This is how

[garyd]

- or cathartic shock.

 

[FistyTheBadger]

Had the 'cowboy' done a real approach and gotten Bin Laden, another attack would be far less likely.

There has been zero attack since 9-11-01.

Well isn't this because we gave them a target closer to home to shoot at ?

One of Bush's first lines concerning fighting in Iraq is that if we fight them over there, we won't have to fight them over here. And over here, we were not fighting. They targeted civilians. They had no intention of engaging in a just and honorable war. They just want to kill us. And, that is not all we have been doing. You talk as though the only reason they are not attacking us is because they are getting their fill of us on their home turf, and have no reason to fill up on our own soil. The reality is that Bush and the networks of intelligence that he used stopped further terrorist attacks from taking place.

 

[bigdaddygtr]

How about this, stay out of war there completely? Stop supporting Israel, stop funding revolutions and replacing dictators with other dictators(Sadaam for example), and only get involved when we absolutely have to. But it all starts with stopping funding Israel's military, they got one now thats good so we have no more need to fund it

 

[Old Rocks]

The price unfortunately would seem for all too many (and one would be too many) a cathartic shock.

Get Bin Laden? Everyone would like to get their hands on Osama bin Laden but that would require either A) we get damn lucky with a predator the next time he sticks his head out of his cave, or B) we launch a full scale invasion of Northern Pakistan which has nuclear weapons.

We are not your enemies... Yeah Bush only said that about a million times.

I don't know who fed the liberals the line, "If only Bush had gotten BinLaden we would have conquered terrorism" Maybe it was Bill Clinton. Yathink?

Silly ass. Nobody ever said that. What has been said is that particular threat would have been removed. After 9-11, even Iran offered us help in getting Bin Laden. Had we done that, aided Afghanistan by rebuilding basic Afghan infrastructure, then got the hell out, the rest of the world would have stood and cheered. We do not need to be in the mid-east, serving as target practice for all sides of ages old tribal and religious conflicts.

Bin Laden is far smarter than the average terrorist, and removing him would remove a major threat. Bush failed to do this. In fact, his administration did not even recognize the danger, referring to "Clinton's fixation concerning Bin Laden", prior to 9-11. We paid a high price for that lack of recognition. We may pay an even higher price for the failure to take him out, and, by invading Iraq, giving him the perfect recuiting tool.

Another point. Obama can favorably influence many people in these areas by talking to them, rather than just rattling sabres. But for those like Bin Laden, the sabre is the only answer. I think Obama well realizes that, and will not repeat the mistakes of the prior administration.

 

[dilloduck]

The price unfortunately would seem for all too many (and one would be too many) a cathartic shock.

Get Bin Laden? Everyone would like to get their hands on Osama bin Laden but that would require either A) we get damn lucky with a predator the next time he sticks his head out of his cave, or B) we launch a full scale invasion of Northern Pakistan which has nuclear weapons.

We are not your enemies... Yeah Bush only said that about a million times.

I don't know who fed the liberals the line, "If only Bush had gotten BinLaden we would have conquered terrorism" Maybe it was Bill Clinton. Yathink?

Silly ass. Nobody ever said that. What has been said is that particular threat would have been removed. After 9-11, even Iran offered us help in getting Bin Laden. Had we done that, aided Afghanistan by rebuilding basic Afghan infrastructure, then got the hell out, the rest of the world would have stood and cheered. We do not need to be in the mid-east, serving as target practice for all sides of ages old tribal and religious conflicts.

Bin Laden is far smarter than the average terrorist, and removing him would remove a major threat. Bush failed to do this. In fact, his administration did not even recognize the danger, referring to "Clinton's fixation concerning Bin Laden", prior to 9-11. We paid a high price for that lack of recognition. We may pay an even higher price for the failure to take him out, and, by invading Iraq, giving him the perfect recuiting tool.

Another point. Obama can favorably influence many people in these areas by talking to them, rather than just rattling sabres. But for those like Bin Laden, the sabre is the only answer. I think Obama well realizes that, and will not repeat the mistakes of the prior administration.

Are you suggesting we invade Pakistan ?

 

[FistyTheBadger]

How about this, stay out of war there completely? Stop supporting Israel, stop funding revolutions and replacing dictators with other dictators(Sadaam for example), and only get involved when we absolutely have to. But it all starts with stopping funding Israel's military, they got one now thats good so we have no more need to fund it

This is why socialists are fucking morons. You don't give help based upon any sense of justice, just a "need" for it, and you don't end help based upon any sense of justice, just a determination that they don't need it.

I fucking love (Actually, I fucking hate) how you don't start by ending support and aid to the Palestinians, or any Arab countries. You go right after Israel, the one source of morality and freedom in the Middle East.

 

[garyd]

By the way it is damn hard to build infrastructure when the other side blows it up almost as fast as you can build it.

 

[FistyTheBadger]

By the way it is damn hard to build infrastructure when the other side blows it up almost as fast as you can build it.

What you mean is, "It's damn hard to build infrastructure when at the same time you are firing ketushas into Israel, destroying an entire town and forcing its inhabitants underground and provoking them to attack you."

 

[Missourian]

We should double our aid to Israel, not end it.

When your dog craps on the floor, do you pet it?

If your child bring home a failing report card, do you take them to Chuck E. Cheese?

When you catch your wife cheating, do you buy her a diamond ring?

Of course not, because it isn't smart to reward bad behavior. That only encourages more of the same.

If we cave in to the terrorists we only teach them and everyone else, that terrorism is the best choice to reach their goals.

 

[garyd]

Fisty my response was in regard to Afghanistan. The notion that everything wrong in the Middle East is somehow linked to Israel is at best irrational given that the Muslims have been killing each other in the Middle East before Muhammad's corpse had time to begin decaying.

 

[WillowTree]

The price unfortunately would seem for all too many (and one would be too many) a cathartic shock.

Get Bin Laden? Everyone would like to get their hands on Osama bin Laden but that would require either A) we get damn lucky with a predator the next time he sticks his head out of his cave, or B) we launch a full scale invasion of Northern Pakistan which has nuclear weapons.

We are not your enemies... Yeah Bush only said that about a million times.

I don't know who fed the liberals the line, "If only Bush had gotten BinLaden we would have conquered terrorism" Maybe it was Bill Clinton. Yathink?

Silly ass. Nobody ever said that. What has been said is that particular threat would have been removed. After 9-11, even Iran offered us help in getting Bin Laden. Had we done that, aided Afghanistan by rebuilding basic Afghan infrastructure, then got the hell out, the rest of the world would have stood and cheered. We do not need to be in the mid-east, serving as target practice for all sides of ages old tribal and religious conflicts.

Bin Laden is far smarter than the average terrorist, and removing him would remove a major threat. Bush failed to do this. In fact, his administration did not even recognize the danger, referring to "Clinton's fixation concerning Bin Laden", prior to 9-11. We paid a high price for that lack of recognition. We may pay an even higher price for the failure to take him out, and, by invading Iraq, giving him the perfect recuiting tool.

Another point. Obama can favorably influence many people in these areas by talking to them, rather than just rattling sabres. But for those like Bin Laden, the sabre is the only answer. I think Obama well realizes that, and will not repeat the mistakes of the prior administration.

Perhaps Clinton shouldn't have passed up his two chances. what an azz he was.

 

[WillowTree]

The price unfortunately would seem for all too many (and one would be too many) a cathartic shock.

Get Bin Laden? Everyone would like to get their hands on Osama bin Laden but that would require either A) we get damn lucky with a predator the next time he sticks his head out of his cave, or B) we launch a full scale invasion of Northern Pakistan which has nuclear weapons.

We are not your enemies... Yeah Bush only said that about a million times.

I don't know who fed the liberals the line, "If only Bush had gotten BinLaden we would have conquered terrorism" Maybe it was Bill Clinton. Yathink?

Silly ass. Nobody ever said that. What has been said is that particular threat would have been removed. After 9-11, even Iran offered us help in getting Bin Laden. Had we done that, aided Afghanistan by rebuilding basic Afghan infrastructure, then got the hell out, the rest of the world would have stood and cheered. We do not need to be in the mid-east, serving as target practice for all sides of ages old tribal and religious conflicts.

Bin Laden is far smarter than the average terrorist, and removing him would remove a major threat. Bush failed to do this. In fact, his administration did not even recognize the danger, referring to "Clinton's fixation concerning Bin Laden", prior to 9-11. We paid a high price for that lack of recognition. We may pay an even higher price for the failure to take him out, and, by invading Iraq, giving him the perfect recuiting tool.

Another point. Obama can favorably influence many people in these areas by talking to them, rather than just rattling sabres. But for those like Bin Laden, the sabre is the only answer. I think Obama well realizes that, and will not repeat the mistakes of the prior administration.

You said it..

Had the 'cowboy' done a real approach and gotten Bin Laden, another attack would be far less likely

.

 

[Sunni Man]

Has anyone stopped to ask why are these people fighting against us?

Do they have a legitimate complaint that needs to be heard?

Are they fighting and bombing as a last resort because we won't listen to their grievances?

 

[FistyTheBadger]

Has anyone stopped to ask why are these people fighting against us?

Do they have a legitimate complaint that needs to be heard?

Are they fighting and bombing as a last resort because we won't listen to their grievances?

I have thought about it. The answers are no.

 

[dilloduck]

Has anyone stopped to ask why are these people fighting against us?

Do they have a legitimate complaint that needs to be heard?

Are they fighting and bombing as a last resort because we won't listen to their grievances?

AS near as I can tell they hate us becasue we're not muslims and we won't let them wipe out Israel. Is there anything we can honestly change about that ?

 

[WillowTree]

Has anyone stopped to ask why are these people fighting against us?

Do they have a legitimate complaint that needs to be heard?

Are they fighting and bombing as a last resort because we won't listen to their grievances?

and blah blah blah blah,, you cover for the monsters every time. justify attacks on Israel, no problems with suicide bombers blowing up innocent Israeli, No problem with them flying jets and killing 3000 Americans. Why? Cause they have a grievance? Then you whine like a baby when one of their children die.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Oh my, this kind of stuff kills me. They act as if Obama is the first one to say this and/or try this. It didn't work for the others and it is not going to work now. There first has to be a willingness to heal the problems in that 'region' before it will happen. It has to come from within the region first.

I wish Obama the most success with his efforts and I hope that for some reason fractions do choose to listen to him, but history tells us to not get too excited.

Let's not confuse substance and style. Obama, as he had said he would, is taking a regional approach to ME problems, and that is exactly what Bush did and was so harshly criticized for by the Democrats. Instead of following Clinton's failed approach of directly intervening between the Palestinians and Israel, Bush set out to change attitudes in the Arab world first, and if there is any doubt that he has succeeded just look at the dramatic difference between how the Arab states reacted to the reoccupation of the West Band and how they reacted to the Gaza operation. Back in 2003, the Arab states were demanding Egypt go to war with Israel, and this time around, they were arresting anyone who suggested that.

Obama is smart enough not to change a policy that has worked, and let's hope that Bush's regional approach to these problems is even more successful when presented with Obama's very different personal style.

 

[garyd]

Sunni man their complaint as near as I can figure out is that this is no longer the 14th century when Islam held the whip hand and the west with whom they have been at war ever since they discovered there was a west and that it wasn't Islamic looked to be on the way out as a non Islamic world.

To be sure there is also a good deal of angst coming from second and third generation Muslims living in the West. A fear that because they have a good life and plenty when all they see in the Islamic world is strife and poverty and they aren't suffering like there Muslim brothers that they some how aren't as good a Muslim as they should be and this makes them prone to listening to rabble rousers and worse at some of the local Mosques.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Has anyone stopped to ask why are these people fighting against us?

Do they have a legitimate complaint that needs to be heard?

Are they fighting and bombing as a last resort because we won't listen to their grievances?

No.

 

[garyd]

Yes they have. Sorry we didn't find those reasons valid.