"Struggle for Civilization" - is he serious?

[krusin1]

Since that time, UNDER MR. BUSH'S LEADERSHIP, there have been no successful terrorist attacks on American soil.

That is slightly flawed logic.

Other than the Oklahoma bombing and Pearl Harbor, how many "successful terrorist attacks" do you think there have been? Also, are you counting domestic groups or just foreign groups?

Since there have only been a couple "successful" attacks, that leaves a lot of Presidents that have shown great leadership by your standards.

World Trade Center '93 ring a bell?

Then there a few others throughout the nineties that weren't technically on American soil, but were definitely aimed at our interests (USS Cole, anyone?) And yes, the main focus is on Islamo-fascists. They seem to be the ones clamoring for all the attention currently.

Again, it's real simple - we kill the terrorists, or they kill us.

Terrorists are not amenable to reason or logic. They cannot be persuaded because they believe they have god on their side. If we leave them alone, they WON'T leave us alone - that's already been proven (9/11/01)

Are there a lot of terrorists in Iraq right now? Sure. And that's a GOOD thing. If they're over there, they are NOT over here - and OVER THERE is where we have the firepower to deal with them effectively.

If you're really doubting Mr. Bush's whole war on terror thing, I DARE YOU to follow these thoughts to their logical conclusion.

Suppose we leave Iraq before it's able to defend itself. Iran and LOTS of Islamic-fascists suddenly have a really nice place to hang out, train, develop nasty weapons and prepare to COME KILL US!

Suppose we just decide to leave the terrorists alone. They regroup and work undisturbed on better ways to COME KILL US!

We can go on and on if you like, but the bottom line (again) is that either we kill the terrorists or they come kill us.

The only workable long-term option is to make terrorism so expensive in blood and treasure, and so ineffective in accomplishing the desired ends, that people just stop trying it.

Mr. Bush and Co. have certainly made some mistakes along the way, but I'm not seeing anyone else with a workable solution...

(and PLEASE don't trot out the UN... we've yet to see them deal effectively with any kind of violent threat... if that's all you've got, just don't even bother.)

Have a nice day.

"The only workable long-term option is to make terrorism so expensive in blood and treasure, and so ineffective in accomplishing the desired ends, that people just stop trying it."

One jihadi with $50 worth of explosive takes out 3-4 US soldiers, requiring the expense of recruiting, training, and reequipping them. $50+ a bit of support to the family vs. what? $50k just for the infantrymen? repairing a tank whose tread has been blown off, or a Humvee crushed like a beercan is still a profit for the terrorist/irregular soldier.

So your logic fails.

No. The logic is still sound. Your analysis is faulty. The point is that if conducting terrorism is a real PITA (makes terrorists dead) and consistently fails to produce the desired ends, they will stop trying it.

Again, a question for all the Bush-haters. Exactly what is your plan to stop terrorism?

(Remember, it's already been shown that UN-based strategies are ineffective. Also, keep in mind that "run away and maybe they'll leave us alone" didn't work too well for Europe.)

So...

[Caribbean Soul]

Disclaimer: I didn't see W's speech, I went down to Ground Zero when I left my office Monday night and didn't get home until about 10:00.

Just curious - does everyone disagree with the president's message that we're in a struggle for civilization or just the forum in which he chose to deliver the message? We're dealing with islamic fundamentalists who have absolutely no problem murdering innocent civilians, kidnapping people, usually civilians, and cutting their heads off while videotaping the beheading so it can be shown to the world, blowing up trains and buses, flying planes into buildings. They specifically target innocent civilians. They would be perfectly at home living back in the 7th century. They believe it's their duty to kill the infidels, I think that means all of us. The president of the islamic republic of Iran thinks Israel should be wiped off the map. And this is not something that began after the war Iraq, it's been going on much longer than that. If we're not in a struggle for civilization, just what would you call it?

Once again the voice of reason sums thing up perfectly.. Thanks, LIPH!

[alphabits]

OK, I'll admit I have no answers .... only questions.

Estimates are that there are over 1 billion (possibly as many as 1.5 billion) Muslims in the world. How do we know which ones are the "Islamo-fascists" are which ones are the regular kind? Where do they all live? Do we have to invade all the countries where the "bad guys" live or will they come to us? How long will it take to dispose of enough of them that they discontinue their activity? Given that they believe a warped interpretation of the Koran which tells them "And those who are slain in God's cause, their works shall not go wrong; He will guide them and set right their mind; and will make them enter into Paradise which He has told them of.", is it reasonable to assume that killing them deters any but the ones who are killed? Or do we have to kill them all? And what are the chances of that? Actually what are the chances of finding them all considering that after 5 years we still haven't found the guy responsible for 9/11?

[Skibo]

That is slightly flawed logic.

Other than the Oklahoma bombing and Pearl Harbor, how many "successful terrorist attacks" do you think there have been? Also, are you counting domestic groups or just foreign groups?

Since there have only been a couple "successful" attacks, that leaves a lot of Presidents that have shown great leadership by your standards.

Waco, Ruby Ridge, the Unibomber, Those two idiots that were sniping along I-95 in MD and VA., The anthrax attack was after 9/11, the first WTC bomb in the basement. Some of these are domestic, some foreign, a couple were our own govenment out of control.

[RinglingRingling]

Since that time, UNDER MR. BUSH'S LEADERSHIP, there have been no successful terrorist attacks on American soil.

That is slightly flawed logic.

Other than the Oklahoma bombing and Pearl Harbor, how many "successful terrorist attacks" do you think there have been? Also, are you counting domestic groups or just foreign groups?

Since there have only been a couple "successful" attacks, that leaves a lot of Presidents that have shown great leadership by your standards.

World Trade Center '93 ring a bell?

Then there a few others throughout the nineties that weren't technically on American soil, but were definitely aimed at our interests (USS Cole, anyone?) And yes, the main focus is on Islamo-fascists. They seem to be the ones clamoring for all the attention currently.

Again, it's real simple - we kill the terrorists, or they kill us.

Terrorists are not amenable to reason or logic. They cannot be persuaded because they believe they have god on their side. If we leave them alone, they WON'T leave us alone - that's already been proven (9/11/01)

Are there a lot of terrorists in Iraq right now? Sure. And that's a GOOD thing. If they're over there, they are NOT over here - and OVER THERE is where we have the firepower to deal with them effectively.

If you're really doubting Mr. Bush's whole war on terror thing, I DARE YOU to follow these thoughts to their logical conclusion.

Suppose we leave Iraq before it's able to defend itself. Iran and LOTS of Islamic-fascists suddenly have a really nice place to hang out, train, develop nasty weapons and prepare to COME KILL US!

Suppose we just decide to leave the terrorists alone. They regroup and work undisturbed on better ways to COME KILL US!

We can go on and on if you like, but the bottom line (again) is that either we kill the terrorists or they come kill us.

The only workable long-term option is to make terrorism so expensive in blood and treasure, and so ineffective in accomplishing the desired ends, that people just stop trying it.

Mr. Bush and Co. have certainly made some mistakes along the way, but I'm not seeing anyone else with a workable solution...

(and PLEASE don't trot out the UN... we've yet to see them deal effectively with any kind of violent threat... if that's all you've got, just don't even bother.)

Have a nice day.

"The only workable long-term option is to make terrorism so expensive in blood and treasure, and so ineffective in accomplishing the desired ends, that people just stop trying it."

One jihadi with $50 worth of explosive takes out 3-4 US soldiers, requiring the expense of recruiting, training, and reequipping them. $50+ a bit of support to the family vs. what? $50k just for the infantrymen? repairing a tank whose tread has been blown off, or a Humvee crushed like a beercan is still a profit for the terrorist/irregular soldier.

So your logic fails.

No. The logic is still sound. Your analysis is faulty. The point is that if conducting terrorism is a real PITA (makes terrorists dead) and consistently fails to produce the desired ends, they will stop trying it.

Again, a question for all the Bush-haters. Exactly what is your plan to stop terrorism?

(Remember, it's already been shown that UN-based strategies are ineffective. Also, keep in mind that "run away and maybe they'll leave us alone" didn't work too well for Europe.)

So...

All your supported plan is doing is making more terrorists by adding more fodder.

Despite the US Military presence in Iraq, are terrorist attacks more, or less, prevalent against targets? (quick hint, don't use the stats published, it appears that the big drop was a bit of numerical ledgerdemaine with the categories and definitions).

[Skibo]

All your supported plan is doing is making more terrorists by adding more fodder.

Despite the US Military presence in Iraq, are terrorist attacks more, or less, prevalent against targets? (quick hint, don't use the stats published, it appears that the big drop was a bit of numerical ledgerdemaine with the categories and definitions).

The plan is not making more terrorists, it is exposing the terrorists that were always there. The troops in Iraq are a terrorist magnet. I like the terrorists flocking to Iraq to support their cause. Better there than here. My cousin was in Afganistan. Her patrol would drive out to a high point deploy a large antenna, (listen for communications) attract Taliban, engage in firefights and then go home. Technically she wasn't in a combat group but sure saw her share. The flip flopping US policy has created more terrorists. Remember when we were friends with Iran but hated Iraq, then friends with Iraq and hated Iran, then hated Iraq and tolerated Iran. We reward (bribe) and punish(sanction) them regularly and the people affected have no idea why. Finishing Iraq, by helping them to create their own security forces and become stable will mean more than abandoning the effort. Whether you agree with the action or not. Abandoning now would only reinforce the opinions built up over all these years and strengthen the terrorist movement.

[captenuta]

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

So much of the history of the struggle between good and evil can be explained by Edmund Burke's observation.
Time and again those who profess to be good seem to clearly outnumber those who are evil,
yet those who are evil seem to prevail far too often. Seldom is it the numbers that determine the outcome,
but whether those who claim to be good men are willing to stand up and fight for what they know to be right.

I am proud to have vote for Bush in 2000 and 2004. Thank God he is standing up to what is clearly evil in this world. Yes lives have been lost and will continue to be lost. This is war. Where have all the good men gone to in this country.

[krusin1]

Since that time, UNDER MR. BUSH'S LEADERSHIP, there have been no successful terrorist attacks on American soil.

~snip~

Again, a question for all the Bush-haters. Exactly what is your plan to stop terrorism?

(Remember, it's already been shown that UN-based strategies are ineffective. Also, keep in mind that "run away and maybe they'll leave us alone" didn't work too well for Europe.)

So...

All your supported plan is doing is making more terrorists by adding more fodder.

~snip~
.

Hey. If you actually want a debate, then you've got to answer the question.

Once again... Exactly what is your (the Dems, the libs, whoever) plan to stop terrorism?

[alphabits]

Once again... Exactly what is your (the Dems, the libs, whoever) plan to stop terrorism?

Is it your contention then that invading Iraq was President Bush's plan to stop terrorism?

[krusin1]

Once again... Exactly what is your (the Dems, the libs, whoever) plan to stop terrorism?

Is it your contention then that invading Iraq was President Bush's plan to stop terrorism?

Again... please answer the question I posed, or just let it go...

[RinglingRingling]

All your supported plan is doing is making more terrorists by adding more fodder.

Despite the US Military presence in Iraq, are terrorist attacks more, or less, prevalent against targets? (quick hint, don't use the stats published, it appears that the big drop was a bit of numerical ledgerdemaine with the categories and definitions).

The plan is not making more terrorists, it is exposing the terrorists that were always there. The troops in Iraq are a terrorist magnet. I like the terrorists flocking to Iraq to support their cause. Better there than here. My cousin was in Afganistan. Her patrol would drive out to a high point deploy a large antenna, (listen for communications) attract Taliban, engage in firefights and then go home. Technically she wasn't in a combat group but sure saw her share. The flip flopping US policy has created more terrorists. Remember when we were friends with Iran but hated Iraq, then friends with Iraq and hated Iran, then hated Iraq and tolerated Iran. We reward (bribe) and punish(sanction) them regularly and the people affected have no idea why. Finishing Iraq, by helping them to create their own security forces and become stable will mean more than abandoning the effort. Whether you agree with the action or not. Abandoning now would only reinforce the opinions built up over all these years and strengthen the terrorist movement.

say what? you have got to be kidding. every time we show up and shoot up a family and claim them to be terrorists, every time we bomb a wedding reception by mistake, we create propoganda that fuels the recruiting.

Ask the Israelis if there is an end to the "terrorists" in the West Bank. Go back as far as you want. One would think their engagement strategy would have cleaned out the collection in a relatively small area like a Japanese fishing trawler sucking up orange roughie like a vaccuum...

We create them, unless you want to go with the "there is evil in the hearts of all men" argument in which case you might as well just start shooting random people in the crowds because sooner or later their evil intent will display itself.

[RinglingRingling]

~snip~

Again, a question for all the Bush-haters. Exactly what is your plan to stop terrorism?

(Remember, it's already been shown that UN-based strategies are ineffective. Also, keep in mind that "run away and maybe they'll leave us alone" didn't work too well for Europe.)

So...

All your supported plan is doing is making more terrorists by adding more fodder.

~snip~
.

Hey. If you actually want a debate, then you've got to answer the question.

Once again... Exactly what is your (the Dems, the libs, whoever) plan to stop terrorism?

stop them at our borders rather than turning someone else's home into a slaughterhouse and sinking $2-300 billion into project with longer logistical lines?

[alphabits]

Once again... Exactly what is your (the Dems, the libs, whoever) plan to stop terrorism?

Is it your contention then that invading Iraq was President Bush's plan to stop terrorism?

Again... please answer the question I posed, or just let it go...

Sorry, your question was directed at "Bush haters, Dem, libs, whatever" ...... I'm none of the above. I was merely looking for clarificaton on what you consider to be the current "plan".

[krusin1]

All your supported plan is doing is making more terrorists by adding more fodder.

~snip~
.

Hey. If you actually want a debate, then you've got to answer the question.

Once again... Exactly what is your (the Dems, the libs, whoever) plan to stop terrorism?

stop them at our borders rather than turning someone else's home into a slaughterhouse and sinking $2-300 billion into project with longer logistical lines?

Ok. Reasonable response - my thanks.

I appreciate you stepping up, although I disagree with your plan.

IMHO, the strategy you describe lets terrorists work comfortably and at their leisure on methods to destroy us.

Again IMHO, I think it's harder for bad guys to think up ways to kill us when they're being pursued (by US.)

[RinglingRingling]

Hey. If you actually want a debate, then you've got to answer the question.

Once again... Exactly what is your (the Dems, the libs, whoever) plan to stop terrorism?

stop them at our borders rather than turning someone else's home into a slaughterhouse and sinking $2-300 billion into project with longer logistical lines?

Ok. Reasonable response - my thanks.

I appreciate you stepping up, although I disagree with your plan.

IMHO, the strategy you describe lets terrorists work comfortably and at their leisure on methods to destroy us.

Again IMHO, I think it's harder for bad guys to think up ways to kill us when they're being pursued (by US.)

perhaps it does. But it also lets us combat them from the moral high ground we held just after 9/11.

[land_shark3]

Ask the Israelis if there is an end to the "terrorists" in the West Bank. Go back as far as you want.

What are you talking about? That one only goes back 4000 years or so. I'm sure now that the US is pressuring them to have peace talks we can end this silly discussion about whether God really meant for them to have that land.

[SharkOnLand]

Better there than here.

This line of thinking is why the majority of the world dislike Americans.

It's ok for innocent Iraqis to get killed, as long as American citizens are safe.

[krusin1]

Better there than here.

This line of thinking is why the majority of the world dislike Americans.

It's ok for innocent Iraqis to get killed, as long as American citizens are safe.

Innocent Iraqis weren't faring any better under old Saddam. Gassing civilians, anyone?

Now in Iraq at least, there's a chance at a better way - even if it's gonna take a long time to get there.

[Skibo]

This line of thinking is why the majority of the world dislike Americans.

Yet millions of foreigners risk their lives to get into this country and millions more wish they could live here. My opinion stated it the same opinion implied by the rest of the world, Starvation in Africa - better there than here. I don't see much of the world helping with that. Opression in North Korea - better there than here. The world ignores 1/4 million political prisoners and the rest of the country being starved to death. Suppression of the free press and human rights in China - better there than here. Who has spoken out about the recent arrests in China? Ethnic cleansing in Bosnia was only stopped because there was the threat that the violence could have spread and effected more of europe. The rest of the world is more selfish and self centered than the US will ever be.

[RinglingRingling]

Ask the Israelis if there is an end to the "terrorists" in the West Bank. Go back as far as you want.

What are you talking about? That one only goes back 4000 years or so. I'm sure now that the US is pressuring them to have peace talks we can end this silly discussion about whether God really meant for them to have that land.

true. Maybe we can get the Sec. of State to bang heads together and they'll have some sense.