereas the Saudis certainly would'nt. I'd like to see Saddam out and the Saudi princes fall as a consequence (after all a free Iraq would be a good oil trading partner and Saudi would be less important).

Al Quieda/Bin Ladan will continue to pose a threat and that won't
change quickly- if ever. That will be an ongoing battle.

Mike.

Typedef

First off I abhore military action, as innocent civilians invariably get killed in the fighting , as is the nature of modern warfare.

Secondly I doubt very much that the US has any real interest in Iraq that doesn't pertain to oil.

Par example Pakistan (which is a military dictatorship) has developed Nuclear weapons and given the nature of the India-Pakistan relationship over Kashmir, Pakistan or India are currently the most likely candidates to use Nuclear weapons anytime soon.

So from what I've said so far you'd expect the next words out of my mouth to be 'war isn't justified on Saddam Hussein.

Not the case. Saddam's regieme has used chemical weapons against the Kurdish civilian population of Northern Iraq. Genocide for want of a euphamism.

So basically I don't support war on the Iraqi civilian population, what I do support is the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and relations normalised with Iraq such that all the sanctions against it can be lifted and thus placating the hardships the Iraqi civilian population is living with.

If the only way to get that done is war against Saddam Hussein (not the Iraqi people), then that's the way it has to be.

By that I mean, the examples of Daisy Cutters being accidentally dropped on Iraqi civilians is a no no, or any civilian deaths come to think of it.

Yes I suport military action against Saddam Hussein so long as no, and I mean no civilians come to harm. End of story.

Bateman

>Yes I suport military action against Saddam Hussein so long as no, and I mean no civilians come to harm.

On which side? A little optimistic perhaps.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

deco

America, like any other country has to defend itself when attacked...

But is this course of action actually self defence or is it an excuse to extend its, and by proxy its allies, influence...

DadaKopf

As regards Iraq, a few things have to happen:

First, it must be acknowledged that any war on Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terrorism. Secondly, the US must seek a multilateral UN resolution, mediated through the UN, with the sole intention of indicting Saddam and bringing him before the International Criminal Court, but this should only happen when the US agrees to fall under ICC jurisdiction.

As for the effects 9/11 has had on the world: it'll never be the same again. The New World Order is going through a serious period of realignment although I think it's premature to predict anything.

However, what the intnernational community may see as regards security is a more interventionist UN.