Are the hawks guilty of bolstering those that mean to do us harm?

Iraq War\'s Toll on Terror

So Harley please tell me you don't think being passive with Al Qaeda would yield safety for all of us. In other words if we just were nicer to them and left them alone they wouldn;t bother us?

Hmmm, I get mixed signals from this report.

So the US gets attacked the first time at the world trade center, an attack on the Cole, etc - and then a full force attack by airliners on the WTC towers and the Pentagon and (attempted) white house - and we go after OBL in afganistan and wage war on Iraq, and since we've had no more attacks on US soil. Plus:
"However, since the war it said that arms proliferation and state-sponsored terrorism has dwindled, with Libya giving up its unconventional weapons programs and Syria becoming "less provocative." "

So before 9/11, OBL's terror network wasn't full force, and now after the Iraq war, this is evidence that it is?

Further more, the attacks on Madrid, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are the result of "anti-US sentiment" that has spiked because of the Iraq war???

Sounds like they are trying too hard to justify their desire to give into the demands of the terrorists instead of fighting them head on...

Gramps - If you read the article CLOSELY, you'll see that in the opinion of the think tank, America being distracted by the Iraqi conflict IS essentially being passive in our stance against Al-Queida. The more troops and money we have tied up in Iraq... the LESS we can devote to the ORIGINAL purpose of this "War on terror"... The capture and/or killing of Osama Bin Laden and the eradication Al-Queida and other terrorist organizations bent on doing harm to the United States.

I know... I know... that selective comprehension disorder that you suffer from kinda got the best of ya on this one... didn't it? :p

Actually 4Salt I am working and just checking in for a bit..Not doing much in depth thinking here...I am saying that Al Qaeda would be prosecuting their goals whether we invaded Iraq or not. We may be accelerating a showdown for sure but sitting on the sidelines won't stop them...that is my view.

Libya, Syria, and the like have not been a real threat in years - they were pretty much contained and under control. Like Iraq, they didn't pose an imminent threat to us. If any country was a real clandestine threat, it was Saudi. Lots of reports to back that up.

However, here's the part that I think is important:
(emphasis added)

We've got to get out of this unilateral cowboy mentality and regain world support. We can't win this war alone, and if that means appeasing our allies, NATO, or the UN in some way, then so be it. The administration's arrogant pride is getting a lot of Americans killed.

What kind of appeasement would you recommend for the UN and secondly what appeasement would work with Al Qaeda?

If going after them head on with military force is wrong what is the right way? What would work in your estimate?

No personal attacks to follow

No appeasement for al Qaeda.

I think we should go to the UN or NATO and ask them, "What do you want? What's it gonna take to get you to play?" It's really hard now because of the way we went into Iraq. I think we burned a few bridges doing that.

Using the military is the right way to go about chasing al Qaeda, but we should have continued our focus on them rather than focusing on Iraq. We had Saddam where we wanted him. He was contained, of little or no threat.

There's a lot of people out there that have a cavalier attitude about global opinion of the US. Many neocons couldn't care any less what the rest of the world thinks of us. So now we have al Qaeda hiding in over 60 countries. Who do you think is more likely to help us out and turn them over; those that like us or those that hate us?

Global diplomacy and public relations is absolutely paramount right now. It's too easy for terrorist sleeper cells to melt into the population and hide. We've got to convince the world that we can provide them a better life if they help us out - and that doesn't necessarily mean an American way of life.

I think the world views us as a very arrogant nation, and we need to humble ourselves a little before we'll get any real cooperation. But that in no way means appeasement to the enemy.

However, we need to do a much better job of understanding al Qaeda; find out what motivates them and gives them the courage to strap a bomb to themselves in the name of Allah. Simply calling them whackos, killers, murderers, etc. doesn't do any good. They are soldiers fighting for a cause. Instead of tanks, missles, and planes they have strap on bombs.

The more we know the enemy soldier, the easier to defeat them. Know your enemy.

Good reply, Harley. Says a lot.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Harley,

I agree with what you say I just have some questions regarding members of NATO and the UN. I think it is in the best interest of Russia, France,Germany, China to force us to go it alone. If they can stall ,derail hinder our economy and wold position in any way they gain economically. The gap between us and them is huge and growing more so daily. China for example has emptied the coffers in an attempt to build infrastructure and sustain economic growth a 8% for the past 10 years. It looks like inflation there is about to explode and could drive the whole system into chaos. Russia is in a similar boat, Germany and France need growth.We are the only superpower economically and defesively. For the first time there is a country that cannot be taken down with conventional warefar. So they have to work on our softer spots. I think this is overt on their part and events since the war started have proven this point.

so I ask the question what does NATO and the UN have to gain in helping us? Remember who is on the UN security council.

BTW I also think the post 911 sympathy and goodwill was a myth and can post many sources to back it up. I think these countries and people are jealous of our sucess as a nation and see us as arrogant long before 911 and Iraq. It's like Seattle fans being jealous of the Yankees. They think they have a economic team advantage. I think it's all in the attitude and love the Yankees. I like the M's as well.