But why would anyone want to attack US? Why noone wants to attack say.. switzerland or uganda? Why US came into this position, to be target of terrorist attacks? That is the nutshell question if you ask me.
Posted on 2004-04-20 16:41:54 by Mikky

But why would anyone want to attack US? Why noone wants to attack say.. switzerland or uganda? Why US came into this position, to be target of terrorist attacks? That is the nutshell question if you ask me.

Support of Israel, super power status, pissing off bin Laden, decadent lifestyles, and many other reasons.

We are fighting terrorists ... not just terrorists in Afghanistan which we pretty much took care of quickly. The war against terrorism continues beyond Afghanistan. I see no better way then to setup camp in the middle of the trouble and wait for the vipers to slither out of neighboring countries. Or do we invade countries like Iran and Syria in order to continue the fight? A democratic and free Iraq and Afghanistan will help change people over there so they desire the security of self rule and the rule of law instead of a tyranical dictator or regime.
Posted on 2004-04-20 16:53:02 by Masmer
We are fighting terrorists ... not just terrorists in Afghanistan which we pretty much took care of quickly.

They are not taken care of, the CIA still says to this day that the greatest threat in the world is Al Qaida, that is who was in Afghanistan. They cleared out because the US diverted attention to Iraq where there were no terrorist cells or solid links to Al Qaida found besides one small camp on the Iraq/Iran border. The US shifted focus when the end game was near and let all the good work go to waste. The people in Iraq did not have anything to do with them, now they do, another source of recruits and money for your enemies is all that will come of the war in Iraq. America is less safe now than before the war and Al Qaida is stronger. They have scattered their training camps around the world now, when Afghanistan was abandoned they were all in one spot. Just one more question - "Where's Bin Laden ?" when you can answer that you have destroyed Al Qaida. Saddam, sure a butcher who had to go, but he was never really a threat to the US, maybe to his neighbours but the US ? Nope.
Posted on 2004-04-20 17:00:02 by donkey
We did what we could over in Afghanistan before those who were left ran off to Iran, Pakistan and elsewhere. Do you forget all the battles fought and won there before the invasion of Iraq? No doubt Osama was quickly moved somewhere safe (like Iran) and could be anywhere. But we got the majority of the Taliban and Al-Qaida hanging out in Afghanistan where fighting died down long ago before troops moved into Iraq.

Heaven forbid we do something about a known enemy threatening us, not following UN sanctions and trying to shoot down our aircraft upholding the no fly zone. We believed he had WMD, he said he would use it against us, we found bio-chem suits his men were going to wear. Yeah, we invaded Iraq for oil and knowingly lied about WMD for our own benefit. (When in fact various UN members were getting rich off illegal oil sales.) Saddam would never think about paying a group to attack the U.S. Yeah.

We could have stopped at Afghanistan and left the rest of the region alone. Or do you agree that the entire region over there is awash in the fundamentalist terrorist web and some other country deserved to be invaded instead? I believe we will be compelled to put Iran in our sites eventually in order to take care of a large majority of Al-Qaida and other groups. As Iran does have WMD, having a troop build up in Iraq will be beneficial for staging the next phase of the war on terror.

Whatever. We have effectively liberated two Arab countries from totalitarianism. It may take many years before these countries can govern themselves effectively, but when has spreading democracy become a bad thing? We can't go in and attack any other countries sheltering terrorists yet. This will probably require a WMD attack that can be traced back to a backed terror cell. Many smart people with good intentions are doing all they can to keep the upper hand in this war. At least we are doing something and have been uncovering and foiling terrorist plots almost weekly (in America, Spain, England, Jordan, etc.). Meanwhile people here are free to support or oppose the steps we have taken as things unfold. I'd rather cheer and have faith in my team, even if the Bush administration is in charge, then complain without any alternative ideas of how to achieve eventual victory.
Posted on 2004-04-20 18:08:30 by Masmer
Well, there was never really any link found between Al Qaida and Iraq except some tenuous ones that seem more made up than real. Granted that before the war it was thought there were but even the Brookings institute advised against it saying that there were other more lucrative targets (pre-war breifing):


You have liberated nothing yet, you have plunged them into anarchy. Only time will tell if they are liberated or not. For now they are worse off than before though there is the hope of something better if it is done properly.

Note ofcourse that I have little faith in what this administration says, they have been proven liars on many occasions involving the invasion of Iraq. They always find somebody else to blame or if they can't dispute the accustations they use character assassination (re Richard Clarke). They are liars and arrogant fools and they have plunged America into what appears to be a no-win situation, diverting resources from the war on terror.

It was a Bush family obsession, nothing more, whatever he uses to justify it and whatever you choose to believe is your own affair. The evidence is soundly on my side, there was no WMD found, there were no ties to Al Qaida found, there were no nefarious plots uncovered. The only thing they found was a pathetic dictator stuck in a hole and some good soldiers to fill body bags with. History will show the folly of the action but history is for the dead, the living have to deal with now and when they took Baghdad I posted here that the war was won, now they have to win the peace. They appear to be losing that now, let's hope they finally get a clue and start doing this right.
Posted on 2004-04-20 21:02:53 by donkey
:confused: I just don't get it, why invading the other people's country can be regarded as a right decision ? suppose that the situation is reversed, Iraq is the "super power" country like USA now and suppose USA is in condition like Iraq back then before the 2nd gulf war, will the americans think that it's a right decision on the Iraqi side to invade them get into their houses looking for americans who are regarded as "terrorists" or "guerillas"? This is just a simple "reverse engineering" :stupid: ,coz I'm so stupid to think in other way. I didn't mean to offend anybody here :grin: . Just, try to use my own analogy, and please pardon me if someone is mad because of this, and I'm not an english native speaker either :( .
Posted on 2004-04-25 18:09:31 by Pinczakko
I see you are posting on this forum, so your country must allow you the freedom to do so.

We live in a world where a few EVIL people want to kill everybody else on the face of the Earth in order to form a totaltarian Islamic one-world government. It seems no one else here realises we are in the beginning stages of a war that is fought for the future of freedom and humanity. The terrorists have religion, the shadows and the total disregard for innocent life on their side. I suppose everyone will say that America had it coming to them when Osama's "Black winds of death" plot is released? Keep in mind terrorists plot and work on such ideas not only to destroy America, but to take over the rest of the world. These terrorists want to ultimately kill all non-believers in their twisted Islamic interpretation of the Koran.

Iraq is just one peice of the terrorist puzzle. I honestly believe that Saddam did have WMD or at least bought WMD from other countries using the billions he made off the "Oil for Food" program. You can laugh and think me a fool as no one has found any in Iraq yet. But so many sources point to the transferral of these weapons into other neighboring countries where terrorists plan on using them in the future. Saddam hated "The Great Satan" and it would be foolish to think he didn't want revenge against the USA, whether by his own hands, or by assisting others who want our demise.

Here's another article about that Jordanian chemical weapon attack plot: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3635381.stm (Chemical weapons from the Syrian Bath party.)

Possible plot the terrorists might be concidering (take with grain of salt): Does anyone think that a nuclear device set off in Yellowstone lake would have enough power to punch through the tube of the underlying Yellowstone "super volcano", possibly setting off a massive eruption? (A little more info on this senario and my take on this.)

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Yeah, a pre-emptive strike against Iraq was and is extremely unpopular with the rest of the world. It is an embarassment that no WMD has been found and that the process of democracy is not going smoothly over there. Maybe we should have allowed thousands of others to die in other attacks on US soil, and then maybe find out Iraq had something to do with it before ousting the evil Saddam with the rest of the world's approval. I'm just glad that the USA is trying to do something about terrorism and pray that someday in the distant future, the world can breath a sigh of relief that our freedom isn't in such peril as it is now.
Posted on 2004-04-26 14:21:41 by Masmer
How since we invaded Iraq there have been no new attacks on the home land. Think there might be more than what is reported? Hmmmm I think the bible predicted this centuries ago. Beware when they say peace and safety. Ishmael was a "wild ass". And part of the plan. Laughable that the whole point is "do you yet beleive?". I do but I better get my own house in order.
Posted on 2004-04-26 15:21:18 by mrgone
In my opinion, we have to rethink about democracy and anything related to it, the point is, in many different culture, this stuff may be implemented in different way, and we cannot just get our own version of democracy and then force the other culture to receive it, it's very dangerous and possesses a great tendency to become a reason to begin a real war. In my country where there are so many tribes, even in my hometown there are 4 tribes which speak 4 different languages and of course 4 different culture, I'm lucky enough to speak all their languages, there is no tribe who try to force the other tribe to receive their version of this so called "democracy", if they do, there will be a misunderstanding, . Due to this reason, I think what the americans (or America's government to be exact) thinks as democracy might not be suitable all over the world, try the Chinese and Russians, I think they are happy and proud enough with what they have right now. I myself subject to this, I do hate tiran, but the resistance of the Fallujjah people has show us that they have their own intention, I know that the Fallujjah people have gone too far, I also don't like that very much, but at least they have shown us that "Do not act like a SuperHero here, we have our own capability to defend and take care of ourself", this is my point. Of course, if you have a bussiness or doing something right then suddenly there are somebody intercepting it and act like "he is the real superhero to save you all the time", you would be disturbed. I didn't mean to begin a flame war :grin: , I just try to express my opinion, coz I think there are times where we have to see the same problem in different perspective to get more insight into the problem. Real terrorists are losers, but there are people who defend themselves are called terrorist, hence we have to be very careful before calling these people terrorists :grin:, would you call Kevin Mitnick terrorists these days? Let's just hope that this Iraqi stuff won't be the beginning of WorldWar III :grin: .
Posted on 2004-04-27 03:57:15 by Pinczakko