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.

 

Did You Feel Peace Was an Option Before Bush?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Post-September 11th, I have noticed many people starting to doubt that peace is an option in this world. Whether we speak of terrorism, Iraq, Israel-Palestine, North Korea, etc., many seriously doubt that peace is a realistic option for these various situations. Many promptly cast it off as delusional, unrealistic, or whatever and believe war is the only option. So, did you feel this way when Clinton was around? Have you changed your position since then? What do you think the reason might be?

Both candidates support War in many arenas and doubt that negotitian, or true diplomacy will work. Diplomacy is just a word thrown out there, but in foreign policy, usually this word means getting what you want...it is not usually associated with negotiation or mediation.

Do you think we should not give a little to get a little, or should we just demand what we want of countries at odds with ours?



posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 09:37 PM
link   
I think it's kind of unfair to ask how we felt when Clinton was around. 911 changed everything. Whomever might have been president at that time would have had to take some form of military action. The war in Afghanistan was pretty much required in my opinion.

A reasonable question to ask is, does 911 mean we have no choice but to engage in a "war on terrorism" that brings us into serial wars in one country after another. Here I think we have some options.

Whatever anyone believes about the war in Iraq, I feel that it was, at the very least, premature. We should have concentrated on thouroughly securing Afghanistan. There was even a chance that we could have done there what we hoped to do in Iraq--create a secular middle-eastern democracy as an example to other countries in the region. Had this been accoplished in such a way as to really benefit the people living there, it would have enhanced the image of the US. It might have even encouraged the political pressure for change in Iran.

Instead, by trying to do too much, we have sacrificed our reputation and undermined our military goals.

So what about the future? In an ideal world, I would hope that the current nuclear crisis' with North Korea and Iran would be solved diplomatically. But we don't live in an ideal world. After the "winning" of the cold war, the US finds itself the most powerful country in the world. I really believe that the US policy comes down to taking maximum advantage of this opportunity while history allows it. So in the real world conflict will be limited only by what we can get away with, politically and militarily.



posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Cimmerius

Couldn't have said it better myself. When bush went into office, i think everyone saw a peaceful four years ahead. But 9/11 happened, and it was a whole new ballgame after that. It doesn't matter who was in office, he'd have had to retaliate for 9/11, just like bush did. And he'd be called a war mongering fool, albeit illogical. Bush is not a fool, he's just been politically hammered into the ground due to extenuating circumstaces, IMO.



posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Well, I should probably change the title for this thread, but my question was really directed towards 9/11 and not Bush. Did 9/11 change that much in our policy? I know many will say we must fight the terrorists....but, is there any way to make peace with them? It's an ideal situation which many call unrealistic, but in my mind it seems a viable option.



posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 11:00 PM
link   
IMO, it is 100% impossible for there to be peace between the islamic extremists and the western world. Simply because those extremists don't want it, and the power brokers in the west don't want it.

Right now, both camp's power is based on conflict. Neither can justify it's existence and continued control without conflict. In order for peace to have a chance of success, one or the other (or BOTH!!!) has to be removed from a position of power.

Personally, I don't see that happening in the near future, as they both still have access to- for all intents and purposes- unlimited funds with which to buy the weapons and people required to continue.



posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Did 9/11 change that much in our policy? I know many will say we must fight the terrorists....but, is there any way to make peace with them? It's an ideal situation which many call unrealistic, but in my mind it seems a viable option.


Neglecting the US policy of never negotiating with terrorists, I seriously doubt we will ever make peace with them. If we are to believe what we see in our media post-9/11, the terrorists are radical fundamentalists who are highly organized and hate us for our "freedom". Are we to give up our "freedom" in order to make peace with them?

The problem is that Al-Qaeda is a single name for hundreds (if not thousands) of different terrorist organizations around the world. Some of them are communicating with each other, some of them care about attacking US interests (home and abroad), and some of them don't have the resources to feed themselves.

However, I think at this point it is too late for peace. We can either believe the Department of Homeland Security & the Federal Bureau of Investigation when they tell us that "terrorists" are planning a spectacular attack on the US homeland, or we can pretend it is all propaganda. Personally, I don't know what to believe anymore! I do know that America will remain safer by continuing to fund worldwide intelligence operations. This doesn't mean that a few Chechens don't have the capability to smuggle themselves across US borders and cause some trouble.

If perpetual peace meant getting one's throat cut, I don't think any of us would be inclined to make such a sacrifice. Unfortunately this seems to be the media's representation of the "terrorist's" motivation for war.

MK



posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
I know many will say we must fight the terrorists....but, is there any way to make peace with them? It's an ideal situation which many call unrealistic, but in my mind it seems a viable option.


No. You cannot make peace in a war like this. This is a religous war, jihad. The enemy WILL NOT make peace, they'd rather kill theirselves. These extremists will keep coming and coming, and will recruit new martyrs forever and ever. Terrorism will be with us until man can put away his weapons and learn to live in peace with one another. And it hasn't happened in the past 10 thousand years since civilized man has existed, so what makes you think it'll stop anytime soon? There is no peace as long as their are major religious differences among people, and muslim extremists and christians will never, barring something extraordinary, live in harmony w/ one another. Never.



posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 11:20 PM
link   
Ok, let me say a little history about the middle east conflict. It first started with the establishment of Israel. OK, the terrorists had a problem with Israel, but not with the western world. So then, we start building military bases in the Middle East. Middle Easterners become agitated, angry, upset...they feel the West is invading their land along with Israel. Then, you take the condition under their respective governments or dictators and now we have terrorists. So, this war isn't really much of a religious one, it is definitely more political.

So...do we really need the bases there? Or do we need all of them? It seems we are building 14 more military bases and the amount of terrorists/insurgents in the Middle East keeps increasing. Doesn't this seem to have a reverse effect and cause more of a problem? Fighting fire with fire and all that...Wouldn't it make more sense to become more diplomatic?


Or do we have too much pride for that?



posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Interesting history you have there Jamuhn. I'm pretty sure there were conflicts between the ME extremists and the West well before there were US bases in the region. In fact, other than the bases in Qatar, I'm not sure I remember any until GW1. The US had port call rights in Iran during the Shah's reign, but I don't remember any actual bases there.

There was the the Marines temporary compound in Beirut, but that wasn't a permanent base. (Was right off shore when that went down. Still gets my dander up to think about how that came to be.
)

Maybe you could give us some more information on times and places? Thanks.


Edit: OMG how did that mad face turn into a smiley??!!??

[edit on 10/1/2004 by Montana]



posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 11:54 PM
link   
Here's a little bit:
fpc.state.gov...

Military bases in Saudia Arabia, Qatar, and other countries. Many more have sprung up since 9/11.

Then we have military interventions in the Middle East since World War II
www.socialistalternative.org...

From wikipedia about al-Qaeda:

Al-Qaida sees western governments (particularly the US Government) as interfering in the affairs of Islamic nations against the interests of Muslims, particularly through support of regimes that oppress Muslims.


This includes the support of Israel.

en.wikipedia.org...

Though religion is part of their rationale, I do not believe it to be the major focus. I think much of what is happening is politically motivated. In Islam, policits and religion actually tie in very well. But mostly, the terrorists are concerned with establishing dominance over their region.



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 12:22 AM
link   
A quote from one of your sources:


More broadly, the United States does not have a history of seeking a large-scale
military presence in the Middle East. For many years, the United State maintained
only an over-the-horizon presence consisting of a small naval force stationed in the
Persian Gulf, despite the economic and strategic importance of that region. Even
since the 1991 Gulf war, the United States has tried to minimize the need for
stationing forces in the region through measures that do not require permanent
deployment of troops. For example, the U.S. Armed Forces have prepositioned
military equipment in several Gulf states for use in a contingency, engaged in
combined military exercises, and carried out short term training missions. The United
States has withdrawn from bases when requested to do so by a host government, as
it did from Libya and Morocco in the 1970s. U.S. participation in regional
peacekeeping operations, notably the Multinational Force and Observers established
under the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty of 1979, has elicited little or no opposition
within the Middle East.


I still don't see any references to US bses prior to GW1. As this is the one of the reasons you give for the extremist's actions, I feel I need some evidence of it.

As far as the link to socialistalternative.org. ..........Please.

The western world and ME extremists have had a conflict for much longer than the presence of US bases in the area. The Isreal situation has a much higher likelyhood of being a cause for disention. However, the peoples of Hebrew descent have also lived in the area for so many thousands of years, one would think they also have some claim to the place.

No, I think it is much more likely that the cause for the recent conflicts between ME extremists and the western world is one of desire for control and personal power. And as such, I don't think we will see the end of it until the people who are trying to expand thier power on the backs of everyone else in the area are removed from the equation. (Read- when I am nothing but dust and bones in my grave.)

Anyway, enough for tonite, to bed for me.



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 07:42 AM
link   
NO, as long as there are fundamentalist muslims in the world
who say that it is their duty to kill all infidels ... there will be no
peace.

It is not Israels fault that there is no peace.
It is not America's fault that there is no peace.

Put the blame where it rests. Fundamentalist Muslim doctrine
'kill all infidels'. It's been around for a VERY long time.

It's just that simple.

BTW - yes we did have military bases in the middle east before
Bush 43. The Iraqi No Fly Zone was established in the early '90s
and we supported that with our AirForce Base in Saudi Arabia.
Now that we no longer have a no fly zone over Iraq, that US
Air Base in Saudi Arabia is being dismantled.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join