Originally Posted By gadzuux >> And willing to let dictators do what they want. << Succinct? How about baseless charges. Substance never even entered the picture.
Originally Posted By X-san ***Plenty of people here claimed we couldn't win. I bet they'll never admit they were wrong.*** I'll make that claim. You can't "win" a war against terrorism, it's never ending. When the leaders of all the major terrorist organizations sign a declaration of unconditional surrender, I'll be sure to admit I was wrong.
Originally Posted By Elderp "I'll make that claim. You can't "win" a war against terrorism, it's never ending." You can, but it requires huge amounts of diplomacy, something this administration has never displayed a willingness to endevour upon.
Originally Posted By X-san I really don't think you can. There will ALWAYS be an element of whackjobs out there who will be ready and willing to commit acts of terror, though I agree it's possible to diminish their numbers and influence.
Originally Posted By DAR Yes there is a way to diminish their numbers....by killing them. This is a group of sub-human's that have no problems sending a child into a crowded marketplace and killing innocents there. This a group that wants to destroy the Jewish people, remember someone else wanted to do that. They don't want to talk to us or anybody and to think otherwise is naive.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Well, what Douglas is doing is just making sure the goalposts are still moved. Bush framed this as a war on terror after Hussein was dumped. There's no way to measure when that war is won. None. The remaining core of 25-30% that will support Bush, no matter what, which Dougals belongs to, willingly goes along and acts like this has been what it's about all along. The "mission was accomplished" once Saddam was out of there. We should have followed suit. Since we obviously had no clue on how to leave once we got ourselves mired in the desert, it's a war on terror now as opposed to saving the Iraqis from their mean dictator. And now Scott McClellan is out there saying, hey, maybe I did lie for him after all.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Yes there is a way to diminish their numbers....by killing them. This is a group of sub-human's that have no problems sending a child into a crowded marketplace and killing innocents there. This a group that wants to destroy the Jewish people, remember someone else wanted to do that. They don't want to talk to us or anybody and to think otherwise is naive." You're right, they're sub-humans, but if they are ever to be eradicated, it will likely be after we, our children, our children's children, and their children are gone. That's the problem here. By continuing to think we can just kill them all, we're yet again underestimating the zeal of the ultra-fanatical muslim.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Succinct? How about baseless charges. Substance never even entered the picture.> Yes, just like I57's was, only he wrote multiple paragraphs.
Originally Posted By X-san Exactly Passholder. In many cases, killing them only serves to increase their their ranks via new recruits. ***They don't want to talk to us or anybody and to think otherwise is naive."*** I completely agree, and again I'm saying that's why you CAN'T win a "war on terror". Terrorism is just one of the unfortunate insanities of this world...what we DON'T want to do in the process of trying to hunt down and bring these fanatical lunatics to justice, however, is to piss off all the governments and all the peoples of the whole planet while we're at it. That's the memo Bush missed.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Bush framed this as a war on terror after Hussein was dumped.> No, it was a war on terror before Hussein was dumped. From the "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq", Oct. 2002: "Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens" <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html" target="_blank">http://www.whitehouse.gov/news...2-2.html</a>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <In many cases, killing them only serves to increase their their ranks via new recruits.> But not in most cases. As I said earlier, it appears their support is falling. We've intercepted letters saying they are having a hard time recruiting members.
Originally Posted By X-san I can say without question that I hope you are correct, Douglas. I really do. However, given the sources you tend to site, I have to wonder how much is fact and how much is propaganda (just as its' fair for you to cite the same for the opposing argument...propaganda can tell you pretty much anything you want to hear). I'd like to see a link to the information about those letters. That sounds interesting. I really wouldn't go so far as to say "in most cases", I think that's far too optimistic. Generally attacking zealots leads to new zealots taking their place. That's the nature of zealots, as far as I understand it.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 I'm tired of people maligning cowboys on these boards! The archetypal cowboy is a good guy who keeps to himself and his horses and cattle until called upon to stop outlaws and restore order to his agrarian community. We need to come up with some other analogy for Bush if we wish to portray him in a negative light.
Originally Posted By PetesDraggin "Try to think of it from the perspective of a middle-easterner. Or a European. Or a SouthAmerican..." I actually have done this. I lived in Brazil for most of the Clinton administration and the opinion of the U.S. wasn't very good back then. In fact, most people I talked to liked the idea of America and the products and technology that came out of our country. However, they also thought that the U.S. was a country full of bullies (yes, that includes Clinton) and that we just tried to make every other country like us. I just find it difficult to believe that the world's opinion of us will automatically change if Obama, or anyone else, is president. I believe that a majority of people living outside of the U.S. have no idea what the difference between a Republican and Democrat is and will not make much of a distinction between Bush and Obama.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <This study found no "smoking gun" (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda.> This is, of course, the key finding. No direct connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. Although the administration did its best in the run-up to the war to sell us on the idea that there was one, usually being careful to avoid saying so directly, but using every opportunity to forge the connection in the minds of the public. <Saddam's interest in, and support for, non-state actors was spread across a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic terrorist organizations.> Which amounts to no greater - and in some cases less than - an amount of support for terrorist groups as that from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, Sudan, Yemen... none of which we invaded, or needed to invade. That Saddam supported these groups was not an adequate rationale for invading and occupying that country.
Originally Posted By gadzuux This is the oldest story in DC - "follow the money". They needed "cover" to explain away the iraq invasion, and they came up with an entire smorgasbord of lame excuses, all while never addressing the real reason for invading iraq - fat no-bid contracts for hand picked contributors that continue to this day. The remaining bush supporters will wave this away as some kind of by-product, an unintended side effect. They have to in order to continue with their belief set that they're somehow "patriotic" and that they're "keeping us safe from the terrorists". The fact that none of it actually makes any sense doesn't matter to them - they've spent a lifetime believing things that don't make sense. But hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars funnelled to these well placed insiders is no accident. It's exactly the point of the entire exercise. Money is power and their primary concern is the accumulation of both. 9/11 is the best thing that ever happened to this bunch. The bush administration has been wholly ineffective in fashioning an actual valid response to this terrible event. However they've been hugely effective at reaping obscene profits from it. And almost seven years later, there's no end in sight for this taxpayer fueled gravy train. A coincidence? A lucky break for them? Don't believe it.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I'd like to see a link to the information about those letters.> I looked around trying to find it, but kept getting links to letters from years ago. However, I did find some comments about how Al queda web sites are admitting they have lost in Iraq. Here's one - <a href="http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htiw/articles/20080527.aspx" target="_blank">http://www.strategypage.com/ht...527.aspx</a>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Although the administration did its best in the run-up to the war to sell us on the idea that there was one, usually being careful to avoid saying so directly, but using every opportunity to forge the connection in the minds of the public.> They said what they believed, based on the intelligence that they were given. <That Saddam supported these groups was not an adequate rationale for invading and occupying that country.> Of course it wasn't, and nobody said it was. It was a whole bunch of things that were considered together - Saddam's links to terrorism, his pursuit of WMD's, his thwarting the UN inspections, his oppression of his people, his threats against his neighbors, his defiance of the UN, and the deterioration of sanctions against him, all pointed to the idea that he needed to be removed, sooner rather than later.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <And almost seven years later, there's no end in sight for this taxpayer fueled gravy train.> I see an end, and one that ends with us winning. Maybe I just have better vision.
