http://www.usembassy.org.uk/bush596.html
[quote]President George W. Bush
Documents & Texts from the Washington File
06 October 2005
President Bush Calls for Firm Resolve Against Terrorism
Vowing to confront the “mortal danger” of terrorism, President Bush spelled out three aims of radical Islamic terrorists and five countermeasures the United States and its allies are taking to defeat them.
Bush spoke October 6 at the National Endowment for Democracy in Washington as part of a ceremony commemorating the victims of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks. He declared, “We will not tire, or rest, until the war on terror is won.”[/quote]
I would like to see the ‘war on terror’ won but that is clearly impossible. Also I find the name ‘war on terror’ insulting as it implies that before someone invented that little soundbite everyone in terror plagued countries just sat round ignoring it and the US has been the first place to confront terror. I’m sorry, but when the IRA was terrorising my country it was pretty hard to ignore. Rant over.
So many extremist goals exist this is clearly a fabrication. Bin Laden explicitly stated his goal was to remove the US military footprint from Saudi. World domination never came into it. Other groups may have that goal, but I’m sure many in Iraq simply want the coalition forces out. Chechen rebels want the Russian forces out. Each group has its own goals meaning accross the board they are far from ‘clear and focused’. To say ‘clear and focused’ is simplistic at best.
I whole heartedly agree, of course I would suggest Bush fits this profile exactly. The terrorists must be stopped AND Bush’s perpetual war must be stopped.
I truly hope he believes this and it isn’t just some politically correct PR.
[quote]WHAT THE TERRORISTS WANT
Bush spelled out what he described as the terrorists’ three main goals:
? to end U.S. and Western influence in the broader Middle East;[/quote]
Maybe, but I would say not so much ending ‘influence’ as military presence. Personally if Britain was crowded with Iraqi soldiers I would want rid of them too. We need to pull our troops out because it has become an occupation force now. Not a liberating force, an occupational force.
Terrorists already target many moderate Muslim governments. This would not be a new situation, just look at Egypt. In Iraq much terrorism is aimed at other Iraqis. They’re concern is internal. Spending more money on Iraqi govenrment security would ensure the trans-national terrorists could be dealt with.
Can anyone say ‘conspiracy theory’? Its like ‘reds under the beds’ all over again.
The implication being that they they aren’t human? Oh my God, I thought Area 51 had the aliens under control! Ahh! Hand me a copy of the constitution and 14 Uzi’s!
But there weren’t terrorists in Iraq before we entered there, now there are hundreds and Iraq provides a perfect torrorist recruitment ground so in essence we created the central front and made the problem worse. Nice.
I want to know where these goals came from and which groups! Did Bush go on terrorist.com and find out? I’m not saying certain groups don’t have big ambitions, but equally as many groups just want the coalition to leave, or to cause mayhem or whatever. There’s such fragmentation Bush shouldn’t make such sweeping statements. And blackmailing the US government into isolation?! I’m sorry but the US began with colonial roots, reinforced them with westward expansion and then has continued to ‘spread its influence’ accross the globe ever since. I don’t think that while its rich it will ever be isolated!
[quote]THWARTING TERRORIST AMBITIONS
The president laid out five countermeasures the United States and it allies are taking against the terrorists:
? First, prevent the attacks of terrorist networks before they occur. [/quote]
This requires a sustained intelligence investigation. Invading Muslim countries just makes the intelligence community’s job harder due to the extra terrorist recruitment. The people who suffer are innocents, like those in London.
The largest nuclear stockpile and the only nation to have ever nuked anybody are one and the same. Just a thought. Anyway, the way to diffuse nuclear problems is not with aggression, that’ll get us all fried. Again, it’ll be the innocents who die.
Like the Saudi money which supports so many terror groups? Except going after Saudi’s would piss them off, then they might withdraw the huge monetary investment they have in the US and Europe. D’oh. What will you have Bush, a real confrontation of terror and the risk of fiscal problems, or the ineffective crap we have now, but a decent economy?
We need to build a good relationship with these nations so that they can be persuaded to be on our side, like other Muslim nations Jordan, Oman, the UAE etc. We can coexist with even fairly strict Muslim states, just look at the Western relationship with many Emirites.
The Taliban is gaining power in Afghanistan again and if theres one thing you could say for Saddam its that he would let his nation be taken over by terrorists. In fact he actively hunted down extremist groups- he was sectarian after all. Now it is us who have to keep terrorists under check in a broken and chaotic nation. Its a far bigger mess now.
Yea, we’re doing great at that! We’ve won no hearts and minds and the Iraqi democracy has shown itself to be a sham due to ethnic rivalries and the coalition forces ignoring the requests of the Iraqi government.
We’d be in less of a mess without Iraq. Thanks W.
Its the new Cold War. So many have noted America’s reliance on the military-industrial complex for economic stability such as Noam Chomsky, Chalmers Johnson, Niall Ferguson, John Pilger and even Neo-con poster boy Francis Fukuyama. Islamic radicalism is nothing like communism, except that it gives the US a traget for perpetual war. Either Bush is triumphantly pointing out he has succesfully created a new ‘Red threat’ as required, or he has a fundamental misunderstanding of communist ideology.
Again I hope he genuinly respects Islam and wasn’t just looking for a cutesy sound bite.
