Dick Cheney should really stop playing the blame game.

[Vast LWC]

Cheney knows what he is doing and Obama doesn't. Obama should take lessons from Cheney on how to protect American citizens on American soil.

If by "knows what he is doing" you mean "knows how to shovel bullshit", then I fully agree.

If you mean "knows what he is doing" in terms of dealing with terrorists and foreign policy in general, that would be proven false by the terrible handling of both by him and the rest of the Bush administration.

 

[CMike]

And none of this has disrpoved my point.

If the Christmas Bomber is Obama's fault, then 9/11 is Bush and Cheney's fault.

I don't believe either to be the case, but apparently Cheney does.

You mean you haven't accepted it.

The difference is that Pres. Bush, since 911, built the system and structure to thwart further terrorist attacks, within the US, and it worked for 7 years.

Obama has been dismantelling it. All Obama had to do was keep in place what was already there.

 

[Vast LWC]

Coyote Liability is a tinsy wee bit more coarse than me but I agree on the substance that he said.

We are in a war based on information.

The more information we have about Al Qaida, the easier it is for authorities to stop terrorist attacks that could cost thousands of american civilian lives, and spread panic in this country.

The more information Al Qaida has about our intelligence, the easier it will be for their operatives to successfully execute more terrorist attacks costings potentially thousands of american lives, and spread panic in this country.

The point of a civlian trial is to give the most fair trial possible. In a civilian trial, defendents get to face their accusers and here all the information that damns them.

However, what if giving information to the terorrist and his lawyer, will be used to keep authorities from stopping a terrorist attack to blow up a building in Florida?

What if by revealing the accusers, that source can never be used again, to stop a terrorist attack?

What if you can't get witnesss because they need to be in Iraq in an intelligence operation?

Also, how can average joe jurors be allowed to have sensitve intelligence information critical to stop terrorist attacks? They or their family could then be kidnapped and tortured to reveal that information.

So as Liability said if you don't reveal that information to the defendant how is he getting a fair trial? And if you do reveal that information to the defendant than your crippiling the US capability to stop other attacks?

What is the answer? Military tribunals. They can review all the material and make decisions based on that.

As Liability also said these aren't criminals. They are unlawful combatants. The don't even measure up as POWs because they don't meet the criteria. They have no rights.

The best way to try them is military tribunals.

And no they shouldn't have the right to remain silent. We need the information these scumbags have to thwart further terrorist attacks. There isn't the space to screw around.

1. Soldiers are tried by Military Tribunal. If you try them by Military Tribunal, you are giving them the same legitimacy as one of our soldiers. The same goes for calling them "enemy combatants" in a "war". They are nothing but sociopathic murderers, and deserve to be treated as common criminals, not soldiers.

2. Trying them outside the legal system and imprisoning them for political crimes is tantamount to resurrecting the Soviet-era Gulag system. Next we'll have concentration camps filled with political prisoners. That precedent leads to the next precedent and the next.

Once you start down the road of imprisoning people without a fair trial, not to mention torture, you become your enemy.

Are we now to become terrorists? Shall we kill the friends and families of our enemies in order to make them talk too?

 

[CMike]

"An authoritative US intelligence report pooling the views of 16 government agencies concludes America's campaign in Iraq has increased the threat of terrorism."
Campaign in Iraq has increased terrorism threat, says American intelligence report | World news | The Guardian

That's what happens when you constantly kill people who have never attacked you. Iraq was not a threat as admitted by Cheney on 9/16/01:

Cheney (answering Russert's question if Iraq is harboring terrorists): Saddam Hussein's bottled up, at this point, but clearly, we continue to have a fairly tough policy where the Iraqis are concerned.

MR. RUSSERT: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No.
NBC News' Meet The Press: Dick Cheney

Since that is the transcript I sure hope you won't try to ignore the facts based on the link. This is verifiable through hundreds of links.

Hm. Let's think that through for a brief moment or two:

YOU claim: "Most Western Intel agencies fully agree the [Bush] admin's actions created more terrorist attacks than anyone in modern history." I added the emphasis.

You got challenged. "Prove it," said Mike.

YOU offered this as "proof:" "An authoritative US intelligence report pooling the views of 16 government agencies concludes America's campaign in Iraq has increased the threat of terrorism." Emphasis added.

Thus, YOU are contending that a "conclusion" by 16 governments that our actions increased a RISK of terrorISM is the same as proof that the Administration's Actions created more ACTUAL terrorist ATTACKS.

And, of course, you are flatly wrong. (1) A 16 government concensus is a belief, but it could be erroneous. (2) Furthermore, even if their belief were more or less accurate, they discussed an increased THREAT, not an increased number of actual attacks.

You = Fail, again.

So let's say I am wrong to claim the Bush admin created more terrorist attacks than anyone in modern history. I fully admit that was a false claim and I retract it.

That doesn't change the fact the Bush admin's actions increased terrorism. You dismiss the NIE report because you don't like the conclusion. You give no actual reason to ignore it other than it damages your argument. Then you try to obfuscate by saying it says the BA actions only increased the "threat" of terrorism and not terrorist attacks themselves. Are you serious?


"The rate of terrorist attacks around the

world by jihadist groups and the rate of fa-

talities in those attacks increased dramati-

cally after the invasion of Iraq. Globally

there was a 607 percent rise in the average

yearly incidence of attacks (28.3 attacks per

year before and 199.8

after) and a 237 percent

rise in the average fatal-

ity rate (from 501 to

1,689 deaths per year)."
the iraq effect


We all know you will use any bullshit excuse to ignore the information so please understand: I did not post it for your benefit. I did it because I support the claims I make. You dismissed the NIE report out of childishness and it shows you will ignore any source that does not provide the information you want.

You deserve credit for admitting an error. I give you kudos for that.

The US engaged in a fight. There is going to be more violence. There is going to be more casualties.

The alternative is to sit back and let the terrorists come to us, and attack us within the US.

We have a choice. We either can fight a defensive wait, hoping they won't get through our defenses, and they will. The numbers guarantee it.

The other choice is to take the fight to where they are, and fight the war on our terms. I do agree that there will be more violence as result.

 

[CurveLight]

newp,, won't shut the hell up about it,, if obamalamaie can whine and complain then so can we,, you just want it both ways,, it don't work that way bodunk,, obamie was in office for a year,, he himself said they had everything they needed by way of intelligence they just failed to put it together, he said it was his responsibliity,, so if you want to argue that point take it up with your messiaha,, and as long as you folks want to play the blame game, Cheney has every right to respond.. he does a good job too pointing out obamie's weaknessess.. Put the cia on trial and they are going to undermine yer ass.. maybe,, give that a thought.

Gotta agree. Cheney has every right to point out OL'BO's failings. AFter all, BO and his posse blame everything, even after a year, on Bush and Cheney. Think what you like about those two but they kept this country safe for the 7 years following 9-11. More than I can say for OL'BO. Lets just hope they get their shit together before we have another serious attack her in AMerica. Then who will they blame??

Cheney knows what he is doing and Obama doesn't. Obama should take lessons from Cheney on how to protect American citizens on American soil.

I agree Cheney knows what he is doing. It takes a talented coward to avoid being drafted five times then convince people years later he knows what it means to defend the US. He has absolutely no military experience. He has absolutely no Intel Agency experience. Yet he was able to convince some Americans he knows what he is doing.

He also knows what he is doing when it comes to using fear as a tool. He's got many Americans believing they should give up many Rights. He is Plato's Philosopher King and you dumbasses have bought into his bullshit so deep you will take your arrogance to the grave.

 

[Vast LWC]

You mean you haven't accepted it.

The difference is that Pres. Bush, since 911, built the system and structure to thwart further terrorist attacks, within the US, and it worked for 7 years.

Obama has been dismantelling it. All Obama had to do was keep in place what was already there.

None of your examples of Obama supposedly "dismantling" the Bush anti-terror infrastructure would have had any bearing on the case at hand. And no-one in this thread has proved that it would have.

Again, the only examples you provided were giving Miranda Rights, and stopping torture of detainees.

Thus you have in no way disproved my point.

If you had provided a specifc example of any "dismantling" Mr Obama may have done that directly affected the case at hand, you would have has a point, but you have not.

 

[CMike]

Coyote Liability is a tinsy wee bit more coarse than me but I agree on the substance that he said.

We are in a war based on information.

The more information we have about Al Qaida, the easier it is for authorities to stop terrorist attacks that could cost thousands of american civilian lives, and spread panic in this country.

The more information Al Qaida has about our intelligence, the easier it will be for their operatives to successfully execute more terrorist attacks costings potentially thousands of american lives, and spread panic in this country.

The point of a civlian trial is to give the most fair trial possible. In a civilian trial, defendents get to face their accusers and here all the information that damns them.

However, what if giving information to the terorrist and his lawyer, will be used to keep authorities from stopping a terrorist attack to blow up a building in Florida?

What if by revealing the accusers, that source can never be used again, to stop a terrorist attack?

What if you can't get witnesss because they need to be in Iraq in an intelligence operation?

Also, how can average joe jurors be allowed to have sensitve intelligence information critical to stop terrorist attacks? They or their family could then be kidnapped and tortured to reveal that information.

So as Liability said if you don't reveal that information to the defendant how is he getting a fair trial? And if you do reveal that information to the defendant than your crippiling the US capability to stop other attacks?

What is the answer? Military tribunals. They can review all the material and make decisions based on that.

As Liability also said these aren't criminals. They are unlawful combatants. The don't even measure up as POWs because they don't meet the criteria. They have no rights.

The best way to try them is military tribunals.

And no they shouldn't have the right to remain silent. We need the information these scumbags have to thwart further terrorist attacks. There isn't the space to screw around.

1. Soldiers are tried by Military Tribunal. If you try them by Military Tribunal, you are giving them the same legitimacy as one of our soldiers. The same goes for calling them "enemy combatants" in a "war". They are nothing but sociopathic murderers, and deserve to be treated as common criminals, not soldiers.

2. Trying them outside the legal system and imprisoning them for political crimes is tantamount to resurrecting the Soviet-era Gulag system. Next we'll have concentration camps filled with political prisoners. That precedent leads to the next precedent and the next.

Once you start down the road of imprisoning people without a fair trial, not to mention torture, you become your enemy.

Are we now to become terrorists? Shall we kill the friends and families of our enemies in order to make them talk too?

Al Qaida terrorists don't qualify as POWs under the Geneva Convention.

They are unlawful combatants.

Third Geneva Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:
4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:

that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

 

[Vast LWC]

You deserve credit for admitting an error. I give you kudos for that.

The US engaged in a fight. There is going to be more violence. There is going to be more casualties.

The alternative is to sit back and let the terrorists come to us, and attack us within the US.

We have a choice. We either can fight a defensive wait, hoping they won't get through our defenses, and they will. The numbers guarantee it.

The other choice is to take the fight to where they are, and fight the war on our terms. I do agree that there will be more violence as result.

Which means, simply, that in order to continue to make this strategy work, we will have to be in a constant state of warfare continuously, forever.

By this reasoning we can never withdraw our troops from the countries we are occupying, or the terrorists will immediately begin hitting civilian targets.

I for one am not prepared to engage in an endless state of war, and I don't think the American people are either. If you were to explain to them that this is your solution to the terrorist threat, that we remain in a war until the end of time, then I think you would probably lose support very quickly.

 

[Claudette]

BO has been dismantling some of the protections that worked very well after 9-11. All in his effort for America to be liked around the world and to appease the left wing of his party. He is POTUS and his first responsibility is the safety of this country and we the citizens. I think he is beginning to catch a clue. He needs to smarten the hell up, get off his ass, and do whatever it takes to keep this country safe.

He had better hope and pray that we don't get hit again because if we do I doubt his explainations are going to fly with many.

 

[CurveLight]

Hm. Let's think that through for a brief moment or two:

YOU claim: "Most Western Intel agencies fully agree the [Bush] admin's actions created more terrorist attacks than anyone in modern history." I added the emphasis.

You got challenged. "Prove it," said Mike.

YOU offered this as "proof:" "An authoritative US intelligence report pooling the views of 16 government agencies concludes America's campaign in Iraq has increased the threat of terrorism." Emphasis added.

Thus, YOU are contending that a "conclusion" by 16 governments that our actions increased a RISK of terrorISM is the same as proof that the Administration's Actions created more ACTUAL terrorist ATTACKS.

And, of course, you are flatly wrong. (1) A 16 government concensus is a belief, but it could be erroneous. (2) Furthermore, even if their belief were more or less accurate, they discussed an increased THREAT, not an increased number of actual attacks.

You = Fail, again.

So let's say I am wrong to claim the Bush admin created more terrorist attacks than anyone in modern history. I fully admit that was a false claim and I retract it.

That doesn't change the fact the Bush admin's actions increased terrorism. You dismiss the NIE report because you don't like the conclusion. You give no actual reason to ignore it other than it damages your argument. Then you try to obfuscate by saying it says the BA actions only increased the "threat" of terrorism and not terrorist attacks themselves. Are you serious?


"The rate of terrorist attacks around the

world by jihadist groups and the rate of fa-

talities in those attacks increased dramati-

cally after the invasion of Iraq. Globally

there was a 607 percent rise in the average

yearly incidence of attacks (28.3 attacks per

year before and 199.8

after) and a 237 percent

rise in the average fatal-

ity rate (from 501 to

1,689 deaths per year)."
the iraq effect


We all know you will use any bullshit excuse to ignore the information so please understand: I did not post it for your benefit. I did it because I support the claims I make. You dismissed the NIE report out of childishness and it shows you will ignore any source that does not provide the information you want.

You deserve credit for admitting an error. I give you kudos for that.

The US engaged in a fight. There is going to be more violence. There is going to be more casualties.

The alternative is to sit back and let the terrorists come to us, and attack us within the US.

We have a choice. We either can fight a defensive wait, hoping they won't get through our defenses, and they will. The numbers guarantee it.

The other choice is to take the fight to where they are, and fight the war on our terms. I do agree that there will be more violence as result.

Do you remember what that guy said a few years ago? About 9/11 being our foreign policies coming back to haunt us? He was clearly in a position to know and be informed so why continue to play the victim card? Why pretend we are innocent bystanders that has done nothing to invoke the support for violence against us? Do you realize we are responsible for killing iraqis for every single year since 1990? For TWENTY YEARS STRAIGHT we have been needlessly causing iraqi deaths. Do you know how many have died? Do you even care?

 

[Vast LWC]

Al Qaida terrorists don't qualify as POWs under the Geneva Convention.

They are unlawful combatants.

Third Geneva Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:
4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:

that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Which makes them.... criminals.

They are either POW's or criminals. There is no 'unlawful combatant' category defined by the geneva convention.

Once you start to define anyone captured as an "unlawful combatant" with no rights, you open up the door for your enemies to do the same.

 

[CurveLight]

Please prove it.

"An authoritative US intelligence report pooling the views of 16 government agencies concludes America's campaign in Iraq has increased the threat of terrorism."
Campaign in Iraq has increased terrorism threat, says American intelligence report | World news | The Guardian

That's what happens when you constantly kill people who have never attacked you. Iraq was not a threat as admitted by Cheney on 9/16/01:

Cheney (answering Russert's question if Iraq is harboring terrorists): Saddam Hussein's bottled up, at this point, but clearly, we continue to have a fairly tough policy where the Iraqis are concerned.

MR. RUSSERT: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No.
NBC News' Meet The Press: Dick Cheney

Since that is the transcript I sure hope you won't try to ignore the facts based on the link. This is verifiable through hundreds of links.

Yup, Cheney said that there wasn't evidence that Hussein did 911.

However, Cheney also said

Cheney: No link between Saddam Hussein, 9/11 - CNN.com

"I do not believe and have never seen any evidence to confirm that [Hussein] was involved in 9/11. We had that reporting for a while, [but] eventually it turned out not to be true," Cheney conceded.

But Hussein was "somebody who provided sanctuary and safe harbor and resources to terrorists. ... [It] is, without question, a fact."

Cheney restated his claim that "there was a relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq that stretched back 10 years. It's not something I made up. ... We know for a fact that Saddam Hussein was a sponsor -- a state sponsor -- of terror. It's not my judgment. That was the judgment of our [intelligence community] and State Department."
The former vice president said in 2004 that the evidence was "overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Hussein's regime in Iraq, and that media reports suggesting that the commission investigating the 9/11 attacks reached a contradictory conclusion were "irresponsible."

"There clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming," Cheney said at the time.

"It goes back to the early '90s. It involves a whole series of contacts, high-level contacts with Osama bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officials."

On Monday, though, Cheney identified former CIA Director George Tenet as the "prime source of information" on the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.
Tenet "testified, if you go back and check the record, in the fall of [2002] before the Senate Intelligence Committee -- in open session -- that there was a relationship," Cheney said.

You totally ignored the link showing cheney said on 9/16 saddam was not a threat. Enough said.

 

[Vast LWC]

BO has been dismantling some of the protections that worked very well after 9-11. All in his effort for America to be liked around the world and to appease the left wing of his party. He is POTUS and his first responsibility is the safety of this country and we the citizens. I think he is beginning to catch a clue. He needs to smarten the hell up, get off his ass, and do whatever it takes to keep this country safe.

He had better hope and pray that we don't get hit again because if we do I doubt his explainations are going to fly with many.

This must be a right-wing talking point, because people keep using the exact same phrase, "dismantling protections" without explaining themselves.

So what right-wing web site told you to say this?

 

[CMike]

You deserve credit for admitting an error. I give you kudos for that.

The US engaged in a fight. There is going to be more violence. There is going to be more casualties.

The alternative is to sit back and let the terrorists come to us, and attack us within the US.

We have a choice. We either can fight a defensive wait, hoping they won't get through our defenses, and they will. The numbers guarantee it.

The other choice is to take the fight to where they are, and fight the war on our terms. I do agree that there will be more violence as result.

Which means, simply, that in order to continue to make this strategy work, we will have to be in a constant state of warfare continuously, forever.

By this reasoning we can never withdraw our troops from the countries we are occupying, or the terrorists will immediately begin hitting civilian targets.

I for one am not prepared to engage in an endless state of war, and I don't think the American people are either. If you were to explain to them that this is your solution to the terrorist threat, that we remain in a war until the end of time, then I think you would probably lose support very quickly.

Okay, great. We can just call all the troops home. Let Al Qaida gain more and more power. Let the Taliban take back power, and Al Qaida have a puppet government in Iraq.

Then Al Qaida can openly and with great freedom, train in those countries, get money, communications, and logistical, support.

Then Al Qaida can much more effectively attack america, perhaps securing a nuclear bomb next time and some really cool WMD.

Just because we don't decide to engage in the war, doesn't mean that the enemy won't.

 

[CurveLight]

Coyote Liability is a tinsy wee bit more coarse than me but I agree on the substance that he said.

We are in a war based on information.

The more information we have about Al Qaida, the easier it is for authorities to stop terrorist attacks that could cost thousands of american civilian lives, and spread panic in this country.

The more information Al Qaida has about our intelligence, the easier it will be for their operatives to successfully execute more terrorist attacks costings potentially thousands of american lives, and spread panic in this country.

The point of a civlian trial is to give the most fair trial possible. In a civilian trial, defendents get to face their accusers and here all the information that damns them.

However, what if giving information to the terorrist and his lawyer, will be used to keep authorities from stopping a terrorist attack to blow up a building in Florida?

What if by revealing the accusers, that source can never be used again, to stop a terrorist attack?

What if you can't get witnesss because they need to be in Iraq in an intelligence operation?

Also, how can average joe jurors be allowed to have sensitve intelligence information critical to stop terrorist attacks? They or their family could then be kidnapped and tortured to reveal that information.

So as Liability said if you don't reveal that information to the defendant how is he getting a fair trial? And if you do reveal that information to the defendant than your crippiling the US capability to stop other attacks?

What is the answer? Military tribunals. They can review all the material and make decisions based on that.

As Liability also said these aren't criminals. They are unlawful combatants. The don't even measure up as POWs because they don't meet the criteria. They have no rights.

The best way to try them is military tribunals.

And no they shouldn't have the right to remain silent. We need the information these scumbags have to thwart further terrorist attacks. There isn't the space to screw around.

1. Soldiers are tried by Military Tribunal. If you try them by Military Tribunal, you are giving them the same legitimacy as one of our soldiers. The same goes for calling them "enemy combatants" in a "war". They are nothing but sociopathic murderers, and deserve to be treated as common criminals, not soldiers.

2. Trying them outside the legal system and imprisoning them for political crimes is tantamount to resurrecting the Soviet-era Gulag system. Next we'll have concentration camps filled with political prisoners. That precedent leads to the next precedent and the next.

Once you start down the road of imprisoning people without a fair trial, not to mention torture, you become your enemy.

Are we now to become terrorists? Shall we kill the friends and families of our enemies in order to make them talk too?

Al Qaida terrorists don't qualify as POWs under the Geneva Convention.

They are unlawful combatants.

Third Geneva Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:
4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:

that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

What has SCOTUS ruled? I believe it gave at least one ruling that detainees qualify for some Geneva Conventions. It's simply insane to violate basic human rights then try to tell the world respect America for its rule of law.

 

[CMike]

BO has been dismantling some of the protections that worked very well after 9-11. All in his effort for America to be liked around the world and to appease the left wing of his party. He is POTUS and his first responsibility is the safety of this country and we the citizens. I think he is beginning to catch a clue. He needs to smarten the hell up, get off his ass, and do whatever it takes to keep this country safe.

He had better hope and pray that we don't get hit again because if we do I doubt his explainations are going to fly with many.

This must be a right-wing talking point, because people keep using the exact same phrase, "dismantling protections" without explaining themselves.

So what right-wing web site told you to say this?

I guess we will never know all the harm that Obama has done, since this war is mainly fought in the shadows. However, the fact that his people refused to even call it terrorism, and called it "man made disasters" shows how seriously he has taken the war.

Also the fact that he constantly spoken about protecting terrorists, and releasing them, more about taking the fight to the terrorists, says it all, as well.

 

[CurveLight]

BO has been dismantling some of the protections that worked very well after 9-11. All in his effort for America to be liked around the world and to appease the left wing of his party. He is POTUS and his first responsibility is the safety of this country and we the citizens. I think he is beginning to catch a clue. He needs to smarten the hell up, get off his ass, and do whatever it takes to keep this country safe.

He had better hope and pray that we don't get hit again because if we do I doubt his explainations are going to fly with many.

This must be a right-wing talking point, because people keep using the exact same phrase, "dismantling protections" without explaining themselves.

So what right-wing web site told you to say this?

I guess we will never know all the harm that Obama has done, since this war is mainly fought in the shadows. However, the fact that his people refused to even call it terrorism, and called it "man made disasters" shows how seriously he has taken the war.

Also the fact that he constantly spoken about protecting terrorists, and releasing them, more about taking the fight to the terrorists, says it all, as well.

What do you think provides more fuel for the fire?

1. Dumb obsessions on political rhetoric.

2. The bombs we drop that kill civilians.

Mmmm.....tough choice. If you got a father in iraq or afghanistan who just lost his wife or children to American bombs what do you think his reaction would be focused on?

"Oh look! Obama isn't calling it a War on Terror!"

Or

"Mother fuckers killed my family!"

The fact you guys focus on such petty shit instead of the real costs shows just how disconnected you people are as a group. Maybe that's why you're the first ones to make video game references?

 

[CurveLight]

You deserve credit for admitting an error. I give you kudos for that.

The US engaged in a fight. There is going to be more violence. There is going to be more casualties.

The alternative is to sit back and let the terrorists come to us, and attack us within the US.

We have a choice. We either can fight a defensive wait, hoping they won't get through our defenses, and they will. The numbers guarantee it.

The other choice is to take the fight to where they are, and fight the war on our terms. I do agree that there will be more violence as result.

Which means, simply, that in order to continue to make this strategy work, we will have to be in a constant state of warfare continuously, forever.

By this reasoning we can never withdraw our troops from the countries we are occupying, or the terrorists will immediately begin hitting civilian targets.

I for one am not prepared to engage in an endless state of war, and I don't think the American people are either. If you were to explain to them that this is your solution to the terrorist threat, that we remain in a war until the end of time, then I think you would probably lose support very quickly.

Okay, great. We can just call all the troops home. Let Al Qaida gain more and more power. Let the Taliban take back power, and Al Qaida have a puppet government in Iraq.

Then Al Qaida can openly and with great freedom, train in those countries, get money, communications, and logistical, support.

Then Al Qaida can much more effectively attack america, perhaps securing a nuclear bomb next time and some really cool WMD.

Just because we don't decide to engage in the war, doesn't mean that the enemy won't.

You can't even identify the "enemy." Do you know there is more than one way to solved a problem? Do you use a gun to solve your daily problems? If the batteries in the remote go dead do you just shoot it? If someone was rude do you pull out a gun? If you pull over a drunk driver do you want to just shoot the person?

Don't look now but there is a pattern forming. Afghanistan and Iraq both prove one clear point: there is no military solution. Do you know why?

 

[Meister]

Which means, simply, that in order to continue to make this strategy work, we will have to be in a constant state of warfare continuously, forever.

By this reasoning we can never withdraw our troops from the countries we are occupying, or the terrorists will immediately begin hitting civilian targets.

I for one am not prepared to engage in an endless state of war, and I don't think the American people are either. If you were to explain to them that this is your solution to the terrorist threat, that we remain in a war until the end of time, then I think you would probably lose support very quickly.

Okay, great. We can just call all the troops home. Let Al Qaida gain more and more power. Let the Taliban take back power, and Al Qaida have a puppet government in Iraq.

Then Al Qaida can openly and with great freedom, train in those countries, get money, communications, and logistical, support.

Then Al Qaida can much more effectively attack america, perhaps securing a nuclear bomb next time and some really cool WMD.

Just because we don't decide to engage in the war, doesn't mean that the enemy won't.

You can't even identify the "enemy." Do you know there is more than one way to solved a problem? Do you use a gun to solve your daily problems? If the batteries in the remote go dead do you just shoot it? If someone was rude do you pull out a gun? If you pull over a drunk driver do you want to just shoot the person?

Don't look now but there is a pattern forming. Afghanistan and Iraq both prove one clear point: there is no military solution. Do you know why?

Please by all means, show us where sitting down and talking to the terrorists has had positive effects. Anywhere

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/22/buner-pakistan-taliban-mi_n_189914.html
ISLAMABAD — Taliban militants have extended their grip in northwestern Pakistan, pushing out from a valley where the government has agreed to impose Islamic law and patrolling villages as close as 60 miles from the capital. Police and officials appear to have fled as armed militants also broadcast radio sermons and spread fear in Buner district, just 60 miles from Islamabad, officials and witnesses said Wednesday.

 

[CurveLight]

Okay, great. We can just call all the troops home. Let Al Qaida gain more and more power. Let the Taliban take back power, and Al Qaida have a puppet government in Iraq.

Then Al Qaida can openly and with great freedom, train in those countries, get money, communications, and logistical, support.

Then Al Qaida can much more effectively attack america, perhaps securing a nuclear bomb next time and some really cool WMD.

Just because we don't decide to engage in the war, doesn't mean that the enemy won't.

You can't even identify the "enemy." Do you know there is more than one way to solved a problem? Do you use a gun to solve your daily problems? If the batteries in the remote go dead do you just shoot it? If someone was rude do you pull out a gun? If you pull over a drunk driver do you want to just shoot the person?

Don't look now but there is a pattern forming. Afghanistan and Iraq both prove one clear point: there is no military solution. Do you know why?

Please by all means, show us where sitting down and talking to the terrorists has had positive effects. Anywhere

Buner Pakistan: Taliban Militants Move To Expand Control Outside Swat Valley
ISLAMABAD — Taliban militants have extended their grip in northwestern Pakistan, pushing out from a valley where the government has agreed to impose Islamic law and patrolling villages as close as 60 miles from the capital. Police and officials appear to have fled as armed militants also broadcast radio sermons and spread fear in Buner district, just 60 miles from Islamabad, officials and witnesses said Wednesday.

Sure. As soon as you show where I said we should do nothing but sit down and talk to terrorists. Why do you guys waste money on the internet? More often than not you put words in others mouths and that is your only dialogue.