Why do other countries not feel the same urgency about the war on terrorism?

It seems like only the US and the UK are willing to do what it takes to prevent further acts of terror.

Perhaps, it is because 9/11 feels a lot closer.

So for those of you that disagree with the war in Iraq and other components of the war on terrorism...why?

I am glad to see that all the countries that we helped out in the past are coming to our aid now when we need...oh wait, they aren't.

Only the following are:

UK, Israel, Australia and South Africa

--Joey

 

I'm not sure this quesiton couldn't be handled in one of the other threads but I'll take a shot at it.

First of all, obviously because they weren't directly attacked, second they have had decades of being protected by the US's military and economic power and have lost any real sense of need in dealing with international matters.

 

Because the "War on Terror" is a sham?

 

Nope. Because it's not in their national interest. And that's what makes States do what States do. Simple as that. Besides, when Europe was being ravaged by terrorists like Baader-Meinhoff, Action-Directe, ETA, IRA, and people like Illych Ramierez Sanchez, the US wasn't involved. It was interested, but not involved. I would almost bet money that everyone from MI6 to ASIS to Mossad to DGSE are all maintaining active dossiers on any and all terrorists. Do you know that France and Germany have massive Arab populations? Berlin is the second largest city in terms of Turkish population worldwide.

It's not that they don't care, it's just that it's not expedient for them.

E_S

 

Turks aren't arabs though. They are Turkish.

9/11 was not just an attack on the US it was an attack on Western values.

--Joey

 

joey, it's 1:30am here. I really do know terrorism pretty well, okey dokey? Just trust me on my point above, and I'll add some more points later.

nite.

E_S

 

There's more to the "War on Terror" then invading Iraq. (that doesn't even HAVE ties to Al Quada & co)

My country's Anti-Terror unit made some significant progress, the German police arrested a whole bunch of Al Quada militants. France has one of the best anti-terror units in the world. The war on terror will not be won on the battlefield. The real victories will be made by people behind the screens.

 

9/11 was not just an attack on the US it was an attack on Western values.

No, it was an attack on the US. Please learn why Bin Laden hates you before you make such statements. He's mad that your troops were in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War, and he's mad that your sanctions kill thousands of Iraqis. He couldn't care less how free you are, how you choose your leaders, or how you treat women. It was the American government that sent those troops in. It was the American government that imposes those sanctions. Therefore, America was his target. It would be rather hard for Western Values to station troops and impose sanctions, no?

GAP is right. Just becuase these nations refuse to commit resources to a pre-emtive strike (which could easily be construed as American aggression) does not mean they are not helping the War on Terror.

 

I'm so glad that America got rid of the IRA, UVF, UDA, RIRA, the YMCA, etc here. Oh, wait, they haven't.

Maybe if we had more oil...

Maybe we're doing a decent job of handling the situation on our own...

Maybe it's none of America's buisness who rules a country and what kind of political system a country has. When it begins to effect YOU, then you can go in and kick ass. Until then, the best you can do is send over political representitives to change things. Thats what you do for N. Ireland occasionally, you send someone over to talk to our politicians. You don't carpet bomb the place.

 

" 9/11 was not just an attack on the US it was an attack on Western values."

I never thought I came across somebody who actually believes that kind of stuff

 

Don't hold your breath waiting for America to get rid of the IRA. Guess who funds them? Yeah, you guessed it.

 

The war on terror will not be won on the battlefield. The real victories will be made by people behind the screens.

Very true

He's mad that your troops were in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War

You know the WTC had citizens from every nation present in S.A. during the gulf war. Is it coincidence?

your sanctions kill thousands of Iraqis.

When my dachsund pees on the carpet, my wife always says "do you know what your dog did today?" yet it was her idea to get him in the first place.

They're not one countries sanctions. They're the UN's and to imply otherwise is an outright lie. Don't blame the UN's "no war, peaceful sacntions" pissing dachsund of a policy on the US. We don't want the sanctions either, we want resolution. It's not the US that's been dragging this thing out, and stop implying that it is.

It was the American government that sent those troops in. It was the American government that imposes those sanctions.

Better brush up on your history there. Replace American, with UN and you've got a correct statement. Again this statement is in ignorance and sounds like certain countries are trying to wash their hands of responsiblity.

Therefore, America was his target. It would be rather hard for Western Values to station troops and impose sanctions, no?

This is under the assumption that this is purely about troops, which it isn't.

I never thought I came across somebody who actually believes that kind of stuff

Funny because if you looked at the Al Queda website that pops up from time to time you'd see there's a bit more to their complaints than troops in S.A. Israel is of course a hot spot, but they also list religion, lifestyle, opposition to Taliban like regimes etc as validations to their holy war. It would seem that perhaps some of the issues could be from western values. Oversimplification of delicate issues is a bad thing folks. To say this is about troops and oil are half truths festered in ignorance.

Maybe we're doing a decent job of handling the situation on our own...

Maybe it's none of America's buisness who rules a country and what kind of political system a country has. When it begins to effect YOU, then you can go in and kick ass. Until then, the best you can do is send over political representitives to change things. Thats what you do for N. Ireland occasionally, you send someone over to talk to our politicians. You don't carpet bomb the place.

That is exactly the US's policy. If it is being dealt properly we do not stick our noses in. BTW carpet bombing is an antiquated military technique that will never be used again. It is unneccesarily destructive and excessive. Smart bombs and smarter bombs minimize the loss of life (this goes back to the whole moral standards of the day argument)

As for the IRA, the US has never allowed open operations in the US, any contributions is done out of our juristicions and no one has ever offered a suit against NORAID and others for the government to act. Most people think the whole thing is stupid and should have been done with decades ago. To imply there's an ulterior motive to a lack of action against groups like NORAID is unfounded and weak. We gain nothing from the IRA's existence. It's funded by private citizens. The only way the government can act is through due process.

 

okay guys, we went over this before... Joey7F, check out the "why do they hate us" topic, I think it sums it all up...

 

Why don't we all sit around a campfire and sing "kumbiya", eh?

 

Maybe you should try that and take all these hatefull war ideas off your head.
Get a vacation!

 

It was either GAP or AT_60 who said that the real victories on the war on terror won't be fought on the battlefield - and he is totally 150% correct. The people who will do the real, useful fighting are SOFDelta, 22SAS, GIGN, GSG9 etc etc, as well as the intelligence community of the world.

And I made this prediction earlier, I'll repost it here. If anyone is going to get Bin Laden, it will not be the US Army, or the CIA. It will be MI6 or DGSE or another European Intelligence service. Why? Because they are a million times better a field ops, and because the CIA has been gutted, and because the French appreicate the sublte art of trapping a rat - like Il'lych Ramierez Sanchez, aka Carlos, aka the Jackal. They nabbed him without a single round being fired.

The reason I stated before is essentially true - everyone's security has been improved, their intel & security services are working overtime, but I think most appreciate that throwing conventional troops at unconventional, shadowy guerillas just won't work.

E_S

 

Why?

They weren't attacked and we were.

It's our war against terror, not a world war against terror. (Although GW tends to spout that rehortic every now and then)

 

If anyone is going to get Bin Laden, it will not be the US Army, or the CIA. It will be MI6 or DGSE or another European Intelligence service. Why? Because they are a million times better a field ops, and because the CIA has been gutted

The CIA is also corrupt, you forgot corrupt. As a matter of fact that is what the C in CIA stands for, the Corrupt Intelligence Agency. Why can't we clone a bunch of 007's and put them on the CIA?

 

Because other countries didn't get planes flown into their buildings?

 

Well, epicauthor when have large numbers of conventional troops been totally successful against terrorists? Whilst regular British Army units were stationed in Ireland, it was also largely the Parachute Regiments, Scots Guards, Irish Guards and 22nd SAS. And the British did suffer heavy casualties.

Jedi_Xen, don't knock the CIA. There are some people in it I'm sure who work overtime to provide accurate intelligence. Look at Robert Baer. He's a perfect example; though he quit over bureaucratic manipulation of the agency, he still continued to feed information about Wahabi extremists back to Langley. They ignored it of course, but up until 9/11 actually happened, noone in Washington cared significantly about terrorism. Why? Most of the more dangerous sects were prominent in Saudi Arabia, and you can't risk annoying an ally can you?
Futhermore, the "war" on terrorism was fought in Europe for two decades; and Israel has dealt with it since the 1960's. Why is it suddenly urgent after 9/11? It wasn't a major issue for Washington before 9/11, only after. How much urgent support was pledged to fight the IRA, the INLA, etc?

E_S

 

With respect to many European countries, it's probably because of the nightmarish 20th Century they had.

First they tried militarism. Result: World War I and a whole generation obliterated.

Then they decided that that would never happen again, so they then tried appeasement. Result: World War II and another whole generation obliterated.

Then a half century of Communist tyranny in the East and American protectionism in the West.

I'm not defending the European position. I agree with how the Bush administration is handling things. Still, I can at least understand the knee-jerk horror that Europeans tend to have regarding military solutions.

 

Why do other countries not feel the same urgency about the war on terrorism?

Because we don't have CNN ramming it down our throats all day telling us we should?

 

I'm not defending the European position. I agree with how the Bush administration is handling things. Still, I can at least understand the knee-jerk horror that Europeans tend to have regarding military solutions.

I disagree totally. 1000%. The Europeans have dealth with terrorism for the better part of 30 years. They probably know a bit about it. And as I said rsterling, I'm willing to bet that the ones who catch Usama Bin Laden will be the DGSE or MI6. Not the CIA.
Furthermore, who caught Illych Ramierez Sanchez, aka Carlos the Jackal? And how?

Answer: The French, who are Europeans. They trapped him. They didn't throw vast numbers of crack GIGN troops at him.

E_S

 

I can understand why some countries don't want to go to war. At the moment, Australia has not firmly commited to going into Iraq. This is because we have sent troops/ships/planes etc to Afghanistan and we are currently taking part in the blockade against Iraq. Not only that, our troops are peacekeeping in East Timor to the point where we had to send our reservists. We're only a small country with a small military force to match. Our government is currently considering a war tax because our resources are stretched so thin, but we, like the allies we have always been, want to make a contribution.

Several other small countries are involved in peacekeeping so they don't have the resources either. And also, you have to keep in mind that these are not the first terrorist attacks, if people have lived with this sort of thing all their lives (like in Ireland, the Sub-Continent, Asia, and South America) they don't see it as an 'urgent' threat.

 

It is safe to say that farrady's opinons always leave a sense of unease in me; a fear that everyone in the US might be thinking like he does. It's a painful indignation of that country even if such thoughts are harboured by a majority.

The War on Terror is not really a war on terror. It is a consolidation of American economic and political power in the post-Cold War World. It is a means to an end too: that means being the re-election of an embarassingly unsuitable president to run the world's only super power. It is also hypocritical as the US, like so many other countries, has blood on her proverbial hands. One needs only to think back to September 11th 1973 when it was the US' supported and the CIA trained and assisted forces of Pinochet who usurped power in Chile for a fairer deal for ITT and the Copper Companies from Allende's democratically elected Socialist (and to that point very well ruling) government.

Further, however great the events of September 11th were, they were not the first instances of global terrorism. My parents and I have been subjects of terrorist attacks qiute a few times when we were in Germany. In fact, my mother nearly burnt to death while the German police stood guard outside her bank, protecting the terrorists' democratic right to protest (which obviously involved incinerating ten innocent individuals [one of the reasons why I am not the biggest fan of either terrorists or Germans]). The thing is, most of the world has been there and most of the world does not feel that the US can act like a global bully.

I hate Saddam and I want him to be replaced while maintaining the territorial integrity of Iraq at the same time. I am not excluding military action from the list of possibilities. The way the Americans have been going about it, however, is shambolic to say the least.