Where do we attack next?

Anaconda · #1 11-21-2001, 06:20 PM

I have a question, once the terrorist in Afghanistan are gone, where do we attack next? Iraq? There's evidence Saddam Hussein was in on the 9-11 attacks. Or will it be done once the situation in Afghanistan is over?

Inferno · #2 11-21-2001, 11:31 PM

We'll probably keep troops in Afghanistan for a while even after the Taliban is gone and the major terrorist groups are dissolved. We'll probably bomb Iraq too if we can find evidence that they either sent out anthrax or participated on September 11,

Joe17123 · #3 11-22-2001, 04:01 PM

We will have to find all the people that were linked to the 9/11 attack and the anthrax scare and try to take out all terroist groups but that will be very difficult.

Andy Rathe · #4 11-23-2001, 03:43 PM

I think there has to 100% proof that Iraq or anyone else was definately involved before any other country is attacked.

As far as removing all terrrorist groups; well, IMHO this is just about impossible. Firstly, there are thousands of them worldwide, all with their own agendas and ideals. Also, the only reason the USA, UK and the other countries are involved in Afghanistan is because so many of those countries' citizens were killed on Sept 11th. Despite all the fancy talking, our governments aren't going to have the political will nor the time and money to do the same to terrorist groups operating in Peru, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, etc, as very few, if any, US or UK citizens are being killed. This is unfortunate, but how global politics seems to work.

Jokercoaster · #5 11-23-2001, 06:54 PM

I think we'll go after Iraq next

antfarm007 · #6 11-24-2001, 11:56 AM

This war is a war against terrorism. After we have defeated the Taliban the war will move to another country. This war is a war on terrorism and those who harbor it. Even though I believe that Iraq was fully responsible for the attacks, it is known that Afghanistan harbors bin Laden. After Afghanistan the war will most likely head to Iraq. We should have been keeping Iraq in line over the years but the Bush(sr.) and Clinton administrations simply didnt (although Clinton did bomb them quite a bit). The Taliban is hardly an opponent compared to Iraq. Iraq has chemical and biological weapons and is not afraid to use them.

Metalhead 777 · #7 11-25-2001, 05:31 PM

Iraq's next. Hussein's goin down!

Kraken · #8 11-25-2001, 10:40 PM

Hopefully, Saddam will cooperate because he now knows how much ass we kick.

BTW, we just deployed 1,200 marines near Khandahar...yay.

Andy Rathe · #9 11-27-2001, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by antfarm007
This war is a war against terrorism. After we have defeated the Taliban the war will move to another country. This war is a war on terrorism and those who harbor it.

OK then - does this mean that the US government will pursue the Irish fundraisers in the USA who raise money for the IRA with the same zeal as they are currently pursuing Bin Laden?

mrk468zz · #10 11-27-2001, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Andy Rathe

OK then - does this mean that the US government will pursue the Irish fundraisers in the USA who raise money for the IRA with the same zeal as they are currently pursuing Bin Laden?

and this is the real problem: what, exactly, is a terrorist? what we call 'terrorists' others may call 'freedom-fighters,' and so forth. Bush has claimed this is a war on any terrorist network with a global reach, but the definition of terrorist is a rather messy one. Do we really want to entertain the notion of going after the IRA? Or what about Russia, who wants to claim their Chechnyan rebels as 'terrorists'? In my opinion, it was a mistake for the bush administration to declare this a war on all terrorists so quickly. i think they've committed the US to a whole world of messy problems. I understand their logic--they wanted their position to be clear from the start, so that if they had to go after other countries/groups, we wouldn't look like trigger-happy vigilantes. however, 'terrorists with a global reach' may define the scale of the organizations targeted, but what about their nature? This 'war on terrorism,' then, seems to me to be an oversimplified yet dangerous catchphrase that we should back away from.

Andy Rathe · #11 11-28-2001, 01:39 PM

I agree with you to an extent; namely that the "war on terrorism", as Bush called it, seems to include ALL terrorist groups, regardless of their global or regional nature. Whatever Bush may say now, the USA is not going to pursue ETA in Spain or the group in Sri Lanka, whose name I can't recall - they may be the Tamil Tigers.

As far as the IRA are concerned, I can tell you that as soon as Bush announced his "war on terrorism", the first thing that everyone in this country thought of was how hypocritical that was in coming from a country that historically has provided a large percentage of the IRA's funding. The IRA are not freedom fighters, they are a terrorist organisation. Anyone who says otherwise is simply wrong, badly misinformed or deluding themselves.

I'll be interested to see what the US does regarding the IRA - whether it does anything, or quietly lets the matter drop.

PhantomRevnge67 · #12 11-30-2001, 11:05 AM

well right now they are attacking anything that moves with taliban soldiers. well see what happens soon

BrooklynRider · #13 12-03-2001, 01:06 PM

I'd like to see the U.S., with or without any allies, march on Bagdad and physically remove Saddam Hussein from power.

And, after the past two days of bombing in Jerusalem, I have spent any sympathies I may have had for the Palestinian people. I think they behave like animals. For all their claims of being peaceful people, they are the most vicious group I have ever witnessed in my life. I can make no distinction, as Arafat or other defenders would like to, between the "terrorists" and the Palestinian people. The Palestinians seem to breed for the purpose of killing and perpetuating this violence. At this point, I have gone 180 degrees from my previous "give peace a chance" position. If the Israelis want to use bulldozers and push the Palestinians into the sea, I support it. I think that when people behave as vermin, they should expect to be exterminated.

Andy Rathe · #14 12-04-2001, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BrooklynRider
I'd like to see the U.S., with or without any allies, march on Bagdad and physically remove Saddam Hussein from power.

And, after the past two days of bombing in Jerusalem, I have spent any sympathies I may have had for the Palestinian people. I think they behave like animals. For all their claims of being peaceful people, they are the most vicious group I have ever witnessed in my life. I can make no distinction, as Arafat or other defenders would like to, between the "terrorists" and the Palestinian people. The Palestinians seem to breed for the purpose of killing and perpetuating this violence. At this point, I have gone 180 degrees from my previous "give peace a chance" position. If the Israelis want to use bulldozers and push the Palestinians into the sea, I support it. I think that when people behave as vermin, they should expect to be exterminated.

Firstly, I think all my facts are correct here, but if I'm wrong and someone wants to correct me, then fine.

I think you should remember the other side of the coin here, and not confuse the current situation in the Middle East with the Sept. 11th attacks. The land that currently belongs to Israel was originally Palestinian. They were literally thrown off the land they had inhabited for centuries so a Jewish state (Israel) could be created; I think this was in 1947. Ever since then the Israelis and the Palestinians have been engaged in a constant tit-for-tat war over land that both Jews and Palestinians claim to be their's. When the Palestinians kill some Isrealis, the Isrealis bomb Palestinian territory. The Palestians then attack Isrealis again, and the endless cycle of violence continues.

I think it's far too harsh to say that it's just the Palestinians fault. I certainly don't agree that bombing is the way to solve their problems, but they have every right to be aggrieved. Imagine if the state of New York was taken from the USA, and turned into another country, practically overnight. Wouldn't the original citizens have every right to be angry?

The US role in this is, I believe, the crux behind the attacks on Sept 11th. The USA has supported Isreal, giving them military aid, training, money and expertise to continue their war against the Palestinians. Given this, it's hardly surprising that a Palestinian organisation finally attacked one of the countries that was supporting it's enemy. I'll say again, I don't support bombing to solve any problems, and I deplore the Sept. 11th attacks as much as anyone else. But I can understand why the Palestinians are so angry.

antfarm007 · #15 12-06-2001, 07:07 PM

Yes, but I believe that the IRA now wants peace, as they have disarmed ( a little) and taken down some of their fortresses. I would just like to ask do you actually feel threatened by this group? It is more symbolic than anything else, all they want is their share in the Northern Ireland government. It's not like they are going to go bomb Stonehenge or crash a plane into Buckingham Palace. Sure they may be in a few protests and demonstrations a year that turn violent, but they aren't really on the United States list of priorities, but we'll find out