War Vote

[shadows]

Quotes: 71
Oh NO!!! Not ****ty WWII era tanks from Russia, how will we ever stop them...

Really, I remember him saying that the WOT would last far after we were all dead and gone. Forgive me if I think you're pulling that statement either 1) out of context, or 2) out of your a**.
________________________________________________

Those tanks stopped one of the most modern armies ever assembled in the 20th century.

The WOT has lasted since the beginning  of history.   It is with care that should be exercised  when  our army  becomes the terrorist in the ageless civil war in their homeland.  

For a government in shambles there seem to be available increasing instrument of war for some ones use in rebelling.  The loss of our aircraft is increasing.   Videos  made by foreign reporters seem to show they are using  ground-to-air missiles that were not available in WWll.    

I am not in favor of reducing funding,   I am in favor of shrinking our big head illusion, get a white hat that fits  and get the  HELL out of inferring in the wars of the mid-east before the  need for WOT spreads to this land,

Our continued provoking those countries, with a chip on our shoulder, will without doubt  bring the war of terrorism to this country.   Never in history has any amount of time expired without the wars on terrorism.  His speech writers seem more informed than he.          

[cannon_fodder]

While I agree that we have well worn out our welcome in Iraq, how do we get out AND help ensure the WOT (war on terror) doesnt again come to our shores?

Also, with or without our involvement; militant Islam will seek to expand and kill those it disagrees with.  It has since 1,000 years before America existed and it will for the foreseeable future.  If there is a headline about a war - Sudan, Chechnya, Durfur, the Bosnia, Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines, Kashmir, Sri Lanka, bombings in London, Madrid, Moscow, NYC - odds heavily favor the perpetrator to be an Islamic Extremist. Other than fighting Christians, Jews, Hindus, Secular interests and other forms of Islam... they also dont governments that do not rule by religious doctrine.  And when I write dont like - read "want to kill/overthrow."

Calling Islam a religion of peace would be like arguing that poor Timmy McVeigh would have been a peaceful person but the government just wouldn't leave him alone.  While it is true that Christianity was spread by the sword up until the 20th Century, I dont think Christian today thinks that was a just or virtuous policy.  And to preempt the "bigot" callers, no I dont think most Muslims adhere to the strict Sharia doctrines... but enough of the Islamic world does to cause or be a part of 90% of the conflicts in the world today.

[rwarn17588]

There is no assurance that another terrorism attack won't occur on these shores.

Even with the strictest security, it can still happen.

Even if you close all the borders, it can still happen. Case in point: Timothy McVeigh.

In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the U.S. and Europe were dealing with terrorists. Except they were called "anarchists" then. Those eventually faded away.

As will the Muslim terrorists -- as long we don't have stupid foreign policies. As for extremists in general, never. Nutjobs will always be around.

[iplaw]

Yet I can't help but wonder what your opinion would be if a loved one died in a terrorist attack that could have been avoided with added security or a better controlled border...what measures are you for/against?

What stupid foregin policy prompted 9/11?

BTW, the McVeigh issue is a red herring.  A single person, or small group of militant anti-government kooks is a far cry from a well connected, financed organization like Hamas, Al-Qaeda or the like.  We are in far greater danger from sleeper cell terrorism like 9/11 than Billy Bob the Inbreeder...

[iplaw]

Originally posted by shadows


Quotes: 71
Oh NO!!! Not ****ty WWII era tanks from Russia, how will we ever stop them...

Really, I remember him saying that the WOT would last far after we were all dead and gone. Forgive me if I think you're pulling that statement either 1) out of context, or 2) out of your a**.
________________________________________________

Those tanks stopped one of the most modern armies ever assembled in the 20th century.

Who?

The WOT has lasted since the beginning  of history.   It is with care that should be exercised  when  our army  becomes the terrorist in the ageless civil war in their homeland.  

We're the terrorists...that's right, I forgot.  [xx(]

For a government in shambles there seem to be available increasing instrument of war for some ones use in rebelling.  The loss of our aircraft is increasing.   Videos  made by foreign reporters seem to show they are using  ground-to-air missiles that were not available in WWll.    

What government is in shambles?  We lose a few helicopters and all of a sudden we've proclaimed Russia and Iran as superior military powers...get real.

I am not in favor of reducing funding,   I am in favor of shrinking our big head illusion, get a white hat that fits  and get the  HELL out of inferring in the wars of the mid-east before the  need for WOT spreads to this land,

Our continued provoking those countries, with a chip on our shoulder, will without doubt  bring the war of terrorism to this country.   Never in history has any amount of time expired without the wars on terrorism.  His speech writers seem more informed than he.          

I'm not much for hats...  BTW the WOT spread to this land about 6 years ago...or did you already forget about that?

[rwarn17588]

<iplaw wrote:

Yet I can't help but wonder what your opinion would be if a loved one died in a terrorist attack that could have been avoided with added security or a better controlled border...what measures are you for/against?

<end clip>

I'm for better security and a better-controlled border. The 9/11 attacks exposed a lot of obvious and not-so-obvious weaknesses on that front, of which we've rectified some but not all.

I am against going to war against a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. If you're truly vigilant about finding the 9/11 perps, you don't start something that will dilute your ability to get bin Laden.

I know myself pretty well. If I had a relative die in the towers, I'd be p*ssed for the president undertaking this folly in Iraq. Bin Laden is not there; he's in Afghanistan. Finish the job in Afghanistan.

[iplaw]

quote:
I am against going to war against a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. If you're truly vigilant about finding the 9/11 perps, you don't start something that will dilute your ability to get bin Laden.

Ugh...It's not my, or Bush's fault that so many people think that Iraq had something to do with 9/11.  There are some cryptic quotes regarding Saddam and terrorist ties that Cheney made, but a connection to 9/11, even if it was tacitly made, was the last reason we went in Iraq.  It was 17 violations of Charter 1441, and WMDs.  The 17 violations of 1441 were enough without even discussing WMDs...

There are plenty of terrorists in the world who wish the US harm who had nothing to do with 9/11, is that the only litmus test we have?

Lastly, I don't believe that anything going on in the rest of the world precludes us being active in Afghanistan.  I don't believe that we are so weak we can only maintain a war on one front.  Three may be a stretch, but two, I don't think that's a problem.

quote:
I know myself pretty well. If I had a relative die in the towers, I'd be p*ssed for the president undertaking this folly in Iraq. Bin Laden is not there; he's in Afghanistan. Finish the job in Afghanistan.

I think it's pretty clear at this point that he's no longer in Afghanistan.  Don't you think if we had some inclination that he was really there, that we would be all over that country like a cheap suit?  That would be a huge win for Bush, and one he needs, it doesn't make sense to assume he's just wandering around alive and we're not trying hard enough...

[Conan71]

Hillary was claiming on the campaign trail last weekend (along with John McCain, they missed the Iraq NBR vote because they had more important things to do like getting a jump on an election which is still over a year and a half away) that she has a solution which will end the war in Iraq in 90 days.  If she is such a noble states-woman, why doesn't she share that plan with the present administration, instead of baiting voters with something which won't come to pass for another two years if we wait for her to be elected?

Occasionally, I have to watch that train wreck called "Countdown With J.O.".  He had a *former* CIA specialist on the show claiming that Al-Qaeda is re-massing and training in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Seems like these outside "insiders" must know more than active duty intelligence agents, eh?

[rwarn17588]

It's not just former intelligence officials, Conan.

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=1216&u_sid=2334469

[rwarn17588]

<iplaw wrote:

There are plenty of terrorists in the world who wish the US harm who had nothing to do with 9/11, is that the only litmus test we have?

<end clip>

Jeez. You'd think the 9/11 terrorists would at least be a higher priority. At least get that job done before going off on another rabbit chase. That's common sense.

[cannon_fodder]

Instead of pulling every weed out of a small section of my lawn down to the last blade of crab grass; I usually pull out the vast majority of weeds in my ENTIRE lawn.  At the end of the day I end up with a driveway littered with hundreds of dead weeds that can no longer interfere with my pretty lawn - which looks pretty damn good... instead of a smaller pile of weeds and on small patch of lawn that is perfect while the rest of the lawn is still infested and looks like crap.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

<iplaw wrote:

There are plenty of terrorists in the world who wish the US harm who had nothing to do with 9/11, is that the only litmus test we have?

<end clip>

Jeez. You'd think the 9/11 terrorists would at least be a higher priority. At least get that job done before going off on another rabbit chase. That's common sense.

We did clear out the Taliban as best we could.  They are making a resurgence, but eliminating any group is a virtual impossibility.  The Afghans have to step up and turn them in...sounds like another conflict...  

OBL has vanished and there's nothing we can do about it other than keep looking.  With the WOT it's not an all or nothing discussion.  We can't simply ignore threats because another conflict is still ongoing though...that wouldn't be a good choice would it?

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

<iplaw wrote:

There are plenty of terrorists in the world who wish the US harm who had nothing to do with 9/11, is that the only litmus test we have?

<end clip>

Jeez. You'd think the 9/11 terrorists would at least be a higher priority. At least get that job done before going off on another rabbit chase. That's common sense.

Okay, one more flog on this dead horse- we pretty much did all that could be done other than to spend a few billion dollars to track down and kill the handful of hold-outs we didn't get in the initial strikes on Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.  9/11 terrorists were the first priority.  Unless something has happened I'm not aware of, we still have troops in Afghanistan.

There's nothing I enjoy more than second-guessing officials and leaders who are privy to far more intelligence than I am privy to. [xx(]

[rwarn17588]

<cannon fodder wrote:

Instead of pulling every weed out of a small section of my lawn down to the last blade of crab grass; I usually pull out the vast majority of weeds in my ENTIRE lawn. At the end of the day I end up with a driveway littered with hundreds of dead weeds that can no longer interfere with my pretty lawn - which looks pretty damn good... instead of a smaller pile of weeds and on small patch of lawn that is perfect while the rest of the lawn is still infested and looks like crap.

<end clip>

Let's go with a similar analogy, shall we?

Bush sees a 100-acre field infested with weeds (terrorists). Some of these weeds are choking off the tomato plants in a corner of his small garden that provides his food.

The immediate threat are the weeds in the tomato plants. You have to be careful in taking out the weeds so you don't injure the tomatoes. Once that imminent threat is removed, you then work on the rest of the land. Again, it's priorities.

The way the Bush did it is like this. He started on the weeds in the tomato plants and was doing OK. But, in the middle of his immediate task, he looked around and said, "These other weeds aren't threatening my tomatoes, but I don't like them. I'm going to take them out."

So Bush napalms 20 acres of the land. The smoke and fire pisses off his neighbors. The fire takes out some of the weeds, but new, stronger weeds arise in the scorched ground to take their place.

Farmer Bush keeps battling the weeds on that 20 acres, but never eradicates them. That's because he needs help from his neighbors. But the neighbors think he's an idiot and don't want to help. Meanwhile, the weeds on the rest of the acreage grow bigger and proliferate. That includes the weeds in the mostly-ignored tomato patch, which are threatening again.

And that's where we are.

[iplaw]

quote:
So Bush napalms 20 acres of the land. The smoke and fire pisses off his neighbors. The fire takes out some of the weeds, but new, stronger weeds arise in the scorched ground to take their place.

Can someone say hyperbole...[xx(]