[quote]vroom wrote:
Sure thing there hatejack.[/quote]
Oh, come now. You should be ashamed of yourself for that less-than-stellar retort.
hatejack? For God’s sake - use some [spongebob voice]imagination [/spongebob voice]!!
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
rainjack wrote:
And I hate to pop your balloon, but Clinton did absolutely nothing wrt global terror. It would have interfered with the economy, and he would rather be popular than to do the right thing.
In your mind, you see our actions as stifling global terror? We have accomplished this goal? Terror is now reduced across the globe?
Starting with our own backyard - I think we are much safer than we were before 9/11. How many attacks have there been since 9/11 on U.S. interests? I can’t think of any off hand.
You can say it’s not working all you want. But we have overthrown two state sponsors of terror since 9/11/2001. [/quote]
What does a war in Iraq have to do with the HUGE increase in security in public places in this country that helps avoid further attacks? You do realize that Iraq is a tad more than swimming distance away, right? It isn’t the insurgents flooding Iraq right now that were ever a direct threat to us. It was the “terrorists” already here and waiting. There wasn’t exactly a bomb going off every week BEFORE 9/11 either.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
What does a war in Iraq have to do with the HUGE increase in security in public places in this country that helps avoid further attacks? You do realize that Iraq is a tad more than swimming distance away, right? It isn’t the insurgents flooding Iraq right now that were ever a direct threat to us. It was the “terrorists” already here and waiting. There wasn’t exactly a bomb going off every week BEFORE 9/11 either.[/quote]
Do I look like the damn Shell Answer Man to you? Well - even if I resemble him a little (which I was told that a lot) - I’m not him.
we are waging a war in Iraq as part of the GWOT. We have also tightened our security at home because…well…we had 20 of them SOB’s over here making phone calls straight to UBL, and we didn’t know it. Are some of the measures overkill? The argument might be made that they are. SOme would counter that we are still not doing enough.
But - we live in a different time than we did on 9/10, whether you think we should be or not.
Rainjack, you’re the perfect example that your government did a great job - in making citizens believing their war PR.
Because reasonable argumentation is being answered with childish fooling, let me just tell you and your smart friend “Mage” how the actual arabic fundamentalists see Bush’s GWOT.
Are they scared? - not even in the slightest.
Before Bushs 2nd term, Peter Scholl-Latour interviewed numerous mosque-preachers, who are known for being quite the hatemongers, in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. He asked them if they prefered Kerry over the current President in the forthcoming election. To your surprise, they answered:
“We pray to god that America will be so stupid and reelect Bush. Through him, international islamism will be unstoppable!”
You say it’s safer since US Army went down there. At what cost? Thousands of your kin have died. And so many will follow. The political turmoil that recource and power greedy neocons have set in motion can lead to incalculable dangers to your land and your allies.
Fanatical Islamists have actually gained from the war. Former Iraq was a secular state and was not on good terms with islamists. That’s why Saddam was actually trying to make that up before the war, showing himself praying on television (which was new) and funding construcion of new mosques, instead of palaces of which he was so fond.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Before Bushs 2nd term, Peter Scholl-Latour interviewed numerous mosque-preachers, who are known for being quite the hatemongers, in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. He asked them if they prefered Kerry over the current President in the forthcoming election. To your surprise, they answered:
“We pray to god that America will be so stupid and reelect Bush. Through him, international islamism will be unstoppable!”[/quote]
Use common sense: what are the radical clerics going to say? “We fear Bush and his strategy, his aggressiveness is weakening our movement. If he gets elected, it means that our days are numbered.”
Now, I have no idea who the clerics prefer in the White House, but your anlaysis is flawed - they are shrewd propagandists and know what they are doing. Let’s dissect their propaganda. If the clerics say what you paraphrased above, what effect are they wanting to have?
The above statement makes Bush critics squeal “you see? This GWOT only emboldens them and makes them stronger! This approach is wrong! Do not vote for Bush!”
Does it sound like the clerics are actually trying to get Bush re-elected? Or trying to add fuel to the dissent of Bush’s policies? If the Islamists truly wanted Bush in the White House, wouldn’t they have galvanized Bush support by stating “Kerry is a weakling, if he is President, it will be a cakewalk to Sharia law.”?
The Islamists know they are the enemy - and they are going to play to whatever constituency they can to manipulate an outcome their way. If you don’t think so, check out OBL doing his best Michael Moore imitation right before the election.
Again, I have no idea who they want in the White House - but taking these propandists at face value is about the same as taking the comments of a professional boxer speaking about his opponent at the press conference before the fight at face value: he is not going to say, “wow, whew, my opponent looks pretty good - I doubt I will win.”
Outright lie. The Western intelligence agencies have been concerned about Saddam’s ties to radical terror elements since the early 1990’s. The information is there, from Pentagon briefs all the way up to UN Resolutions.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
What does a war in Iraq have to do with the HUGE increase in security in public places in this country that helps avoid further attacks? You do realize that Iraq is a tad more than swimming distance away, right? It isn’t the insurgents flooding Iraq right now that were ever a direct threat to us. It was the “terrorists” already here and waiting. There wasn’t exactly a bomb going off every week BEFORE 9/11 either.
Do I look like the damn Shell Answer Man to you? Well - even if I resemble him a little (which I was told that a lot) - I’m not him.
we are waging a war in Iraq as part of the GWOT. We have also tightened our security at home because…well…we had 20 of them SOB’s over here making phone calls straight to UBL, and we didn’t know it. Are some of the measures overkill? The argument might be made that they are. SOme would counter that we are still not doing enough.
But - we live in a different time than we did on 9/10, whether you think we should be or not. [/quote]
That isn’t the point. You gave credit for us not being attacked since 9/11 on the war in Iraq. This is false. We haven’t had a large scale attack because of men in THIS country increasing security. You will never know about any “close calls” that we have had because it will never make the media. Special Ops isn’t a name just thrown around. It stands for operations that allow you to sleep at night thinking everything is safe even though you may have actually been 3 seconds away from a bombing right next door. Therefore, what has the war in Iraq done specifically for this country besides cost lots of money and kill lots of our own people?
[quote]100meters wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
If Saddam had the WMD, he’d have used them. That was the whole point of going in there, before he developed the weapons. I’m not arguing with you Mage, just the people who don’t understand your point.
I deal with teenagers all day and sometimes eloquence and intellectual rigor kind of escapes them. 
Obviously false. He had WMD in the past. And he had used them. We know because we have the reciepts of the WMD we sold him. When President H.W. Bush encouraged the Iraqi’s to rise up in rebellion, and they did President H.W. Bush turned his back on them, and presto RNC talking point: Saddam gassed his own people(with our help). So that(WMD) obviously was NOT the reason we went in there. There are quite a few reasons given by President Bush’s cabinet in their various Project for a New American Century papers, but most deal with securing the American empire.
In “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century” it says: “The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.” It goes on to lay out the need for permanent bases.
Prediksi168 | Main Slot Online Bareng dan Pasti Gacor Disini ! [/quote]
In your pursuit of “intellectual rigor” a good place to start would be the writings and beliefs of the people who took us to this war. Most of President Bush’s cabinet had been desiring to do so for some time, and in their own words they don’t give the reason you do. You could easily see for yourself if you do indeed have such “rigor”?
Please post your findings, I’d love to hear your suprise!
It is ‘surprise’, Gomer! Anyway, there is so much wrong with your post, I don’t know where to begin. Let’s see: was it in the UN mandate to remove Saddam in '91? If not, then how did Bush I ‘turn his back’ on the Iraqi people? Oh, he should have ignored the UN and liberated them. But wait, isn’t that one reason why the libs are pissed at Bush II, for ignoring the UN?
Now, please think about Saddam. Is he going to say, “Well boys, they’re not done yet but we’re at work on WMDs.” No. He’d say he has them to scare off would-be liberators. Don’t you think
Bush and his people know this?
You need to accept reality: most other countries in the world hate this country because we are a threat to their rule. If some people are free, others will soon enough want that too. Are you helping or hindering that effort?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Before Bushs 2nd term, Peter Scholl-Latour interviewed numerous mosque-preachers, who are known for being quite the hatemongers, in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. He asked them if they prefered Kerry over the current President in the forthcoming election. To your surprise, they answered:
“We pray to god that America will be so stupid and reelect Bush. Through him, international islamism will be unstoppable!”
Use common sense: what are the radical clerics going to say? “We fear Bush and his strategy, his aggressiveness is weakening our movement. If he gets elected, it means that our days are numbered.”
Now, I have no idea who the clerics prefer in the White House, but your anlaysis is flawed - they are shrewd propagandists and know what they are doing. Let’s dissect their propaganda. If the clerics say what you paraphrased above, what effect are they wanting to have?
The above statement makes Bush critics squeal “you see? This GWOT only emboldens them and makes them stronger! This approach is wrong! Do not vote for Bush!”
Does it sound like the clerics are actually trying to get Bush re-elected? Or trying to add fuel to the dissent of Bush’s policies? If the Islamists truly wanted Bush in the White House, wouldn’t they have galvanized Bush support by stating “Kerry is a weakling, if he is President, it will be a cakewalk to Sharia law.”?
The Islamists know they are the enemy - and they are going to play to whatever constituency they can to manipulate an outcome their way. If you don’t think so, check out OBL doing his best Michael Moore imitation right before the election.
Again, I have no idea who they want in the White House - but taking these propandists at face value is about the same as taking the comments of a professional boxer speaking about his opponent at the press conference before the fight at face value: he is not going to say, “wow, whew, my opponent looks pretty good - I doubt I will win.”
Fanatical Islamists have actually gained from the war. Former Iraq was a secular state and was not on good terms with islamists.
Outright lie. The Western intelligence agencies have been concerned about Saddam’s ties to radical terror elements since the early 1990’s. The information is there, from Pentagon briefs all the way up to UN Resolutions.[/quote]
Guys, you make good points. Here’s my two cents, and I’ll illustrate it with a fable:
Once upon a time, two Roman policemen were chasing a Theban thief. Just before crossing the frontier of the Roman empire, the two policemen came across an establishment with the sign “Theban Restaurant” upon it.
“Let’s go in and catch our man,” said the first one.
“No, that’s too obvious, so he must have avoided this place,” said the second.
“You’re right, this is so obvious, it’s the last place he’d hide, so he must be in there,” said the first.
So, the two policemen proceeded to search for their man in that place. In the meantime, the Theban thief, who could not read, just kept on going and escaped across the frontier.
My point thunderbolt is that you give these guys too much credit, they’re not that clever; that Iranian schmuk, Ahmedinajad, is an excellent example. They say it like they see it, and they’re pretty artless about it. Also, like any politician, remember that they’re primary audience is their own constituency, they’re not likely to pay much attention to American public opinion, even if they were to understand it.
I’ve lived in Israel for a few years, heard plenty of Arab propaganda, and they tend to be straight shooters. Their main flaw is a tendency towards exaggeration, but I’ve never heard the kind of sophistication on their part that your argument implies.
As a (typical) example, remember the Iraqi propaganda before and during the second gulf war. I’d argue it was laughable, not shrewd.
Thunderbolt, did you just ask a leftist to use common sense?
If he had any common sense he wouldn’t be a leftist!
[quote]Professor X wrote:
That isn’t the point. You gave credit for us not being attacked since 9/11 on the war in Iraq. This is false. [/quote]
Show me where I said that. I think you are interchanging the war in Iraq with the GWOT, which makes your point look really good, but more of a straw man than anything.
Purely a matter of speculation but what would the world look like w/o going into Iraq and Afghanistan? Would it be a nice, happy place where we all live in peace? Hmmm…
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
That isn’t the point. You gave credit for us not being attacked since 9/11 on the war in Iraq. This is false.
Show me where I said that. I think you are interchanging the war in Iraq with the GWOT, which makes your point look really good, but more of a straw man than anything.
[/quote]
What does a GWOT have to do with HOME SECURITY? Either way you look at it, any possible attacks have been prevented by the same measures that should have been taken regardless of a war in Iraq…making it much less because of the “GWOT” and much more because of men at HOME taking care of security issues as should be done regardless.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Purely a matter of speculation but what would the world look like w/o going into Iraq and Afghanistan? Would it be a nice, happy place where we all live in peace? Hmmm…[/quote]
It would be much livelier by about 2,000 troops worth.
[quote]Purely a matter of speculation but what would the world look like w/o going into Iraq and Afghanistan? Would it be a nice, happy place where we all live in peace? Hmmm…
[/quote]
Headhunter,
Surely you are not so biased that you think people arguing about Iraq did not favor the invasion of Afghanistan?
You come up with some wacky shit buddy, but tell me you are this blind.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Purely a matter of speculation but what would the world look like w/o going into Iraq and Afghanistan? Would it be a nice, happy place where we all live in peace? Hmmm…
It would be about much livelier by about 2,000 troops worth.[/quote]
Let’s not forget at least 100,000 dead Iraqis. “In order to liberate the village, we had to destroy it.”
After the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor we invaded North Africa.
Most people of the day didn’t understand it. It was probably the best strategy to win the global war on fascism.
Fighting in Iraq may be the best strategy to fighting the global war on radical Islamic terrorism. I am not surprised many people don’t understand it (or refuse to undersatnd it for political reasons.)
[quote]vroom wrote:
…
Surely you are not so biased that you think people arguing about Iraq did not favor the invasion of Afghanistan?
…[/quote]
Some were in favor of Afghanistan, many were not. Many drew parallels to the Soviet experience and marched in the streets to try to prevent the invasion of Afghanistan.
[quote]danweltmann wrote:
Let’s not forget at least 100,000 dead Iraqis. “In order to liberate the village, we had to destroy it.”[/quote]
Enough with this ridiculous claim. Idiocy.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
After the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor we invaded North Africa.
Most people of the day didn’t understand it. It was probably the best strategy to win the global war on fascism.
Fighting in Iraq may be the best strategy to fighting the global war on radical Islamic terrorism. I am not surprised many people don’t understand it (or refuse to undersatnd it for political reasons.)[/quote]
Please. It has nothing to do with anyone not understanding anything. It has to do with seeing problems with how we went in when we did. No one has written that Iraq should have always been off limits so why do you keep arguing as if this was stated?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
danweltmann wrote:
Let’s not forget at least 100,000 dead Iraqis. “In order to liberate the village, we had to destroy it.”
Enough with this ridiculous claim. Idiocy.
[/quote]
A truly idiotic response. Why am I not surprised? The butchery continues as we speak in places like Faluja.