[quote]Vegita wrote:
So to summarize, given the fact that al-queda is bombing the citizenry of iraq at this point, I would find it hard to believe they will garner any further “support” other than those they scare into supporting them, and the longer we show our resolve, the less al-queda will be able to scare the peoples of the middle east.
V
[/quote]
Time will tell on that issue. regardless, what about the other post?
Holy shit! Talk about taking something and running with it – you guys have gone all over the map with my statement concerning attacks happening in Iraq.
What the fuck are you guys smoking?
I’m simply pointing out that we’ve chosen who will face terrorist attacks and where they will predominantly be faced.
This means, it’s still there, though the general sheeple public is not having to deal with it.
Fucking relax.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Holy shit! Talk about taking something and running with it – you guys have gone all over the map with my statement concerning attacks happening in Iraq.
What the fuck are you guys smoking?
I’m simply pointing out that we’ve chosen who will face terrorist attacks and where they will predominantly be faced.
This means, it’s still there, though the general sheeple public is not having to deal with it.
Fucking relax.[/quote]
I think that “choosing who will face terrorist attacks” is better than having the enemy choose, no?
I’m not trying to imply otherwise.
However, and this is purely hypothetical as well, the money spent on Iraq and this war very well could have prevented further attacks against American interests as well.
Billions of dollars of border security, spying and covert ops is a lot!
Note, that I’m not talking about the war on Afghanistan, which is generally agreed to have been waged for the purpose of rooting out terorrism by both left and right.
You can’t possibly make and spend enough money to absolutely protect our borders or make security impenetrable.
That doesn’t mean an upgrade in security would not be beneficial, just not absolute.
We has to take it to them to show our steadfastness. We had to draw that line in the sand and say enough, we’re coming back at you.
I’d say we’ve made a point and a dent
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
I’d say we’ve made a point and a dent[/quote]
That’s the part that really bugs people like vroom.
So far the only answer to ProfX’s question has been that the invasion of Iraq has intimidated other regimes. I haven’t been following the new extremely closely, but can someone provide some data to support that. In my cursory examination of current events it seems that Iran and North Korea have only gotten more bold in there pursuit of WMD.
Also, can someone explain why people keep saying we “took the fight to the terrorists” and “it put Al-Qaeda on the run” by going to war in Iraq, preferably with a source to back up said claim? I understand how going to war in Afghanistan fits those two statements, but I thought we were fighting Saddam’s regime in Iraq. Apparently we were fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and OBL was in Iraq and ran away when we came. How did invading Iraq put OBL and Al-Qaeda “on the run”? Sources someone, please.
I would direct you to the President’s SOTU speech given in January 2002, I believe. He lays out the War on Terror, which is what everyone is talking about.
The mistake made by the anti-war crowd is that they view each incident as separate and unique. That has never been the case. It is all about the War on Terror.
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
Professor X wrote:
deanosumo wrote:
And an action which has seeded a lot of hatred and may lead to terrorist attacks on America in the future.
This point is one that I don’t think many either understand or want to believe. One potential outcome of this war is the creation more prospective terrorists. Anyone who thinks we are in the clear as far as possible futher attacks is living in a fantasy world. One thing many of these people seem to have is patience.
In case you hadn’t noticed, there’s actually a reduction in the number of terrorists. They’re dying by the butt-load (hope the scientific terms don’t scare you so early in the morning), and they’re so busy trying to survive they don’t have time to plan attacks.
Plus they pretty much know we’re serious now, unlike during the Clinton years.
[/quote]
If there’s a reduction in the number of terrorists, why are there more insurgent attacks in Iraq than ever before? There were twice as many car bombs in Iraq in April as in any month previous. Why? It’s like Herakles and the hydra. Cut off one head, two grow back. Kill one terrorist but destroy a neighborhood in the process and earn the hatred of a whole family, all of which are now against you.
[quote]Moriarty wrote:
Also, can someone explain why people keep saying we “took the fight to the terrorists” and “it put Al-Qaeda on the run” by going to war in Iraq, preferably with a source to back up said claim? I understand how going to war in Afghanistan fits those two statements, but I thought we were fighting Saddam’s regime in Iraq. Apparently we were fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and OBL was in Iraq and ran away when we came. How did invading Iraq put OBL and Al-Qaeda “on the run”? Sources someone, please.[/quote]
Saddam, Osama bin Laden. Iraq, Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda, Saddam. Osama bin Laden, Iraq.
There you have it! It’s all the War on TERROR!! It’s all the same thing!
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I would direct you to the President’s SOTU speech given in January 2002, I believe. He lays out the War on Terror, which is what everyone is talking about.
The mistake made by the anti-war crowd is that they view each incident as separate and unique. That has never been the case. It is all about the War on Terror.
[/quote]
I must be a bit slow because I never actually understood how rampaging through Iraq was helping the ‘War on Terror’. ‘War of Terror’ more like it. Or ‘War to create more Terror’.
As I am talking mainly to the pro-war crowd here, I’ll give you a very simple analogy.
If Bill throws stones through your window, do you go and also beat up Bob who lives at the end of Bill’s street, because you don’t like him very much and beating up Bill wasn’t enough for you?
[quote]deanosumo wrote:
Saddam, Osama bin Laden. Iraq, Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda, Saddam. Osama bin Laden, Iraq.
There you have it! It’s all the War on TERROR!! It’s all the same thing!
[/quote]
Yet I was attacked for claiming that Bush had substituted Saddam for Osama. I don’t see how anyone can see it otherwise. Hell, one of you actually posted that you think there is too much focus on OBL. I am amazed. I swear it seems as if some of you just regurgitate what you are told on the news. Retyping talking points from a speech does not equal processing the information and weeding through the bullshit.
[quote]Moriarty wrote:
So far the only answer to ProfX’s question has been that the invasion of Iraq has intimidated other regimes.[/quote]
Apparently that and the fact that we have increased the attacks in other countries from terrorists. This is apparently a good thing because there hasn’t been a successful attempt in this country in four years. The article I posted that was dated before 9/11 talks about OBL’s MO of sending people into target countries YEARS before an attack. Not being hit in four years doesn’t seem like so much of a success with that in mind…especially if you want to act as if this is because of direct action by the current administration.
Those are the only “benefits” I have seen from them as far as how we are now in a better situation in this country due to the war going off when and how it did.
[quote]deanosumo wrote:
I must be a bit slow because I never actually understood how rampaging through Iraq was helping the ‘War on Terror’. ‘War of Terror’ more like it. Or ‘War to create more Terror’.
As I am talking mainly to the pro-war crowd here, I’ll give you a very simple analogy.
If Bill throws stones through your window, do you go and also beat up Bob who lives at the end of Bill’s street, because you don’t like him very much and beating up Bill wasn’t enough for you?
[/quote]
Since we’re keeping it simple…
If Bob was selling Bill the rocks, then he needs his ass kicked right along side Bill. I’d do what ever it took to keep anyone from breaking my windows again.
The problem with the anti-war crowd is they think that their broken window is their fault - and the only way to stop it is to not have anymore windows. They would board up their windows with plywood, and sit in the dark, thinking that they had actually solved the problem.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Since we’re keeping it simple…
If Bob was selling Bill the rocks, then he needs his ass kicked right along side Bill. I’d do what ever it took to keep anyone from breaking my windows again. [/quote]
So Iraq gave OBL the idea of hitting the US on 9/11? I’m just keeping it simple…right along with you.
Let’s see:
-A few thousand American troops dead
check
-A few billion dollars spent on the war in Iraq
check
-An increase in terrorist attacks across the globe in response
check
-Inability to catch the man responsible for 9/11
check
-Convincing the American people that he really isn’t that important because we should all be shooting for “freedom” in a foreign country
check
Looks OK to me.
I don’t understand why flipping the bird is such a big deal. Let’s be honest liberals; giving the finger does not compare to receiving oral in the oval office and lying to the country. However, many American’s must feel it is, because George has an approval rating in the mid forties.
That’s actually about 10 points lower than Clinton’s was after the country found out about him screwing the pig. Also, this is lower than any 2nd term President; and lower than any President for over 50 years…incredible. Even more amazing, over 70% of the country does not approve of his economy.
I happen to be an independant; but, my votes and opinions reflect how the economy is doing(horrible by the way, ask my stocks), and more importantly, HOMELAND SECURITY.
[quote]deanosumo wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
Professor X wrote:
deanosumo wrote:
And an action which has seeded a lot of hatred and may lead to terrorist attacks on America in the future.
This point is one that I don’t think many either understand or want to believe. One potential outcome of this war is the creation more prospective terrorists. Anyone who thinks we are in the clear as far as possible futher attacks is living in a fantasy world. One thing many of these people seem to have is patience.
In case you hadn’t noticed, there’s actually a reduction in the number of terrorists. They’re dying by the butt-load (hope the scientific terms don’t scare you so early in the morning), and they’re so busy trying to survive they don’t have time to plan attacks.
Plus they pretty much know we’re serious now, unlike during the Clinton years.
If there’s a reduction in the number of terrorists, why are there more insurgent attacks in Iraq than ever before? There were twice as many car bombs in Iraq in April as in any month previous. Why? It’s like Herakles and the hydra. Cut off one head, two grow back. Kill one terrorist but destroy a neighborhood in the process and earn the hatred of a whole family, all of which are now against you.
[/quote]
more insurgent attacks b/c they’re more desperate than before so the resort to bigger and bigger stuff. In some circles it’s called “a last hurrah”.
It’s kind of how vroom was just before the election.
it’s nice to see Professor X has relegated himself to only answering points raised by people who agree with him. It should certainly save him time, if nothing else.
Sasquatch,
You are really getting on my tits for no reason bub.
Howabout you quit thinking I’m saying things I’m not?
[quote]You can’t possibly make and spend enough money to absolutely protect our borders or make security impenetrable.
That doesn’t mean an upgrade in security would not be beneficial, just not absolute.[/quote]
Sasquatch,
That is decidely unfair. Nobody can say for sure we are 100% safe now either. You should at least try to hold all issues to the same standard.
Talking about see-saws being tilted. At least I’ll distance myself from fringe left wing stances, ne’er do I see you turkeys distance yourself from nutjobs like Jerffy.