Media Responsibility

[Ghost of BiB]

Nightline

 

Not very long ago, there was spirited debate here and elsewhere over a Newsweek article describing Koran abuse. All over this board, various other discussion panels and wide media coverage.

 

Now, ABC Nightline, that bastion of balanced reporting, has aired an interview with the most wanted terrorist in the Russia-Chechnya conflict. This is the man who orchestrated the attack that left 300, mostly children, dead. Also responsible for the Moscow attack that killed many - and several more.

 

By ANY definition, this man is a killer, a terrorist and a criminal. He admits to such himself. Well, ABC made a consious decision to give him an international forum. He has a 10 million dollar reward for his capture, and is identified on many, including the UN's list of priority wanted terrorists.

 

My view, is that a responsible party who had knowledge of this person's whereabouts should have turned them over to some authority charged with rooting out terrorism. Media has a lot of resources. What else are they sitting on? As far as ABC Nightline goes, they didn't just bump into each other on the street. This took some doing, and it most likely started on his end.

 

I just find it very interesting that this is allowed to slip under the pundit radar. No big deal because this is Russia? I remember the general outcry when all those 3 and 4 year old blown up bodies were shown. Guess an interview with Bin Laden would be allowable as well, provided it came from an extreme left wing source with a basically anti-American agenda.

[Reuben Gant]

I saw some of the Broadcast and thought the same thing to myself.

My first inclination was that it was freelance journalism and the

story was picked-up by ABC, or sold to ABC.

 

Having said that, the show seemed to make a distinction between

Osama Bin Laden and this guy, which was that this guy has only

regional aspirations, and Osama wants to see the complete distruction

of the west.

 

My reaction was that they seemed to go to some lengths to discriminate

between the motivations for his type of terror and Osama's.

 

 

What also came to mind was that in Britain, they never let Jerry Adams

speak on the BBC without a voiceover. Which was kind of silly.

 

I was left wondering if this guy is any threat to the US, or should be

viewed through the scope of a regional revolutionary/seperatist.

 

I

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I saw some of the Broadcast and thought the same thing to myself.

My first inclination was that it was freelance journalism and the

story was picked-up by ABC, or sold to ABC.

 

Having said that, the show seemed to make a distinction between

Osama Bin Laden and this guy, which was that this guy has only

regional aspirations, and Osama wants to see the complete distruction

of the west.

 

My reaction was that they seemed to go to some lengths to discriminate

between the motivations for his type of terror and Osama's.

What also came to mind was that in Britain, they never let Jerry Adams

speak on the BBC without a voiceover. Which was kind of silly.

 

I was left wondering if this guy is any threat to the US, or should be

viewed through the scope of a regional revolutionary/seperatist.

 

I

393627[/snapback]

 

So he's regional. It ain't the War on al Qaeda, it's the War on Terrorism. Bin Laden used to be a "regional" threat, too...

[Ghost of BiB]

Having said that, the show seemed to make a distinction between

Osama Bin Laden and this guy, which was that this guy has only

regional aspirations, and Osama wants to see the complete distruction

of the west.

 

So, this should be viewed from an aspect of scale? To me, that's a smokescreen to help justify. It's also not accurate. Bin Laden and AQ would like to see the complete destruction of the west, but their primary issues are regional as well. I didn't see the show. I haven't watched Nightline in a year. But, if they made pains to make that distinction, that's even more irresponsible.

[Reuben Gant]

So, this should be viewed from an aspect of scale? To me, that's a smokescreen to help justify. It's also not accurate. Bin Laden and AQ would like to see the complete destruction of the west, but their primary issues are regional as well. I didn't see the show. I haven't watched Nightline in a year. But, if they made pains to make that distinction, that's even more irresponsible.

393639[/snapback]

Would it have been irresponsible for ABC to interview leaders of the ETA in the Basque? (not a loaded question, I don't know the answer)

 

It seemed to me the guy had a chance to say a lot to discredit himself, and if anything he looked kind of pathetic holding his artificial leg over his shoulder

cooking meat on a stick. "They are looking for me, but I am looking for them"

sounded like a B movie script.

[Ghost of BiB]

Would it have been irresponsible for ABC to interview leaders of the ETA in the Basque? (not a loaded question, I don't know the answer)

 

It seemed to me the guy had a chance to say a lot to discredit himself, and if anything he looked kind of pathetic holding his artificial leg over his shoulder

cooking meat on a stick. "They are looking for me, but I am looking for them"

sounded like a B movie script.

393646[/snapback]

 

And, you obligingly viewed it as entertainment and are either ignoring, or missing my and Tom's point. The Soviet Union (way back when) invaded Afghanistan because their attempt at a communist regime there failed. It was a strategic decision made to avoid the dangers of a fundamental Islamic state along their border. Chechnya is their new Afghanistan. We might view Mexico a bit differently if it weren't predominantly catholic. Point is, if you don't think these guys are in bed with "AQ" (would take too long to explain the relationships) you're wrong.

[blzrul]

By the way if you go back a few weeks and listen to administration speeches you'll notice that the "war on terror" has now morphed into something like "action against groups who use terroristic tactics" or some such descriptive phrase.

 

I wonder is that because it is quite possible to lose a "war" but not so much a nebulous "campaign" or "project" or whatever it is...? I'll see if I can find it, Rummy hisself has been using it lately but I would never want to mis-quote him.

[Reuben Gant]

I saw some of the Broadcast and thought the same thing to myself.

 

 

393627[/snapback]

I am not as certain as you, but I generally agree with you. (BiB)

I follow the media closely and didn't enjoy the segment,

I found it disturbing, but I was wondering what line the

media crossed exactly. Defining such a thing seems murky,

that was just my impression from what I did see.

[Ghost of BiB]

I am not as certain as you, but I generally agree with you.

I follow the media closely and didn't enjoy the segment,

I found it disturbing, but I was wondering what line the

media crossed exactly. Defining such a thing seems murky,

that was just my impression from what I did see.

393667[/snapback]

 

I got you.

[Reuben Gant]

I got you.

393670[/snapback]

Do you think that the Chechyan's (sic) and AQ have

a coalition of convenience or shared goals?

[Ghost of BiB]

By the way if you go back a few weeks and listen to administration speeches you'll notice that the "war on terror" has now morphed into something like "action against groups who use terroristic tactics" or some such descriptive phrase.

 

I wonder is that because it is quite possible to lose a "war" but not so much a nebulous "campaign" or "project" or whatever it is...?  I'll see if I can find it, Rummy hisself has been using it lately but I would never want to mis-quote him.

393664[/snapback]

 

And that is relevant how?

 

A short explanation is that things do constantly morph, that is why we have initiated an adaptive planning process. It is reactive, yes, but also proactive.

 

The public wants their daily diet, and they must be fed, whether they understand anything or not. The problem often is that to do that, one must offer things, including terms and statements in an unclassified format. Lots of time is spent on terms and definitions. It's almost an art form to strike the right balance to give the hotpockets what they want (they usually go away and argue amongst themselves, then, whether it be PPP or Meet the Press) and enough meat for the "read between the liners". Knowing that much of America is of the hotpocket variety, what gets said is usually pointed more to the "read between the liners", as they might have a clue and know better.

 

But, that will be my post addressing your "Bush Bad".

 

Go make me a sandwich. (One of the best comebacks I've seen Ed do)

[Ghost of BiB]

Do you think that the Chechyan's (sic) and AQ have

a coalition of convenience or shared goals?

393677[/snapback]

 

Both.

[Wacka]

The press has no ethics. They are citizens of their country first, newsmen second. If they know where a scumbag like that guy is, they have a moral obligation to tell the authorities that, so they can arrest or get rid of him. To hell with protecting sources. Same as interviewing any murderer.

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

The press has no ethics. They are citizens of their country first, newsmen second. If they know where a scumbag like that guy is, they have a moral obligation to tell the authorities that, so they can arrest or get rid of him. To hell with protecting sources.  Same as interviewing any murderer.

393719[/snapback]

 

Wow, this is a first...I actually agree with Wacka on something.

 

Why the hell do we give an open forum to terrorists and murderers? Why does a network consider this "newsworthy"? The same thing with Atta's father wanting to state his views. Sorry, but your kid was a terrorist scumbag and we don't give a flying !@#$ about what you think about anything.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Do you think that the Chechyan's (sic) and AQ have

a coalition of convenience or shared goals?

393677[/snapback]

 

I'm pretty sure it's FAR more complex than the answer to that question...

[Ghost of BiB]

I just find this disturbing. Yes, it was done through a Russian newscaster, but ABC isn't going to just "pick up a story". This was pointed, calculated and extremely coordinated. I've said "Big Picture" till I'm blue in the face. There's a serious bad guy, on Niteline, for all to see. The Russians are much more pragmatic, and often much more practical than we. How did this help our cooperative efforts? You have a government working their ass off to get synergistic operations and agreements, and for the sake of "poor" ratings, that basically for a show no one watched, a "major" American news network interviews one of our ally's number one bad guys.

 

That doesn't help, folks. How would you feel?

[Ghost of BiB]

I'm pretty sure it's FAR more complex than the answer to that question...

393741[/snapback]

 

Already answered it.

[Terry Tate]

Now, ABC Nightline, that bastion of balanced reporting, has aired an interview with the most wanted terrorist in the Russia-Chechnya conflict. This is the man who orchestrated the attack that left 300, mostly children, dead. Also responsible for the Moscow attack that killed many - and several more.

Just despicable. I was initially stunned they could find enough people, from camera crew to editors and production personnel to do this. Then I read some of the comments at the end of the story, and I was saddened to see there are plenty of people who think it is ok to do something like this.

 

Maybe if Eric Rudolph had been more successful at killing people with bombs, he could've gotten on Nightline while he was still hiding out.

[BigAL]

And that is relevant how?

 

A short explanation is that things do constantly morph, that is why we have initiated an adaptive planning process. It is reactive, yes, but also proactive.

 

The public wants their daily diet, and they must be fed, whether they understand anything or not. The problem often is that to do that, one must offer things, including terms and statements in an unclassified format. Lots of time is spent on terms and definitions. It's almost an art form to strike the right balance to give the hotpockets what they want (they usually go away and argue amongst themselves, then, whether it be PPP or Meet the Press) and enough meat for the "read between the liners". Knowing that much of America is of the hotpocket variety, what gets said is usually pointed more to the "read between the liners", as they might have a clue and know better.

 

But, that will be my post addressing your "Bush Bad".

 

Go make me a sandwich. (One of the best comebacks I've seen Ed do)

393691[/snapback]

 

Well, I always thought the GWOT was a joke. It's like the war on drugs. Prior to the election, it was another way to keep the American people scared into voting for Bush. Now they don't want us to think that we are in a constant state of war because support for it continues to fall. All you guys who keep saying "its the GWOT stupid" need to find a new catch phrase to hang your hat on.

 

Now they say that getting Bin Laden is irrelevant. Unfortutely, we made him more than irrelevant, we made him unnecessary, and in doing so inspired others to fill in the gaps. Killing or capturing him now would mean almost nothing. However, if we had caught or killed him during the Afghanistan war, it might have made a big difference.

 

This isn't a "Bush bad" post. It's just amazing to me that now we're worried about all these Al-Qaeda inspired offshoot organizations. That seemed kind of obvious to me before the Iraq war. Just like it was obvious to me that we would help to create the next generation of terrorists.

[blzrul]

So when whatsisface interviewed Saddam Hussein years ago were you all as upset? On the Evildoer Meter he's probably far worse than this guy.

 

Dust in the wind...100 years from now what will it all matter. 1000 years from now they'll teach about America in schools much the same as we learned about Greece and Rome and kids will wonder "how'd they manage to blow it?"

[Rubes]

By the way if you go back a few weeks and listen to administration speeches you'll notice that the "war on terror" has now morphed into something like "action against groups who use terroristic tactics" or some such descriptive phrase.

393664[/snapback]

 

 

I believe it has morphed into the "struggle against global extremism."

 

Not war...struggle.

[Wacka]

So when whatsisface interviewed Saddam Hussein years ago were you all as upset?  On the Evildoer Meter he's probably far worse than this guy.

 

Dust in the wind...100 years from now what will it all matter.  1000 years from now they'll teach about America in schools much the same as we learned about Greece and Rome and kids will wonder "how'd they manage to blow it?"

393799[/snapback]

Dan Rather had better have gone to the military or the CIA and told them everything he saw when he interviewed Saddam. Even if 99.9% was not useful, maybe there would be one kernel of new knowledge there.

Of course, the story is all important. Look at the idiots at Newsweak. They got people killed in the middle east by their thoughtlessness.

[blzrul]

Dan Rather had better have gone to the military or the CIA and told them everything he saw when he interviewed Saddam. Even if 99.9% was not useful, maybe there would be one kernel of new knowledge there. 

Of course, the story is all important. Look at the idiots at Newsweak. They got people killed in the middle east by their thoughtlessness.

393868[/snapback]

Who pushed to have "embedded journalists" in Iraqistan? I suppose they thought they'd get some great propoganda out of it, and they did, but eventually at least one of them might have to report something that cast an unflattering light on war. And embedded jouirnalists did harm as we all know, reporting on their unit's location and activities, but no-one's freaked about that because who's to blame? The morons who thought it was such a great idea to embed those people in the first place.

 

Oh and don't lose sleep over people dying in the Middle East. At least it's all taking place over there and not on Main Street USA. That's all we care about anyway. "Fight 'em over there so we don't have to fight 'em here". I am told that's replacing the last line of our anthem, instead of "home of the brave".

[OGTEleven]

Well, I always thought the GWOT was a joke.  It's like the war on drugs.  Prior to the election, it was another  way to keep the American people scared into voting for Bush.  Now they don't want us to think that we are in a constant state of war because support for it continues to fall. All you guys who keep saying "its the GWOT stupid" need to find a new catch phrase to hang your hat on.

 

Now they say that getting Bin Laden is irrelevant.  Unfortutely, we made him more than irrelevant, we made him unnecessary, and in doing so inspired others to fill in the gaps.  Killing or capturing him now would mean almost nothing.  However, if we had caught or killed him during the Afghanistan war, it might have made a big difference.

 

This isn't a "Bush bad" post.  It's just amazing to me that now we're worried about all these Al-Qaeda inspired offshoot organizations.  That seemed kind of obvious to me before the Iraq war.  Just like it was obvious to me that we would help to create the next generation of terrorists.

393798[/snapback]

 

 

If it was so obvious that we are "creating the next generation of terrorists", then the proper course of action should be similarly obvious. Care to share it?

 

Your definition of the problem is right out of the handbook of lefty editorials littering the newspaper for the last 4 years. So far, I haven't seen any of them offer a solution other than "encourage change from within". Please try to be a litltle more specific than that if you care to tackle this issue.

[Thurman's Helmet]

Who pushed to have "embedded journalists" in Iraqistan?  I suppose they thought they'd get some great propoganda out of it, and they did, but eventually at least one of them might have to report something that cast an unflattering light on war.  And embedded jouirnalists did harm as we all know, reporting on their unit's location and activities, but no-one's freaked about that because who's to blame?  The morons who thought it was such a great idea to embed those people in the first place.

 

Oh and don't lose sleep over people dying in the Middle East.  At least it's all taking place over there and not on Main Street USA.  That's all we care about anyway.  "Fight 'em over there so we don't have to fight 'em here".  I am told that's replacing the last line of our anthem, instead of "home of the brave".

393920[/snapback]

 

 

I'm sure you'd be one of the loudest screamers if car bombs and IEDs were constantly going off in the streets of Seattle saying "Why didnt we do anything about this?"

[BigAL]

If it was so obvious that we are "creating the next generation of terrorists", then the proper course of action should be similarly obvious.  Care to share it?

 

Your definition of the problem is right out of the handbook of lefty editorials littering the newspaper for the last 4 years.  So far, I haven't seen any of them offer a solution other than "encourage change from within".  Please try to be a litltle more specific than that if you care to tackle this issue.

393925[/snapback]

The proper course of action now that we've gotten ourselves into Iraq, is entirely different than if we had not gone there at all. Now that we are there, we have no choice but to stay the course.

 

I have always believed that we should have focused most of our energy and resources on killing or capturing Al-Qaeda operatives. Remember them? They are the organization directly responsible for the murder of 3000 Americans on our own soil. At the time we wanted Osama "dead or alive". I was 100% behind the President when we went to Afghanistan. I think we made a mistake in taking our eyes and resources off of Al-Qaeda and onto Iraq. Yes we have killed and captured many Al-Qaeda leaders, but to the average wanna be terrorist, Al-Qaeda has gone up against the mighty Americans and has won. Who has been held accountable and punished for the 9/11 attacks? Has anybody stood trial besides Moussaui? What message has been sent?

 

Afghanistan could have been the example we tried to make in Iraq. We should have wiped the Taliban off the face of the earth. Now they are resurfacing. We should have destroyed the warlords and the poppy seed fields. We should have put more troops on the ground and captured Bin Laden early. With him dead, we could have said "see what happens when you !@#$ with America". Yes there's a risk of making him a Martyr, but what is he now? Towards the end of Afghanistan, we had the opportunity to decide what we wanted to do next to confront Al-Qaeda/Terrorism. While we still had the support of just about every country in the world, I would have convened a world wide summit on terrorism. Doing this would have at least led them to believe they had a say in what we did next. It's called diplomacy. I then would have told those countries harboring Al-Qaeda that you either round them up yourselves or we exert every political and economical lever we have to make you give them up. And if that doesn't work then we're going in ourselves. I truly believe we squandered an opportunity by the "with us or against us attitude"

 

As far as my definition of the problem goes...i'm not sure what you mean. I don't think I made an attempt to define anything. I also don't read editorials. I make up my own mind about things. What problem are you trying to find a solution to? The war in Iraq?, or the GWOT (I mean the stuggle against global extremism)

[UConn James]

The minute journalists become govt informants and stop holding the mirror up to the world, they should hand in their repoter's notebooks. Finding and killing these people isn't their job; it's gathering information that leads closer to the truth. I saw the Nightline piece (the first time I've watched it in months) and it was pretty straightforward in, this is X Y terrorist, and this is what he's saying his motives, etc. are. Where exactly did it say that viewers had to proscribe this bastard's beliefs!?? Two camps see a situation two different ways, resulting in conflict --- same story since we started walking upright. The media reports What happened, and there are some who try to get into Why it happened. It's the first draft of history. Is it the media's "responsibility" to entirely ignore half of what the mirror reflects? Twenty'll get you one that I'm going to get flamed for this, especially here....

[Ghost of BiB]

The minute journalists become govt informants and stop holding the mirror up to the world, they should hand in their repoter's notebooks. Finding and killing these people isn't their job; it's gathering information that leads closer to the truth. I saw the Nightline piece (the first time I've watched it in months) and it was pretty straightforward in, this is X Y terrorist, and this is what he's saying his motives, etc. are. Where exactly did it say that viewers had to proscribe this bastard's beliefs!?? Two camps see a situation two different ways, resulting in conflict --- same story since we started walking upright. The media reports What happened, and there are some who try to get into Why it happened. It's the first draft of history. Is it the media's "responsibility" to entirely ignore half of what the mirror reflects? Twenty'll get you one that I'm going to get flamed for this, especially here....

393988[/snapback]

 

Tell ya what. I won't flame you, and you just send the 20 to my paypal account.

[Terry Tate]

- I then would have told those countries harboring Al-Qaeda that you either round them up yourselves or we exert every political and economical lever we have to make you give them up.  And if that doesn't work then we're going in ourselves.

 

- I truly believe we squandered an opportunity by the "with us or against us attitude"

I think I understand your point of view; It doesn't appear unreasonable on the surface, and I've heard it voiced by people across the political spectrum. But I'm curious - doesn't the "with us or against us" statement also describe the methods described in the first statement? There was an awful lot of pressure on Iraq throughout the 90's, and it didn't stop them from harboring terrorists. Was the "with us or against us" attitude an arrogant first step with no thought to diplomatic resolution, or was it born out of frustration and necessity, when years of political and economic pressure failed to achieve results?

 

It doesn't appear you are far from the current administrations' actual position on these matters, but are unhappy with the timing and manner of execution - specifically, entering into war with Iraq while still engaged in Afghanistan.

 

But given the circumstances, it seems unlikely to me that a war with Iraq was avoidable. Hussein would've continued to harbor and support terrorism, and I don't think countries like France and Russia were going to be moved from their positions.

 

So I guess what I want to know is if you think a war with Iraq could've been avoided entirely, or could have and should have been put off until a later date. I don't believe it could have been avoided indefinitely, in which case timing - not that it's insignificant issue - would be the only point of disagreement. I don't believe further political and economic pressure would've achieved anything.

[Terry Tate]

The minute journalists become govt informants and stop holding the mirror up to the world, they should hand in their repoter's notebooks. Finding and killing these people isn't their job; it's gathering information that leads closer to the truth. I saw the Nightline piece (the first time I've watched it in months) and it was pretty straightforward in, this is X Y terrorist, and this is what he's saying his motives, etc. are. Where exactly did it say that viewers had to proscribe this bastard's beliefs!?? Two camps see a situation two different ways, resulting in conflict --- same story since we started walking upright. The media reports What happened, and there are some who try to get into Why it happened. It's the first draft of history. Is it the media's "responsibility" to entirely ignore half of what the mirror reflects? Twenty'll get you one that I'm going to get flamed for this, especially here....

I'd be happy to flame you, but not without further clarification. Do you see a difference between reporting the facts on both sides of a conflict, and conducting a personal interview, thereby providing a forum for someone who deliberately targets and murders innocents?

[Ghost of BiB]

Anyway, I still have issue with the fact ABC has been given a bye. It's no secret that Nightline has an agenda. Maybe in their view not anti-American, but definitely anti administration. Things are much more layered, nebulous and complicated than a 30 minute TV spot. When the media goes out and offers a forum such as this, without balance to an allied nations's number one bad guy, it has theater security cooperation agreement and policy ramifications. ABC well knows that, even if the average viewer doesn't.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Quick question.

 

If a person goes into a confessional and admits he murdered someone. Does the priest HAVE to call the cops on the person?

 

The media has an equally important postion in our society.

[Ghost of BiB]

Quick question.

 

If a person goes into a confessional and admits he murdered someone.  Does the priest HAVE to call the cops on the person?

 

The media has an equally important postion in our society.

394057[/snapback]

 

That was pretty lame. You should have thought that one through better.

[boomerjamhead]

By the way if you go back a few weeks and listen to administration speeches you'll notice that the "war on terror" has now morphed into something like "action against groups who use terroristic tactics" or some such descriptive phrase.

 

I wonder is that because it is quite possible to lose a "war" but not so much a nebulous "campaign" or "project" or whatever it is...?  I'll see if I can find it, Rummy hisself has been using it lately but I would never want to mis-quote him.

393664[/snapback]

 

Can you ever stay on topic? Or do have to post every time with your lateset and greatest regurgitated soundbite?

 

There's that skilsaw again...

[BigAL]

I think I understand your point of view; It doesn't appear unreasonable on the surface, and I've heard it voiced by people across the political spectrum. But I'm curious - doesn't the "with us or against us" statement also describe the methods described in the first statement? There was an awful lot of pressure on Iraq throughout the 90's, and it didn't stop them from harboring terrorists. Was the "with us or against us" attitude an arrogant first step with no thought to diplomatic resolution, or was it born out of frustration and necessity, when years of political and economic pressure failed to achieve results?

 

It doesn't appear you are far from the current administrations' actual position on these matters, but are unhappy with the timing and manner of execution - specifically, entering into war with Iraq while still engaged in Afghanistan.

 

But given the circumstances, it seems unlikely to me that a war with Iraq was avoidable. Hussein would've continued to harbor and support terrorism, and I don't think countries like France and Russia were going to be moved from their positions.

 

So I guess what I want to know is if you think a war with Iraq could've been avoided entirely, or could have and should have been put off until a later date. I don't believe it could have been avoided indefinitely, in which case timing - not that it's insignificant issue - would be the only point of disagreement. I don't believe further political and economic pressure would've achieved anything.

394009[/snapback]

 

My question to you is why was Iraq the secondary target in the GWOT? I don't believe Iraq was a threat to the US when we attacked them. I think Saddam was nicely contained, and the renewed inspections had a chance of working. With that in place, we could and should have focused on eliminating Al-Qaeda. I think a war with Iraq was not necessarily inevitable. it would not have been my secondary target after Afghanistan. This is the point where Alaska Darrin cuts and pastes his nebulous Iraq - Alqeada links. However, even if true (some are quite questionable), they still don't justify the commitment of resources that we made.

 

I think after 9/11 we had a lot of clout and sympathy that could have led to significant changes. We were in a much better position to move France, Russia, UK, from their positions. We never really gave that a chance. War was inevitable once we started moving troops around and the weather started to get hot.

 

I also think you have to take a few steps to get to the "with us or agaisnt us" position. We basically said "we don't care what you think, we're going after Iraq next" Then we had Rumsfeld out there talking about "Old Europe" It was basically just lousy diplomacy and an arrogance in our ability to go into Iraq as liberators that I have problems with. This is not hindsight either. I expressed these views leading up to war.

[Gavin in Va Beach]

LONDON TIMES UNDER ATTACK FOR INTERVIEW WITH GEORGE WASHINGTON

 

-July 23, 1779

 

George Washington, General of the seditious colonial terrorist army, has been recently interviewed by the London Times causing a public outcry among the citizenry. Some are demanding that the editorial staff of The Times be hanged for treason but a spokesman for King George has said that the King asks that his people remain calm. Parliament also asks for calm and says they are about to form a committee to look into this alleged interview and will report the findings sometime next year, then will form another committee to go over the findings found by the previous committee and will then report their findings to a committee which has not yet been formed.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

My question to you is why was Iraq the secondary target in the GWOT?  I don't believe Iraq was a threat to the US when we attacked them.  I think Saddam was nicely contained, and the renewed inspections had a chance of working.  With that in place, we could and should have focused on eliminating Al-Qaeda.  I think a war with Iraq was not necessarily inevitable.  it would not have been my secondary target after Afghanistan.  This is the point where Alaska Darrin cuts and pastes his nebulous Iraq - Alqeada links.  However, even if true (some are quite questionable), they still don't justify the commitment of resources that we made.

394070[/snapback]

 

To enhance regional stability. Put simply, the two main motivations for terrorism were the American presence in the Islamic Holy Land (Saudi Arabia), and the Palestinian issue. For the former, the main reason for the American presence was the continued instability that a persistently belligerent Saddam Hussein maintained in the region. Theoretically, if you remove Hussein the entire region becomes more stable and peaceful (I say "theoretically", not because I don't believe it's true, but because I don't believe it's proven, and won't be for another decade or so). Also, if you resolve partially or fully the Palestinian issue, the region should become more stable (and note that Israel intends to pull out of Gaza, settlements and all - and intends strongly enough that they're actually worried about Jewish terrorists trying to derail the withdrawal). And theoretically, such stability that'll contribute to the weakening of the terrorist anti-Western cause (and in this case I say "theoretically" because I don't buy it - they'll find another excuse).

 

And like I said, that's put simply. Very. But I don't think it's oversimplifing to the point of incorrectness to say that one of the policy foundations of the GWOT is to address and defuse those issues in the Middle East that contribute philosophically and psychologically to terrorism.

[BigAL]

To enhance regional stability.  Put simply, the two main motivations for terrorism were the American presence in the Islamic Holy Land (Saudi Arabia), and the Palestinian issue.  For the former, the main reason for the American presence was the continued instability that a persistently belligerent Saddam Hussein maintained in the region.  Theoretically, if you remove Hussein the entire region becomes more stable and peaceful (I say "theoretically", not because I don't believe it's true, but because I don't believe it's proven, and won't be for another decade or so).  Also, if you resolve partially or fully the Palestinian issue, the region should become more stable (and note that Israel intends to pull out of Gaza, settlements and all - and intends strongly enough that they're actually worried about Jewish terrorists trying to derail the withdrawal).  And theoretically, such stability that'll contribute to the weakening of the terrorist anti-Western cause (and in this case I say "theoretically" because I don't buy it - they'll find another excuse).

 

And like I said, that's put simply.  Very.  But I don't think it's oversimplifing to the point of incorrectness to say that one of the policy foundations of the GWOT is to address and defuse those issues in the Middle East that contribute philosophically and psychologically to terrorism.

394088[/snapback]

 

 

That's where I disagree with the GWOT (struggle against global extremism). Linking the Palestinian terrorist movement with Al-Qaeda, and dealing with them both at the same time is a mistake. Al-Qaeda didn't care about Palestine, and vice - versa. By linking them, and trying to kill 2 birds with one stone, you run the risk of uniting these foes against us, and rallying more people to their cause. It has made it that much easier for the young muslims to be manipulated into hating the "evil American agressors". Our primary concern after 9/11 should have been the causes for terrorism against the United States, not just terrorism in general.

 

I can understand stability being the goal, but why counter the American presence in the Islamic Holy Land with an overwhelming American presence in Baghdad? If that doesn't inspire young islamic fundamentalists, nothing will. We've given major fuel to your first reason for terrorism.

 

What do you mean by persistently belligerent? I contend that Saddam wasn't a threat to any other country in the region. Yes he paid the families of suicide bombers, but that's a symptom or catalyst for the problem, not the cause. Taking him out doesn't stop the suicide bombers.

 

You are right in that we won't know for a long time if we did the right thing in invading Iraq. All we can do now is support them as much as possible. The worst thing to do now is bail.

[OGTEleven]

That's where I disagree with the GWOT (struggle against global extremism).   Linking the Palestinian terrorist movement with Al-Qaeda, and dealing with them both at the same time is a mistake.  Al-Qaeda didn't care about Palestine, and vice - versa.  By linking them, and trying to kill 2 birds with one stone, you run the risk of uniting these foes against us, and rallying more people to their cause.  It has made it that much easier for the young muslims to be manipulated into hating the "evil American agressors".  Our primary concern after 9/11 should have been the causes for terrorism against the United States, not just terrorism in general.

 

I can understand stability being the goal, but why counter the American presence in the Islamic Holy Land with an overwhelming American presence in Baghdad?  If that doesn't inspire young islamic fundamentalists, nothing will.  We've given major fuel to your first reason for terrorism.

 

What do you mean by persistently belligerent?  I contend that Saddam wasn't a threat to any other country in the region.  Yes he paid the families of suicide bombers, but that's a symptom or catalyst for the problem, not the cause.  Taking him out doesn't stop the suicide bombers. 

 

You are right in that we won't know for a long time if we did the right thing in invading Iraq.  All we can do now is support them as much as possible.  The worst thing to do now is bail.

394116[/snapback]

I can buy to an extent that the Pelstinian movement doesn't care much about AQ, but the reverse is not true. AQ cares about Palestine inasmuch as it is #1 excuse to perpetrate attacks. If Israel were gone tomorrow, they would think up some new excuses and only stop when the world was 100% like them, but to say Palestine doesn't matter to them is incorrect.

 

As for Saddam, he was clearly the top military regime in the region with the possible exception of Iran. He was not too far from being in a position to muscle other regional nations around, with or without WMD. Even if he did not have any, can anyone really believe he was not trying? There was no way to be 100% sure where his programs stood. To say that the UN was on top of it is ridiculous. If he were to get WMD (let's say nukes, just in theory, and not presume a year or two timeline, but say a decade) he would have far too much leverage with other ME states for us to counter. Do you think it was the best course to let the UN monitor this and hope things worked out ok? He clearly had displayed his intent in the past. He had displayed his desire for WMD for a long time. He had clearly obfuscated inspections. He shared an enemy with AQ (us). He had a built in excuse to rally the entire ME (Israel). I don't think leaving him alone would really be a winning strategy in the long run.

 

As for "diverting our resources", what specifcally could have been done to capture Bin Laden that had to be delayed/cancelled due to Iraq?

[Terry Tate]

My question to you is why was Iraq the secondary target in the GWOT?

I think Iraq is (was) on a short list with Iran and North Korea. Out of the three, I think Iran and Iraq were #1 and #2 as far as the Islamofacist-driven GWOT goes, with NK being it's own unique brand - which takes them off the GWOT list. Iran would be a much more difficult foe to fight than Iraq, and should you defeat Iran, you're still left with Hussein as a constant threat to destabilize the entire region. Not only in regards to invading his neighbors, but his ties to terrorists (which I am not skeptical of). Militarily, and for the overall effect on the region if you're successful, I know which one I would have rather picked a fight with, and it's definitely Iraq.

I think after 9/11 we had a lot of clout and sympathy that could have led to significant changes ... I also think you have to take a few steps to get to the "with us or agaisnt us" position.

This is where we at complete odds. I think the few steps were a decade of working through the UN. That seems more like a State Department point of view, and I'm sorry, but I don't have any faith in the State Department to defend us against terrorism. Diplomacy has had some success over the years, but it comes with the caveat that it would still allow terrorists to strike at us (and I say this not knowing if this war will end it, either). I still remember the results of our diplomatic efforts with Afghanistan's Taliban. The commitment of resources is weighed against that; you seem to be sure it weighed in favor of continued diplomacy; I remain unconvinced.

 

I don't know if going to war with Iraq right when we did it was the right thing to do or at the right time. I do know it was a incredibly ballsy move to take a chance on changing the dynamic throughout the entire middle east. Remains to be seen whether or not it is successful.