What Is The War On Terror? - Page 2 of 8

I will reply to this thread ONE more time - Page 2 - Politics, Business, Civil, History - Posted: 13th Mar, 2005 - 3:41am

Register Login Text RPG Play Text RPG ?

+  1 2 3 4 5 6  ...Latest (8) »
Posts: 63 - Views: 8944 Rating: 10/10 out of 11 Votes
Add Reply QReply
War on terrorism The term is used losely for many reasons. Depending on where you live it can mean different things to various people and countries. What do you think the war on terror means?
What Is The War On Terror? Related Information to What Is The War On Terror?
Post Date: 12th Mar, 2005 - 6:11pm / Post ID: #


*****
Member + Agent Zapper
[?] CPosts: 3,709
Posts: 4,419
Avg: 0.8 Post(s) / Day
Activity: 19.6%
[+] Gain: 224.48 FP
Charm: 149

What Is The War On Terror? - Page 2

QUOTE
I do not have to agree but what I least expect is to say that because the US interests have been touched and for the US safety they are doing this...when they mention they are doing it not only for the US but the whole wide world, then I have a problem with it.


I have read all that has been posted so far, and let me put my disclaimer as well. I am not targeting any individual on this forum in what I am about to say. To arvhic, I apologize if I was very blunt in my earlier post, and I mean no disrespect to you or your opinions. As you can tell, this is a very strong issue for me, and I react sometimes without thinking.
As for the quote above, I will say this. If the current war is only about US safety, then why were so many countries willing to send their own troops alongside US troops in the same effort and cause? It is because these countries realize that the 'War on Terror' is a war that affects the entire world. I will not stand up and defend our legislators and leaders in what they say sometimes. They use words like 'we' and 'us' to include other countries and individuals who may not want to be included. However, at the end of the day, there are many countries and leaders who realize that in order for the world to be a safer place, they must form alliances with stronger countries, and fight a unified war.
Are we saying that these other countries that joined the US are foolish in their actions? Are we belittling the sacrifices they have made in joining the war? I respect everyone's individual opinion, and I agree that the US can be very selfish at times. But there have been so many other instances where the world turns to the US in times of need. So many times that the US is looked upon to take the first step, the first action, to say the first word. It is a curse to be the strongest nation in the world, and "We're damned if we do and we're damned if we don't"


International Level: Envoy / Political Participation: 241 ActivistPoliticianEnvoy 24.1%


Sponsored Links:
Post Date: 12th Mar, 2005 - 6:43pm / Post ID: #


Pandora
Dia. Mod + Chief Mod
[?] CPosts: 17,348
Posts: 21,309
Avg: 3.3 Post(s) / Day
Activity: 85.6%
[+] Gain: 1,236.56 FP
Charm: 338

Terror War The What

QUOTE
why were so many countries willing to send their own troops alongside US troops in the same effort and cause? It is because these countries realize that the 'War on Terror' is a war that affects the entire world


With all due respect, I think that statement is very naive. I do not personally think that every country who sent troops to fight in Iraq do it because they believe in the so called "war against terror" and that is affecting them personally. I strongly feel that a lot of them do it to please the US government knowing that if they do support this issue, they may get lots of benefits from the US out of it.


International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 1087 ActivistPoliticianInternational Guru 100%


Post Date: 12th Mar, 2005 - 7:11pm / Post ID: #


*****
Member + Agent Zapper
[?] CPosts: 3,709
Posts: 4,419
Avg: 0.8 Post(s) / Day
Activity: 19.6%
[+] Gain: 224.48 FP
Charm: 149

What Is The War On Terror? History & Civil Business Politics

With all due respect, I find the use of the word 'naive' ironic when the counter-statement has no backing to prove it. If there is, please let me know. I would be interested in reading it. As for the countries that were included in the 'coalition of the willing', here is the list:

Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and Uzbekistan. The State Department listed Japan as available for "post-conflict" support.

Spain as we know did pull out its troops. Let's take a look at some of the other countries that have supported the US. Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia along with Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland are countries that have a few things in common. All of them survived decades of dictatorship. All of these countries also have the US to thank for freeing them from their communist regimes. The topic of discussion here is terror. These countries knew and felt firsthand the terror of dictatorship, and because of efforts from the West and led by the US, they are now free to lend their strength and resolve in fighting the war on terror.
These countries could have easily said we don't want to get involved in a US issue, but realize that if the US had done the same, they would probably still be experiencing the terror of dictatorship. What lots do they have to gain? Backing from the US possibly? They already had it. It is one thing to say one strongly believes that these countries expect to gain something from joining the US, but don't belittle their intentions if there is no proof otherwise.

Reconcile Edited: malexander on 12th Mar, 2005 - 7:11pm


International Level: Envoy / Political Participation: 241 ActivistPoliticianEnvoy 24.1%


Post Date: 12th Mar, 2005 - 11:46pm / Post ID: #


Pandora
Dia. Mod + Chief Mod
[?] CPosts: 17,348
Posts: 21,309
Avg: 3.3 Post(s) / Day
Activity: 85.6%
[+] Gain: 1,236.56 FP
Charm: 338

Page 2 Terror War The What

First of all, let me start by saying that most of the countries you have listed have not been freed from communism by the US but the US through funding (like in the case of Albania funded more than $200 million dollars to help the country economically and politically in the transition of governments). It is very different than to "freed" them in my opinion but this is not the issue. You are very right that the countries you have mentioned have a lot to thank the US and they are doing it (in my opinion) but helping the US in the so called war against terrorism. Is it wise for a country to give the back to another country who have helped them when they needed it? Is it wise to say no to one of the most powerful nations in the world?. Heck no. Even though I believe some of the countries involved believe in this war, I think a lot of them just do it because they are in debt to the US for a lot of things they have received from them and is now time to pay back.

Pres. Bush have stated "A coalition partner must do more than just express sympathy, a coalition partner must perform," Bush said. "That means different things for different nations. Some nations don't want to contribute troops and we understand that. Other nations can contribute intelligence-sharing. ... But all nations, if they want to fight terror, must do something. Over time it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity. You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."

Many times he even said "Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists".

If heads of governments understand this message, they will know what to do and all those countries you mentioned, did what they needed to do.

It is very interesting how Pres. Bush wants every country to be against the war against terrorism yet he has asked in the past countries around the world to sign a document which will not allow persecution of any US soldier for killing innocent civilians and if they do not do it, the US will stop funding for those countries, this even include Trinidad and Tobago where I am presenting living. This example is just to illustrate that when the present US government do not get what they think they need to get, the "threat" of no funding or other issues come into place to get these countries to do what the US wants.

In the so called "War against terrorism" the statement "You are with us or with the terrorists" is very clear and threatening. For heaven's sake! we are talking about the United States of America...it is not a little island in the Caribbean we are talking about. What they say, it matters a lot, mostly because most countries in the world have one or two or hundreds of things they owe to the US.

Still more "evidence"? Is clear as water to me.


International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 1087 ActivistPoliticianInternational Guru 100%


Post Date: 13th Mar, 2005 - 1:09am / Post ID: #


*****
Member + Agent Zapper
[?] CPosts: 3,709
Posts: 4,419
Avg: 0.8 Post(s) / Day
Activity: 19.6%
[+] Gain: 224.48 FP
Charm: 149

Terror War The What

My apologies but the proverbial water is still a bit muddy for me. If I understand what is being said, then whoever did not support the US in the War on Terror is now our enemy? Also, countries that felt they owed the US were participating only because they felt obligated too? Does this mean that most of Europe is now an enemy to the US? How does this argument apply to Germany, a country that was liberated from one of the worst dictators ever because of actions by the US? I understand what is being said in that a lot of smaller countries feel threatened by the US and forced into a coalition, but I also think that most countries that felt there was a vested interest in the War on Terror joined the US, and those that didn't feel that way didn't join.
As for Bush's statement, take it with a grain of salt. I believe by the time this statement was made, the coalition was already formed and countries had already pledged their allegiances or not. I wasn't aware of the document you refer to and if this is true, then I would agree this is a form of bullying that is uncalled for. However, if the world is going to sit back and say this is the US' problem and no one else's, then they are being very naive. Don't you think?


International Level: Envoy / Political Participation: 241 ActivistPoliticianEnvoy 24.1%


Post Date: 13th Mar, 2005 - 1:32am / Post ID: #


Pandora
Dia. Mod + Chief Mod
[?] CPosts: 17,348
Posts: 21,309
Avg: 3.3 Post(s) / Day
Activity: 85.6%
[+] Gain: 1,236.56 FP
Charm: 338

What Is The War On Terror?

QUOTE
then whoever did not support the US in the War on Terror is now our enemy?

QUOTE
Does this mean that most of Europe is now an enemy to the US? How does this argument apply to Germany, a country that was liberated from one of the worst dictators ever because of actions by the US?


Are you asking me?. You have to ask Pres. Bush that who made those statements of "being with us or against us". I did not say that. He said it.

This is one of the issues I believe we will not agree on wink.gif and we do not have to. Regards to the document I was refering to this may sound offtopic but it is not because there are US soldiers in different countries around the world fighting "against terrorism" and other issues. Check this out:

"The USA is currently approaching governments around the world and asking them to enter into illegal impunity agreements. These agreements provide that a government will not surrender or transfer US nationals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes to the ICC, if requested by the Court.

On 1 July 2003 the USA announced the withdrawal of military assistance to 35 states who are parties to the Rome Statute and have refused to sign an impunity agreement with the USA. On 8 December 2004, the USA went even further, withdrawing economic support from states that still refuse to sign impunity agreements. The withdrawal of this economic funding threatens to undermine counter-terrorism efforts, peace process programs, anti-drug trafficking initiatives, truth and reconciliation commissions and HIV/Aids education, and threatens states such as Jordan, Ireland, Cyprus, Peru, Ecuador, Venezuela and South Africa."

https://web.amnesty.org/pages/icc-US_threats-eng

(Source: Amnesty International)

Reconcile Edited: LDS_forever on 13th Mar, 2005 - 1:35am


International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 1087 ActivistPoliticianInternational Guru 100%


Post Date: 13th Mar, 2005 - 3:24am / Post ID: #

Me
Nighthawk
Diamond + Author
[?] CPosts: 3,526
Posts: 4,033
Avg: 0.7 Post(s) / Day
Activity: 17.1%
[+] Gain: 200.00 FP
Charm: 226

Page 2 What The War Terror

There are very good reasons for the actions of the US against the ICC. Mainly because we have already seen the ICC and similar institutions being abused. For example, wasn't it the country of Belgium that brought charges against President Bush because of the War on Terror? I think it was before the invasion of Iraq.

The ICC is designed in such a way as to allow countries such as Libya, Syria, Vietnam, North Korea, and the Sudan to bring charges against anyone they wish. These countries all have extensive histories of charging the US, Israel, Britain, and Australia with all sorts of war crimes. The ICC is worse than the UN and the Kyoto treaty for being designed specifically to harass the US and other Western countries. That is why the US refused to be party to it, and that is why the US is campaigning to weaken it. It is a VERY BAD THING. It is expressly designed to be a tool of terrorist and oppressive dictatorships.

QUOTE
First of all, let me start by saying that most of the countries you have listed have not been freed from communism by the US but the US through funding (like in the case of Albania funded more than $200 million dollars to help the country economically and politically in the transition of governments).


So, I assume that you are saying that Communism fell simply because. Of course, the US had nothing at all to do with either containing communism nor bringing the Russian form to fall. We especially had nothing at all to do with Poland, East Germany, and the rest of Eastern Europe becoming free. Oh, yes, we did nothing at all in the former Yugoslavia. Most especially, we didn't fight terrorism in Yugoslavia.


International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 854 ActivistPoliticianInternational Guru 85.4%


Post Date: 13th Mar, 2005 - 3:41am / Post ID: #


Pandora
Dia. Mod + Chief Mod
[?] CPosts: 17,348
Posts: 21,309
Avg: 3.3 Post(s) / Day
Activity: 85.6%
[+] Gain: 1,236.56 FP
Charm: 338

What The War Terror - Page 2

I will reply to this thread ONE more time and then I will stay quiet since I know for a fact we will not agree on this issue.

QUOTE
So, I assume that you are saying that Communism fell simply because. Of course, the US had nothing at all to do with either containing communism nor bringing the Russian form to fall. We especially had nothing at all to do with Poland, East Germany, and the rest of Eastern Europe becoming free. Oh, yes, we did nothing at all in the former Yugoslavia. Most especially, we didn't fight terrorism in Yugoslavia.


In my opinion, Communism did not fall because of the US and his fight against terrorism, it fall thanks to the citizens of those countries who were willing to stand for what they believe needed to stop and went to the streets and were willing to stand against the police and other authorities and protest against the regime. I am NOT saying the US had nothing at all to do with it, but definetly are NOT the one who freed these countries., but the people themselves.


International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 1087 ActivistPoliticianInternational Guru 100%


+  1 2 3 4 5 6  ...Latest (8) »
Sponsored Links:

> TOPIC: What Is The War On Terror?


TOP

Donate Compare Membership
International Discussions Coded by: BGID®
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Copyright © 1999-2020
Disclaimer Privacy Report Errors Credits
This site uses Cookies to dispense or record information with regards to your visit. By continuing to use this site you agree to the terms outlined in our Cookies used here: Privacy / Disclaimer,

Important Topics

World Issues

China vs USA:
USA versus China versus Chinese versus Americans The role of its Army, Politics, and Status in the World. By News 1 Week Ago
China Navy:
Chinese Aircraft Carrier
China Navy Beware the new Naval power, they are planning to come on stream with big naval might to match their ground forces. Chinese Aircraft Carrier - Chinese Navy By Lori 6th Feb, 2020 - 9:40pm
USA vs North Korea:
North Korea Nuclear Weapons
versus USA This country is no Iraq. What is the USA going to do? What will be the outcome? By Shadow 3rd Feb, 2020 - 1:03pm
USA vs Syria:
versus U.S.A. Is Syria the next Iraq? By News 25th Oct, 2019 - 5:47am
North Korea vs South Korea:
versus North Korea Vs. South Korea By News 5th Jan, 2019 - 12:10pm
USA vs Germany:
Germany versus U.S.A. By News 11th Jul, 2018 - 8:00pm
Russia vs. Syria:
Syria vs Russia By Opinion 17th Apr, 2018 - 9:54am
North Korea Military:
Discuss  North Korea Military This Thread is about the North Korean Military itself - the kind of army, navy, and air force they have. By Wizard 15th Jan, 2018 - 9:36am
Japan vs North Korea:
North Korea versus Japan versus War With Japan By Swell 17th Oct, 2017 - 4:17pm
China Military:
China Military Technology Preparing For China. China is growing their military. China Military Technology - can it keep up with the US? By Abnninja 5th Mar, 2017 - 5:25pm