Why we are in a war against terrorism and why Bush was right and Obama wrong

OP-If you would like to actually get a grasp of your original topic... I recommend reading The Pirate Coast: Thomas Jefferson, the First Marines, and the Secret Mission of 1805 by Richard Zacks.

Basing arguments from Clive Cussler novels is silly...

 

This would depend entirely on whether Obama has the leadership capacity to put in the troops that the General on the ground tells him he needs instead of vacillating, putting in too few, and following the Viet Nam pattern to failure.

The "Biden plan" is idiotic. Move our guys out and start bombing from drones? Faceless bombing is going to make it easier to recruit and will do nothing about the re-emergence of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

When the Iraq war turned, the new front of the "War on Terror" became Afghanistan, either he does what he said and moves the focus or he has a recipe for disaster and continued animosity. There's nothing like giving the "terrorists" a safe place to plan, and a huge recruiting tool at the same time, Biden is an idiot and can only be deemed Obama's life insurance policy. Obama appears to be vacillating and trying to give less than asked for troop increases... Yeah, VN all over again!

 

Yes,
the right way to fight the war against terrorism was to fund the terrorists!

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1931402,00.html

This also comes to show once more the ugly and cheap tactics employed by american govts worldwide
but still you are free to think of yourself as all innocent and clean

 

I agree with this.

You can't fight wars half way.

Actually I am basing my argument based on a character on a book called Linda.

I completely agree with the parrallel being drawn.

I am not using the Cussler book for historical accuracy.

My point is that despite all the terrorist attacks, most nations have not really battled the terrorists.

It's only one superpower who has decided to fight and take the fight to the terrorists. That superpower was the US, and it occurred under Pres. George Bush.

It depends on how the war ends.

 

After all these years...

after George W. Bush himself stated Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11...

you still have people saying the Iraq war was about terrorism and 9/11.

Some people just want to be ignorant and won't let facts get in the way.

Bush says Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11

The Afghanistan and Iraq wars are about controlling strategic energy resources (OIL) for the United States.

George W. Bush was a smart enough guy to know this country's energy dependence on the Middle East takes precedence over all. 9/11 was a convenient ruse to get people to commit the military to the oil fields of Iraq and gain strategic positions in Afghanistan.

I can't believe people are still clinging to this terrorism fantasy.

 

That's not what Pres. Bush said. Pres. Bush said that they didn't find concrete evidence that Hussein planned 911.

Hussein was still a supporter of terrorism and a threat to the US.

 

So, if Saddam Hussein neither planned nor supported 9/11, and...

it was a terrorist attack, by your definition...

why did Bush declare war on Iraq, first?

Why didn't he declare war on Saudi Arabia and Egypt, where the hijackers had citizenship?

The reason is that Saudi Arabia and Egypt are not threats to US energy interests in the region. Iraq was a real threat to US oil dependence and 9/11 was a convenient way to get Americans to declare war on somebody (anybody).

George W. Bush was just smart enough to use all that misplaced anger to advance US oil interests in the region.

He knew Americans would be so dumb as to lash out at anybody, everybody, because of this one-time event and their latent hatred for all things non-white. You didn't get this response after Oklahoma City. I didn't see any big war on terror, profiling, war mongering after that event.

George W. Bush got the country a secured energy future despite its misplaced hatred.

Iraq and Afghanistan have nothing to do with domestic terrorism. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you will understand the brilliance of George W. Bush.

I don't see how you say Obama is wrong when he is simply following Bush's brilliant strategy.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine

Doctrine articles

Superpower status
The doctrine announces the U.S’s status as the world’s only remaining superpower following the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War and proclaims its main objective to be retaining that status.
"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to general global power."

This was substantially re-written in the April 16 release.
"Our most fundamental goal is to deter or defeat attack from whatever source... The second goal is to strengthen and extend the system of defense arrangements that binds democratic and like-minded nations together in common defense against aggression, build habits of cooperation, avoid the renationalization of security policies, and provide security at lower costs and with lower risks for all. Our preference for a collective response to preclude threats or, if necessary, to deal with them is a key feature of our regional defense strategy. The third goal is to preclude any hostile power from dominating a region critical to our interests, and also thereby to strengthen the barriers against the re-emergence of a global threat to the interests of the U.S. and our allies."

U.S. primacy
The doctrine establishes the U.S’s leadership role within the new world order.
"The U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. In non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."
This was substantially re-written in the April 16 release.
"One of the primary tasks we face today in shaping the future is carrying long standing alliances into the new era, and turning old enmities into new cooperative relationships. If we and other leading democracies continue to build a democratic security community, a much safer world is likely to emerge. If we act separately, many other problems could result."

Unilateralism
The doctrine downplays the value of international coalitions.
"Like the coalition that opposed Iraqi aggression, we should expect future coalitions to be ad hoc assemblies, often not lasting beyond the crisis being confronted, and in many cases carrying only general agreement over the objectives to be accomplished. Nevertheless, the sense that the world order is ultimately backed by the U.S. will be an important stabilizing factor."
This was re-written with a change in emphasis in the April 16 release.
"Certain situations like the crisis leading to the Gulf War are likely to engender ad hoc coalitions. We should plan to maximize the value of such coalitions. This may include specialized roles for our forces as well as developing cooperative practices with others."

Pre-emptive intervention
The doctrine stated the U.S’s right to intervene when and where it believed necessary.
While the U.S. cannot become the world's policeman, by assuming responsibility for righting every wrong, we will retain the preeminent responsibility for addressing selectively those wrongs which threaten not only our interests, but those of our allies or friends, or which could seriously unsettle international relations.
This was softened slightly in the April 16 release.
"While the United States cannot become the world's policeman and assume responsibility for solving every international security problem, neither can we allow our critical interests to depend solely on international mechanisms that can be blocked by countries whose interests may be very different than our own. Where our allies interests are directly affected, we must expect them to take an appropriate share of the responsibility, and in some cases play the leading role; but we maintain the capabilities for addressing selectively those security problems that threaten our own interests."

Russian threat
The doctrine highlighted the possible threat posed by a resurgent Russia.
"We continue to recognize that collectively the conventional forces of the states formerly comprising the Soviet Union retain the most military potential in all of Eurasia; and we do not dismiss the risks to stability in Europe from a nationalist backlash in Russia or efforts to reincorporate into Russia the newly independent republics of Ukraine, Belarus, and possibly others....We must, however, be mindful that democratic change in Russia is not irreversible, and that despite its current travails, Russia will remain the strongest military power in Eurasia and the only power in the world with the capability of destroying the United States."
This was removed from the April 16 release in favour of a more diplomatic approach.
"The U.S. has a significant stake in promoting democratic consolidation and peaceful relations between Russia, Ukraine and the other republics of the former Soviet Union."

Oil
The doctrine clarified the strategic value of the Middle East and Southwest Asia.
"In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil."

The April 16 release was much more circumspect and reaffirmed U.S. commitments to Israel.

"In the Middle East and Persian Gulf, we seek to foster regional stability, deter aggression against our friends and interests in the region, protect U.S. nationals and property, and safeguard our access to international air and seaways and to the region's oil. The United States is committed to the security of Israel and to maintaining the qualitative edge that is critical to Israel's security. Israel's confidence in its security and U.S.-Israel strategic cooperation contribute to the stability of the entire region, as demonstrated once again during the Persian Gulf War. At the same time, our assistance to our Arab friends to defend themselves against aggression also strengthens security throughout the region, including for Israel."

 

I agree
nothing about bush was "right"

 

Pioneer because the Iraqi government was a state sponsor of terrorism.

Just because a terrorist may be Egyptian doesn't implicate Egypt .

If the Egyptian government sponsors and assists terrorists that does implicate the egyptian government.

 

Are you putting words in the mouth of the Bush Administration.

Bush, in his very own words, said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, he was an evil dictator, he fostered ill will toward America, and therefore Iraq was a rogue state.

After that speech, when did Bush (or anyone from the administration) say Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism?

There is no evidence of that. Osama Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, the 9/11 hijackers, none of them were Iraqis.

In fact, evidence suggests Saddam did his best to keep them out of the country for precisely the reason he would get blamed.

So, once again, why do you say the Iraq invasion has anything to do with terrorism?

You seem intent on blaming Saddam, Iraq, and the Iraqi people for terrorism in this country. The President, at the time, George W. Bush, said there is no connection.

Almost all the hijackers were Saudis, Atta was Egyptian, some from the United Arab Emirates, and a Lebanese. Where is Iraq?

Are you waiting for the Lord Almighty to come down from the heavens to tell you Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 (or terrorism) before you open your eyes that Iraq is about OIL and ENERGY not terrorism?

 

Iraq wasn't about 9/11 and it wouldn't have been the "front" on the WOT if Bush hadn't attacked on the basis of non-existent WMD. It doesn't change what it became while we were there, Al-Qaeda and other groups made it the central focus of their particular "war" in the region. That focus has now shifted to Afghanistan after the success of the surge in Iraq.

 

And what has it become. It certainly is no terror threat to the US.

Iraq is a source for OIL and ENERGY.

Using this terrorism argument is ridiculous when there is no evidence, no act, no crime, nothing any Iraqi has ever done to the United States.

For some reason, people in this country are intent on blaming Iraq for things it hasn't done to the United States.

If you're so concerned about terrorism, what about the countries and people that spawned the actual terrorists?

Iraq is about OIL. Why is that so hard to accept? The United States needs OIL so George W. Bush invaded Iraq and Afghanistan to secure it and Obama is continuing the effort. Why is that so hard to accept?

 

It's not hard:

Oil
The doctrine clarified the strategic value of the Middle East and Southwest Asia.
"In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil."

The USA said the above it was and still is their policy^^^

And how you gonna do that? they are sovereign countries, you can't just go in, you need to justify it i.e there's a dictator etc

 

Typical American response here lol, America hasn't lead the way in fighting terrorism at all, quite the opposite in fact, it has (along with the UK of which i am a citizen and the UN) fuelled terrorism with the war in Iraq, where they invaded the country under the pretence that sadam houssian had WMD's (which were never found) and that he commited many attrocities against the iraqi people, which if that was the case then we should have invaded many african countries where attrocities against their citizens happen regularly.

It may be wise to open your eyes to the wider picture before making a judgement like this, many countries (not just the US) have suffered atrocities committed by terrorists before the current surge of terrorist threats from the middle east (namely the IRA terrorist group in the UK). The UK (and im sure many other countries who have suffered similar acts of terrorism) have been fighting this for many years before America declared its war on terror.

 

Does Hussein trying to assassinate a US president count?