Who is responsible for fighting terrorists?

[jimnyc]

Is it solely the people who are hit by terrorists? Allies?

I submit that terrorism is a crime against all of humanity, and all nations should take an interest in stamping it out. I think all nations should submit a little help. I think if everyone worked together for a common goal, that perhaps we would be in a different world today. But terrorists are free in some countries, free to cross borders and even have alliances themselves with powerful people around the world.

But imagine for a moment, pick any place from Africa, to Iraq to Afghanistan. Imagine the fight also coming from other countries in the ME, or Russia, perhaps Japan or China. Instead, alliances are more important than ridding the world of terrorism. And don't think the terrorists don't know where best to hang their hats at night.

I thought of this when I read an article where China talked of their military as a "force for good". But I think if that were true, then they would actively fight terrorism and help others with this "good".

Some countries help out no matter the issue, every time without fail, sometimes at high costs. Some countries don't do a damn thing. Some don't do a damn thing, and then condemn those that do.

[fj1200]

Who is responsible for fighting nuclear proliferation?

Who is responsible for fighting small arms trafficking?

Who is responsible for fighting climate change?




that last one was a bit o' fodder for the knuckleheads

[jimnyc]

Who is responsible for fighting nuclear proliferation?

Who is responsible for fighting small arms trafficking?

Who is responsible for fighting climate change?

You might be implying that UN, useless bastards. But in a perfect world that would work, as what I am trying to point out is that all countries should want to stamp out the terrorists, regardless of how they feel about their neighbors at the moment. So yes, an agency of sorts that oversaw the whole thing would be nice, but the UN has no backbone and is a large failure, IMO.

But nevermind them. I'm trying to gauge if others believe like I do or not, that we should all want to rid the world of terrorism, all countries, and when possible all should help out in anyway possible to reach those goals. One of the major things keeping them going is the "non-participants" and those who turn a blind eye.

[tailfins]

Is it solely the people who are hit by terrorists? Allies?

I submit that terrorism is a crime against all of humanity, and all nations should take an interest in stamping it out. I think all nations should submit a little help. I think if everyone worked together for a common goal, that perhaps we would be in a different world today. But terrorists are free in some countries, free to cross borders and even have alliances themselves with powerful people around the world.

But imagine for a moment, pick any place from Africa, to Iraq to Afghanistan. Imagine the fight also coming from other countries in the ME, or Russia, perhaps Japan or China. Instead, alliances are more important than ridding the world of terrorism. And don't think the terrorists don't know where best to hang their hats at night.

I thought of this when I read an article where China talked of their military as a "force for good". But I think if that were true, then they would actively fight terrorism and help others with this "good".

Some countries help out no matter the issue, every time without fail, sometimes at high costs. Some countries don't do a damn thing. Some don't do a damn thing, and then condemn those that do.

It's the responsibility of the US military only for terrorists at risk of hitting the US. See the military oath as a reference:

I, [name], do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

[jimnyc]

It's the responsibility of the US military only for terrorists at risk of hitting the US. See the military oath as a reference:

I'm not sure I read that the same. That would also invalidate many battles our soldiers have been involved in over the years, where the US mainland wasn't in danger of being hit. We entered battles in the past for the good of the cause, for the lives of others and what was best for the world. Unlike Iran, and what our Navy states often - "A global force for good" - only our Navy and the rest of the military actually live up to that. The Navy will patrol and respond to natural disasters, to other emergencies and issues involving the need of the men in the ships and sometimes just a show of force. If another country is in trouble, our guys are ready to respond.

Look at Uganda and other places that we are seeing civilians slaughtered. It's of the mentality that "it's not our land" that allows innocent people to continue being slaughtered. And I'm not saying our soldiers need to put their lives at risk in every country in the world, but if every country in the world wanted to stamp shit like that out - we wouldn't need to be the ones all the time.

Like I said, I believe terrorism and the slaughter of innocent people is a crime against ALL of humanity. If other countries sit back and shrug their shoulders, people like those guilty of such atrocities tend to grow.

[fj1200]

You might be implying that UN, useless bastards. But in a perfect world that would work, as what I am trying to point out is that all countries should want to stamp out the terrorists, regardless of how they feel about their neighbors at the moment. So yes, an agency of sorts that oversaw the whole thing would be nice, but the UN has no backbone and is a large failure, IMO.

But nevermind them. I'm trying to gauge if others believe like I do or not, that we should all want to rid the world of terrorism, all countries, and when possible all should help out in anyway possible to reach those goals. One of the major things keeping them going is the "non-participants" and those who turn a blind eye.

I'm not necessarily implying the UN but it's a matter of priorities and the precedent being set if one country is ready to take unilateral action. Other countries may rank climate change higher than we rank terrorism. But yes, we should all want to rid the world of terrorism but are we violating the sovereignty of other nations or are we acting where outside of our national interests?

[aboutime]

ALL HUMAN BEINGS who know, and recognize Terrorists, and their actions ARE RESPONSIBLE to FIGHT terrorists.

Who among all of us here on DP would simply stand still, and do nothing if WE WITNESSED terrorism being done to neighbors, friends, or members of our families...or OUR military?

ANYONE who would do nothing DESERVES to be a victim of terror.

[Drummond]

George W Bush, in the aftermath of 9/11, had this exactly right ... see ...

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/11/06...ack.on.terror/

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush said Tuesday that there was no room for neutrality in the war against terrorism.
In a joint news conference with French President Jacques Chirac, Bush said coalition partners would be called upon to back up their support with action. He said he would deliver that message in his speech Saturday to the United Nations.

"A coalition partner must do more than just express sympathy, a coalition partner must perform," Bush said. "That means different things for different nations. Some nations don't want to contribute troops and we understand that. Other nations can contribute intelligence-sharing. ... But all nations, if they want to fight terror, must do something."

Bush said he would not point out any specific countries in his speech.

"Over time it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity," he said. "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."

My belief is this: had all nations heeded his words, if there's been a massive international partnership in the War on Terror, one where no nation (.. except maybe in the most hardline Muslim ones, ones most likely to side with Al Qaeda .. ?) had stinted in its efforts to play its part .. today, terrorist groups would find the world environment so toxic to their interests that they'd be forced to hide out in those few corners of the world prepared to tolerate their existence.

And action could've been taken against those remaining strongholds .. with most of the world behind any such effort.

Instead, what did we see ? Lukewarm support at best, many countries offering nothing but words, many others reining in their capabilities. In the case of Spain, the US had a very worthy Conservative ally in Aznar, at first -- then Zapotero, for their Leftie Party, took over, and promptly reneged on that country's anti-terrorism efforts.

The Left in my view have done much to stymie anti-terrorist efforts. They went on marches to try and stop any action against Saddam's Iraq. Aznar, as I've said, was stopped from helping as he'd have wanted to. Left wing agitators tried to divert sympathies away from such an effort, by saying that issues such as climate change needed much more urgent action, and anti-terrorism efforts got in the way of that.

Other Lefties just 'went for the jugular', and did their best to demonise the US in general and Bush in particular, branding him a 'warmonger' who should stand trial for 'war crimes'.

Tony Blair, otherwise a fairly typical Leftie at home, acted honourably in teaming up with Bush over the War on Terror. For this, he was branded by his own Left as 'Bush's poodle' ... and he even had two Cabinet Ministers resign their jobs rather than accept Blair's leadership (Clare Short and Robin Cook).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-Cabinet.html

Commons Leader Robin Cook has become the first Cabinet casualty of the planned war on Iraq - quitting his post minutes before an emergency meeting of ministers.

Downing Street announced his resignation shortly after an emergency Cabinet had gathered.

Mr Cook said in a statement: "It is with regret I have today resigned from its Cabinet. I can't accept collective responsibility for the decision to commit Britain now to military action in Iraq without international agreement or domestic support."

He added: "It is 20 years ago that I first joined Labour's shadow cabinet. It is with regret I have today resigned from its Cabinet.

"I can't accept collective responsibility for the decision to commit Britain now to military action in Iraq without international agreement or domestic support," he added.

Former Cabinet minister Chris Smith, who has led Labour rebels in opposing war, told Sky News: "It is a very honourable step that Robin has taken.

"He clearly felt that he could not support going to war without proper United Nations authorisation. He will be a sad loss to the Cabinet and the Government."
International Development Secretary Clare Short is "reflecting overnight" on her position, a spokeswoman from her department said.

TRULY SHAMEFUL.

There was a Leftie trying to hide behind his concept of international precedent, as his excuse for arguing against strong anti-terror actions. Trust a Leftie to attempt such a tactic ... it's a well-tried one from their side of the fence.

And that's the way of it. Right-wing thought and action led the War on Terror initiative. But the Left dreamed up every excuse under the sun to weaken and undermine it.

THEY WOULD DO SO AGAIN IF THEY COULD, HAVING LEARNED NOTHING AND NOT CARING TO ... EVER.

[jimnyc]

I'm not necessarily implying the UN but it's a matter of priorities and the precedent being set if one country is ready to take unilateral action. Other countries may rank climate change higher than we rank terrorism. But yes, we should all want to rid the world of terrorism but are we violating the sovereignty of other nations or are we acting where outside of our national interests?

I acknowledge any potential sovereignty issues, but I assumed that if all countries were on the same page, then the country we are going to help would be on board. Many Islamic countries suffer from terrorism and such but don't want help from anyone. Then you have places like Pakistan, where they don't want help, and claim they want to rid the world of terrorism too. Then it seems like every other terrorist is found in Pakistan. Same with Yemen. And this isn't about pointing fingers at any one or 2 or 3 countries, because there are a lot more than that that don't seem to give a shit enough.

As for national interests - I think it's good for EVERY countries national interests to put an end to terrorism before it grows more and comes to their shores. To answer for the USA directly, I believe it's definitely in our national interest, as the majority of terrorists out there see us as a prime target.

[jimnyc]

"You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."

And he was right! Even those that simply shut up and turn a blind eye are making things worse.

[Drummond]

And he was right! Even those that simply shut up and turn a blind eye are making things worse.

[fj1200]

I acknowledge any potential sovereignty issues, but I assumed that if all countries were on the same page, then the country we are going to help would be on board. Many Islamic countries suffer from terrorism and such but don't want help from anyone. Then you have places like Pakistan, where they don't want help, and claim they want to rid the world of terrorism too. Then it seems like every other terrorist is found in Pakistan. Same with Yemen. And this isn't about pointing fingers at any one or 2 or 3 countries, because there are a lot more than that that don't seem to give a shit enough.

As for national interests - I think it's good for EVERY countries national interests to put an end to terrorism before it grows more and comes to their shores. To answer for the USA directly, I believe it's definitely in our national interest, as the majority of terrorists out there see us as a prime target.

And some countries are barely able to sustain themselves let alone helping other countries with their terrorism problems let alone the ones who harbor terrorists. It's just kind of a pie in the sky question, of course every country should be responsible but the reality is less than encouraging.

[jimnyc]

And some countries are barely able to sustain themselves let alone helping other countries with their terrorism problems let alone the ones who harbor terrorists. It's just kind of a pie in the sky question, of course every country should be responsible but the reality is less than encouraging.

I completely understand that there will be some countries that can't afford to get involved or even add a penny to the efforts. So long as they allow others to help them if terrorism gets out of hand in their country, and that of course they don't help or harbor terrorists.

[fj1200]

Which terrorists should we be going after?

[Drummond]

I completely understand that there will be some countries that can't afford to get involved or even add a penny to the efforts. So long as they allow others to help them if terrorism gets out of hand in their country, and that of course they don't help or harbor terrorists.

There may be some countries whose military resources and expenditures don't allow for a military commitment. Even so, they may have intelligence gathering capabilities. Or, they may act as bases for those powers wishing to use their territory for intelligence or military purposes. For example: Iceland was home to the US's Keflavik airbase. The UK has US bases in its borders. There are all sorts of ways of helping .. if not directly, then INdirectly ..

By the way, is this Obama's doing ? From a report dated 21st March this year ...

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/what_wou...lose_1_3461393

For almost seven decades RAF Lakenheath has resounded to the roar of US military aircraft.

Giant B-29 bombers, soaring Phantoms, U2 spy-planes, the F-111 and more recently F-15 aircraft, have operated from an expanse of north Suffolk which has Uncle Sam’s stamp firmly on it. The US air force presence is the continuation of a line reaching back to the Second World War when thousands of Americans flew from East Anglian airfields on missions over Europe, with many air crew never returning.

As the global map changed during the Cold War, bases such as RAF Lakenheath stood on the front line, as they have more recently with conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, RAF Lakenheath and RAF Mildenhall remained the two key US bases in the region, an important part of the fabric of East Anglia, making a massive economic – and cultural – contribution to the community in terms of jobs and money spent locally.

Yet that link now seems under threat, with a think-tank report prepared by the RAND Corporation for the US government indicating that RAF Lakenheath could close as the American military re-thinks its global strategy and presence.

The option of closing Lakenheath is part of the ongoing European Infrastructure Consolidation (EIC) review under way by the US Department of Defence, with the results due to be published later this year.

RAF Lakenheath is the UK’s biggest US air force base and home to 48th Fighter Wing, with the F-15 strike aircraft and Pave Hawk helicopters.

Figures show that closing RAF Lakenheath, which has almost 4,500 servicemen and women supported by nearly 2,000 British and American civilians, could save the US air force $314m (£190m) every year.

The 487-page RAND report recommends Lakenheath for closure under two options and suggests relocating its resident 48th Fighter Wing to another base in the third, leaving just its intelligence and communication operations.