Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
preemptingyou03
Member
- Mar 18, 2004
- 369
- 4
- 16
No matter what Bush does, libs will find something wrong with it.
preemptingyou03
Member
- Mar 18, 2004
- 369
- 4
- 16
ST8,
You fail to understand something about al-Qaeda and terrorism. It is state sponsored. In the book, "Endgame" they list the "Web of Terror." There are eight nations that have supported terrorism on a lavish scale, and they are Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and North Korea.
We've dealt with Afghanistan and Iraq. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are turning around. And Libya is, as well.
There are many terrorist networks, many terrorist cells, many terrorist groups, and many terrorist organizations. But there are only a select few nations that support these people. Your claim to "internationalize" the War on Terror is correct, and while is sounds peachy, it isn't true.
There will be different allies and different coalitions for different campaigns. France was with us in Afghanistan (hardly) but because of oil and financial ties, they weren't with us in Iraq.
Our mission shouldn't be "to be loved" anymore. We've tried that. The fact is, in a post-Cold War world, we're the only superpower, and people hate that. People hate our conservatice, religious, and capitalist roots. They hate our gung-ho spirit. They hate our success. They hate that. And we shouldn't care. We shouldn't care about anti-Americanism from socialists. By allowing Syria to have a Security Council vote and by putting Libya as head of the Human Rights Watch, the international community legitimizes these nations that, until they stop supporting terrorism, have no legitimacy.
We should, however, understand that radicalism will be inflamed due to fighting terrorism. But with no state sponsors, with no camps, with no funds, with no where to hide, terrorists will be left helpless. Not only that, but freedom and democracy will inevitably reduce radicalism in the generations to come.
You can't see the endgame. And f you don't think removing al-Qaeda's camps, sponsorships, shelter, funding, and killing 75% of its leaders and 7 out of the top 10 leaders, is "doing something" on al-Qaeda, you're fooling yourself.
You cannot militarily invade non-geographical forces. Understand that, then let's argue about al-Qaeda.
You fail to understand something about al-Qaeda and terrorism. It is state sponsored. In the book, "Endgame" they list the "Web of Terror." There are eight nations that have supported terrorism on a lavish scale, and they are Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and North Korea.
We've dealt with Afghanistan and Iraq. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are turning around. And Libya is, as well.
There are many terrorist networks, many terrorist cells, many terrorist groups, and many terrorist organizations. But there are only a select few nations that support these people. Your claim to "internationalize" the War on Terror is correct, and while is sounds peachy, it isn't true.
There will be different allies and different coalitions for different campaigns. France was with us in Afghanistan (hardly) but because of oil and financial ties, they weren't with us in Iraq.
Our mission shouldn't be "to be loved" anymore. We've tried that. The fact is, in a post-Cold War world, we're the only superpower, and people hate that. People hate our conservatice, religious, and capitalist roots. They hate our gung-ho spirit. They hate our success. They hate that. And we shouldn't care. We shouldn't care about anti-Americanism from socialists. By allowing Syria to have a Security Council vote and by putting Libya as head of the Human Rights Watch, the international community legitimizes these nations that, until they stop supporting terrorism, have no legitimacy.
We should, however, understand that radicalism will be inflamed due to fighting terrorism. But with no state sponsors, with no camps, with no funds, with no where to hide, terrorists will be left helpless. Not only that, but freedom and democracy will inevitably reduce radicalism in the generations to come.
You can't see the endgame. And f you don't think removing al-Qaeda's camps, sponsorships, shelter, funding, and killing 75% of its leaders and 7 out of the top 10 leaders, is "doing something" on al-Qaeda, you're fooling yourself.
You cannot militarily invade non-geographical forces. Understand that, then let's argue about al-Qaeda.
We agree on one thing, and that is that you can't militarily invade a non-geographic entity, so why then did Bush invade a geographic entity in the name of destroying a non-geographic entity? I think the American people would've been far more supportive of invading Iraq if Bush had been honest about the real purpose, which was regime change, not fighting terrorism.
The problem with these new international terrorist groups is they are very hard to track, hard to weed out, and hard to kill. Sure, some of them are in Afghanistan, some may have been in Iraq, but then Osama and Saddam weren't exactly buddies (which is, of course, contrary to what Bush would have us believe).
Terrorism has no easy solution. Simply invading every country we think has sponsored or is sponsoring terrorism won't stop terrorism. What it will do, however, is get increasing numbers of service people killed.
acludem
The problem with these new international terrorist groups is they are very hard to track, hard to weed out, and hard to kill. Sure, some of them are in Afghanistan, some may have been in Iraq, but then Osama and Saddam weren't exactly buddies (which is, of course, contrary to what Bush would have us believe).
Terrorism has no easy solution. Simply invading every country we think has sponsored or is sponsoring terrorism won't stop terrorism. What it will do, however, is get increasing numbers of service people killed.
acludem
Hobbit
Senior Member
Originally posted by acludem
We agree on one thing, and that is that you can't militarily invade a non-geographic entity, so why then did Bush invade a geographic entity in the name of destroying a non-geographic entity? I think the American people would've been far more supportive of invading Iraq if Bush had been honest about the real purpose, which was regime change, not fighting terrorism.
The problem with these new international terrorist groups is they are very hard to track, hard to weed out, and hard to kill. Sure, some of them are in Afghanistan, some may have been in Iraq, but then Osama and Saddam weren't exactly buddies (which is, of course, contrary to what Bush would have us believe).
Terrorism has no easy solution. Simply invading every country we think has sponsored or is sponsoring terrorism won't stop terrorism. What it will do, however, is get increasing numbers of service people killed.
acludem
First off, anyone who thought there wouldn't be a regime change was nuts. Second, invading countries may not destroy terrorism, but it cuts off their line of supply. If we can't root them out, we starve them out.
insein
Senior Member
Originally posted by preemptingyou03
No matter what Bush does, libs will find something wrong with it.
Sure they will and thats the problem. When your campaign slogan is "Anybody but Bush in 2004" then your not really looking to progress the country foward are they.
insein
Senior Member
Originally posted by acludem
We agree on one thing, and that is that you can't militarily invade a non-geographic entity, so why then did Bush invade a geographic entity in the name of destroying a non-geographic entity? I think the American people would've been far more supportive of invading Iraq if Bush had been honest about the real purpose, which was regime change, not fighting terrorism.
The problem with these new international terrorist groups is they are very hard to track, hard to weed out, and hard to kill. Sure, some of them are in Afghanistan, some may have been in Iraq, but then Osama and Saddam weren't exactly buddies (which is, of course, contrary to what Bush would have us believe).
Terrorism has no easy solution. Simply invading every country we think has sponsored or is sponsoring terrorism won't stop terrorism. What it will do, however, is get increasing numbers of service people killed.
acludem
Apparently you didnt read prempting's post at all.
S
st8_o_mind
Guest
- Thread starter
- #48
Originally posted by preemptingyou03
ST8,
You fail to understand something about al-Qaeda and terrorism. It is state sponsored. In the book, "Endgame" they list the "Web of Terror." There are eight nations that have supported terrorism on a lavish scale, and they are Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and North Korea.
We've dealt with Afghanistan and Iraq. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are turning around. And Libya is, as well.
There are many terrorist networks, many terrorist cells, many terrorist groups, and many terrorist organizations. But there are only a select few nations that support these people. Your claim to "internationalize" the War on Terror is correct, and while is sounds peachy, it isn't true.
There will be different allies and different coalitions for different campaigns. France was with us in Afghanistan (hardly) but because of oil and financial ties, they weren't with us in Iraq.
Our mission shouldn't be "to be loved" anymore. We've tried that. The fact is, in a post-Cold War world, we're the only superpower, and people hate that. People hate our conservatice, religious, and capitalist roots. They hate our gung-ho spirit. They hate our success. They hate that. And we shouldn't care. We shouldn't care about anti-Americanism from socialists. By allowing Syria to have a Security Council vote and by putting Libya as head of the Human Rights Watch, the international community legitimizes these nations that, until they stop supporting terrorism, have no legitimacy.
We should, however, understand that radicalism will be inflamed due to fighting terrorism. But with no state sponsors, with no camps, with no funds, with no where to hide, terrorists will be left helpless. Not only that, but freedom and democracy will inevitably reduce radicalism in the generations to come.
You can't see the endgame. And f you don't think removing al-Qaeda's camps, sponsorships, shelter, funding, and killing 75% of its leaders and 7 out of the top 10 leaders, is "doing something" on al-Qaeda, you're fooling yourself.
You cannot militarily invade non-geographical forces. Understand that, then let's argue about al-Qaeda.
"You fail to understand something about al-Qaeda and terrorism. It is state sponsored. "
Some is, some is not. The recent terrorists attacks in Spain, Turkey, Indonesia to name a few were not sponsored by states. Neither for that matter was Timothy McVeigh, the Unibomber or the KKK.
We've dealt with Afghanistan and Iraq. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are turning around. And Libya is, as well.
We've invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are our allies. Libya is our new buddy. Blair just got back from Libya.
What is your point? All these countries sponsor terrorism according to your book but we can provide military aide to some and bomb others into pre-industrial societies.
Don't get me wrong. I don't believe there is a "one size fits all" formula to foreign policy, but you make a strong case by your own example that according to Washinging, the difference between a good terrorist and a bad terrorist is whatever is in Washington's interest at the time. And when the dictator is no longer of use to the US to further its agenda, we declair them suddenly a bad terrorist and bomb their country or in the opposite case of Libya, give them a "get out of jail free" card.
The biggest problem with this is not that it is immoral, unjust, or ignores the horrendous suffering of the people living under the brutal dictators we support, like Saddam a few years ago, or ignores the suffering we inflict when we bomb the cities of the terrorists we don't like. The biggest problem is that it simply does not work.
We will do far more to defend ourselves against terrorism if we advance American principals -- democracy, human rights, a free press and an independent judiciary, etc. -- than if we pick and choose which dictator we like today. That is what the world resents -- not our "gung-ho spirit."
"freedom and democracy will inevitably reduce radicalism in the generations to come"
I 100% agree with that. How do we advance those principals. Personally, I think we should be dropping school teachers on Afghanistan villages instead of cluster bombs if that is our goal.
"...and by putting Libya as head of the [UN] Human Rights [Commitee] the international community legitimizes these nations..."
I 100% agree with that too.
I want to close by writing that, while I disagree with much of what you wrote, I appreciate your thoughtful response to my post and, I'm sorry if I got long-winded, but I thought you deserved a answer in kind.
insein
Senior Member
Originally posted by st8_o_mind
We've invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are our allies. Libya is our new buddy. Blair just got back from Libya. What is your point? All these countries sponsor terrorism according to your book but we can provide military aide to some and bomb others into pre-industrial societies.
If these countries in the future pose an imminent threat to the US or its allies, then they too will be dealt with in kind. For now they see the consequences and would rather be part of the solution instead of the problem.
As for pre-industrialized societies, i don't think theyve reached that era as of yet. If anything we are advancing them further technologically into the modern era once they establish a government chosen by the people.
Don't get me wrong. I don't believe there is a "one size fits all" formula to foreign policy, but you make a strong case by your own example that according to Washinging, the difference between a good terrorist and a bad terrorist is whatever is in Washington's interest at the time.
Your right. there is no cookie cutter approach to attacking terrorism. Afghanistan was different than Iraq and future engagements will be different from them.
And when the dictator is no longer of use to the US to further its agenda, we declair them suddenly a bad terrorist and bomb their country or in the opposite case of Libya, give them a "get out of jail free" card.
What agenda are we pushing? That people don't have to live in fear of their government or the animals that they employ to control that fear? How has Libya gotten a get out of Jail free card? They dont pose an immenant threat to the US and have shown that they want to be a part of the solution up to this point. When they move away from that position, they will be dealt with.
The biggest problem with this is not that it is immoral, unjust, or ignores the horrendous suffering of the people living under the brutal dictators we support, like Saddam a few years ago, or ignores the suffering we inflict when we bomb the cities of the terrorists we don't like. The biggest problem is that it simply does not work.
First off your time table is a few decades off. It hasnt been since the 80's that we were forced to side with Sadaam to confront Iran. Secondly, i agree that simply bombing a city that harbors terrorists isnt effective. You need to take out the regime that allows those terrorists to live there, to eat there, to train there, to receive weapons and supplies there. That means invasion in some cases.
We will do far more to defend ourselves against terrorism if we advance American principals -- democracy, human rights, a free press and an independent judiciary, etc. -- than if we pick and choose which dictator we like today. That is what the world resents -- not our "gung-ho spirit."
And how do you supoose we do that? Missionaries? Send some good meaning but dillusional liberal Help groups over there so they can be slaughtered by those animals? You think they'll let you stand by and convert their fear controleld populace into Free thinking individuals? You think they wont Kill you on the spot simply for being an American or any person who wishes to spread an ideaology that opposes theirs?
"freedom and democracy will inevitably reduce radicalism in the generations to come"
I 100% agree with that. How do we advance those principals. Personally, I think we should be dropping school teachers on Afghanistan villages instead of cluster bombs if that is our goal.
Again, do we just drop them in there and send the flowers to their families before or after they get out of the plane?
You obviously mean well as im sure most liberals do. But your views of these animals are dilluted. We cant defeat them by converting them. We cant convert the people they control because they wont let you. So the only solution would be to sit around and do nothing while American lives are in danger and while those innocent civilians in the middle East, that you seem to care for more than ours, continue to be oppressed by a Fundamentalist society that gives them no rights and tells them what to think. Force is all they understand.
Originally posted by acludem
but then Osama and Saddam weren't exactly buddies (which is, of course, contrary to what Bush would have us believe).
Oh really, did you hear something that the rest of us didn't? I heard GWB state in January of 2003 (Before the war!) that there was no connection between Saddam and Osama.
Do you just make stuff up as you go along, or do you just have selective hearing?
preemptingyou03
Member
- Mar 18, 2004
- 369
- 4
- 16
ST8,
We seem to agree on a lot of things, especially how to win the War on Terror. But we disagree on the tactics to fight it. Personally, I don't see any better way to make a big splash against terrorism than to end terrorist sponsors. For some odd reason, you overlook Saddam's support for terrorism. Secular dictators have allied themselves with terrorists and will continue to do so.
Perfect example: before 9/11, the Iranian Mullahs and the Taliban were on the eve of war, yet during Operation Enduring Freedom, Iran sheltered fallen Taliban regime members as well as al-Qaeda fighters.
You said, we need to drop school teachers on Afghanistan and not bombs. I agree in one sense and that is we need to start trying much harder in the propaganda war. We need to and we must.
If fighting in Iraq inflamed radicalism by 50%, I'm sure only 1-5% of those will actually ever partake in terrorist activity... yet without state sponsors, funds, money, and organization, the most damage they can do is launch a RPG at an American soldier in Baghdad.
The more we fight terrorism, the more we'll experience it until it is defeated. But the threat of terrorism can never get any higher than what it was on 9/11.
The funny part is this: we can fight terrorism the way we are. We can take down Syria next. We can take down Iran after that. We can pressure the North Koreans. We can capture Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Syria can become stabile places... but all it takes is one terrorist nut with one WMD in a suitcase. If this happens, it doesn't mean our tactics in fighting terrorism aren't working. It means we must up the ante!
In regards to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan... Pakistan supported the Taliban before 9/11. They no longer do. However, if radicals were to take over their country, we would be in a tough spot. As for Saudi Arabia... people within their county support terrorism, not the regime as a whole. It doesn't require the military aspect of fighting terror.
We seem to agree on a lot of things, especially how to win the War on Terror. But we disagree on the tactics to fight it. Personally, I don't see any better way to make a big splash against terrorism than to end terrorist sponsors. For some odd reason, you overlook Saddam's support for terrorism. Secular dictators have allied themselves with terrorists and will continue to do so.
Perfect example: before 9/11, the Iranian Mullahs and the Taliban were on the eve of war, yet during Operation Enduring Freedom, Iran sheltered fallen Taliban regime members as well as al-Qaeda fighters.
You said, we need to drop school teachers on Afghanistan and not bombs. I agree in one sense and that is we need to start trying much harder in the propaganda war. We need to and we must.
If fighting in Iraq inflamed radicalism by 50%, I'm sure only 1-5% of those will actually ever partake in terrorist activity... yet without state sponsors, funds, money, and organization, the most damage they can do is launch a RPG at an American soldier in Baghdad.
The more we fight terrorism, the more we'll experience it until it is defeated. But the threat of terrorism can never get any higher than what it was on 9/11.
The funny part is this: we can fight terrorism the way we are. We can take down Syria next. We can take down Iran after that. We can pressure the North Koreans. We can capture Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Syria can become stabile places... but all it takes is one terrorist nut with one WMD in a suitcase. If this happens, it doesn't mean our tactics in fighting terrorism aren't working. It means we must up the ante!
In regards to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan... Pakistan supported the Taliban before 9/11. They no longer do. However, if radicals were to take over their country, we would be in a tough spot. As for Saudi Arabia... people within their county support terrorism, not the regime as a whole. It doesn't require the military aspect of fighting terror.
Originally posted by acludem
How is Bush "holding the terrorists accountable"? He's all but abandoned Afghanistan, don't believe me? Ask the guy we put in power, he's wondering if we haven't abandoned them.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2003/n02262003_200302269.html
There's a story from the armed forces news network...or is this a liberal media source?
Bush is so obsessed with Iraq, he's all but forgotten the terrorists. Is he helping to go after those responsible for bombing of the Spanish communter train? How about the terrorists threatening to attack France? Oh, wait, France supports the terrorists so to hell with them.
acludem
How very typical , you quote an article that you either didn't read or you're too stupid to comprehend , which is it acludem?
You are so very misinformed and seem content in your ignorance as all deciples of the New York Times do .
Try to find someone with a brain to reread that story to you and maybe illustrate it with stick figures , whatever it takes to jar some sense into that vacant space between your ears . I don't mean anything bad by that , I feel pity for you and forgive you for being so full of crap.
Originally posted by sitarro
How very typical , you quote an article that you either didn't read or you're too stupid to comprehend , which is it acludem?
You are so very misinformed and seem content in your ignorance as all deciples of the New York Times do .
Try to find someone with a brain to reread that story to you and maybe illustrate it with stick figures , whatever it takes to jar some sense into that vacant space between your ears . I don't mean anything bad by that , I feel pity for you and forgive you for being so full of crap.
No kidding, man! How the hell does anyone manage to read anti-Bush negativity into that?
Did you read the article? Hamad Karzai, the guy we put in as President of Afghanistan warned against forgetting about the trouble in his country. That was the point of the article. Here's a quote from his speech to Congress:
"If you leave the whole thing for us to fight again, it will be repeating the mistakes that the United States made during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan," Karzai told members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Were we reading two different articles? I still don't have an answer, does our war on terrorism extend to those responsible for bombing the train in Spain? Or those threating further actions in Spain and France?
acludem
"If you leave the whole thing for us to fight again, it will be repeating the mistakes that the United States made during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan," Karzai told members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Were we reading two different articles? I still don't have an answer, does our war on terrorism extend to those responsible for bombing the train in Spain? Or those threating further actions in Spain and France?
acludem
Originally posted by acludem
Did you read the article? Hamad Karzai, the guy we put in as President of Afghanistan warned against forgetting about the trouble in his country.
Yes, WARNED. That doesn't mean it has happened. Don't just read the article, comprehend it too.
Yes, he was warning us, this was two months ago, and so far Bush has ignored his warning. Afghanistan was only the launching point for Bush's ultimate goal of a war with Iraq, that's why it's been pushed so quickly to the back burner.
acludem
acludem
Originally posted by acludem
Yes, he was warning us, this was two months ago, and so far Bush has ignored his warning.
Karzai didn't hesitate to warn the US not to forget him. You say Bush has. Can you now post Karzai's comments since Bush ignored him?
Do you even have a clue who is still in Afghanistan and from what countries?
preemptingyou03
Member
- Mar 18, 2004
- 369
- 4
- 16
People don't understand what we did in Afghanistan, partly because after 9/11, too many bleeding heart liberals were mourning the attacks for too long. Mourning the attacks was fine... for a little while. Then, our mindset changed and we got ready to react.
We avoided a war with Pakistan... a war that could have gone nuclear. Everyone wanted to just blanket Afghanistan with troops, but Rumsfeld knew that we needed to be quicker and lighter. We got the North Alliance to aid us out and with just a few thousand special forces, we did in a few weeks what the Soviet Union couldn't do in ten years.
There's a story in the book, "The Hunt for bin Laden," where a Northern Alliance general was awaiting an American division to arive at his camp, so they could have taken on the Taliban together, and this general saw in the distance five American soldiers, along with two men in black suits and black glasses. What they were, were five Navy SEALS and two CIA agents. The Northern Alliance general laughed at them and said, quote, "You Americans are funny. The Russians send tens of thousands to kill us. I get about a half-dozen Americans to help us!"
Small, covert warfare, killed 115,000 Taliban fighters in 6 weeks, as well as 13,000 al-Qaeda fighters. Over 230 terrorist camps were destroyed, and thousands of terrorists were captured.
One of al-Qaeda's top three founders, Mohammed Atef, was killed by a drone that was being electronically controlled by a soldier stationed in Florida.
Afghanistan is on the media's back burner. It isn't on the government's.
We avoided a war with Pakistan... a war that could have gone nuclear. Everyone wanted to just blanket Afghanistan with troops, but Rumsfeld knew that we needed to be quicker and lighter. We got the North Alliance to aid us out and with just a few thousand special forces, we did in a few weeks what the Soviet Union couldn't do in ten years.
There's a story in the book, "The Hunt for bin Laden," where a Northern Alliance general was awaiting an American division to arive at his camp, so they could have taken on the Taliban together, and this general saw in the distance five American soldiers, along with two men in black suits and black glasses. What they were, were five Navy SEALS and two CIA agents. The Northern Alliance general laughed at them and said, quote, "You Americans are funny. The Russians send tens of thousands to kill us. I get about a half-dozen Americans to help us!"
Small, covert warfare, killed 115,000 Taliban fighters in 6 weeks, as well as 13,000 al-Qaeda fighters. Over 230 terrorist camps were destroyed, and thousands of terrorists were captured.
One of al-Qaeda's top three founders, Mohammed Atef, was killed by a drone that was being electronically controlled by a soldier stationed in Florida.
Afghanistan is on the media's back burner. It isn't on the government's.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 54
- Views
- 806
- Replies
- 10
- Views
- 377
- Replies
- 21
- Views
- 1K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 24
- Views
- 170
- Replies
- 23
- Views
- 412
- Replies
- 134
- Views
- 804
- Replies
- 224
- Views
- 1K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 7995
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 465
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-