It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

62 % Of Britains support U.S.A war on terrorbut less than 1/10 think we are winning.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 04:17 PM
link   
A YOUGOV poll for Sky News has discovered less than 1 in 10 believe we are winning the war on terror.

While this is the case 62% still support the War on Terror,but 3/4s (77%) believe Tony Blair is responsible for making the UK more of a target.


Source Sky News

I have to say As a Britain I disagree and think the War on Terror is a necessery War and helping our American allies has in no way made us a target.

We were a target anyway,and even if helping our US allies does make us more of a target then sobeit,We should not be intimidated by the terrorists, If we are they HAVE already won.




posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 04:42 PM
link   


posted by kuhl


A YOUGOV poll of UK for Sky News discovered less than 1 in 10 believe we are winning the war on terror. 77% believe Tony Blair is responsible for making the UK more of a target. Most people have grim fears the future too, with only 7% believing the War on Terror will end in their lifetime. And when asked whether Britain should be involved in any future US military action against Iran, only 16% said 'yes'. Nearly three-quarters (67%) wanted to the UK to stay out of such a conflict. [Edited by Don W]



Two points for me to address. 1) 7% believe the WOT will last their lifetime. This is the crapola the Bush43 team wants us to buy into. That makes Bush43 Commander in Chief for the duration of his term. 2009. He much prefers that status than to be president*. The latter is to lead, the former is to direct. Unilaterally. By the bye, he has mis-interpreted the status thing, too. 2) 67% do not want to join the US in future adventures. That is the crux of Blair’s problem, and it will see him out of office before Boxing Day. IMO.



I have to say as a Britain I disagree and think the War on Terror is a necessary War and helping our American allies has in no way made us a target. We were a target anyway and even if helping our US allies does make us more of a target then so be it, We should not be intimidated by the terrorists, If we are they HAVE already won.


Fight smart versus fight dumb. Bush43 opted to fight dumb. We have decided to ignore the underlying root causes of the Nine Eleven Event. He says it si because they don’t like us and the hate democracy. Almost anyone who will admit the Israeli-Palestinian perplexity is one of the root causes. OBL himself described his motives in a lengthy epistle on the subject in 2001. We in America have never had any serious discussion of the causes he laid out, which include our support for repressive Arab regimes, and for be a cause of the abject poverty afflicting the Middle East. All too many Americans - and most of Congress - have declined to accept responsibility for learning why the attack happened. Instead, we jumped straight into the blame game. We act as if we can kill OBL as we probably murdered Zarqawi, the WOT will be over! Nyet!


*The Executive Branch, Article II, Sec. 2. “The President shall be Command in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States . . “ This power is not defined. This is the only reference in the Con or the Amendments. Most people believe it means the President is the Top Dog, but that he is only Top Dog under the laws and rules promulgated by Congress. George Washington encountered a real problem with Gen. Horatio Gates who wanted to be the General in Chief. Washington knew full well there must be one person in charge. Because Americans were distrustful of standing armies, it was decided to make the elected president the automatic 6 star general of the armed forces.

The Legislative Branch, Article I, Sec. 8, says, “Congress shall have power to . . Clause 9. To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court . . Cl. 10. To define and punish . . felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the Law of Nations . . Cl. 11. To declare war . . Cl. 14. To make Rules for the government . . of the land and naval forces . . “

Now here’s the coup de grace on Bush43's wild C-in-C stuff. Clause 18 says “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper to carry into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States or in any department or officer thereof. " End.

Any reasonable reading of this will say Bush43 is off his rocker


[edit on 9/10/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Some interesting views Don but Bush 43 as you call him and the U.S.A. did not start the War on terror the terrorists did.

They attacked a number of targets before 9/11 but the catalyst was the Twin Towers,Pentagon and the failed attack on the Capitol building just about 5 years ago today.

They murdered 1000s in a dispicable attack and now we are arguing over the fact that we have to defend ourselves.



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by kuhl
Some interesting views Don but Bush 43 as you call him and the U.S.A. did not start the War on terror the terrorists did.

They attacked a number of targets before 9/11 but the catalyst was the Twin Towers,Pentagon and the failed attack on the Capitol building just about 5 years ago today.

They murdered 1000s in a dispicable attack and now we are arguing over the fact that we have to defend ourselves.


I really appreciate this sort of understanding from our allies across the pond. First of all.

The Terrorists did start this war 5 years ago tommorow.

I agree that the US is a bull in a china shop and we end up breaking things but we have been succesful in preventing further attacks.

I know there are many people who want to look the other way ann act like we were not attacked on 9/11. They love thier peace and their lives the way the use to be. It is not like that anymore, we were attacked and we are at war.

Hopefully the war will end soon.



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 05:49 PM
link   
I’ve heard various estimates how much the 19 hi-jackers cost OBL. The highest was $5 M. The lowest $1 M. Since the Nine Eleven Event, the US has spent more than $400 B. A lot more. In one disgraceful episode among many in the 2004 election campaign, Mr Insider - Bush 43 - reported a DVD has been found in Pakistan which showed the ubiquitous al Qaeda was looking nefariously at Wall Street and W-DC. They had the disc. Police in NYC and W-DC went on full alert. 24/7. Then, a NYC property owner saw a clip on the tv and realized the pic was of his own building but it had been remodeled 3 years earlier. The DVD was at least 3 years old. Did Mr Insider know this? Or was our CIA fooled? No one ever asked, as far as I know. I did hear the overtime bill was $70 M. So, al Qaeda spends a few hundred dollars making a disc and we spend millions in response.

After Nine Eleven Event, I heard the agency in charge of the While House spent $1 M per foot, installing a new triple fence around the WH. Maybe or may not mined. After all that money some poor goof-ball piloted a Cessna right up to the door of the White House. He was charged with flying under the influence among a myriad of other charges. When I see pics on tv of the White House “occupants” going somewhere in W-DC by motor car, they have about 10 GMC SUVs that are painted black and have the windows all blacked out. Reminds me of the old days in the USSR when the Kremlin higher ups rode around Moscow in similar style in ZIV or was it ZIL limos?

We have never had a Congressional hearing to try to learn why OBL and others attacked the US. “Trust me” is all I hear. How can you possibly defeat an enemy you don’t know? We won’t talk to them. Or Iran. Or North Korea. Or Syria. Of Hezbollah. Or Hamas. Or Cuba. Or Venezuela. Geez. No wonder we can’t make progress. We don’t know what we’re doing. I say again, we must learn fo fight smart and stop the fight dumb people.

It is my contention Bush43 co-opted the Nine Eleven Event to his own political gain. His administration was already in trouble after squandering the Clinton surplus and putting the country back into the red oml in barely 9 months. The stock market was heading down from 11,000 to 7,000. People with money are smarter than those of us without money. It took 5 years for the monied class to raise the DJIA back to 11,000. Theme? War Trumps Economy!

Despite the looming Baby Boomer retirement which will necessitate large borrowing to get us through the30 years of 2010 to 2040, we are borrowing in the largest numbers ever. Bush43 has shrewdly used the Nine Eleven Event to win in 2002, again in 2004, and now he is deep into shenanigans for 2006. He wants us to liken OBL to Hitler or even Lenin. Which I guess by equivalents, makes Bush43 like Wilson or Roosevelt? The typical Republican Red Scare. The American people are being whipsawed by experts.


[edit on 9/10/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 10:15 PM
link   
Hopefully in time we'll come round to thinking we'll never win unless we treat mankind better. Israel started the war on terror by being so bad others would attack us for being their friend.

Until we change, or until Israel changes it will never end. One way the war on terror might end is if Iran does get hold of nuclear weapons and if Iran does want to use them. Though I am thankfull Iran doesn't wants to use nukes (although it clearly needs them to save being eliminated in time).

The best way to win the war is to stop supporting Israel so unconditionally. (Given all the trouble it causes us) Israel costs us far much than it gives.

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 04:58 AM
link   
Personally I say we need a break from this "war on terror" we've been fighting it for say what 30+ years?

We need time to lick our wounds and get our # together, frankly our lads havent got the gear and it doest look like they will while they sit getting shot at in iraq.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 10:09 PM
link   


Personally I say we need a break from this "war on terror" we've been fighting it for say what 30+ years?

We need time to lick our wounds and get our # together, frankly our lads havent got the gear and it doest look like they will while they sit getting shot at in iraq.


Agrees with you 100%. Think it is time to brig home the boys, (females too off course). Lick our wounds and life tof ight another day. So much also for the Gov spending a massive budget to get them the right gear, when they aer sitting out there being killed off one at a time.

That Sky poll btw, do we know how many voted on that poll exactly? I heard it was only over 2 thousand, if it is true. How can it be called the majority of the British Ppublic supports the War on Terror?

Imma check this one out myself.

Oks checked it how can.

2131 people make up the majority of the British Opinion, whenthe population in the UK is at 60 Million. Big difference would you not say?

Now if they had polled over say 10 million british, then I would say the poll is valid.

But to say 62% supports the war wen only 2131 people out off 60 million have been polled. Absolute hogwash.

[edit on 14-9-2006 by spencerjohnstone]



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Kuhl can I ask you what proofs you have to back up the statement that the terrorists started the war on terror. Fact 1. Iraq 1 was fought because of the Kuwait invasion, Fact 2. Iraq 2 was started because of alleged WMD's.
We are told that the alleged terrorists of 9/11 were Saudi's and to quote Bush he stated that the US will attack any country that supports/ harbours terrorists, well unless they kept the invasion/bombing of Saudi Arabia very quite I fail to see a connection between any of these events.

The proofs that have been offered fo 9/11 is one still shot of some Asian looking men that we are told was taken at an airport, a flying school who said they could not fly to save their lives, some dodgy placed evidence and the crowning glory 1 or two immaculate passports belonging to the terrorists found at ground zero, strange that of all the people murdered that day only fragmernts of bone less than 1 cm were found. So there you go miracles really do happen, no identifiable human remains from over 3k bodies but 2 immaculate passports.

It was the same with 7/7, from the police's own mouths, we should have really good surveilance evidence of the suicide bombers. Well to date they have released 1 still shot of 4 Asian looking men outside a train station, hang on a minute that sounds very familiar, were have I heard that before. Are you getting the picture, there were no terrorists because no one has provided any proof what so ever, Bush has stopped any form or real enquiry into 9/11, Blair said a public enquiry into 7/7 would be a waste of time and money.

So there you go the biggest loss of life in the UK since ww2 and our Goverment dossent think its worth spending the time or money to find out what really happened and why, it makes you wonder why the police even bother to investigate murders. There seems to be a similar thread running through these events, but maybe I'm just not trusting of my goverment, maybe I think they are capable of killing their own people just to start a war I mean its not like its happened before has it.



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Magic there was no reason because we know why, the police investigation and the MI5 investigation was enough. Mabye you have forgotten that he UK's war on terror did not start with 7/7 or 9/11, they are singular events.



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Kuhl can I ask you what proofs you have to back up the statement that the terrorists started the war on terror. Fact 1. Iraq 1 was fought because of the Kuwait invasion, Fact 2. Iraq 2 was started because of alleged WMD's.


Facts 1 and 2 have nothing to do with the war on terror, but your response is a great example of why the west is going to lose. The reactionary nature of too many to discuss Iraq as simply a historical hickup in US strategic policy against a very real, decades old threat, is a very simplistic charactorization of the world we live in today. The threat has existed for awhile, but was first exposed in the Iranian embassey incident in 1979. The threat has been on a slow boil on an idealogical level surfacing ever since, although most westerners (including you btw) have ignored the threat expansion.

The 'war on terror' (I really hate that label btw) is a war against radical religous elements that have global conquest on their mind. The religous link to the terrorism and its role in the current warfare taking place in the Middle East is what has really thrown the western liberal world on its axis, our freedoms of religon and sensitivity to stereotyping religon in general, the transnational nature of the religon combined with the reality Islam isn't just a religon, but a political movement, has distorted charactorizations of the threat to the point few can describe it accurately.

This reality is displayed often by Western leaders like the current US president, who lacks the statesmanship required to deal with complex idealogical challanges the threat poses to the west, and lacks the vocabulary and authority of wisdom necessary to describe the threat easily to western nations.

I recently read a book by David Selbourne called The Losing Battle with Islam and I think it is an important contribution to the global war on terror debate. David wrote an op-ed earlier this month in the Times, and as he says...


Islam will not be defeated as long as the strengths of the world community of Muslims are being underestimated, and the nature of Islam misunderstood. It is neither a “religion of peace” nor a “religion hijacked” or “perverted” by “the few”. Instead, its moral intransigence and revived ardours, its jihadist ethic and the refusal of most diaspora Muslims to “share a common set of values” with non-Muslims are all one, and justified by the Koran itself.

Islam is not even a religion in the conventional sense of the term. It is a transnational political and ethical movement that believes that it holds the solution to mankind’s problems. It therefore holds that it is in mankind’s own interests to be subdued under Islam’s rule. Such belief therefore makes an absurdity of the project to “democratise” Muslim nations in the West’s interests, an inversion that Islam cannot accept and, in its own terms, rightly so. It renders naive, too, the distinction between the military and political wings of Islamic movements; and makes Donald Rumsfeld’s assertion in June 2005 that the insurgents in Iraq “don’t have vision, they’re losers” merely foolish. In this war, if there is a war, the boot is on the other foot.


Read the whole Times article, its worth it.

I find his description accurate. It is clear that the Islamic aspect of the threat has added a religous element that completely distorts traditional western view of what the idealogical threat is. Westerners achieved modern society by the absence of religon in politics, but reverence to religon in western society is an adjuction role within society, not a driving role in the government of society. Islam carries with it political authority though, as well as religous immunity to criticism.

That combination is potent in the western world today when it goes unchallanged, and today it goes unchallanged by the most vocal political movement in America, the 'progressive' movement, which as a life long democrat I find to be the greatest disaster of modern liberalism. Most of today’s “progressives” say little, or even keep silent, about what would once have been regarded as the reactionary aspects of Islam: its oppressive hostility to dissent, its maltreatment of women, its supremacist hatred of selected out-groups such as Jews and gays, and its readiness to incite and to use extremes of violence against them. Mein Kampf circulates in Arab countries under the title Jihadi.

As long as western liberalism allows our liberty and freedoms to be trumped by Islamic conservatism, it can be expected for the threat of the current war on terror to be misunderstood, and most definately underestimated by westerners.

I don't buy the WMD reasoning for Iraq, nor the Iraq - Al Qaeda connection theories, and even though I opposed the war from the beginning I think the withdraw strategy is the wrong coarse of action. I equally believe this 'stay the coarse' policy is equally void of wisdom. While Iraq may of been about WMD or Al Queda, or whatever the new excuse of the week is, I think what Iraq is today needs to be redefined.

Iraq today needs to be redefined as the strategic centerpiece of the western idealogical war against radical islamic politic. As a military event, Iraq is an unparrelled success, and you have to have military history ignorance to the extream to believe otherwise. As a political and economic event, Iraq has become an enormous failure. While the economics make the struggle difficult, losing in Iraq has not become an option if the west intends to overcome the threat. The recent NIE report released states this position.

I don't know how to fix Iraq, but I like this suggestion among others. This is one of many alternatives other than the current policy that make infinately more sense. It really matters not at this point though, because the most important change required is a change from leadership. While you may assume I mean Bush, I am actually talking about my own party, Democrats, who fail America and the west by offering no alternatives to the current Iraq policy other than retreat, and fail liberalism by following the 'progressive' left in their silence to the oppressive hostility to liberty by the idealogy of Islam.


[edit on 28-9-2006 by darksided]



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 01:36 AM
link   
Dark the simple fact is its not just a hiccup we in the west have been interfering in the Middle East for centuries and thats the problem we face today. Are you saying its alright for us to force our ideas and values at the point of a bayonet down peoples throats but we dont like it when they fight back. If Muslims are so dangerous to our way of life then why have not all the western countries not deported them. Whats the point of fighting them abroad when we have millions of them in your own country.

I dont hold weak liberal views but I believe in defending our country if attacked and that has not happened. What has happened is the people in power have staged terrorist events as an excuse to make war on Muslims and others. And yes the Muslim faith seems to be spreading so whats the solution, the genocide of
all Muslims, is that we would need to do to remove the threat. How about leaving people alone and letting them get on with their lives, and if they attack our countries in an open conflict then we have a right to deal with the aggresor.



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 01:42 AM
link   
Oh and while I remember as you mentioned Iran did not the American Goverment of the time have the democratically elected president assasinated in 53 because he was going to nationalise the oil industry. Then we put the Shah in power who insitagted a reign of terror for twenty years which fermented the current religious Goverment. So as I say, if you keep sticking your hand in the fire sooner or later its going to get burnt. Apply the same scenario to America, how do you think that would turn out.



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Dark the simple fact is its not just a hiccup we in the west have been interfering in the Middle East for "centuries" and thats the problem we face today. Are you saying its alright for us to force our ideas and values at the point of a bayonet down peoples throats but we dont like it when they fight back. If Muslims are so dangerous to our way of life then why have not all the western countries not deported them. Whats the point of fighting them abroad when we have millions of them in your own country.


OK so according to you, America has interfered with the Middle East politics for centuries, and that’s the problem? For a nation only 222 years old, with very little history of foreign intervention before WWII, your statement seems to exaggerate by a lot.


What I am saying is that if people lack the moral capacity to identify what is morally right and wrong, then we are in big trouble. Are you accepting in any form the moral rights of the jihadist mentality that justifies murder? Our values do not accept it, and if forcing our value in this regard is what is required by us, then yes I think it is alright. We must win that ideological debate, because the alternative is to accept a moral standard that murder in the name of religion is justified.

I don't see American Muslims following the jihadist path. Don't you think that is interesting? I do, and I see it as a clue as to what the ultimate solution might be.


Originally posted by magicmushroom
I dont hold weak liberal views but I believe in defending our country if attacked and that has not happened. What has happened is the people in power have staged terrorist events as an excuse to make war on Muslims and others.


Staged? As in what, conspiracy? When your ready to step off the flying saucer and rejoin the real world for a constructive political discussion let me know.


Originally posted by magicmushroomAnd yes the Muslim faith seems to be spreading so whats the solution, the genocide of all Muslims, is that we would need to do to remove the threat.


Genocide? Are you insane? This is an ideological war with a militant element, not a military conflict with an ideological element.


How about leaving people alone and letting them get on with their lives, and if they attack our countries in an open conflict then we have a right to deal with the aggresor.


So walk away and let them attack us again is your idea, or are you seriously under the belief that if we walk away, there will be no new attacks?


Originally posted by magicmushroom
Oh and while I remember as you mentioned Iran did not the American Government of the time have the democratically elected president assasinated in 53 because he was going to nationalise the oil industry. Then we put the Shah in power who insitagted a reign of terror for twenty years which fermented the current religious Goverment. So as I say, if you keep sticking your hand in the fire sooner or later its going to get burnt. Apply the same scenario to America, how do you think that would turn out.


I think there is merit to this argument, on a limited scale. America does indeed need to learn that there are consequences to actions; in fact we need to learn that lesson today before we make the decision to unilaterally retreat from Iraq, which will undoubtedly create a new set of unintended consequences.

I do not however buy into your argument that because of the actions in '53 America somehow deserved what happened in '79, that is an endless road of revenge, and summons an ethic of reciprocity in reverse as justification for actions. By that logic, because the 9/11 commission report cites Hezbollah specifically, and Iranian government support specifically, for the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia against US troops that the US is already justified to retaliate against the Iranian nuclear sites.

I simply do not see the wisdom or the logic behind that argument.



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 09:27 AM
link   
double post, stupid pc.

[edit on 28-9-2006 by darksided]



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Sorry Dark when I say we I mean Europeans not Americans, and yes these issues are about ideologies but part of the problem is that when you have a group of disenfranchised people it makes it easy for some despot or religeous fanatic to meld them together. The UK/USA should not have been showering the Iraqi's/Afgans with bombs we should of been showering them with, food, medicine, health, education, homes and security, when people have something to lose there willing to fight for it when they have nothing there willing to fight for anything.

Please dont be taken in by the lies of 9/11 or 7/7, how did ww2 start, you may say Germany attacked Poland, that is a partial truth but what actually happened is that the Germans got a bunch of there own priosners, dressed them in polish uniforms and staged a firefight on the German/Polish border. That was the lie sold to the German people and the excuse used to start Germany's campaign in Europe.

And if you do really believe the 9/11 story, then I ask again why did Bush not attack Saudi Arabia because thats where we are told the terrorists came from.
Just one more thing how the hell do you know I'm on a spaceship.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
The UK/USA should not have been showering the Iraqi's/Afgans with bombs we should of been showering them with, food, medicine, health, education, homes and security, when people have something to lose there willing to fight for it when they have nothing there willing to fight for anything.


Your selective form of history is rediculous.

How exactly would the US or UK shower the Iraqi people with stuffs you mention with Saddam in charge?

How exactly would the US or UK shower the Afgahn people with stuffs you mention with the Taliban in charge?

Niether was even an option before both were liberated, and efforts to do so now without the governments standing in the way have been just as futile.

I agree with your conclusion that people with nothing will fight for anything, in a general broad way that is true. However considering how much has gone into showering the people with the same 'stuffs' you mentioned since the liberation, I think it is clear the merit of your suggestion has proven to be as equally folly as the military operations themselves.

After all, it is schools, homes, and work lines that are bombed by the enemy, so those things in a vacuum of security are clealry not the answer. Since security is the requirement for all answers, I am a firm believer that success and failure of any endevor is the ultimate success of the local police and military forces in those countries, and that is why the amount of US/UK troops involved on the street from this point on will make very little difference in the ultimate outcome of the conflict.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Yep, the 7/7 bombings sure did the trick.

62% of people suppor the illegial occupation of IRAQ..
even though Iraqi's DID nothing to britans...

and the leader of the group that did the 7/7 bombings was never really publically investigated...

what a joke.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Yep, the 7/7 bombings sure did the trick.

62% of people suppor the illegial occupation of IRAQ..
even though Iraqi's DID nothing to britans...

and the leader of the group that did the 7/7 bombings was never really publically investigated...

what a joke.

Umm the war on iraq is not the war on terror, the war on terror is against terrorists like alquida and the real IRA.




[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 06:26 PM
link   
actually,
the us president has stated the IRAQ war is ANOTHER battlefield in the war on terror.

and being now 62% of londeners agree the war on terror MUST be fought..
I find it ammusing that american managed to convince its ALLIES citizens MORE than its OWN citizens, as to the legitimacy of this illegial occupation..



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join