Was the war on terrorism necessary?

[kentuck]

After all, we were attacked and almost 3000 of our people killed. And "everybody knew" it was Osama bin Laden and his terrorists that did it. Right? So wasn't it appropriate to declare war?

The reason I ask is because I heard John Kerry say something to the effect that it would have been more appropriate to handle it as a type of police action and thru intelligence means, rather than going to war. At least, that was the way I interpreted his remarks. And it made sense. Did we really have to go to war?

Although the damage done by a few terrorists was great, the fact remains that it was only a "few" terrorists. It was not an invading army. Could we have handled it differently?

Did we have to bomb Afghanistan back beyond the Stone Age...since they were in the Stone Age already? What have we accomplished in Afghanistan? Did we kill all the terrorists? Or did they simply move to Pakistan to regroup later? We did get some degree of revenge for the WTC bombing, it could be argued.

In the process of the war on terrorism, we disavowed any need for the UN or any of our traditional allies, save Britain, in our invasion of Iraq. Was the Iraq invasion necessary in the war on terrorism? Were the colored alerts necessary? Were the plastic wraps and the duct tape necessary? Were all the lies about imminent dangers necessary?

The lies became the conventional wisdom. We were in dire danger from being attacked by terrorists. But our brave and vigilant leaders prevented it from happening. And in so doing, we were to reward them with re-election - so they could destroy the last remnants of terror and threats upon our great nation.

Could we really have captured this small band of terrorists without the cost and tragedy of war? Were they really that different from the pirates off the Barbary Coast early in our country's history? Or do we accept the conventional wisdom? We had to go to war. There was no other option. The war on terrorism was necessary. Do you believe that?

[wuushew]

1. Either its a war on terra or a war on terror

One is soil and the other is emotion, so no I don't think we should be fighting this war as "spoken" by shrub.

[jplvr]

2. Not worth it

It wasn't worth the price we paid in civil liberties.

[aquart]

3. When Bushco called it an "act of war" I screamed w/frustration.

Talk about making the worst choice at the worst time.

He effectively declared Osama bin Laden his equal as a head of state. He made al quaeda the equal of the United States. BUSH GAVE THEM THE BEST PR THEY EVER HAD.

Me, I think of them as cockroaches. There will always be more.

War is against nations which have attacked us. Al quaeda was not a nation.

But it was a dandy excuse to go after hegemony of MidEast oil.

Bush's wars have nothing to do with 9/11. They have everything to do with his loyalty to multinational cartels with no loyalty to the American people, values, or constitution.

Because of Bush's greedy idiocy, the international police cooperation we needed to apprehend the remaining al quaeda evaporated in contempt and mistrust.

Gore would not have made that critical error. But then, Gore didn't have an agenda that required the invasion of oil rich nations.

[kentuck]

4. It was like Pearl Harbor, they said...

But was it really? At Pearl Harbor, we were attacked by a sovereign nation, Japan. At the WTC, we were attacked by 19 terrorists. They were not a nation - they were a gang of outlaws that took advantage of piss poor airline security. Nothing more - nothing less. But it was no Pearl Harbor even though a very "few" terrorists did a great deal of damage. What if it had been only two terrorists and they still brought down the WTC? Would it have made any difference?

[Trad Bass]

10. So ya wanna bring down the Sears Tower next?

How nice of you!

Trad

[Ein]

12. is the world black and white? n/t

[Trad Bass]

13. No but nothing is

We just have to find the terrorists and kill them. No matter who is in office.

Trad

[Pastiche423]

16. Whoa Betsy!

Where is the proof that 19 terrorists attacked our soil on September 11, 2011?

Where is proof that Osama bin Laden was the mastermind behind the attack?

Where is the proof that it was a mystery group called Al Qaeda?

Our troops were ordered to bomb Afghanistan w/o proof that whomever attacked our soil was from there.

And to those that say it was necessary, why the fuck was it and what the fuck did we accomplish?

Blind nationalism sucks and will be the death of what little democracy we once had.

[knight_of_the_star]

24. Also

Pearl Harbour was the most brutally damaging military surprise attack that could have been mounted at the time. If something to that effect was to be launched now, it would involve a VERY large number of mushroom clouds.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

5. Yes, it is neccisary to fight them off...

but remember that we cannot say that all Arabs and Muslims are terrorists and Bushco did just that with the war in Iraq!
Bush is very dangerous!

[MattNC]

6. yes

Disagree with the way it has been fought at times, but there's no question in my mind it's necessary.

[Redleg]

7. Didn't need to go to war in Iraq.

Afghanistan, yes.

[Ein]

8. I don't think so.

It was an opportunity to further economic conquest, the trend since WW2, so of course we took it up. And population control, what do you know!

I would've rathered moves to appease the terrorist cells (at least in thier just claims), which I feel we are hopeless to completely wipe out. I mean, why the fuck do we need to have troops at bases in the ME and specifically on Muslim holy land? I think our undying support of Israel is also hurting us, as far as terrorism goes (I also don't see the need to support that nation as much as we do).

I also would've liked to see an attempt to get off the petrol sauce we're all hooked on, that probably would help.

We could've used more intel against Al-Qaeda (though Im not SO sure they pulled 9/11), instead of yelling "HEY OSAMA WERE COMING WITH TORCHES, USE YOUR VAST NETWORK OF CONTACTS TO AVOID US, OR JUST HAND YOUR SATELLITE PHONE TO YOUR BUDDY AND RUN AWAY" <--- that last incident was fucking ridiculous.

There are probably many things we could've done that would've worked, and our Imperial Ruling Class gov't didn't do ANY OF IT!

[leftofthedial]

9. The whole thing is a sham

A PR campaign

A disinformation campaign

A PsyOps campaign

A shell game

It's utter bullshit



Even if the 9-11 cover story were true, criminal justice systems would have been the apporpriate response . The BFEE "war" has done nothing to address terrorism in the world. It is a smokescreen for the PNAC agenda.

[ewagner]

11. Crime vs War

That is the heart of the issue.

Nations commit wars. Criminals commit crimes. Those who said earlier that we elevated OBL to the position of head of state was correct. Those who posted their anger over the immediate cry "Act of War" were also correct in their anger.

9/11 was a crime and it should have been handled as a crime without the ultimatums and massive use of force that was done.

Remember this: When the first bombing took place in '93, Clinton saw it as a crime and not an act of war. he pursued it as a crime and the perps were eventually brought to justice.

Unfortunately, when dubya pursued that present course, it was literally crossing the Rubicon. There is no turning back. It will take years of hard work by rational people to undo the damage he has done.

[kentuck]

14. Excellent point, ewagner!

"Remember this: When the first bombing took place in '93, Clinton saw it as a crime and not an act of war. he pursued it as a crime and the perps were eventually brought to justice."

============================================
And many Repubs would argue that Clinton should have gone to war back then...and perhaps we wouldn't have had to go to war this time?? But if they had set off a small nuclear bomb in a suitcase, would Bush have thought the only appropriate response would have been to nuke Saddam? Would he have argued that they got their yellowcake from Africa?

[Trad Bass]

15. You wouldn't fight nuke with nuke n/t

Trad

[ewagner]

17. In the case of OBL

who would I nuke? he didn't/doesn't have a country. And I certainly wouldn't nuke all of Afghanistan to get rid of Taliban.

My preference would be to get the spook shops running at full speed again so that we have human intelligence sources and operatives on the scene who know what's going down and can be used ....uuuummmm....proactively to prevent nukes from getting in the hands of the wrong people AND most importantly, knowing who the hell the wrong people are in the first place.

[Trad Bass]

18. Well I would nuke the country that gave him the bomb

No shit. I would.

JMO.


Trad

[Yupster]

20. If there are camps in Afghanistan

graduating classes of terrorists and sending them around the world, it's kind of lame to wait for each one to commit a crime and then issue a warrant for his arrest. That just seems ridiculous to me.

[sandnsea]

27. Nations who support unofficial armies though

are still nations that can qualify as an enemy. Don't call it an army and therefore the nation isn't responsible? I think that's a bit too easy.

Afghanistan was a problem, unfortunately because the Bushies have no answer except force and intimidation, it still is.

Still, terrorism is primarily criminal acts by small groups of people and I was so glad to hear Kerry say that. We didn't take over the entire State of Texas because of a small group in Waco, although maybe we would have been better off if we had!!!

[Yupster]

19. Well something had to be done about Afghanistan

You can't have terrorist training camps operating in the open, training 10,000 people a year and sending them out around the world.

That had to be taken down, and it could only be done with force, so at least that part was necessary.

And it wasn't an easy thing to do. Afghanistan is a landlocked country and we didn't have good relations with any of the surrounding countries.

I truly believe that if Gore were president, the Taliban would still be running Afghanistan, the terrorist camps would still be operating in the open, and we'd be trying to tighten sanctions for the 54th time on the Taliban government in the UN.

There would be just too many risks and difficulties in trying to invade without a coast or a supply chain.

I think in this case, Bush's close my eyes and attack mode was what we needed.

Now Iraq is a whole different story entireley.

[leftofthedial]

22. you know, you can remove that hook, but it will take a pair of pliers

and it will hurt like hell.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

21. Why didn't they get Osama?

Why didn't they get Osama? Cuz the bin-ladens, the bushs, and the sauds had a picnic 40 years ago and planned this whole thing.

[knight_of_the_star]

23. The Barbary pirates were different

Piracy is dealt with via firm military action that usually involves dropping a rather large hammer on the pirate base in question. That has been proven effective time and time again. Terrorism has been most effectively fought in the same manner as you would deal with the Corleonezzi or the Yakuza, not a military force because they are not a military force. They are organized like a criminal conspiracy and have to be dealt with as such. Pirates were, and still are, organized in a similar fashion to military units.

[Vernunft]

25. Everyone who thinks he can fight terrorists with an army

is an idiot. You need police and secret service for that. Ask Italy, France or Germany who all had to fight left wing terrorists (and eventually won) throughout the 70s and 80s.

You can fight army with army but as soon as the enemy goes underground an army is worthless except as a potential target. And rolling over other countries only increases the recruit potential for those you claim to fight.

But I´m not so sure anymore Terrorism really is fought. It´s so damn convenient to have them. They make great scapegoats for everything and your own populance accepts your blundering and cutting their rights without putting up a fight because of the hard times.

[durutti]

26. Unnecessary and Harmful

By "war on terrorism" I assume you mean that war on Afghanistan. The "war on terrorism" more generally serves the same ideological function as the Cold War, Manifest Destiny, and the Monroe Doctrine before it.

9/11 should have been handled as a police matter. The Taliban was not on the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism prior to 9/11. Indeed, months before 9/11, the Taliban warned the U.S. that bin Laden was planning something big. And right after 9/11, they offered to hand bin Laden over to a neutral third country and to allow him to be tried in the United States.

Had we agreed to this arrangement, would we still be pursuing bin Laden today? Probably not.

Had they changed their mind and decided not to hand him over, we would only have had to bring charges against bin Laden through the world court, and then get authorization to send a UN force to apprehend him.

But instead, the U.S. went the unilateral and arguably illegal route, bombing the hell out of Afghanistan, leaving 4,000 civilians dead, appointing its puppet, and leaving the place even worse off than it was under the Taliban.

And, of course, our actions further enraged the Muslim world, generating more recruits and finances for al Qaeda.