Did Europeans properly understand the 2nd Debate?

[pelastration]

Looking from Europe I ask myself: Do US citizen believe Bush made US safer? If Yes: Why, if No: Why?

In my opinion Bush created more risks in US and more anger worldwide.
1. We saw today that even some nuclear material is lost in Iraq. Will it be used against US or against Americans in Iraq?
2. We see that environment is not taken serious by the actual administration: Safer ... only a short term or also a long term issue?
3. Money for Homeland security is now used in Iraq to "educate" policemen in Iraq.
4. Since the Iraq war we see that al-Zarqawi became active, which was put today on the list of terrorist organizations. Before there was no terrorism in Iraq, yet it target American soldiers and civilians. What if he uses his contacts in US?

There is a resemblence in how Israel acts against Palestinians and how Bush reacts against "terrorists". Did Israel finally won? No. How many years does it uses excessive force? 20 years? What result? More tension, more violence. Is this the way Bush is going to export freedom and bring safety in US and protection worldwide for Americans? I believe that the risk is yet bigger that fanatic people in US and in other countries will use more force and violence in several ways against Americans and American interests. But maybe that's one of the goals ... good news for the weapon industry.

 

[False Prophet]

I believe he made the country less safe. He did stir up a hornet's nest in Iraq, and his actions I believe just made the Anti-American setiment and incentive to use terrorism skyrocket through the roof. I think a few sleeper cells may wake up.

 

[Hurkyl]

In fairness, awaking a sleeper cell does not make anyplace less safe.

 

[the number 42]

No doubt about it, GWB stirred things up unnecessarily. I dread the thought of him being elected for a second time. In the UK, if Labour get re-elected with Blair at the helm I would seriously fear a significant attack on Britain. In fact we are probalby lucky that nothing has happened thus far. Bush or Blair retaining power sends out the wrong message to the world i.e. that the people of the US and UK support their governments' recent foreign policies. The public opinion still seems about 50-50 in the US, but in the UK people are much less equivocal.

 

[PerennialII]

Bush has indicated that whatever he wants to do he will do it, find the argumentation that fits, and stay steadfast in the path he has chosen, unable to admit error or wrongdoing ... if this cycle continues I sure am and don't believe this will get any safer in the long run.

 

[pelastration]

Iraq war 'helped al-Qaeda recruit'

Iraq war 'helped al-Qaeda recruit'
By Paul Reynolds
BBC News Online world affairs correspondent
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3756650.stm

British soldiers on patrol in Basra
Too few US and foreign troops in Iraq for the task, reports says
The war in Iraq probably helped boost al-Qaeda recruitment, according to a report from leading Western think-tank.

The report, the annual Military Balance by the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, does not dwell on the causes of the war.

But it does consider its effects and has some highly critical comments.

It says that the risks of terrorism to Westerners and Western assets in Arab countries "appeared to increase after the Iraq war began in March 2003".

... and more.

 

[studentx]

Did Europe's response to the war in Iraq make the world safer?

 

[onegermanbeerglass]

Its always a careful balance. Terrorism has been a growing problem throw the years and decades. Terroist actions have grown more extreme, more frequent and more violent.

I'm not saying Bush had the best plans, in fact, he started out doing the right things in my opinion, and then started to slope downward.

The US & Vilnius actions in Iraq can have long term positive benefits in the fight against terrorism. The greatest benefits terrorism had going for it prior to and immediately following 9/11 are financial backing and safe havens.

Our actions following 9/11 and in Afghanistan & Iraq have benefitted the long term in the reduction of financial support and the safe havens and influencial allies of terrorist, even if it has benefitted terrorists in recruitment.

In my opinion, the better course of action in Iraq qouls have been a systematic and careful elimination of Saddam and his regime, followed by the same for those who followed in his footsteps.

The problem is that these actions would be considered assassination and the world outcry would be far worse. Given the information available and the geo-political forces, Bush made the right decisions up until the capture of Saddam. Its been the decisions since then that have been in error.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The greatest benefits terrorism had going for it prior to and immediately following 9/11 are financial backing and safe havens.

Our actions ...Iraq have benefitted the long term in the reduction of financial support and the safe havens and influencial allies of terrorist...

Where did you come up with this? I know Bush and Cheney keep lying about it but the facts say otherwise. Saddam was crippled and isolated.

 

[onegermanbeerglass]

Whose facts are you referring to?

According to the Duelfer report, Saddam was establishing the ability to reconstitute his WMDs in as short a period as one month.

Further more, there are direct links between Iraq & al-Qaeda which have been expounded upon extensively.

One of Iraq's military training grounds was being used to train al-Qaeda members in both military techniques as well as biological and chemical warfare.

To clarify this point, what the left has been saying is:
There is no established link between Saddam & al-Qaeda.
and...
There is no established link between Saddam & 9/11.

This does not, however, discredit the safe haven Iraq provided for terrorists, nor the training al-Qaeda members received in Iraq from Iraqi military officers.

This addresses the allies/safe haven aspect of it.

As for the financial aspect, Bush and his administration following 9/11 had a list of known terrorists circulated to banking institutes throughout the world, freezing the assets. Such a list already had existed but was not as extensive or as emphasize pre-9/11.

My opposition to Bush is his post war plans in Iraq.


Lastly, as I know it will come up, on the issue of WMDs, remember it wasn't just Bush and his administration who were wrong:
Hillary Clinton
George Tennet
John Kerry
Hans Blitz
Russia Intelligence
British Intelligence
Egyptian Intelligence
Israelli Intelligence
US Intelligence
all confirmed that Iraq was believed to have WMDs. Also, while the Duelfer Report shows there had been no WMDs since 1992, the UN security council had continued to impose economic sanction on Iraq with an anonymous vote from the security council of 14 countries.

 

[Mazuz]

It was wrong to jump into Iraq like that, there was no immediate danger. We could have taken our time, now we have created a worse problem, not to mention what happens if our army is actually needed somewhere else? In the meanwhile more immediate terror threats around the world have grown. We could find ties between al-Qaeda and anyone, especially anyone in the Middle East. The use of the word "ties" has no relevant meaning except to persuade people that the connection has significance.

 

[onegermanbeerglass]

Fine, forget the word "ties."

Iraqi territory and military experts were being used to train al-Qaeda members in both conventional and biological/chemical warfare.

No ties, actual actions. Real threat. Real part of the problem.

Meanwhile, Saddam was acquiring the equipment to reconstitute his WMD program. No tires, actual action. Real potential threat. Potentially part of the problem.

Read the Duelfer Report.


OK, I don't want to sound like a cheerleader or Koolaid Kid, so let me give you a real and honest assessment, and we can stop with the spin & rhetoric.

If you want active opposition of terrorism, what Bush did was beneficial toward that goal. The operation in Iraq hampers terrorist activity. The spread of democracy hampers terrorist activity, and the establishment of a US or NATO base gives the ability for a quick reaction. Iran would also have been a strong plausible target for the same activities, but would have been a harder sell.

Alternatively, if you believe in not policing the world and fighting terrorism through protection alone, then obviously Bush's actions were not toward that goal.

Both are valid points of view. The first encourages global economic growth which is positive for all countries in the long run, but is costly in the short run and also means more lives lost. The latter hampers global economic growth but keeps spending locally low and protects soldiers' lives in the now.

Was Bush's reasoning for going into Iraq, WMDs, legit?
No, not now that we know the whole story.

Did Bush lie about WMDs?
No, there were too many saying they were there.

What has Bush done right?
The war in Iraq and Afghanistan were fought effectively and greatly exceeded any reasonable expectations for these conflicts.

His immediate handling of bank accounts and quick response were on the money. There were few to no better courses available at that time.

The push towards free elections and the turn over of power are good representations of US intent.

What has Bush done wrong?
The first mistake is underestimating Iraqi reaction to US intervention. Even America's Revolutionary War only had about a 50% approval from the people. Anyone who observes history could tell that the Iraqi people would not react well at first.

Side Note: did you know about the CIA plan to sneak in small American Flags to distribute to the Iraqi people so they would have them to wave when the soldiers arrived?

Bush also failed in the post-war, winning of the peace. The smart action would have been to withdraw the majority of forces, strengthen protection of key locations for the reconstruction, and observe who surfaces. Allow those who want to vie for power fight each other, and then return to remove the victors unless they agree to work with us in establishing a basic democracy and the, at that time legitimate, search for WMDs.

 

[motai]

The push towards free elections and the turn over of power are good representations of US intent.

Not necessarily. It may seem that way in the international community, but the rush for the June deadline was probably just another example of politics in action. By shifting responsibilities to the Iraqi government by the June deadline (whether or not they were ready doesn't matter) the Bush administration can dodge the blame.

 

[onegermanbeerglass]

But in these circumstances, Iraq is ready, and the time is right.

The Iraqi people need to lead their own lives and fight their own fights. This is part of reclaiming their own country, not only from the Coalition, but from the oppressive dictators.

Just this month, a joint operation between 3000 Coalition and 2000 Iraqi Soldiers to take Samarra was successful. Granted about 300 Iraqi Soldiers fled and the opposing forced numbered in hundreds, not equal thousands. This is just a prime example of turning over responsibility quickly and effectively.

 

[pelastration]

After nuclear material is missing ...

IAEA: Tons of Iraq explosives missing
Monday, October 25, 2004 Posted: 1216 GMT (2016 HKT)

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/25/iraq.explosives/
VIENNA, Austria (CNN) -- The International Atomic Energy Agency says 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives are missing from the Al Qaqaa facility south of Baghdad that was supposed to be under American military control.

Melissa Fleming, spokeswoman for the IAEA, told CNNI the Iraqi interim government reported to the agency several days ago that the explosives were missing.

The explosives are considered powerful enough to demolish buildings or detonate nuclear warheads. They were under IAEA control until the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003. IAEA workers left the country before the fighting began.

(snip)

Kerry senior adviser Joe Lockhart said: "The Bush administration must answer for what may be the most grave and catastrophic mistake in a tragic series of blunders in Iraq.

"How did they fail to secure nearly 380 tons of known, deadly explosives despite clear warnings from the International Atomic Energy Agency to do so? And why was this information unearthed by reporters -- and was it covered up by our national security officials?

"These explosives can be used to blow up airplanes, level buildings, attack our troops and detonate nuclear weapons. The Bush administration knew where this stockpile was, but took no action to secure the site."

 

[onegermanbeerglass]

While admittedly a potential problem for Bush, keep in mind what you snipped, included that the site was under Iraqi control at the time of the loss, not U.S. control.

The question here is, did we turn this site over to Iraqi control too early?

 

[pelastration]

While admittedly a potential problem for Bush, keep in mind what you snipped, included that the site was under Iraqi control at the time of the loss, not U.S. control.

The question here is, did we turn this site over to Iraqi control too early?

Now would you - as a logical being - leave the security of that 380 tons of deadly explosives - able to detonate nuclear stuff (which is also missing) - be controlled by Iraqi forces? Is that a wise decision? To early .. to early ? You keep that under your own control.

 

[onegermanbeerglass]

Again, spin. What Nuclear material that's missing? If there is some missing from Iraq, wouldn't that suggest Saddam in fact had some (which he didn't).

I think you misread the article, as I recall is specifically said that the weapons were NOT WMDs or nuclear.

Also, the goal is to give the country back to the Iraqi people gradually. Once you start have successful military actions heavily involving Iraqi soldiers, like Samarra, that's when you start thinking about turning over military operations to the Iraqi people.

So back to what I originally said,

The question here is, did we turn this site over to Iraqi control too early?

 

[pelastration]

Again, spin. What Nuclear material that's missing? If there is some missing from Iraq, wouldn't that suggest Saddam in fact had some (which he didn't).

I think you misread the article, as I recall is specifically said that the weapons were NOT WMDs or nuclear.

No spin. Did the IAEA said it were WMD's? No.

1. Missing Nuclear material: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3737996.stm

2. Now also the 360 tons of detonating high explosives are missing.

Together 1. and 2. can make - in simple applications - already a larger number of "dirty nuclear bombs".

Did the US super commander in chief made US safer and Iraq safer? Surely not. Now terrorists may have small nuclear weapons.

 

[russ_watters]

No spin...

1. Missing Nuclear material:

Q: what exactly is "nuclear material?" A:

scrap metal from Iraqi nuclear sites, some of which was mildly radioactive, had been turning up abroad...

Scrap metal?!? Pelastration, please explain to me how to make a dirty bomb from scrap metal.

Add to that what just came out about that 380 tons of conventional explosives (it disappeared before the war) and you have misinformation and yes, spin (to be generous).

edit: typo fixed.

 

[Stanley_Smith]

I have a few questions for the European since the thread was originated from a european point of view. Obviously Bush is not very popular in Europe because of the war in Iraq. I'd like to know how he is viewed in europe (as a leader and as a person).

Lots of Europeans are anti-Iraq war. Is it because they think the Iraqis are better under Saddam or they think it's OK for what Saddam did and it's none of everyone's business to interfer ? Especially in Spain where we saw a government somehow negotiate with terrorists?

 

[onegermanbeerglass]

Not 360 tons, 380 tons, not that it matters, but I'm big on keeping the facts as accurate and correct as possible, especially when it comes to politics.

The possibility of the U.S. "loosing" nuclear weapons and material of a high enough grade for use in nuclear weapons is fairly low. It would almost require moving them exclusively underground.

The U.S. has satellites in orbit tracking radiation sources around the world. The sensativity is high enough that X-Rays appear on the sensors. For this reason, all U.S. hospitals with X-Rays have to register with the government.

 

[PerennialII]

I have a few questions for the European since the thread was originated from a european point of view. Obviously Bush is not very popular in Europe because of the war in Iraq. I'd like to know how he is viewed in europe (as a leader and as a person).

Lots of Europeans are anti-Iraq war. Is it because they think the Iraqis are better under Saddam or they think it's OK for what Saddam did and it's none of everyone's business to interfer ? Especially in Spain where we saw a government somehow negotiate with terrorists?

Heres one ... As a leader and as person people in many European countries really don't seem to care much for him ... polling done in mind for the upcoming US elections have had Kerry getting 80-90% of the votes ... that'll give you a baseline. Even conservatists in Europe tend to be much closer to US democrats than republicans.

From what I've gathered Saddam does not have much to do with the antipathy felt by Europeans. Many feel that US started a war on its convenience, side stepping the entire international community & UN and acted like a bully on the block. It was difficult to see any urgent need to start a war in Iraq on the basis of those reasons given initially, and it has not helped that those initial grounds have now more or less vaporised. Countries taking onesided aggressive action when it suits them is something not taken really well around here.

 

[studentx]

The impression i get from most ppl i know here (in Europe), is they don't like Bush because the majority doesn't like Bush. When i ask them why they don't like him, its usually something like "he went into iraq when evrybody was against it". Basically it boils down to having no opinion. Ofcourse occasionaly there are some ppl who can explain why they don't like Bush, but theyre outnumbered 100 to 1 here in Europe.

 

[onegermanbeerglass]

The impression i get from most ppl i know here (in Europe), is they don't like Bush because the majority doesn't like Bush. When i ask them why they don't like him, its usually something like "he went into iraq when evrybody was against it". Basically it boils down to having no opinion. Ofcourse occasionaly there are some ppl who can explain why they don't like Bush, but theyre outnumbered 100 to 1 here in Europe.

I have to concur. Both people I know from Europe, as well as their assessment of what others in their countries (Ireland, UK, & Germany) think, feel, and believe are basicly:

1. Bush is Evil.
2. The War in Iraq is Bad.
3. 1 & 2 because that's what most people/the media says.
4. Who's John Kerry?

OK, 4 is a bit of a spin. The actual anser I get about John Kerry is more or less the same. My friend from Germany, and her boyfriend, said:

(paraphrased)"Kerry is running against Bush, but no one in Europe really knows anything about him."

They visited during the second debate and watch it with us. Their opinions/observations following the debate were:

1. "[Bush] is witty." (I think because this came as a surprise to them)
2. The Euopean media did not properly portray the U.S. pres. elections.
3. "They are both arrogant."

The last comment was made in regard to both candidate mentioning the notion of the U.S. "leading the world." a comment they found rather offensive.