[quote]Professor X wrote:
Hell, I’ve been told by every republican here that Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11…now it does?[/quote]
Nope, you’ve been told something else. Can’t help you if you can’t get it.
Is anyone really surprised when your enemy fights back harder when facing retaliation or even defeat?
I had these real pricks for neighbors once. After one prick started shit with me and got some shit back, his brother joined in. Big surprise, huh?
After Pearl Harbor, We went on the offensive. Sure seemed to me like Japan came “back” with all she had in “retaliation”. Big surprise huh?
Kick an extremists ass and more extremists may actually strike back at YOU! So what do we do about that?
Cry and Whine if some of you had your way.
I think we have a right to be upset with President Bush!
After all he did say that the war on terror would be an easy one that would be winnable in a few months…Oh wait…no actually he said the opposite.
Okay, never mind. We can go back to blaming the liberals for their oh so lying ways!
I think it would be much easier to believe g.w. if he didnt have that fucking smirk on his face the whole time he talked.
[quote]derek wrote:
After Pearl Harbor, We went on the offensive. Sure seemed to me like Japan came “back” with all she had in “retaliation”. Big surprise huh?
.[/quote]
Derek,
Your comparison to Pearl Harbor is both good and bad. The attack on PH resembled 9/11 in that it was a suprise attack caused many casualties. However, we knew that Japan was the attacker(must’ve been all the red dots on the planes). So to retaliate we attacked Japan. Makes sense to me.
9/11 wasn’t initiated by Iraq, or any country. So the response needs to be something other than a full scale “liberation” of each country that we suspect might have a couple extremist in it. We aren’t fighting countries here. Bush is right(excuse me while I vomit) in that we are fighting an ideology, but using our current methods we are only strengthing that ideology. Right now, we may be furhter from complete victory in the GWOT than when we started.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
A decent speech. The fact that he throws 9-11 in there is not surprising, is it? Lest we forget:
(Jeez I must have posted this stuff a gazillion times by now)
We never stopped the war with Iraq from 1991. Saddam violated the sanctions over and over and over, with the help of the FRENCH. He ordered his troops to fire at our planes in the no fly zone, he… just… dammit, are you guys even listening? Why do folks like Jeffy and I have to keep doing this again and again? It’s not like there’s that many new people in the poli forums all of a sudden.
How does Iraq tie in with 9/11? It was the kick in the butt we got as a nation, a wake-up call to stop our complacency and take responsibility for the rest of our obligations in the rest of the world. We had been ignoring this Saddam asshole and his crap for WAYYY too long, and now our people understood the danger posed by Islamic Extremists and their terrorism AND PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT THEM LIKE HUSSEIN. Money for suicide bombers is plenty of proof for this.
So, in other words, proof did not exist that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Pre-wmptive strikes should be undertaken with a little more care and proof, dont you think? Otherwise, we could pre-emptively strike almost any nation we have fault with.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
I did indeed listen to it today. Very good speech. It’s nice to se Dubya firing back with both pistols.[/quote]
It would have been nicer even if he didn’t keep repeating the false implication that Iraq was somehow linked to the 9/11 attacks.
[quote]derek wrote:
Is anyone really surprised when your enemy fights back harder when facing retaliation or even defeat?
I had these real pricks for neighbors once. After one prick started shit with me and got some shit back, his brother joined in. Big surprise, huh?
After Pearl Harbor, We went on the offensive. Sure seemed to me like Japan came “back” with all she had in “retaliation”. Big surprise huh?
Kick an extremists ass and more extremists may actually strike back at YOU! So what do we do about that?
Cry and Whine if some of you had your way.[/quote]
There’s a difference. Pearl Harbor was attacked by Japan. So the counteroffensive against Japan was logical.
Iraq was not linked with the 9/11 attacks. The 9/11 attacks were carried out by individuals, not a country. So to retaliate against Iraq was illogical.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
There’s a difference. Pearl Harbor was attacked by Japan. So the counteroffensive against Japan was logical.
Iraq was not linked with the 9/11 attacks. The 9/11 attacks were carried out by individuals, not a country. So to retaliate against Iraq was illogical.
[/quote]
I cannot seem to make my point clear in print. I’ll work on that.
I guess the Pearl Harbor analogy was not the best.
I will simplify (I hope!)
If one of a group of say, five gang members attacks you and you fight back, chances are the other four will jump in. You in a way caused the other four to jump in but on the other hand, what choice did you have? I suppose you could run and hide but fighting back is sometimes the best way out even if it gets worse in the short term.
You see, simply defending yourself can be seen as further instigation to an enemy while at the same time, being logically unavoidable.
This was merely commentary on the discussion of whether we caused more militant terrorists to joint in the fight.
I was not at all saying there was a link with Iraq and 9-11 in that post. Just saying sometimes fighting back will enliven the enemy.
I do think however, that 9-11 showed us that we cannot sit around waiting for another Pearl Harbor (or another 9-11)
Please refer to my thread titled;
“Democrats Before and After”
[quote]derek wrote:
This was merely commentary on the discussion of whether we caused more militant terrorists to joint in the fight.
[/quote]
We already knew that. It is surprising to me that the administration is finally admitting that we have created more terrorists than when we started. Uh, no shit. Since these terrorists are not specifically a “country” that we are fighting, we are LOSING if we run in and create more terrorists. That is the very simple point that many have had from the beginning.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
We already knew that. It is surprising to me that the administration is finally admitting that we have created more terrorists than when we started. Uh, no shit. Since these terrorists are not specifically a “country” that we are fighting, we are LOSING if we run in and create more terrorists. That is the very simple point that many have had from the beginning. [/quote]
Speaking of simple points…
Sometimes firing up the enemy or even increasing their numbers is the only choice when the plan is to create a safer future in the long run.
You wrote “we are LOSING if we run in and create more terrorists.”
More accurately and more to the point…
“We are LOSING if we run”.
[quote]derek wrote:
Professor X wrote:
We already knew that. It is surprising to me that the administration is finally admitting that we have created more terrorists than when we started. Uh, no shit. Since these terrorists are not specifically a “country” that we are fighting, we are LOSING if we run in and create more terrorists. That is the very simple point that many have had from the beginning.
Speaking of simple points…
Sometimes firing up the enemy or even increasing their numbers is the only choice when the plan is to create a safer future in the long run.
You wrote “we are LOSING if we run in and create more terrorists.”
More accurately and more to the point…
“We are LOSING if we run”. [/quote]
No one wants to run. Some appear to have wanted a better plan in place if our actions had absolutely NOTHING to do with 9/11 and this was all about Saddam. Do you feel as safe as you did on 9/10?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
No one wants to run. Some appear to have wanted a better plan in place if our actions had absolutely NOTHING to do with 9/11 and this was all about Saddam. Do you feel as safe as you did on 9/10? [/quote]
If there are NO physical links whatsoever with 9-11 and Iraq, there was the logical one… That we better not wait around while our enemies plan our demise. Kind of a wake-up call if you will.
Of course you’d have to ignore the airliner fuselages used for hijack training found in Iraq. You have to turn a blind eye to Saddam’s payment to the families of suicide bombers. You’d have to ignore all the intellegence that prompted Clinton (both), Albright, Kennedy, Kerry, Reid, Durbin, Berger, Pelosi to agree that Saddam and his WMD need to be dealt with and to ignore him would be to our great peril.
I’ve read and listened to plenty of folks comment on how “fat and happy” America was before 9-11. How comfortable we all were with our Expeditions, our NFL, our self-indulgent ways in general. The same people decrying our complacency are the same people bitching about our so-called “preemptive war”
You cannot have it both ways and keep your childern safe, people.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Do you feel as safe as you did on 9/10? [/quote]
No. I don’t. I never will…
I was rear ended by a drunk driver once. I don’t feel as safe on the road at night as I did in the years before the accident. I never will…
So?
derek: now that we have gone into iraq al queda is running the show. All of the insurgents get their orders from al queda have you seen the news lately? Therefore going into iraq has mulitplied queda’s #'s
I listened to the whole speech. Regardless of whether Bush and Cheney lied the test of a policy is its success and the Iraq war has NOT been a success. It has diverted attention from terrorism by costing us 300 billion dollars and depleted our military’s ability while replacing a secular middle eastern government with a mystery.
Bin Laden is still at large, Israel is no safer, oil prices are much higher, Iraqi oil is NOT paying for the war effort, we have lost 2000+ and 15, 000 horribly wounded, and we are still fighting for the best outcome. We learned nothing in Vietnam(where a president lied to Congress about the Gulf of Tonkin to get war powers).
We invaded and had no plan for the “afterward”, we left tons and tons of explosives and arms disappear to arm an isurgency, we dismantles the Baath party government and the army so there was a power vacuum…it goes on and on…and Bush never takes responsibilty for any errors at all. He cannot think of anything hes done wrong.
As I recall 9/11 happened on George W Bush’s watch!
I’d be a big fan of this president if I thought his actions came anywhere near his rhetoric, i.e. if I thought he (and Rumsfeld) had any idea how to wage this war.
[quote]thabigdon24 wrote:
derek: now that we have gone into iraq al queda is running the show. All of the insurgents get their orders from al queda have you seen the news lately? Therefore going into iraq has mulitplied queda’s #'s[/quote]
Please define ‘running the show’. If by that you mean they are cowaring in the shadows, and making sneak attacks on innicent women and children - maybe.
When was the last offensive launched by Al Qaeda? When was the last time they mounted a succesful attack against coalition troops?
We’ve killed tens of thousands of terrorists. We have lost all of 2000. I am not minimizing the loss of American life. But compared to the terrorists we have lost very few.
We are winning - and it’s sad that the MSM doesn’t think our winning is news worthy.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
thabigdon24 wrote:
When was the last offensive launched by Al Qaeda? When was the last time they mounted a succesful attack against coalition troops? [/quote]
-That’s not how terrorists work, and you know it. They almost never attack military troops. If they did, we’d be talking about guerrilla warfare, not terrorism. Attacks on civilians is what defines terror.
[quote]
We’ve killed tens of thousands of terrorists. We have lost all of 2000. I am not minimizing the loss of American life. But compared to the terrorists we have lost very few.[/quote]
-Just a question. Where did you get these numbers? We may have killed tens of thousands of Iraqis, but not terrorists, unless you consider all Iraqis potential terrorists. Again you really can’t include the Iraqi army in these numbers, because they aren’t terrorists either. So how’d you come up with that?
[quote]AZMojo wrote:
When was the last offensive launched by Al Qaeda? When was the last time they mounted a succesful attack against coalition troops?
-That’s not how terrorists work, and you know it. They almost never attack military troops. If they did, we’d be talking about guerrilla warfare, not terrorism. Attacks on civilians is what defines terror.[/quote]
Insurgents, terrorists, whatever - they are nonuniformed combatants. bigdon said that they were calling the shots. I showed how they really weren’t. But I’ll be sure to pass it on that you imply the U.S. forces are not being attacked. I’m sure they’ll be relieved to know that all the exloding road side bombs are all in their head.
You need to co-ordinate your story better with the anti war crowd. Maybe go talk to Cindy Sheehan. She prefers the term ‘freedom fighters’.
[quote]We’ve killed tens of thousands of terrorists. We have lost all of 2000. I am not minimizing the loss of American life. But compared to the terrorists we have lost very few.
-Just a question. Where did you get these numbers? We may have killed tens of thousands of Iraqis, but not terrorists, unless you consider all Iraqis potential terrorists. Again you really can’t include the Iraqi army in these numbers, because they aren’t terrorists either. So how’d you come up with that?[/quote]
I don’t have a website link, but it doesn’t take a roket scientist to figure out that we have killed a shitload more of the people trying to kill us than they have of us.
The whole point of my post was to counter the idea that the terrorists were calling the shots.
I could give a shit what you think we can or can’t include in the casualty numbers.
Prove we are losing. Prove that Al Qaeda is calling the shots. I really doubt that if they were indeed in charge that there would have been two national elections and a constitution over there in the last couple of years.