One of the big problems with the Bush strategy is that it doesn't always take a huge organization to carry out terrorist attacks. look at Timothy McVeigh. So to think that we can somehow actually control the situation without removing their motivation will likely be an exercise in folly.
On the bright side, there are some things working in our favor. Most people who are capable of such blind hatred and anger tend not to be terribly intelligent. Consequently they're not often capable of carrying these things out without help. The ones who are intelligent usually see themselves as too valuable for a suicide attack, so they also need people to help them. And unlike McVeigh, most Arabic terrorists will be foreigners here which means not only are impeded by a certain disorientation and unfamiliarity with our culture, but they may also be subject to a certain amount of suspicion. So it is a little less likely that Arabic terrorists could act single-handed which makes them a bit easier to catch as they must communicate with one another. But even so, there may be a lot of smaller scale attack to deal with.
I'd rather try going back to the United Nations. Make it more united instead of fractured over this Iraq thing. Try and improve it, strengthen it. I'd rather those things instead of trying to go it alone.
My only beef about the intel is that when Clinton was at the helm, the intel was gospel. Now, Bush is at the helm and the intel was somehow beefed up to support going to war. We are also NOT the only country that believed we had good reason to go in.
We do tend to throw money at problems, had we ANY politicians worth a crap in congress we would be cutting spending in areas that are nothing but waste.
I think over the next year people are going to start realizing what a dangerous idiot he is. I also think he's going to make a major screw-up before long.
Liberals have been dangerous idiots for years and few have noticed it. So your hopes will mostly likely be dashed.
Nothing is going to bring those 3000 people back or undo what happened. Our goal should not be revenge but to make sure it doesn't happen again. A military solution is not going to accomplish this.
That thinking, or I should say lack of thinking, is what got the 3,000 killed.
I'd rather try going back to the United Nations. Make it more united instead of fractured over this Iraq thing. Try and improve it, strengthen it. I'd rather those things instead of trying to go it alone.
Handing over control to an organization that has a large number of anti-democratic nations and numerous avowed enemies of the US is not in the US interests.
you mean like his success in bringing those responsible for 9/11 to justice? his success in capturing saddam hussein? his success in making the typical american better off than they were when he took office? or do you mean things like his successes in alienating the world? because yeah, you're right i don't like his successes.
you mean like his success in bringing those responsible for 9/11 to justice? the ones that were directly responsible were killed in the attack.his success in capturing saddam hussein? you don't know that he isn't dead. same with osama. do you think they would tell us if we succeeded and killed them?his success in making the typical american better off than they were when he took office? he inherited an economy that was going downhill and we took a hit with 9/11. if you were honest you would have to say things aren't as bad as they could be.or do you mean things like his successes in alienating the world? he hasn't alienated the world. that is liberal mantra and wishful thinking. he is leading and doing what he can to defend this countrybecause yeah, you're right i don't like his successes. yes because he is a republican and you have an irrational hate for them. I would admit that you come by the irrationality honestly, though.
That's a silly thing to say. If that was all I didn't like about him, I wouldn't like anyone who was successful. Or if you mean that I don't like the idea of some gung-ho idiot who is pushing policies I consider dangerous and unwise achieving success to the point that people are actually going along with it, then yes, I'd agree to that statement.
Liberals have been dangerous idiots for years and few have noticed it. So your hopes will mostly likely be dashed.
Time will tell. Not that you'll be listening.
That thinking, or I should say lack of thinking, is what got the 3,000 killed.
Well the military solution doesn't seem to have done away with Al-Q, nor has it even managed to drop the terror alert status from where it started. Besides, I think one can hardly claim that we had been trying to make friends with the Arabs who hated us before 9/11.
Handing over control to an organization that has a large number of anti-democratic nations that numerous avowed enemies of the US is not in the US interests.
Those nations and enemies are still part of the same planet. We have to have some venue for working with them.
That's a silly thing to say. If that was all I didn't like about him, I wouldn't like anyone who was successful.
Let me make it clear you don't like Bush's success.
Or if you mean that I don't like the idea of some gung-ho idiot who is pushing policies I consider dangerous and unwise achieving success to the point that people are actually going along with it, then yes, I'd agree to that statement.
I think his policies especially in Iraq and national security are exactly right. I think only IDIOTS disapprove or those that have political delusions of grandeur.
Well the military solution doesn't seem to have done away with Al-Q, nor has it even managed to drop the terror alert status from where it started. Besides, I think one can hardly claim that we had been trying to make friends with the Arabs who hated us before 9/11.
You can't make friends with the element that brought us 9/11. And if you thought about it you would realize we have been at war with them for years. Have you forgotten the WTC bombing of 1993?
Those nations and enemies are still part of the same planet. We have to have some venue for working with them.
Oh they will go away one way or the other. either they will leave us alone or they will die.
and in the meantime, you'll kill a shitload of us in the process. but that's ok though because those that would otherwise kill us are gone. jt can i borrow that desk of yours?
and in the meantime, you'll kill a shitload of us in the process.
We are at war. I don't think you understand that. You can be willing to give up your principles but there are somethings that are worth fighting for. If the US doesn't do it, then those things will be lost.
and once you've eradicated a whole population, traded up with thousands of us, what good have you accomplished? you will never rid the world of terrorism jethro. never.
"According to a rival poll by Zogby International released Saturday, Bush's approval rating is at nearly its lowest point in his presidency, with just 53 percent of those polled approving of the job he is doing, down from 58 percent a month before."
Oh they will go away one way or the other. either they will leave us alone or they will die.
You know, there's a reason they're called suicide bombers. They don't care if they die. You can't deter them with threats of violence. You can't control someone who feels they have nothing to lose. You can't kill them all, because the more you kill, the more you leave behind other people who now feel like they have nothing to lose. It's a neverending cycle.
and once you've eradicated a whole population, traded up with thousands of us, what good have you accomplished? you will never rid the world of terrorism jethro. never.
The what do you propose? My guess is you think we should bend over and take it up the ass.
You know, there's a reason they're called suicide bombers. They don't care if they die. You can't deter them with threats of violence. Well then the war should be over soon after they all attack and kill themselves! Give me a break! You are like ares, you think we should bend over and take it. What foolishness!
I'm not advocating, but considering, a "Tit For Tat" approach.
I can't believe the stuff I'm reading today. Why don't you guys take a step back and check your humanity. How is anyone supposed to take your abortion arguments seriously when you show such an obvious disregard for human life?
And moreover, the fact that you guys can sit there and say things like that and think it's a good idea is one of the main reasons I don't like Bush. Look at where his leadership has led you.
Well then the war should be over soon after they all attack and kill themselves! Give me a break! You are like ares, you think we should bend over and take it. What foolishness!
What good does it do to win the war if you save your life but lose your soul?
Handing over control to an organization that has a large number of anti-democratic nations and numerous avowed enemies of the US is not in the US interests.
If nations are anti-democratic, does that mean they are our enemy? Are we going to make them change their government because we don't like it? And yes, there are numerous avowed enemies of the US there. If we keep going and doing whatever the heck we damn well please, its going to be us versus the UN. Us versus the world. I don't want that. I was for getting Saddam out of power. I think we need to deal with what is left of the Iraq situation as quickly and effectively as we can. Then with regards to foreign affairs, work on foreign perception of the US. Too many people dislike us for my distaste. If you want to go send troops after them all and kill them, that's fine. That's more like Saddam in that thinking. I would think though that we could rise above that, attain diplomatic solutions that are peaceful and fruitful. I have to wonder if the partisan politics is spilling over into foreign affairs. Too much of Republicans vs. Democrats, at their throats, anger and argument instead of working together. I want to try and make America more unified, and help unify it more with the world. Forgive me if that's so bad.
I'm not advocating, but considering, a "Tit For Tat" approach.
and when we do, are we any better than they are? don't get me wrong, i'm all in favor of "street justice" so to speak, and really wouldn't have minded turning baghdad into a shiny glass parking lot. but when you engage in it, you have to concern yourself with the image you're projecting to the rest of the world, and whether or not you can live with that image.
I can't believe the stuff I'm reading today. Why don't you guys take a step back and check your humanity. How is anyone supposed to take your abortion arguments seriously when you show such an obvious disregard for human life?
I keep hearing we're no better than them now. So what the hell, why not give the people what they want?
but when you engage in it, you have to concern yourself with the image you're projecting to the rest of the world, and whether or not you can live with that image.
Like I said, we already have that image in their mind. You want to see evil? We'll give you evil.
I'm kinda thick-headed, explain the difference.
There's a difference between being a political opponent, and homicide bomber.
I bet Saddam's goons tortured and killed family members of their enemies.
Was it because of retaliation to homicide bombings?
I keep hearing we're no better than them now. So what the hell, why not give the people what they want?
Like I said, we already have that image in their mind. You want to see evil? We'll give you evil.
ok i will give you that much. quoth jeff foxworthy on entering a victoria's secret store: "if you're gonna feel like a pervert you oughtta at least act like one".
One of the big problems with the Bush strategy is that it doesn't always take a huge organization to carry out terrorist attacks. look at Timothy McVeigh. So to think that we can somehow actually control the situation without removing their motivation will likely be an exercise in folly.
On the bright side, there are some things working in our favor. Most people who are capable of such blind hatred and anger tend not to be terribly intelligent. Consequently they're not often capable of carrying these things out without help. The ones who are intelligent usually see themselves as too valuable for a suicide attack, so they also need people to help them. And unlike McVeigh, most Arabic terrorists will be foreigners here which means not only are impeded by a certain disorientation and unfamiliarity with our culture, but they may also be subject to a certain amount of suspicion. So it is a little less likely that Arabic terrorists could act single-handed which makes them a bit easier to catch as they must communicate with one another. But even so, there may be a lot of smaller scale attack to deal with.
Allison, terrorism will become a minor nuisance under you plan?
Since when is any terrorism a minor nuisance??
We all saw how effective the U.N. was from 1991-2003 with Iraq and you want to go back to them?
My God, where do you people come from???
I'd rather try going back to the United Nations. Make it more united instead of fractured over this Iraq thing. Try and improve it, strengthen it. I'd rather those things instead of trying to go it alone.
"TV weathermen make educated guesses. The highest levels of national security requires more than that." - Rick
I agree with you Rick, so do you then support more spending for intel?
So are we suppose to wait around for another 12 years for the U.N. to pass meaningless resolutions and do almost nothing? I don't think so.
"I agree with you Rick, so do you then support more spending for intel? "
I don't know. That would be throwing money at the problem. Seems to me, conservatives complain a lot about that.
My only beef about the intel is that when Clinton was at the helm, the intel was gospel. Now, Bush is at the helm and the intel was somehow beefed up to support going to war. We are also NOT the only country that believed we had good reason to go in.
We do tend to throw money at problems, had we ANY politicians worth a crap in congress we would be cutting spending in areas that are nothing but waste.
Talk about intelligence as gospel:
I've heard conservatives say, about 1,000 times:
"The Sudanese police (or Somali, I can't remember) offered to arrest Osama bin Laden THREE TIMES! and Clinton turned them down!!!!"
I always get a laugh out of that. Evidently, conservatives see the Sudanese police as One Crack Unit. They always get their man.
It doesn't change the fact that Clinton turned down the offer.
I don't like Bush. I don't like his politics, but more than that, I don't like the way he manipulates public opinion.
You don't like his success.
I think over the next year people are going to start realizing what a dangerous idiot he is. I also think he's going to make a major screw-up before long.
Liberals have been dangerous idiots for years and few have noticed it. So your hopes will mostly likely be dashed.
Nothing is going to bring those 3000 people back or undo what happened. Our goal should not be revenge but to make sure it doesn't happen again. A military solution is not going to accomplish this.
That thinking, or I should say lack of thinking, is what got the 3,000 killed.
I'd rather try going back to the United Nations. Make it more united instead of fractured over this Iraq thing. Try and improve it, strengthen it. I'd rather those things instead of trying to go it alone.
Handing over control to an organization that has a large number of anti-democratic nations and numerous avowed enemies of the US is not in the US interests.
You don't like his success.
you mean like his success in bringing those responsible for 9/11 to justice? his success in capturing saddam hussein? his success in making the typical american better off than they were when he took office? or do you mean things like his successes in alienating the world? because yeah, you're right i don't like his successes.
you mean like his success in bringing those responsible for 9/11 to justice? the ones that were directly responsible were killed in the attack.his success in capturing saddam hussein? you don't know that he isn't dead. same with osama. do you think they would tell us if we succeeded and killed them?his success in making the typical american better off than they were when he took office? he inherited an economy that was going downhill and we took a hit with 9/11. if you were honest you would have to say things aren't as bad as they could be.or do you mean things like his successes in alienating the world? he hasn't alienated the world. that is liberal mantra and wishful thinking. he is leading and doing what he can to defend this countrybecause yeah, you're right i don't like his successes. yes because he is a republican and you have an irrational hate for them. I would admit that you come by the irrationality honestly, though.
You don't like his success.
That's a silly thing to say. If that was all I didn't like about him, I wouldn't like anyone who was successful. Or if you mean that I don't like the idea of some gung-ho idiot who is pushing policies I consider dangerous and unwise achieving success to the point that people are actually going along with it, then yes, I'd agree to that statement.
Liberals have been dangerous idiots for years and few have noticed it. So your hopes will mostly likely be dashed.
Time will tell. Not that you'll be listening.
That thinking, or I should say lack of thinking, is what got the 3,000 killed.
Well the military solution doesn't seem to have done away with Al-Q, nor has it even managed to drop the terror alert status from where it started. Besides, I think one can hardly claim that we had been trying to make friends with the Arabs who hated us before 9/11.
Handing over control to an organization that has a large number of anti-democratic nations that numerous avowed enemies of the US is not in the US interests.
Those nations and enemies are still part of the same planet. We have to have some venue for working with them.
yes because he is a republican and you have an irrational hate for them. I would admit that you come by the irrationality honestly, though.
i don't hate him because he's a republican. i'd love to see john mccain or colin powell in the white house. i hate the man because he's an idiot.
You don't like his success.
That's a silly thing to say. If that was all I didn't like about him, I wouldn't like anyone who was successful.
Let me make it clear you don't like Bush's success.
Or if you mean that I don't like the idea of some gung-ho idiot who is pushing policies I consider dangerous and unwise achieving success to the point that people are actually going along with it, then yes, I'd agree to that statement.
I think his policies especially in Iraq and national security are exactly right. I think only IDIOTS disapprove or those that have political delusions of grandeur.
Well the military solution doesn't seem to have done away with Al-Q, nor has it even managed to drop the terror alert status from where it started. Besides, I think one can hardly claim that we had been trying to make friends with the Arabs who hated us before 9/11.
You can't make friends with the element that brought us 9/11. And if you thought about it you would realize we have been at war with them for years. Have you forgotten the WTC bombing of 1993?
Those nations and enemies are still part of the same planet. We have to have some venue for working with them.
No we don't.
don't hate him because he's a republican. i'd love to see john mccain or colin powell in the white house. i hate the man because he's an idiot.
He is less of an idiot than you, ares. as for mccain and powell they would make better democrats than republicans.
No we don't.
and as long as thats the attitude you have, they will never ever ever go away.
and as long as thats the attitude you have, they will never ever ever go away.
Oh they will go away one way or the other. either they will leave us alone or they will die.
Oh they will go away one way or the other. either they will leave us alone or they will die.
and in the meantime, you'll kill a shitload of us in the process. but that's ok though because those that would otherwise kill us are gone. jt can i borrow that desk of yours?
and in the meantime, you'll kill a shitload of us in the process.
We are at war. I don't think you understand that. You can be willing to give up your principles but there are somethings that are worth fighting for. If the US doesn't do it, then those things will be lost.
and once you've eradicated a whole population, traded up with thousands of us, what good have you accomplished? you will never rid the world of terrorism jethro. never.
"According to a rival poll by Zogby International released Saturday, Bush's approval rating is at nearly its lowest point in his presidency, with just 53 percent of those polled approving of the job he is doing, down from 58 percent a month before."
Oh they will go away one way or the other. either they will leave us alone or they will die.
You know, there's a reason they're called suicide bombers. They don't care if they die. You can't deter them with threats of violence. You can't control someone who feels they have nothing to lose. You can't kill them all, because the more you kill, the more you leave behind other people who now feel like they have nothing to lose. It's a neverending cycle.
They don't care if they die.
Maybe they'd care if they knew their families would be tortured and killed if they partake in a suicide bombing.
What are you advocating, JT?
and once you've eradicated a whole population, traded up with thousands of us, what good have you accomplished? you will never rid the world of terrorism jethro. never.
The what do you propose? My guess is you think we should bend over and take it up the ass.
You know, there's a reason they're called suicide bombers. They don't care if they die. You can't deter them with threats of violence. Well then the war should be over soon after they all attack and kill themselves! Give me a break! You are like ares, you think we should bend over and take it. What foolishness!
What are you advocating, JT?
I'm not advocating, but considering, a "Tit For Tat" approach.
They are not suicide bombers. They are HOMICIDE bombers.
They are HOMICIDE bombers.
I guess that does better describe them.
"I'm not advocating, but considering, a "Tit For Tat" approach. "
The days when those kind of activities took place were supposed to be gone for the Iraqis.
I'm not advocating, but considering, a "Tit For Tat" approach.
I can't believe the stuff I'm reading today. Why don't you guys take a step back and check your humanity. How is anyone supposed to take your abortion arguments seriously when you show such an obvious disregard for human life?
And moreover, the fact that you guys can sit there and say things like that and think it's a good idea is one of the main reasons I don't like Bush. Look at where his leadership has led you.
Well then the war should be over soon after they all attack and kill themselves! Give me a break! You are like ares, you think we should bend over and take it. What foolishness!
What good does it do to win the war if you save your life but lose your soul?
The days when those kind of activities took place were supposed to be gone for the Iraqis.
It's just a tad different, Rick.
If you don't want anything to happen to your family, you should probably reconsider committing a homicide bombing.
I can't believe the stuff I'm reading today.
If they can do it, why can't we?
They're the ones that are setting the boundries. Or should I say the lack of boundries.
Handing over control to an organization that has a large number of anti-democratic nations and numerous avowed enemies of the US is not in the US interests.
If nations are anti-democratic, does that mean they are our enemy? Are we going to make them change their government because we don't like it? And yes, there are numerous avowed enemies of the US there. If we keep going and doing whatever the heck we damn well please, its going to be us versus the UN. Us versus the world. I don't want that. I was for getting Saddam out of power. I think we need to deal with what is left of the Iraq situation as quickly and effectively as we can. Then with regards to foreign affairs, work on foreign perception of the US. Too many people dislike us for my distaste. If you want to go send troops after them all and kill them, that's fine. That's more like Saddam in that thinking. I would think though that we could rise above that, attain diplomatic solutions that are peaceful and fruitful. I have to wonder if the partisan politics is spilling over into foreign affairs. Too much of Republicans vs. Democrats, at their throats, anger and argument instead of working together. I want to try and make America more unified, and help unify it more with the world. Forgive me if that's so bad.
I'm not advocating, but considering, a "Tit For Tat" approach.
and when we do, are we any better than they are? don't get me wrong, i'm all in favor of "street justice" so to speak, and really wouldn't have minded turning baghdad into a shiny glass parking lot. but when you engage in it, you have to concern yourself with the image you're projecting to the rest of the world, and whether or not you can live with that image.
"It's just a tad different, Rick."
I'm kinda thick-headed, explain the difference.
"If you don't want anything to happen to your family, you should probably reconsider committing a homicide bombing."
I bet Saddam's goons tortured and killed family members of their enemies.
I can't believe the stuff I'm reading today. Why don't you guys take a step back and check your humanity. How is anyone supposed to take your abortion arguments seriously when you show such an obvious disregard for human life?
Because we are in a war. A war we must win.
If they can do it, why can't we?
You must just be kidding around trying to push buttons.
and when we do, are we any better than they are?
I keep hearing we're no better than them now. So what the hell, why not give the people what they want?
but when you engage in it, you have to concern yourself with the image you're projecting to the rest of the world, and whether or not you can live with that image.
Like I said, we already have that image in their mind. You want to see evil? We'll give you evil.
I'm kinda thick-headed, explain the difference.
There's a difference between being a political opponent, and homicide bomber.
I bet Saddam's goons tortured and killed family members of their enemies.
Was it because of retaliation to homicide bombings?
Because we are in a war. A war we must win.
Sometimes wars end with a peace settlement and usually everyone comes out ahead when that happens. It's illogical to be opposed to such an option.
Because we are in a war. A war we must win.
and you're posting here instead of suiting up for battle why?
You must just be kidding around trying to push buttons.
They can do it, why can't we?
I keep hearing we're no better than them now. So what the hell, why not give the people what they want?
Like I said, we already have that image in their mind. You want to see evil? We'll give you evil.
ok i will give you that much. quoth jeff foxworthy on entering a victoria's secret store: "if you're gonna feel like a pervert you oughtta at least act like one".
You're entertaining some dark thoughts, JT.
It's a beautiful summer day, here. Get a grip.
Well Rick, I know you don't approve nor defend of the violence on either side. However, there are those that almost defend the homicide bombings.
They sugar coat it with "They're desperate people, they have nothing to live for, nothing to lose.....".
Well, maybe they do have something to lose.
Before you strapped on a bomb to your stomach, wouldn't you reconsider if you knew horrible things would happen to your entire family?