Further to the last point, war is not a zero sum game, where there is a definative winner and loser. History and its representations of conflicts seems to forget, conveniently.
There are more complecated issues. If prisoners dilema was not such a universally applicable concept, mutally assured destruction would not have been the mutual deterrent it was and i would be typing with 4 arms.
or am i waffling now?
miniross,
Interesting take.
What would you have done differently in this situation post 9/11?
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
miniross,
Interesting take.
What would you have done differently in this situation post 9/11?
JeffR[/quote]
I guess i would have been all over it as well. There is no way to reconcile such an action and to retaliate is probably the only option, both politically and emotionally.
The problem with terrorists is that there is no defined target, and if, like most, terrorist facions are not commonly delt with, there is a defeceit of skill in that. how is that best dealt with, i could not say…
Its quite funny really, but to many irish, the British occupy northern ireland.
"I guess i would have been all over it as well. There is no way to reconcile such an action and to retaliate is probably the only option, both politically and emotionally.
The problem with terrorists is that there is no defined target, and if, like most, terrorist facions are not commonly delt with, there is a defeceit of skill in that. how is that best dealt with, i could not say…
Its quite funny really, but to many irish, the British occupy northern ireland."
I like you miniross. Admitting that you don’t know makes you better than most people on this board.
I share your concerns about targets.
That’s why this war is multi-faceted with a strong emphasis upon education and democracy.
Our best defense is education and jobs.
JeffR
Mini-
It certainly seems like the terrorists are running out of steam.
The insurgents, as reported by Time, are meeting with the US Military to discuss cessation of hostilities. Seems like they are facing reality for once.
The Palestinians and Israeli’s seem to be giving peace a try. Iran certainly doesn’t want to tangle with the US or Israel over a half-finished reactor.
At some point, after it hurts enough, even the fanatics face reality. Maybe the legacy of Iraq will to be as an example to the rest of the Middle East.
If it hurts enough…
I bet thats what the fanatics are saying.
“One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”
There’s definitely some truth to that, which is why I think the “War on Terror” is kind of a rhetorical construct, like the “War on Drugs.” Although they have done some truly horrible things (Beslan, suicide bombings) I wouldn’t put the Chechens or the Palestinians in the same class as Al Qaeda. Is there a ton of overlap? Sure. But part of the challenge seems to me to be determining who has legitimate grievances, even if they’re addressing them in the worst way possible.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
“War on Terror” is kind of a rhetorical construct, like the “War on Drugs.”[/quote]
Terrorism is a tool, not a country. You can’t wage a war “on terror” any more that you could wage war on propaganda, sabotage, riots or disinformation.
Orwell got it pretty accurately in 1984. He just couldn’t imagine the subtility of the perpetual war…
GDollars,
I appreciate your post.
However, any group that uses suicide bombers against civilians are terrorists.
Further, if they use those tactics, WHATEVER cause they are advocating is automatically invalid.
Period.
JeffR
This is one of those questions that makes you shake your head in disbelief. The alternative to invading iraq would have been continuing to fight the war on terror. (DUH!) Remember 9/11? Remember that Osama bin laden guy? Remember we don’t want that to happen again? The disconnect from reality with you repubs is amazing. It’s like the PIPA study showed: a large majority of bush supporters believe things that are simply not true. Boy is it clear in some of the posts in here.
If you were the president and your country was attacked by a terrorist organization that had cells in many countries, would you:
a. wipe out the terrorist organization?
b. attack a nation with the least ties to that organization.
Of course if your name is george bush, worst president ever, formerly bad governor, formerly failed businessman, formerly drunk driver etc. etc. you use terrible tragedy to lie country into war with country for made up reasons, WMD, AL- QUEDA, democracy. Then pray and use reliable slander machine to convince 51 percent of americans who aren’t able to understand simple truth, or “Facts”, or “read the newspaper” etc.
I don’t remember rummy(insert photo of rummy shaking hands with ruthless dictator Saddam) caring about democracy in Iraq when him and the other bush were selling him weapons and wmd, and supplying billions in credit to saddam. (You know back when he was gassing his own people)
And you repubs do know that oil for food happened under our watch with our knowledge under our no fly zone and under our sattelites with companies in france, germany, russia, and (GASP) big texas oil companies, and syria etc. This happened under Clinton and it happened under Bush. And right now Halliburton is iran doing some oil contracting, and nary a peep on faux news about it. (I wonder why?) so no need to continue that lame argument.
In summary
the repub strategy: use 9/11 to invade country unrelated to 9/11 to pursue strategies goals unrelated to 9/11. Lie to american voters, remind them of 9/11.
also talk about family values, abortion is bad. Begin bankrupting america.(like you did in texas, and your business)
the dem strategy: do everything you can to wipe out Al-queda the terrorist organization that attacked us on 9/11. This would include devoting all resources to finding OBL. Let weapons inspectors in Iraq continue not finding weapons of mass destruction that weren’t there since gulf war. Continue improving america and americans.
any alternative… uhmm yeah i’d say there was an alternative.
p.s. start reading newspapers.
Finally, I have not really begun to even attempt to convince you of the existance of God (others have). All I am trying to do is change your tone regarding how you represent your atheism. That you are an atheist does not give you the right to demean God in front of those who hold their faith as important. Just as those who are not gay have no right to attack those who are not gay. Matters not if it’s a choice or it’s a gene.
I didnt realise you could represent atheism, homosexuality etc.
There are no doctrins, laws, dogmas etc etc. Its like stating “you represent people with black hair”.
It makes no sense.
100meters,
I appreciate the time it took to copy the Democratic National Platform from 2004 into this thread.
Sadly, it still doesn’t address the issues.
For instance, what to do about Iraq.
What to do about Iraq?
It’s going to be increasingly more difficult for you to define the mission in Iraq as malignant.
Did you catch the first of the elections?
Hard to say that was anything but wonderful.
In summary, Your side has no power, no ideas, and apparently is still taking the Anti-Democracy in Iraq stance.
Have a pleasant four years.
JeffR
P.S. Did you contribute to the DNC in the 2004 election?
Wonderful in that the Iraqis have voted for a government that most likely will resemble Irans. I’m thrilled with our 300 billion dollar investment. re read my post. Now read newspapers. Try to think for yourself. Ok? good.
we didn’t go to give democracy. we don’t care about democracy. Have you noticed we aren’t invading saudi arabia. stop talking about democracy. Thats the spin to make make people support what is unsupportable. 300 billion and how many of our finest for the new iran. Yeahhhh!
100 meters. You sound a lot like Howard Dean.
It was a simple concept really. Kill as many terrorists as possible. Eliminate any sort of support structure. Iraq was first. More to follow.
The Dems despise action. Too bad. The rest of the country supports it and it is the right thing to do.
You and the left have missed it from day 1. Hate the game…not the player.
We were forced into the game, yet your hate is for your country and it’s elected leaders. Hate the game and those that started it.
[quote]hedo wrote:
100 meters. You sound a lot like Howard Dean.
It was a simple concept really. Kill as many terrorists as possible. Eliminate any sort of support structure. Iraq was first. More to follow.
The Dems despise action. Too bad. The rest of the country supports it and it is the right thing to do.
You and the left have missed it from day 1. Hate the game…not the player.
We were forced into the game, yet your hate is for your country and it’s elected leaders. Hate the game and those that started it. [/quote]
Ok first you have to start reading some newspapers or something. second read my post.
The concept is really simple, kill the terrorist. This is what we have to do. Right now we are creating terrorist. As our own cia has reported recently, iraq is now a terrorist breeding ground and will be for years to come. See how thats the opposite of what we want. Eliminate support structure, not create it. I’m sure thats easy to understand right?
If we attacked saudi arabia, or yemen you’d have a great point. they are huge breeding grounds for al queda (in fact, you may not know this- but the hijackers on 9/11 were all from yemen and syria and afghanistan, and mostly saudis. None were from iraq. none. we were never attacked by iraq. ever.)
And this is something the left has never missed. Oh and this isn’t a game it’s american national security. And the enemy of our national security is hiding in pakistan somewhere (but now recruiting in iraq)yea!
100meters,
“Wonderful in that the Iraqis have voted for a government that most likely will resemble Irans. I’m thrilled with our 300 billion dollar investment. re read my post. Now read newspapers. Try to think for yourself. Ok? good.”
Wow!!!
First of all, spare us the “Republicans are ignorant” crap.
Remember which party couldn’t “figure out” a butterfly ballot.
Second, you must be a new poster. All the regular liberals on this board have tempered their “Bush is the devil” diatribe over time. Exposure to other viewpoints does this to even the most rabid liberal.
Third, it’s not our place to impose which form of elected government upon the Iraqis. If we tried, I guarantee YOU would be up in arms decrying our “imperialist” tendenceis.
“we didn’t go to give democracy. we don’t care about democracy.”
Did you write this with a straight face?
“Have you noticed we aren’t invading saudi arabia. stop talking about democracy. Thats the spin to make make people support what is unsupportable.”
If you read as many non-New York Times papers as you say you do, you noticed the crackdown on Al Qaeda within Saudi recently. Not symbolic, but real terrorist bodies in the ditch.
Oh, did you notice the recent election in Saudi? Not perfect, but first of it’s kind in that country.
Now why did that happen?
One word: Iraq.
The message is being sent to the region. You watch.
“300 billion and how many of our finest for the new iran.”
You are wrong.
You didn’t answer my question about donating to the DNC in 2004. Please indicate whether you were a contributer.
Thanks!!!
JeffR
P.S. Have a wonderful four years.
[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100 meters. You sound a lot like Howard Dean.
It was a simple concept really. Kill as many terrorists as possible. Eliminate any sort of support structure. Iraq was first. More to follow.
The Dems despise action. Too bad. The rest of the country supports it and it is the right thing to do.
You and the left have missed it from day 1. Hate the game…not the player.
We were forced into the game, yet your hate is for your country and it’s elected leaders. Hate the game and those that started it.
Ok first you have to start reading some newspapers or something. second read my post.
The concept is really simple, kill the terrorist. This is what we have to do. Right now we are creating terrorist. As our own cia has reported recently, iraq is now a terrorist breeding ground and will be for years to come. See how thats the opposite of what we want. Eliminate support structure, not create it. I’m sure thats easy to understand right?
If we attacked saudi arabia, or yemen you’d have a great point. they are huge breeding grounds for al queda (in fact, you may not know this- but the hijackers on 9/11 were all from yemen and syria and afghanistan, and mostly saudis. None were from iraq. none. we were never attacked by iraq. ever.)
And this is something the left has never missed. Oh and this isn’t a game it’s american national security. And the enemy of our national security is hiding in pakistan somewhere (but now recruiting in iraq)yea!
[/quote]
Ah Ok…I’ll go do some reading.
Did you get this from one of those newspapers:
“(in fact, you may not know this- but the hijackers on 9/11 were all from yemen and syria and afghanistan, and mostly saudis. None were from iraq. none. we were never attacked by iraq. ever.)”
So were they from Yemen, Syria and Afganistan or from Saudi Arabia?? You have to admit that is a pretty funny statement.
Of course more terrorists are being created. And they are dying in droves, in Iraq!
Let’s face it there is nothing Bush or the Republicans could do that would make you or your side happy. Admit it. That’s why we don’t even take it into account anymore.
Here’s something to read and learn from, read “The boy who cried Wolf” it should be mandatory at the DNC. You guys have to be for something.
You can’t kill terrorists when the troops are stateside. A defensive strategy is useless. They need to be hunted down and killed and the centers of training destroyed. It’s happening everyday.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
100meters,
“Wonderful in that the Iraqis have voted for a government that most likely will resemble Irans. I’m thrilled with our 300 billion dollar investment. re read my post. Now read newspapers. Try to think for yourself. Ok? good.”
Wow!!!
First of all, spare us the “Republicans are ignorant” crap.
Did I say ignorant? Uninformed was my theme. Smart people can be uninformed, and I’m assuming everyone in here is smart.
Remember which party couldn’t “figure out” a butterfly ballot.
Second, you must be a new poster. All the regular liberals on this board have tempered their “Bush is the devil” diatribe over time. Exposure to other viewpoints does this to even the most rabid liberal.
Well I am new, and I wouldn’t say devil, but is he a good person who cares about america or americans…well, no.
Third, it’s not our place to impose which form of elected government upon the Iraqis. If we tried, I guarantee YOU would be up in arms decrying our “imperialist” tendenceis.
I’m up in arms because this was predictable. Not to mention this wasn’t a rationale in attacking Iraq. We went to disarm him of weapons he didn’t have for 10 years.
“we didn’t go to give democracy. we don’t care about democracy.”
Did you write this with a straight face?
See above. We didn’t go to give democracy to Iraq. That is a fact. You know that. And we don’t care about democracy (the whitehouse I’m talking here) Do you remember the president saying anything about democracy in his 2000 campaign? Perhaps Wolfowitz cares about democracy, but not Bush. (this is just an opinion here)
“Have you noticed we aren’t invading saudi arabia. stop talking about democracy. Thats the spin to make make people support what is unsupportable.”
If you read as many non-New York Times papers as you say you do, you noticed the crackdown on Al Qaeda within Saudi recently. Not symbolic, but real terrorist bodies in the ditch.
Well you could have read that in the NYT, the point is the 9/11 terrorists were mostly saudis, bred in saudi militant islam schools ruled by unelected leaders who will never give away their power, and if you (not you but the GOP) were intellectually honest you could see that
a. it wasn’t about democracy (ok it is now)
b. if you had a list of things to do to wipe out terror (al queda) Iraq would not be high on that list (no al queda–well now there is, but not before)
That’s what bothers us dems…I would just prefer to be honestly led into war.
(Of course nobody would have supported it if he was honest, because you voted for him 2000 partly because he said we’re not nation builders, we’re not the world’s police force.)But in the post 9/11 world you could tie nation building to 9/11 and you could get a whole lot of support.)You clap when he says we’re not going to do something, and you clap even louder when he does the opposite, and he does it all the time.
Oh, did you notice the recent election in Saudi? Not perfect, but first of it’s kind in that country.
Now why did that happen?
One word: Iraq.
I think when a country is ruled by monarchs who own the nations oil…that somehow there not going to be voted out, but yeah its iraq.
The message is being sent to the region. You watch.
ok.
“300 billion and how many of our finest for the new iran.”
You are wrong.
The most likely government will resemble Iran’s. It has cost 300 billion, and they are the finest.
You didn’t answer my question about donating to the DNC in 2004. Please indicate whether you were a contributer.
I’m a liberal so yes I contribute.
Thanks!!!
your welcome!
JeffR
P.S. Have a wonderful four years.[/quote]
Well it only took 8 years to get us out of the 12 year hole Reagan/Bush left us in, so I’ll hope for the best, and there’s always the chance W. will start to care about us Americans…
Ah Ok…I’ll go do some reading.
Did you get this from one of those newspapers:
“(in fact, you may not know this- but the hijackers on 9/11 were all from yemen and syria and afghanistan, and mostly saudis. None were from iraq. none. we were never attacked by iraq. ever.)”
So were they from Yemen, Syria and Afganistan or from Saudi Arabia?? You have to admit that is a pretty funny statement.
Well not ha-ha funny, But yeah they came from those places mostly Saudis though.
Of course more terrorists are being created. And they are dying in droves, in Iraq!
I know, thats what annoys democrats like me. Creating terrorists that didn’t exist who just want to kill our soldiers who should be killing terrorist in places where they already existed.
Let’s face it there is nothing Bush or the Republicans could do that would make you or your side happy. Admit it. That’s why we don’t even take it into account anymore.
Well he could raise the s.s. tax from 90,000 to say 200,00 and thereby guarantee S.S. for about forever, and that would make me and 99 percent of the country happy.
Here’s something to read and learn from, read “The boy who cried Wolf” it should be mandatory at the DNC. You guys have to be for something.
This I don’t follow.
You can’t kill terrorists when the troops are stateside. A defensive strategy is useless. They need to be hunted down and killed and the centers of training destroyed. It’s happening everyday.
Uhmm…This I also don’t follow. We created a whole new generation of terrorists in addition to the previous one. A good offense doesn’t keep penalizing itself. Move foward not backwards.
[/quote]