4 years on

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raphael123

All the attack did was make Bush and Blair take the issues of extremism and terrorists more seriously, hence the following wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, a war to combat terrorists and extremists.

---

Woah! Didn't you mean to say "to produce terrorism and extremists"? Because thats whats happened. If terrorism in Iraq existed at all, it certainly wasn't of the type of organisation that Al Quaeda is. Bin Laden and any Islamic fundamentalists would have been well and truly opposed to Sadaams secular regime. It is his governments iron fist that kept organisations like Al Quaeda out of Iraq. But now the country is essentially in anarchy. A basically free, ungoverned society for any organisation to put their stamp of authority on.

Afghanistan I can understand. To an extent. What I don't understand is why they went in so half heartedly. They should have Bin Laden right now, and they should have had more effect on a country which is still a failed state, and is still dependent on opium exports which the United States knows is the only way to support Afghanistan's economy. And you know what? There is only one reason the US did not contribute more resources to Afghanistan - because they were already planning for the Invasion of Iraq.

Schultz

I was referring to extremism in Iraq (or would dictatorship be more appropriate?), and was relating terrorism to afghanistan. Not really terrorism in Iraq (though there are terrorists there).

I'm surprised you blame Tony Blair and George Bush for the existence of terrorism when you say I should have said they 'produced' terrorism and extremists. Your a perfect example of someone who has forgotten who the bad guys are. Yes, going to war in Iraq was wrong, but fighting against Terrorisms, Extremism and dictatorship isn't wrong.

And as I've stated, 9/11 just bought the fight against these evils to the forefront.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raphael123

fighting against Terrorisms, Extremism and dictatorship isn't wrong.

---

But it's stupid if it produces more terrorists and extremists than it gets rid of. It's like trying to put out fire with gasoline. What was the cause of terrorism in the first place? American troops in the Middle East and their support to Israel. What did the Americans do? They took MORE troops to the Middle East and supported Israel even more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raphael123

Schultz

I was referring to extremism in Iraq (or would dictatorship be more appropriate?), and was relating terrorism to afghanistan. Not really terrorism in Iraq (though there are terrorists there).

I'm surprised you blame Tony Blair and George Bush for the existence of terrorism when you say I should have said they 'produced' terrorism and extremists. Your a perfect example of someone who has forgotten who the bad guys are. Yes, going to war in Iraq was wrong, but fighting against Terrorisms, Extremism and dictatorship isn't wrong.

And as I've stated, 9/11 just bought the fight against these evils to the forefront.

---

You are a perfect example of one of those poor people who have unfortunately bought in to this "us or them" mentality. It is simply not that plain and clear. Maybe you don't know this but their were infact three countries which were involved in the original war fighting in Iraq. They were Britain, the USA and Australia. To me this is as much about opposing Australia's involvement as America's. If i was to follow your line of thought i would be making the statement that my own country are one of the bad guys. I am living in a free democracy and I disagree with the way my government has dealt with the post S11 era.

Yes dictatorships can probably be seen in general as 'bad', but seriously. and cost-benefit analysis would surely have to show that the whole operaion in Iraq has left the middle east more unstable; it has made life for the Iraqi people more dangerous; and it has most certainly lead to increased feeling of hatred towards many western countries, especially the United States. I also assume it has increased the danger western populations face from terrorism.

The United States went into Iraq for purely strategic national interests. Not because of WMD's or terrorism or anything like that. We all got duped.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schultz

Afghanistan I can understand. To an extent. What I don't understand is why they went in so half heartedly. They should have Bin Laden right now, and they should have had more effect on a country which is still a failed state, and is still dependent on opium exports which the United States knows is the only way to support Afghanistan's economy. And you know what? There is only one reason the US did not contribute more resources to Afghanistan - because they were already planning for the Invasion of Iraq.

---

The west has failed to learn from the Soviet Union's debacle in Afghanistan. One could say that their involvement in Afghanistan was a direct cause of the eventual break up of the Soviet Union.

Also the west still fails to understand the politics of the area, I would say that most Afghanis relate to their tribe before their country, just like in the tribal areas of Pakistan.


War is good for big business, (glad I have shares in halliburton and kellog/brown:rolleyes :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schultz

You are a perfect example of one of those poor people who have unfortunately bought in to this "us or them" mentality. It is simply not that plain and clear. Maybe you don't know this but their were infact three countries which were involved in the original war fighting in Iraq. They were Britain, the USA and Australia. To me this is as much about opposing Australia's involvement as America's. If i was to follow your line of thought i would be making the statement that my own country are one of the bad guys. I am living in a free democracy and I disagree with the way my government has dealt with the post S11 era.

Yes dictatorships can probably be seen in general as 'bad', but seriously. and cost-benefit analysis would surely have to show that the whole operaion in Iraq has left the middle east more unstable; it has made life for the Iraqi people more dangerous; and it has most certainly lead to increased feeling of hatred towards many western countries, especially the United States. I also assume it has increased the danger western populations face from terrorism.

The United States went into Iraq for purely strategic national interests. Not because of WMD's or terrorism or anything like that. We all got duped.

---

There's no denying going to war was the wrong way to go about things. I don't think you'll find I've stated I support the war, though I do support the troops out there.

All I've said is 9/11 made Bush and Blair take terrorism and extremism more seriously, and try and combat that. Is that incorrect? No

You seem to think that is wrong (tackling terrorists and extremism such as the regine Saddam had)?

I know the war wasn't the right way to go about it in Iraq, and as you rightly point out, things are worse at the moment, it's the long term you have to look to.

I support Blair and Bush in the fight against terrorism and extremism, even if I'm not in agreement with the way they went to war. Though obviously at the start of the war, I was all for the war, like the majority of the population were at the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raphael123

Though obviously at the start of the war, I was all for the war, like the majority of the population were at the time.

---

I'm curious to know which 'majority' were in favour of the war to start with. Certainly here in Australia the majority was against going to war, but little johnny is so far up george w's ars* that he had little option but to do what the yanks were doing. He also desperately wanted to be deputy sheriff in the South Pacific and hoped to get 'brownie points' from the usa for helping do their dirty work.



War is good for big business, (glad I have shares in halliburton and kellog/brown:rolleyes :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cossie16

I'm curious to know which 'majority' were in favour of the war to start with. Certainly here in Australia the majority was against going to war, but little johnny is so far up george w's ars* that he had little option but to do what the yanks were doing. He also desperately wanted to be deputy sheriff in the South Pacific and hoped to get 'brownie points' from the usa for helping do their dirty work.



War is good for big business, (glad I have shares in halliburton and kellog/brown:rolleyes :)

---

I contest that. I would have thought the majority was FOR the Iraq war. Especially considering successive polls have found that US support in Australia is higher than in most countries. In fact I'm sure that most were for the war, but i'm too tired to research it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raphael123

There's no denying going to war was the wrong way to go about things. I don't think you'll find I've stated I support the war, though I do support the troops out there.

All I've said is 9/11 made Bush and Blair take terrorism and extremism more seriously, and try and combat that. Is that incorrect? No

You seem to think that is wrong (tackling terrorists and extremism such as the regine Saddam had)?

I know the war wasn't the right way to go about it in Iraq, and as you rightly point out, things are worse at the moment, it's the long term you have to look to.

I support Blair and Bush in the fight against terrorism and extremism, even if I'm not in agreement with the way they went to war. Though obviously at the start of the war, I was all for the war, like the majority of the population were at the time.

---

I don't understand your point on extremism. Extremism is just a way of thinking to me. Extremist beliefs are just those which are more... well, extreme. By nature Middle Eastern States are extremist as they have generally been Islamic states. They have been so extremist in fact, that it has taken an iron fisted leader called sadaam Hussien to keep a secular country together. You cannot fight extremism. You can only breed it. And you know what, we cannot beat terrorism either, because extremism leads to people taking more desperate measures than we are able to stop. If we cannot stop an Iraqi suicide bomber infiltrating the most fortified parliament in the world then we cannot stop terrorism or 'extremism'. So what are we doing there?

By the way, extremism is just one of those words the US likes to use to take away the perception that the people fighting the US in Iraq are people, but instead blood thirsty evil-doers. Its just one of those buzz words that is designed to oversimplify what is happening in Iraq, to make sure the American public know that the US is fighting a war it needs to fight.

What do you see as the future for Iraq? Because the way i see it, America has just succeeded in breeding a new class of hatred towards America in a country that will eventually fall to Islam, under strong Iranian influence.

And don't feel stupid because you supported the war originally. The US administration would have picked (and made up) information that made the best case for war and fed it to the public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schultz

You cannot fight extremism. You can only breed it.

---

I think the only ways you can fight extremism are moderation and tolerance. You have to lead by being an example. If you adopt extreme measures to fight extremism, you become an extremist yourself, and those you are fighting will see you as a mirror image of themselves (i.e. similar, but left is right, if you know what I mean) and think what they are doing is OK.