The War Against Terrorism Has Begun

Let's hope they do learn!

The one thing I'm keen to understand is when the rest of the world will commit to action rather than words. Considering the majority of the world is supportive of the actions I am annoyed that as usual it is the US and UK that commit forces.

It is estimated that the UK have 200 special forces troops in Afghanistan, 23000 troops in the region, an aircraft carrier, 3 nuclear submarines, and we are firing Tomahawks.

As such we are risking our own people, spending obscene amounts of money (e.g. £700000 per Tomahawk), and opening ourselves up to retaliation.

When will the rest of the world support in a tangible manner?

_Martin_ Wrote :"When will the rest of the world support in a tangible manner? "

I would bet that many other countries has provided support in numerous ways that have not been publically mentioned or have not been spotlighted. Just because we do not hear of other countries sending their troups does not mean that they have not contributed.

True. I don't mean to belittle their support and it is welcome, just feel we in the UK usually have to act so visibly!

I emphatically believe that it DOES matter what we hear about the forces fighting the Taliban and who they are.

Even if there are, say, Germans and French fighting with us, wouldn't you think that both Germany and France would want the world to know they were behind us with action, not just words?

Let's say, for instance, they don't want the world to know because they fear retaliation. What kind of support is that really?

As with any war, this war's meaning will go way beyond military action. This war will be a war of words, politics and media. The war of words can be more powerful than the war of military might.

We don't need countries sitting the fence on this one. If a country chooses to support our efforts with their military machinery and personnel, their decision to either let the world know about it or not is of utmost importance.

Amen

Martin, you have focused in on a very important point. The support of other countries is going to be crucial to not only the success or failure of the war against terrorism, but also to whether the violence continues.
First, every American should thank our British brethren. The Brits have truly been our friends in a time of need. Also, closer to home, the Canadians who have been there for us. The world should also reflect on the bravery of the government of Pakistan, who must live with their neighbors.
Syria, Libya, the Palestinian state, all expressed their sympathy and outrage after the World Trade Center holocaust. Now they must put their money where there mouth is. They must tell Bin Laden that he has no place to hide. The righteous will not protect the wicked. Only then can we end the war against terrorism.

Last year, Canada has for the first time in decades achieved to go through one year without a deficit. Our governement just 3 months ago declared loud and clear that never ever under any circumstances would the governement let the countries expenses bring on new deficits and therefore continuously increase the national debt. That was 3 months ago.
Last week, our governement announced that we will need to borrow money for the military effort that Canada has promised the US. This year will therefore be deficitary. So much for "never ever", eh?
/me shrugs.
Another billion more, another billion less, who's counting?

I hear what you're saying paxx and I agree entirely. There are issues in terms of the financial position of nations and this is understandable.

My disappointment is actually focussed more at the rest of Europe. If we are supposed to be 'one' why is it that France, Germany, Italy etc don't send some troops.

In the UK we could very usefully spend £700000 x each Tomahawk on our run down health service and public transport systems!

I'm french, and I'd like to add my 2 cents : here many people, including our ex-president Valérie Giscard d'Estaing and many other political men, do NOT agree with the war in the way it has begun, so that's why our president Jacques Chirac announced that FOR THE MOMENT, but maybe this will change in the future, France would only support it symbolically... I do not agree with this war either : WHY the hell would we be allowed to answer to war with another war ? Can't we put the talibans into jail without sending bombs from the air ? WHY didn't we react MANY YEARS BEFORE, since I have a few mails dated from ages that describe very precisley the situation over there... but then no one wanted to react ! This is just not a human way to react, not a civilised way : should we be animals because the others are ? I don't agree at all with all the things that are happening : only half an hour after the World Trade Center tragedy, journalists in France ever told that it was due to Ben Laden... Is this really serious ? Is there even a way to be serious for policy when there is such a pression from all the inhabitants ? Well I hate the idea of a war, but I hate it almost when it is done like it is now...

Re the ''Rest of the World'' assisting...there are units on the ground right now from England, Australia and France that we know of, not that anyone will say so officialy!
As for the ''cost per Tomahawk'', what price do you place on the lives of the WTC victims???
In an ideal World the money would be used for all the right reasons......we don't live in an ideal World!
J.

Fix, I agree with you that I do not support war. I feel that there are many different ways we could go about combatting terrorism. War just happens to be the most popular one.

However, I do have to say that at least the US is tactfully chosing its targets to minimize civilian casualties.

Wombat_1: Of course the cost of a missile is irrelevant to a large degree. I am just emphasising the point that the UK is supporting in ALL ways IRRESPECTIVE of costs.

Fix, you should be thankful that we Americans did not feel that way in World War II or you would not have the freedom you enjoy today. Germany never attacked the United States but we still liberated France because it was the right thing to do.

I am not sure what has happened to the French but they have a distinct lack of loyalty and to be perfectly candid, a distinct lack of courage in their national character. Appeasement has been the foreign policy of France since Charge De Gaulle left. I wonder what he would think of France today.

War isn't just the most popular one, war is the most effective solution as well. Those who disagree I suspect are not very knowledgeable on history or, for that matter, anthropology.

Europe and the United States tried and tried and tried to avoid war in World War II. I really think those who feel military action is wrong study not World War II but rather the period between 1933 and 1939. Most people may not be aware of this but the peace movement was so strong in the last 20's that many countries (USA, UK, France, and Germany) signed a treaty outlawing war as a means to settle disputes. That is one of the reasons Japan referred to their war in China in the 30s as the "China incident" since they had signed that treaty.

Throughout the 30s, countries took the route of trying to understand what Germany wanted. What could be done to make them happy. The reality is that some people are evil. And their evil must be espunged.

I still think that bin Ladden and his gang are nothing but a criminal organisation. I believe that openly declaring war on them is giving them too much credit. Bin Ladden is not a general and his followers are no soldiers. They are terrorists, criminals.
It is my opinion that they should be brought to justice and sentenced to death by lethal injection, like any other similar criminals.

Having said that, the Taliban particular case is somewhat different an their regime deserves to be brought down, as other dictatorships throughout the world, including so-called allied countries such as Saudie Arabia.

Paxx lethal injection is to quick and easy for Bin Ladden, he should really be hurt and not just for his recent actions....

In response to the rest of the world "putting their money where their mouth is" As an Australian I'd like to point out that our Prime Minister activated the ANZUS treaty almost immediatly after heaing of the attacks (being in the US at the time) in short, Australian troops are ready to follow any orders handed down from the president.

Hmm, I'm glad you guys don't run the world. It would be a vile place then (read your posts and then guess how I came to that conclusion).

Which 'guys' are you referring to?

Ghostman, let me clarify. Aussies have always been willing to risk their lives to do what is right. During WWII, Australia's 20,000 Thieves held off Rommel in the desert without benefit of air or armor support, until the 8th Army and the Americans were able to relieve them. No question of their courage.

Specifically, I questioned Syria, Libya and the Palestinian States willingness to oppose terrorism. Without these countries, the war will be prolonged. With their support, Bin Laden can be arrested, tried for crimes against humanity and punished.

One has to wonder what kind of country would give Bin Laden aid? North Korea, as totalitarian a dictatorship as you can find, today voiced it's opposition to the US and British efforts to bring Bin Laden to justice. This is as inconceivable to me as a government that would help the Nazis arrest and murder its own citizens. As was done in Vichy France, for example.

I'm very disappointed that you Frogboy understand what I said in that way... As far as my knowledge in history is concerned, well I would give the address of my web site, but I'm a specialist of the history of the 20th century So what would I say : I don't have an utopic point of view, but a realistic one. I wouldn't say that we shouldn't make war, but I just say I think this war hasn't begun on good bases, since the opinion of 95% of the world has pressurized the United States so that they find someone guilty as quick as possible : I would never say that Ben Laden is not the right guilty man, but just that all this hasn't been done cold-headed...

As a former ''Regular'' and Vietnam double tour returnee, I am very cynical of those who ''wrap themselves in the flag'' and bay for war!
Frogboy, I doubt if you have ever been under fire or even worn a uniform......killing people while avoiding their attempts at returning the favour is not pleasant.
As horrendous as it was, the WTC incident is not unexpected, the US being one of the most disliked nations on the planet, in many cases unjustifed, in others deservedly so.
While 100,000+ Turks can be killed in an earthquake, or the Pakistanis might lose more in a flood, all they receive is a 15 second grab on CNN and a single page 3 half column in the Times!
Why ''disliked'' you ask?
Bungled military operations litter the past 20 years or so, Vietnam, Granada, Panama, not forgetting the unfinished business in the Gulf and the Balkans.
More than this, a disturbingly blinkered view of anything beyond the Canadian or Mexican borders, or the East and West coasts.
Unpalatable truths, but they remain so.
John A Lancaster.
Ex 1SAS/3RAR.

Earthquakes and floods are "acts of god". Ramming airplanes into buildings are acts of man. And did I say I bay for war? No. But those who disagree with US policy should at least put together an alternative that is going to be EFFECTIVE.

And I don't think I need to be shot at in order to have an opinion on the matter. Our military, btw, is a volunteer force. If a person comes in and kills my family, I think it okay for me to demand that the policy do what is necessary to bring the murders and their associates to justice without me having ever been a police officer.

If someone has a better solution than what the US is pursuing, then go ahead, present it. But there better be good reason to think it will be effective.

History has shown that military force IS effective. Give us an alternative.

I personnally didn't say that I disagreed with US policy : I just say the contrary, that is to say that we hadn't let the US policy do his job in good conditions. I just hope I wasn't included in the "THOSE who disagree with US policy"

Military force is effective against a distiguishable target. Eliminate that target and the problem is solved. Unfortunately, this is not a one on one situation. Eliminate the target and you give rise to other threats all across the globe who see this elimination as a threat to themselves. This means you'll keep fighting and fighting and it will never really stop. It will just knock out the current threat for now.

Kill Ben Ladden in action and he will be even more dangerous dead than he was alive. He will be raised to the staus of hero of war.
Bring him to justice, show him in the face of the World with cuffs at the wrists and ankles, lock him up in a cell on death row for a few years. Show the World the criminal he really is, not a great courageous general. Because, right now, a lot of people are seeing him as a David who has the courage to oppose the Goliath that the US are.
Let's not make him a hero, but this war might just do that...

There are lots of people who hate in the world. But you can take away their means to carry out their hate.