My question would be, THEN WHAT? I mean there are terrorists all around the world with different causes, and the most popular one or most focused one today is the middle eastern terrorist type who uses the Islamic/Muslim faith as their cause.
My question ladies and gentlemen today is, let's say okay they do win and stop the 'western' influence and north american democracy and all that. Let's say they establish one law in the qa'ran (excuse my spelling), let's say that all that they have said in their videos, and their statements and through their brainwashed followers...then what? What happens then? DO they automatically expect 14 virgins at their door? Do they just give up there? What exactly is the purpose after the fact? Will Allah grant them eternal peace inside and out? I mean call me crazy, but at the end of the day, any one with an educatation past 4th grade would look at them as uneducated savages with ak-47s. With unfounded morals and values, and motives that leave their very sanity to up for question?
At what point do they stop and think that all they are doing is fighting what makes sense? I mean when will someone from their ranks rise up in a way that allows us to listen to them? Do you ever think you could ever in the same sentence mention OSAMA BIN LADEN with the names of Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Malcom X, Rosa Parks, Mother Teresa? Could you really compare the motives and love of religion and people that Pope John Paul II had for anyone of any faith to Osama Bin Ladens constant bantering from a cave about how America and all it's followers will suffer?
I only bring this up (again) because of all the attempted terrorist attacks, all the misguided youth who believe in something that is so wrong. I've associated with many Muslims and Islamic followers, and I can safely say they've shown me that there must be a value in life and unity, and peace.
I hate terrorists, I hate every one of these groups, cells, and uneducated idiots who think of themselves as 'freedom fighters' who fight for unjust causes that will yield stupid and pathetic results...
God bless the men, women and children who have the courage to step outside everyday and be proud of who and where they live. And thanks to those who have helped and captured these stupid idiotic terrorist 'wannabes' (YES YOU STUPID LITTLE BOYS), you really help unite this part of the planet and help tell us that you are afraid of us, and despise the lives we live with the freedoms we enjoy.
Its not a religious war, they dont want the whole world to be muslim. The extremists are fighting for a cause, you think they are just fighting for the hell of it? like they find it amusing to kill others in the name of God? Theres a reason behind this mess, no one really shows nor explains it in the media because they have the power to control what to tell us. Over here no one is ever told the other side of the story. Its fantics who want the US out of their soil (saudi arabia, Iraq, and Israel out of Palestine) All those muslim countries feel that they are being ruled by the US. Think about it, why is the US in Saudi Arabia? They really have one interest there and you know as well as I do that its the oil. Now the muslims feel that its their oil so the US should not be there guarding it. On to the middle east, the day since Israel was formed, the middle east had been doomed. I mean these poor Palestinians were kicked outa their houses, their holy land and told to go to camps and or seek other shelter just because others formed Israel on THAT land. Now you hear about all the violence that goes on there, when a Palestinian is killed or bombed, they are bombed by weapons that are supplied by the US. The foreign policy of the US HEAVILY favors Israel, that also ticks muslim fanatics off. This current war against Hezbollah, the US was sending ships and ships of bombs and ammunition to Israel! thats def. not gonna sit fly with anyone. When they see their mothers, fathers or sons being killed, they want revenge thus the whole violence cycle..its very very unfortunate for both sides..All this violence makes the muslims feel that they, along with their religion are under attack, so now they all go declare Jihad on innocent victims. This is also lack of education on their part. I go to Pakistan and people there have political cartoons that show our president Musharaf being spoon fed by Bush. And another thing, isnt it ironic that the US supported Osama? Rumsfeld met and shook hands with him, how f**ked up is that huh?!?
Anywho thats what I see through my eyes, I see more things because Im muslim and I can better understand both sides. No muslim wants to see innocent people die nor killed. It is no where in the Quran that go kill people just because you dont agree with them. Truely sad and I myself fear that one day all this will backlash against all Muslims here in the US and we'll be kicked out cause we're all "terrorists". What will become of this world..
All we can do is hope for the better.
What I don't understand, why go to Fanatics? Why not follow a system or do what leaders such as Ghandi, and Malcom did and use the system to their advantage? I'm not picking on them, and I wanted you specifically to chime your opinion Goonz because you are a Muslim. I'm just throwing an open question into the air, but I think because of this conflict, the next few generations of people, my family and my future children and grand children will be affected by this, and it's not something I want to grow into. I mean this will become a huge fued or even an all out war (though it pretty much is that), I feel like we're just waiting for one side to do something drastic, and to me the West has made it's move and it's up to the Middle East to respond, and from the looks of it, it'll be a plot so devestating as to make 9/11 look like a sesame street episode and that fear in itself is something that makes me want to ask them what politically will be gained, and if anything why not resolve these matters in an educated and informed manner?
educated manner? half the people in those countries arent educated! Thats another reason why nothing CAN be done. The US honestly hasnt really done much to help the situation either, what did we do after 9/11? Instead of analyzing wtf just happened and why? We were all in a state of shock and then we were told Iraq has WOMD, alright so we bust in there and declare victory and what do we find????? thats right, nothing! all we find is Saddam hiding in a hole, thats all. And also at the time we go looking for Osama and through all the technology and sophiticated sattelite imaging, we cant find him, and its not like it will stop once he's killed. And now look at the mess in Iraq, all out civil war, innocent civillians dying, US marines dying, its just awfull! Nothing is being done!! its just getting worse and worse, and now we have the mid-east crisis.
Truthfully I hate to say this but its not getting better anytime soon. My future generations will go through what yours will as well, after all we both live in the same planet. All one can hope for is the next administration do SOMTHING that can help the cause. I dont recall the mideast being this hostile nor wars being waged during the Clinton era?! hmm..I dont know, I just dont know what to say..i get depressed talking about
Never mind that Israel isn't the only country to be occupying Palestinian land. IIRC, Lebanon and Egypt are also occupying Palestinian land. You don't see the Palestinians bombing Lebanon or Egypt to get their land back. It's not about some mythical Palestinian "homeland" it's about their hate of Jews and Westerners. I'm surprised no one has made a comparison to Nazi Germany and their desire to wipe out Jews. I wonder if it's our tolerance for religious freedom and political correctness that keeps anyone from mentioning that connection?
You want to know what they'll do if they win? The same thing they've been doing for thousands of years. They'll turn on each other. Sunnis will fight Salafis will fight Sufis. They've been killing each other over their MINOR religious differences since before the time of Christ. They'll be doing it for thousands of years to come.
Originally posted by Goonz SVT:
Truthfully I hate to say this but its not getting better anytime soon. My future generations will go through what yours will as well, after all we both live in the same planet. All one can hope for is the next administration do SOMTHING that can help the cause. I dont recall the mideast being this hostile nor wars being waged during the Clinton era?! hmm..I dont know, I just dont know what to say..i get depressed talking about
Well goonz, there were terrorist attacks during the Clinton administration. USS Cole, first WTC bombing in '93, embassy bomings in Africa, etc. Only difference was that the administration & the press was not paying much attention to world wide terrorism. Ignore it & it's not a problem, right? WRONG! as we saw on 9/11. GW had done little/nothing differently in the start of his administration as of 9/11. What prompted the terrorists? We sure as hell didn't go after THEM first! IN FACT we were trying to work to give back land for peace in the M.E., and that apparently was not a good enough start.
WTF does the U.S. have to make nice. Clinton & other administrations tried to ignore them & leave them alone & look where that got us. Have the f'in terrorists make nice or wipe them the f out! I'm sick of the, "it's America's fault." mentality. That's a crock of ****. As we speak the children in various muslim countries are being taught in school to hate the U.S., no matter what. So yeah, it won't be getting better any time soon, but whose fault is that?
So much partisan smoke & mirrors & mis-information on this issue it's making me sick!
Frankly, you guys whining about no WMDs is getting old too. Iraq put forth not one, but two declarations to the U.N. of what WMDs & programs they had. I personally think they had WMDs and have posted evidence, news stories, & links to letters from the IAEA to the U.N. security council about elicite programs & materials in and from Iraq. If you don't agree then you should be blaming Iraq & the U.N. for lying, not the U.S.
Quote:
I see more things because Im muslim and I can better understand both sides.
I see this more clearly because I studied the entire region for 4 years straight, day in and day out, stood on their land, mingled with the people, and learned everything possible. I still see it as I did back then, there is NOTHING that we can do to stop it totally, all we can do is stop them from affecting us directly.
Quote:
No TRUE muslim wants to see innocent people die nor killed.
Edited for truth. The terrorists are extreme muslims, whether you want to admit it or not. They have taken the word of the Quran literally, and just like the Bible it can be twisted into something it was not meant to be. Islam is a very peaceful religion at its roots, but that does not mean that no muslim wants to see innocents dead. The extremists will go to any lengths to kill any American, period, innocent or not.
Quote:
Well goonz, there were terrorist attacks during the Clinton administration. USS Cole, first WTC bombing in '93, embassy bomings in Africa, etc. Only difference was that the administration & the press was not paying much attention to world wide terrorism.
TourDeForce is correct here. I was an intel analyist under Clinton, and for YEARS we warned of the pending strikes, yet they were ignored. When we got SOLID intel on the location of OBL the intel was sat on for over a week before a single cruise missle was lobbed that direction, missing the target. Everyone surely wants to blame President Bush for everything here, but the fact remains that had Clinton got off his ass when those of us in the military told him to, we would not be sitting in this mess today.
E1
Originally posted by EternalOne:
Everyone surely wants to blame President Bush for everything here, but the fact remains that had Clinton got off his ass when those of us in the military told him to, we would not be sitting in this mess today.
E1
I'm glad someone else actually understands this.
It truly is a mess. Until there is a major culture shift and new attitudes take root, the middle east is going remain a mess and an enemy of each other and the US for a long time to come.
It makes me sad, but also makes me appreciate our freedom that much more.
you guys need to stop that. the terrorist blame game goes further back than clinton. and there's enough blame to go around for the iraq war too.
as far as the terrorist winning...that's not going to happen. the muslim community in general was moving towards a less conservative and less extremist position before 9/11 and iraq. unfortunately that created an opening for islamic extremists because they were seen as group that wasn't going to cow tow to the western "crusade" when it seemed like all the bush admin wanted to do was impose western style democracy on the rest of the muslim community. the way we handled the perceived attack on islam was handled very badly and adressed much later than it should've been. we've learned some hard lessons since march 2003.
if we can find a way to exit the ME without crumbling the deck, (i think) the muslim community could self police and eventually force out the extremists. they were headed that direction but the process has been damaged. it will take a long time for things to get back to where they were pre-iraq and pre-9/11. in retrospect i think we did just the right thing in afghanistan, but failed to complete that more important task before muddying the waters with unnecessary action in iraq.
Originally posted by BP:
you guys need to stop that. the terrorist blame game goes further back than clinton.
very true. I dont want to point fingers, but many extremist muslims became angry at the fact that middle eastern countries asked Bush senior and the US to help in getting Saddam and his forces out of Kuwait. It wasnt really anyones fault, but Osama felt betrayed that the west was called into help in the early 90's rather than other ME allys. And the fact that the US had staioned a large portion of troops on holy land was also looked down upon by many fanatics.
The building up of hatred can go back further than that, however it was around this time where western influence started to be hated by many.
Originally posted by BP:
you guys need to stop that. the terrorist blame game goes further back than clinton. and there's enough blame to go around for the iraq war too.
as far as the terrorist winning...that's not going to happen. the muslim community in general was moving towards a less conservative and less extremist position before 9/11 and iraq.
it will take a long time for things to get back to where they were pre-iraq and pre-9/11.
Pre-Iraq? Pre-9/11? You mean like when the ayatollahs overthrew the very Western-friendly Shah in Iran in 1979? Or maybe when the Taliban took over Afghanistan in the 1990s? You probably don't remember the Taliban demolishing ancient Buddhist statues while working to make Afghanistan a pure Muslim state. And all you have to do is look at what happened to dissidents in Iraq before Hussein was deposed to realize the chance that "the muslim community" there had of expelling the Ba'athist regime.
Originally posted by BP:
you guys need to stop that. the terrorist blame game goes further back than clinton.
I want examples. I also want you to point out how these failures led to where we are today. I can lay out, point by point, what happened during the mid to late 90's under Clinton because I was there, and I saw the information first hand. I also know the exact information that was presented to the CiC in his daily briefs, and I also know what our internal and global assessments were at the time -- nowhere else in history has there been such a failure to act on solid intel.
Originally posted by BP:
that's not going to happen. the muslim community in general was moving towards a less conservative and less extremist position before 9/11 and iraq.
You must have been wearing blinders pre-9/11 then, like the rest of the world. I most certainly did NOT see this less-extremist model forming anywhere, except in countries that are still our allies to this day.
Originally posted by BP:
it will take a long time for things to get back to where they were pre-iraq and pre-9/11.
Finally, something you said MAKES SENSE for once. It sure will take them a much longer time to rebuild their arsenals, and retrain the hundreds of their soldiers we've taken out. Not to mention the fact that we've eliminated known training camps in 9 countries with the help of our allies, all since 9/11. (Bet you didn't know that figure, since it's not quoted in your ultra-liberal media outlets.)
As usual BP you place more blame on us.
E1
Originally posted by EternalOne:
Originally posted by BP:
you guys need to stop that. the terrorist blame game goes further back than clinton.
I want examples. I also want you to point out how these failures led to where we are today. I can lay out, point by point, what happened during the mid to late 90's under Clinton because I was there, and I saw the information first hand. I also know the exact information that was presented to the CiC in his daily briefs, and I also know what our internal and global assessments were at the time -- nowhere else in history has there been such a failure to act on solid intel.
Originally posted by BP:
that's not going to happen. the muslim community in general was moving towards a less conservative and less extremist position before 9/11 and iraq.
You must have been wearing blinders pre-9/11 then, like the rest of the world. I most certainly did NOT see this less-extremist model forming anywhere, except in countries that are still our allies to this day.
Originally posted by BP:
it will take a long time for things to get back to where they were pre-iraq and pre-9/11.
Finally, something you said MAKES SENSE for once. It sure will take them a much longer time to rebuild their arsenals, and retrain the hundreds of their soldiers we've taken out. Not to mention the fact that we've eliminated known training camps in 9 countries with the help of our allies, all since 9/11. (Bet you didn't know that figure, since it's not quoted in your ultra-liberal media outlets.)
As usual BP you place more blame on us.
E1
if anyone watched the CNN special "in the footsteps of Bin Laden" youd have seen the actual memo that Bush Jr was given about terrosists planning to hijack and fly planes into federal buildings. That was shown to him a week or so before the attacks, Id say thats preetty solid intel.
as for everyone that says Clinton did nothing about terrorism. He ordered attacks on Bin Laden camps, they almost got him too. Its not like he ignored the guy and to be fair Osama was only emerging as a world wide figure during clintons tenure.
Its pretty easy to lay blame on whoever you want. The thing is it doesnt solve the problem. Only when people understand why a person acts the way they do, can one really act to change that behaviour.
Originally posted by EternalOne...Mr Intel Analyst:
I want examples.
Here you go. put in iraq. that'll pull up all the examples you need. you may want to check the archives too.
and you can't be so gullible to think that clinton created bin laden or put him in the position to gain the strength he eventually did. you know, with you being an intel analyst and all i'd think you'd know better than that.
lol...talk about blame. you were the one placing blame. i was just pointing out that there's enough blame to go around for the people prior to clinton (who armed and empowered bin laden, then left him to his own devices) and the people who ignored or mishandled the information about the 9/11 attackers that were gallivanting around our country prior to getting behind the wheel of 747s.
Originally posted by loggerbomb:
as for everyone that says Clinton did nothing about terrorism. He ordered attacks on Bin Laden camps, they almost got him too. Its not like he ignored the guy and to be fair Osama was only emerging as a world wide figure during clintons tenure.
Very true. A request for an all out attack/search and destroy put on Osama at that time would have made it nowhere. National and international support for such an endeavour at that time was non existant. Congress and the House would have shot such a proposal down in minutes.
Originally posted by BP:
i was just pointing out that there's enough blame to go around for the people prior to clinton (who armed and empowered bin laden, then left him to his own devices)
True, there was much influence and money within the Bin Laden family at the time and combined with the fact that western powers (mainly the US) armed him, he became a significant threat. However at that time, Bin Laden had no qualms with the US, rather the USSR trying to take political control over Afganistan. But who knew that he would come back to bite us in the ass?
Originally posted by Big Daddy Kane:
Hey, Kuwaitis like us...
And this is why:
Originally posted by NO 4 EVR:
middle eastern countries asked Bush senior and the US to help in getting Saddam and his forces out of Kuwait.
Originally posted by BP:
...the muslim community in general was moving towards a less conservative and less extremist position before 9/11 and iraq...
Complete and utter tripe. Ever since Sadat was killed in Egypt and the slaughter during the Berlin Olympics, extremism in Islam has only grown in popularity. Furthermore, Islam in the Middle-East has been actually moving towards more conservative doctrine and interpretation of Islamic law this past decade or so...
Don't take my word for it, though. There are many articles, books and even interviews of Muslim clerics that will support this position.
Originally posted by loggerbomb:
if anyone watched the CNN special "in the footsteps of Bin Laden" youd have seen the actual memo that Bush Jr was given about terrosists planning to hijack and fly planes into federal buildings. That was shown to him a week or so before the attacks, Id say thats preetty solid intel.
Pick up a copy of "Ghost Wars" and read all 700+ pages of it. It does a much better job of hashing out the failures of the Regan, Bush I and ultimately the Clinton administraton in terms of not keeping more eyes on the Middle-East (and not just Israel and Saudi Arabia).
Partisan minds will place blame where it's most convienent to them in terms of which administration did what; those with a little more vision will see that there have been failures on both the political and religious front on all sides that have compounded each other. In terms of the sheer number of oversights and failures, I must say my tally has always spiked during the mid and late 90's, though one cannot completely blade Clinton for some of the snafu's that the CIA caused due to them concentrating on the Cold War fallout in Europe and Western Asia.
Originally posted by BP:
the muslim community in general was moving towards a less conservative and less extremist position before 9/11 and iraq....
...than it is now. the W approach of pre-emptivism on the WOT which is doomed to be about as effective as the war on drugs. this administration has proven they cannot multi-task effectively. look at afghanistan, bin laden, iraq. very dissapointing.
and are you sure you're feeling ok jato? you mean this isn't all clinton's fault, as our resident 'intel analyst' and neo-con crew would like us to believe?
The blunders that the present Bush administration has delivered is most certainly NOT anyone's fault but it's own. Poor planning, poor execution, overly optimistic expectations; I have not changed my tune or my desire to see many in the Joint Chiefs given the boot and Rumsfeld flogged and I have mentioned this countless times...
The current problems we face in Iraq stand on their own and no amount of political rhetoric can change the fact that things have gotten MORE difficult and with little sign of letting up. Someone other than me once said something about "winning a war, but losing the peace" and this is precisely is what is on the brink of taking place. Not all is lost, but I do not have much hope that we will see a functional and relatively peaceful Iraq anytime soon, and by that I mean not before 5-10 years have passed. The Sunnis and Shi'ites are just too fractured by their localized differences that Hussein managed to magnify by the way he ran the country. Notice I'm not even touching how the Kurds are going to play into this...
No, I cannot and absolutely refuse to blame our present military situation in Iraq on the Clinton administration. However, I do completely throw the lion's share of the blame on our intel failures that did lead to a number of bad calls in the pre 9/11 and the early post 9/11 days of the Bush, Jr. administration on the abysmal way that intel was gathered and handled by the Clinton Administration. The '93 WTC bombing was a wake-up call that was more or less put on snooze for 8 years. I could blather on for hours, but suffice to say that wiser heads than mine have already put the screwups that William Christopher and Madeline Albright propagated under sctrutiny and they have even started pummeling on one of the few figures in the Clinton administration that I truly admired (and even had a chance to meet in college during a seminar), George Tenet. His story is damn-well near a Greek tragedy as he pretty much sunk his own ship with the following two words:
"slam dunk"
I guess I would say that the Clinton administration with the modest help of the Regan and Bush I administration help set the stage and provided most of the shoddy props in this drama, but the bad acting that has most of the crowd booing has been all due to poor planning and poor execution of the Bush II administration. Unfortunately, it's rare that the public get more than knee-jerk reviews of the show and few care about the scriptwriting or the choreography that has gone on during pre-production.
Then again, we did have Hussein selling tickets at the door, promising an unknowing audience and production crew a surprise nobody would have guessed...
Lots of blame and finger-pointing, but none of it changes the reason of why we went in. Again, Bush made the right decision based on what ultimately turned out to be the wrong reasons. If we knew then what we know now, I'm sure House and Congress authorization for military action would have NEVER been given and I highly doubt the Bush administration would have requested it.
Originally posted by BP:
Originally posted by BP:
the muslim community in general was moving towards a less conservative and less extremist position before 9/11 and iraq....
...than it is now.
Forgot to address this; I still disagree with this assessment. Radical Islam has been constantly progressing foward since the 70's and has seen few if any contractions in it's influence or it's ranks of followers. Now if you said blatant state-sponsored extremism, I would agree, since most Islamic political apparatuses have figured out this is pretty much a one-way ticket into getting their clocks cleaned out by the West sooner or later. The way the governments get around it though is by turning a blind eye to these radical organizations in their midst, forking support to them through back-channels that cannot easily be identified or tracked, all the while denouncing them on any UN podium they can find just to make us feel "warm and cozy" about the "progress" they are making.
These people and governments may be simple compared to our own and possess one-track minds in some ways, but they aren't stupid. They know how to work the fools at the UN and they know how to position themselves to the media. Some of the spin Hamas and the PLO has pulled over the years in the media should have PR hacks in corporate American taking notes...
I always liked the line in "The Usual Suspects" that Kevin Spacey uttered:
"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn't exist."
If you are buying into the presumption that things were "all quiet on the Islamic extremists front" before Bush got into office, you are beginning to buy into this con. Mention to a Chechen how Islamic radicals were few and far between in the '90s and watch the expression on their face........
I don't think anyone ever wins in war. Both sides suffer. The new wars seem more like peacekeeping and less like war. Terrorists blend in with the civilians and that strategy seems to work. In other wars it was military against military.
Originally posted by JaTo:
If you are buying into the presumption that things were "all quiet on the Islamic extremists front" before Bush got into office......
give yourself more credit than that. my opinion is islamic extremism has been exacerbated by the bush admin foreign policy and the very badly managed wot.
edit -
that said, there is hope for lasting peace in the me and a reduction in the threat of terror attacks on US interests. i just think it's a lot further off than some of us are willing to accept, and we'll have to forgo the scorched earth approach that so many people love in order for us to get there.
interesting link I found at the Lebonese embassy website in Washington DC..
PM for LINK
and no im not making a political statement here..
Since many Arab countries put forth the notion that 9/11 was a direct result of US foreign policy practices in the Middle-East during the last 20-30 years, I wonder if those same Arab countries and those very same voices will be willing to admit that it has been Hezbollah's actions and stated policy of seeing Israel destroyed that brought the Dogs of War to their doorsteps in Southern Lebanon this time around...
Hezbollah has been lobbing rockets, conducting bombings and kidnappings as their method of "foreign policy" with Israel for quite some time and Lebanon has been pretty much turning a blind eye to these activities.
Very sad, but hopefully that as much as Israel understands that it was heavy-handed in the way it went about this latest campaign, the Lebanese government finally understands that Hezbollah is a liability and one they need to rid themselves of before any chance of a lasting peace can be found.
Originally posted by Goonz SVT:
interesting link I found at the Lebonese embassy website in Washington DC..
and no im not making a political statement here..
It has only been the south that they wanted to destroy. Due to hezbollah using the houses and apartments as war bases.
The south loves and supports hezbollah. I am glad they blew it up, and i wish they did more damage, they aksed for the war when they intervined isreal fighting palistine. Now it will take longer for them to regroup like they had too back in 2000. Regrouping now would be a good idea for many to decide which side you want to be on.
Hopefully they will think twice before they start a war again.
Originally posted by Goonz SVT:
interesting link I found at the Lebonese embassy website in Washington DC..
and no im not making a political statement here..
I've seen some of those before from a friend that is pro-palestine. The American media seems to only present one side of the story (IMO).
We need to get out of the ME entirely in terms of military and politics. That includes Isreal, which we have supported for far too long. Let them fight their own wars without the support of American money, intelligence, technology etc. If some American companies wish to do business over there, that is their call, but our politics and our military don't need to be there.
Originally posted by Pete D:
We need to get out of the ME entirely in terms of military and politics. That includes Isreal, which we have supported for far too long. Let them fight their own wars without the support of American money, intelligence, technology etc. If some American companies wish to do business over there, that is their call, but our politics and our military don't need to be there.
It's US pressure on Israel that holds them back from really getting down to fighting. Israel KNOWS they're up against the wall, and a country that's smaller than an average state in the US and surrounded by nations that really don't want it to exist (by virtue of its Jewishness, remember) will come out swinging at any provocation. US policy kept Israel from getting into the fight in Desert Storm, when Saddam was shooting missiles at it, and US policy has reined in Israel's aggression against Lebanon in the past month.
Originally posted by Pete D:
Originally posted by Goonz SVT:
interesting link I found at the Lebonese embassy website in Washington DC..
and no im not making a political statement here..
I've seen some of those before from a friend that is pro-palestine. The American media seems to only present one side of the story (IMO).
We need to get out of the ME entirely in terms of military and politics. That includes Isreal, which we have supported for far too long. Let them fight their own wars without the support of American money, intelligence, technology etc. If some American companies wish to do business over there, that is their call, but our politics and our military don't need to be there.
The problem is that it would affect free trade if there were no military in that part of the world. The world depends on the waterways and oceans for free trade. The Navy keeps the waterways open (a full time job). There are already pirates and hijackers that attack ships. I think the terrorists (Muslim extemists) would be quick to close down free trade. They might only choose American ships but it would not be good. The military is needed for free trade and to keep the waterways open.
Originally posted by Tom Thumb:
I don't think anyone ever wins in war. Both sides suffer. The new wars seem more like peacekeeping and less like war. Terrorists blend in with the civilians and that strategy seems to work. In other wars it was military against military.
Exactly why you can't negotiate with terrorists. They have nothing to lose since they are stateless persons - or at least don't represent any government or nation. Many of the insurgents in Iraq were bussed in from Syria. What do they care if Iraq gets leveled? What do they care if thousands of Iraqi civilians are killed from their thug tactics to keep them quiet, or by using them as shields.
Just like in Lebanon. The cease fire started & despite the agreements, Hammas immediately start re-arming & trying to infiltrate into southern Lebanon again. When the terrorists are caught violating cease fire agreements, who do you punnish & how?
Sorry, been away a few days at a client site... So lemme catch up a bit...
Quote:
and you can't be so gullible to think that clinton created bin laden or put him in the position to gain the strength he eventually did. you know, with you being an intel analyst and all i'd think you'd know better than that.
Not at all. What I meant was that during Clinton's term in office I was also in a position to be "in the know". I know what we were telling him on a daily basis, I know we had solid intel previous to certain terrorist attacks, yet nothing was done. When we provided solid intel on links to Osama along with current information on his where-abouts, we were bushed off. Only a few weeks later, when it was more politically sound to do so, did we lob a few cruise missles at the location -- of course by then Osama had moved on.
Quote:
i was just pointing out that there's enough blame to go around for the people prior to clinton (who armed and empowered bin laden, then left him to his own devices) and the people who ignored or mishandled the information about the 9/11 attackers that were gallivanting around our country prior to getting behind the wheel of 747s.
I agree, there is plenty of blame to go around -- unfortunately I can only comment on what I saw firsthand during the Clinton years -- which is what I did. I saw a first class intelligence failure, and felt the daily frustrations while we made more and more links, and connected the dots, and explained everything in briefings that even a 2 year old could understand. But at the time the administration was too busy riding the .com boom to worry everyday Americans about a growing threat.
Quote:
Very true. A request for an all out attack/search and destroy put on Osama at that time would have made it nowhere. National and international support for such an endeavour at that time was non existant. Congress and the House would have shot such a proposal down in minutes.
We did not need an all out search and destroy mission, though. We had SOLID intel as to his very location -- during this time Osama stayed in one spot a bit longer at a time because the whole world wasn't looking for him. We had the perfect opportunity, and a valid reason. (Just ask anyone who served during this time how they felt after the various terror attacks on their friends and fellow service members -- to them it was obvious something needed to be done.)
Quote:
However at that time, Bin Laden had no qualms with the US
Wow. Bin Laden started his "holy war" against us way back in August of 1990 -- when we first set troops on the ground in Saudi Arabia. Some experts believe it goes further back than that, but we know (from his own private writings) that this is when he considers the US his "final target" before he can make the world an Islamic one.
Quote:
you mean this isn't all clinton's fault, as our resident 'intel analyst' and neo-con crew would like us to believe?
Spiiiiiin. I never said it was all Clinton's fault -- again all I said was it was the biggest intel failure of all times. He could have cut the head off the snake very early on, which would have quelled the issue before it exploded into the worldwide Jihad that we have today.
Quote:
the abysmal way that intel was gathered and handled by the Clinton Administration
The intel gathering was going on just fine during that period -- unfortunately the War on Terror was as popular then as it is now.
Quote:
give yourself more credit than that. my opinion is islamic extremism has been exacerbated by the bush admin foreign policy and the very badly managed wot.
I do agree with you here, BP. I do believe that the terrorist "problem" has been made worse in the past few years -- unfortunately I also saw no other choice. History proves we cannot ignore the problem, because it doesn't "just go away".
Quote:
that said, there is hope for lasting peace in the me and a reduction in the threat of terror attacks on US interests. i just think it's a lot further off than some of us are willing to accept, and we'll have to forgo the scorched earth approach that so many people love in order for us to get there.
I also hope for lasting peace. Unfortunately I feel that Americans (and the world in general today) is far too short-sighted. You cannot expect a country radically change overnight. I do not believe this will be solved in the next year or two, we're talking 5-10 years as a more accurate assessment. Back in the day we theorised that if Osama was left unchecked, that his hatred would grow, as would his power (given the nearly unlimited funds he had available at the time). We concluded that the end result of this would be either a major attack on American soil, or an attack overseas so devistating that the American public would lose all faith in the gov't to protect them, and we would end up falling back to an isolationist country, which would be a bad thing for the entire world.
Quote:
We need to get out of the ME entirely in terms of military and politics.
...[snip]...
our politics and our military don't need to be there.
In otherwards you'd rather have entire countries fall into the hands of terrorist leaders, willing and able to exert their influence across the entire region? Do you even understand what this would do to the global economy, or do you just not care?
E1
Originally posted by EternalOne:
....the fact remains that had Clinton got off his ass when those of us in the military told him to, we would not be sitting in this mess today.
E1
this is the statement that my original post was in response to. you could substitute at least two other presidents in place of clinton's name and that statement would be accurate. but that wasn't the statement you made. with you having the exposure you had, even if it was only under the clinton admin, you should know better than to place blame.
and the impatience of the american public in regards to the wot is because of what's happened over the past 3+ years. the plan and strategy wasn't well defined and look at where we are now. NONE of our goals have been accomplished. obl gellin like magellan somewhere in pakistan or afghanistan, a resurgence of the taliban and general unrest in afghanistan, iraq..well you see it. how can you have confidence and patience in a process when it's not producing results and there is no clear plan or strategy other than 'stay the course'?
i'm willing to bear through an uncomfortable patience but i'd say i'm much more resilient than the avg voter/citizen. i can pretty much guarantee you that no presidential candidate in the next election will continue the path that the current admin started and still adheres to.
Originally posted by BP:
Originally posted by EternalOne:
....the fact remains that had Clinton got off his ass when those of us in the military told him to, we would not be sitting in this mess today.
E1
this is the statement that my original post was in response to. you could substitute at least two other presidents in place of clinton's name and that statement would be accurate.
Two other presidents didn't have Osama handed to them on a silver platter only to let him walk!
Originally posted by BP:
Originally posted by EternalOne:
....the fact remains that had Clinton got off his ass when those of us in the military told him to, we would not be sitting in this mess today.
this is the statement that my original post was in response to. you could substitute at least two other presidents in place of clinton's name and that statement would be accurate. but that wasn't the statement you made. with you having the exposure you had, even if it was only under the clinton admin, you should know better than to place blame.
Well, I didn't work directly under any other President, so I cannot confirm this, but to my recollection I do not remember a single other President in American history that dealt with terrorist attacks on US interests and personel, and then was given the full story along with a full assessment report showing who was responsible and where they were at that very moment. I can, however, confirm that this was the case with President Clinton -- which is what I was speaking to. If you can provide other examples, I am more than willing to listen, but in all of my training an example like this was never mentioned. Our basic training taught us that if we provide solid information, then the CiC would act, the more solid the info, the faster the action was likely to be taken. Everyone up the chain of command was telling him what to do, but the political climate and economic stability at the time prevented him from taking action. (That's my thoughts at the time, at least.)
Quote:
and the impatience of the american public in regards to the wot is because of what's happened over the past 3+ years. the plan and strategy wasn't well defined and look at where we are now. NONE of our goals have been accomplished.
This is also the first time in history that an administration has been told they had to lay out the entire war plan to the general public. Granted, I can see where there have been failures as well, but overall I believe there was no other way. Seriously, what great "war plan" has anyone else laid out? There has only really been one "plan" proposed, and that is pull out. Very few people say we should send more troops (which I disagree with help, but that's a whole other discussion) -- most just say we should get the hell out, and I believe even you agree that is a bad idea at this point. (I think I recall that from a previous conversation, if not I am sorry.)
To say that none of our goals have been accomplished is rather harsh, as well. That's really gotta make a soldier proud there. Seriously, when my brother-in-law got back last year we sat down and discussed his mission goals. Of his goals 100% were met, and under the proposed timeline. Do you also not realize that 90% of the country now has electricity, when before during Saddam they did not. Granted, its hard to keep it operational 100% of the time, but even 10 hrs of power is more than never, and goes a long way towards improving life for the people. What about the $6 BILLION we've spent in reconstruction efforts? The schools we've built, the infrastructure we're upgraded, etc. How about the fact that the majority of the North and South of Iraq is under their gov't control, and the majority of the problems lay within Sadr City, or originate there into the rest of the city? There are problems, yes, and there will be for years and years, but to say we've done nothing is very closeminded, and surely does not give our troops enough credit.
Quote:
i can pretty much guarantee you that no presidential candidate in the next election will continue the path that the current admin started and still adheres to.
Yeah, but that's politics driving that -- most politicians will say whatever they have to so they get elected, we all know this. I still would like to hear what they plan on doing differently -- it's obvious that people will distance themselves from the current admin, that's just "smart politics" given todays climate, doesn't mean they have better ideas, or any ideas for that matter.
I'd also bet that the dems don't make the Kerry mistake of not saying anything except "We aren't Bush", as well. 
All of the reading, researching, etc I did during the last election still never got me a solid answer on what the hell that guy wanted to do... Somehow I'm afraid this will happen again. I'd just be happy if they'd all come out and lay out a mission plan, for Iraq, the War on Terror, the ecnonomy, trade relations, everything. I think that should become a prereq for people running for office, it'd definately make our choices as citizens a little easier...
E1
both bush's had a shot at obl. doesn't take an intel analyst to know that. yet it's mostly clinton's fault that action wasn't taken earlier. again the blame game has no winners.
a great war plan? how about......don't go to war without a plan for 300 billion alex. how about listening to your analyst saying we needed more troops before attacking iraq in order to stabilize the country afterwards. how about not using intel and info that you know is tainted before making up your mind that you're going to "liberate" iraq regardless and make things worse. how about not telling the soldiers one thing and then when they're packed and ready to come home telling them they have to stay for another freaking year!! pisses me the fock off.
i never said we did nothing. i said none of the goals of the wot have been accomplished. of course we've done good things in iraq after tearing the place up.
and politics isn't driving the direction of the wot. results is what's driving the direction of the wot, and it doesn't take a steven hawking to realize that.
Originally posted by BP:
and politics isn't driving the direction of the wot. results is what's driving the direction of the wot, and it doesn't take a steven hawking to realize that.
Oh, really...
Originally posted by EternalOne:
Quote:
the abysmal way that intel was gathered and handled by the Clinton Administration
The intel gathering was going on just fine during that period -- unfortunately the War on Terror was as popular then as it is now.
I'm going to have to bite back on that one. The CIA budget was strapped, head-count was gutted, HumInt was at an all-time low, etc., etc....the list is practically endless in the '90s. I'm not saying that our intelligence agencies were asleep at the wheel, but that the Executive Branch was of the absolutely mistaken perception that a bank of computers were more valuable than a field agent developing assets and gathering firsthand intel in the back-alleys of Baghdad, Beirut, Kabul, etc. They tried putting things on "autopilot" to a degree...
The Cold War was over so why keep the headcount, right? This was the stated reason of chopping so many warm bodies out of the intelligence community at that time and thinking that satellite feeds mixed in with threat assesment programs and other technical wizardry would counter that loss and it proved to be a complete mess when trying to adjust to the events in the Middle-East and elsewhere.
I also have some marked issues on the attention that OBL in conjunction with Pakistani and Afgani events warranted with Clinton's staff. You guys may have been shooting some top-notch briefs towards the Oval office given the limited resources you had at your disposal, but they were rarely acted on due to "political" reasons...
I'll never knock the rank and file intel folks that bust their asses on a daily basis for this country, but I think that it was a case of too much work and too few hands to properly handle and effectively disseminate it all. Couple that with the way the Clinton administration hobbled intel gathering efforts in terms of resource allocation, funding and ultimately proper attention...and we have the mess that presented itself to the Bush administration early on.
Originally posted by BP:
both bush's had a shot at obl. doesn't take an intel analyst to know that. yet it's mostly clinton's fault that action wasn't taken earlier. again the blame game has no winners.
When Bush 41 was in office, OBL hadn't yet tried the first attempt at bringing down the WTC...that was the truck bombing there in '93, first year of the Clinton presidency. OBL may have been on the radar as a potential threat, but nothing on a par with Hussein at the time.
By the time Bush 43 landed in the office, OBL had hit the WTC in '93, Khobar Towers in '96, US embassies in '98, and the USS Cole in 2000. Bin Laden was on the FBI's 10 most wanted list, and was in hiding (something he surely learned to do more of after finding out that the US had tabs on him on and off through the 1990s).
It's probably a good thing you're not an intel analyst, because you really wouldn't be a very good one. It's pretty naive to say that both Bushes "had shots" at Osama when you're faced with historical evidence.
Originally posted by Jeb Hoge:
By the time Bush 43 landed in the office, OBL had hit the WTC in '93, Khobar Towers in '96, US embassies in '98, and the USS Cole in 2000. Bin Laden was on the FBI's 10 most wanted list, and was in hiding (something he surely learned to do more of after finding out that the US had tabs on him on and off through the 1990s).
ohhh...i get it. we knew bin laden was hanging out in afghanistan from 1992-2000 and then he dissapeared when bush was elected until 9/12/2001 when he miraculously resurfaced in....afghanistan. riiight. ok jeb. your vote of confidence on my intel analyst capabilities are that much more valid now. thanks, i'll keep my day job as long as you do the same. 
...lol
Originally posted by BP:
Originally posted by Jeb Hoge:
By the time Bush 43 landed in the office, OBL had hit the WTC in '93, Khobar Towers in '96, US embassies in '98, and the USS Cole in 2000. Bin Laden was on the FBI's 10 most wanted list, and was in hiding (something he surely learned to do more of after finding out that the US had tabs on him on and off through the 1990s).
ohhh...i get it. we knew bin laden was hanging out in afghanistan from 1992-2000 and then he dissapeared when bush was elected until 9/12/2001 when he miraculously resurfaced in....afghanistan. riiight. ok jeb. your vote of confidence on my intel analyst capabilities are that much more valid now. thanks, i'll keep my day job as long as you do the same. ...lol
Try again. OBL was sequestered in Sudan for five years before moving to Afghanistan, where he ingratiated himself to the Taliban with money and arms and they returned the favor by giving him places to hide (and we know that Afghanistan is not much more than one big place to hide) and refusing to cooperate with extradition attempts. Come on, this is all historical fact...it's not that hard to look it up, even if you don't remember it.
maybe you should sign up for that intel analyst position. you seem to know it all.
Originally posted by BP:
maybe you should sign up for that intel analyst position. you seem to know it all.
See, there's your problem. Analysis isn't about knowing everything, it's about taking what is known (not to mention the "known unknowns" that Rumsfeld talked about), and developing scenarios and plans of action, not to mention estimating potential consequences. When Clinton was in office, we knew that OBL had made active strikes against the US (and probably plannign more), and more than any time before or since, we knew where he was and had opportunities to take him in or down. This was before he disappeared into Kandahar. That's why people tend to view the failure to nab him as resting mostly on the Clinton Administration.
An iteresting idea was brought to my attention the other day. If a poll was issued like this:
If using more force is what it takes for our troops to be brought home sooner, should we use it: Yes, No.
A vast majority of people would say yes. We are fighting this war wrong, the president is trying to be too politically correct in running it. Would we have won WWII if we had to think about how everyone felt, how the press would view us, or if the troops couldn't do their jobs? Seriously who in the world thought it would be a good idea, in a war zone, that one coudn't fire apon someone until they were fired apon. Get the press out, let the armed forces do what they need to do, and this war would be over fairly quickly. Same thing happened in Vietnam and look at how that turned out.
Originally posted by Jeb Hoge:
see there's your problem
wrong. my problem is that i can't stand people who act like their side of the issue is the only correct one. you and a couple other people continue to point fingures and place blame when it's very clear that every president since 1992 could have done something that would've reduced or eliminated the issues we're facing today. the bushes aren't royalty nor are they exempt from mistakes. we already know that about clinton, but you guys get in a tizzy when people point out that bush 1 & 2 contributed to the problem as well. why is that?
Originally posted by BP:
both bush's had a shot at obl. doesn't take an intel analyst to know that. yet it's mostly clinton's fault that action wasn't taken earlier. again the blame game has no winners.
And yet again you refuse to accept the fact that President Clinton was handed Osama on a silver platter, yet refused to act, even though it would have ultimately saved thousands of lives.
Quote:
i never said we did nothing. i said none of the goals of the wot have been accomplished.
Mission Goals for the Iraqi Campaign:
1. End the regime of Saddam Hussein.
Check. No debate there...
2. Eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
Surely we didn't find the "smoking gun" -- but we have managed to account for a small percentage of known WMD's. The rest are still listed as "missing", meaning they ARE out there someplace.
3. Capture or drive out terrorists.
Eliminated the Ansar al-Islam terror training camp along the border of Iran.
4. Collect intelligence on terrorist networks.
Interrogations with captured persons during the conflict has resulted in a treasure trove of information.
5. Collect intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction activity.
Captured the key players in Iraq's various weapons programs. Also aquired documents showing how Iraq was attempting to restart its various programs, and its strong desire to do so.
6. Secure Iraq's oil fields.
These have been under our control for quite some time now, although there have been constant attacks, we still manage to keep Iraq's primary income flowing.
7. Deliver humanitarian relief and end sanctions.
Check.
8. Help Iraq achieve representative self-government and insure its territorial integrity.
Check.
So again, NONE of our goals have been achieved? Of course, I assume you were talking about the WMD's, because that's the only mission objective anyone here seems to care about, but the fact remains that we've done quite a bit, even according to the original military plan.
E1
Originally posted by BP:
we already know that about clinton, but you guys get in a tizzy when people point out that bush 1 & 2 contributed to the problem as well. why is that?
No, you just take it like that. I know there have been mistakes on both sides of the political spectrum -- but the grandest failure was by Clinton -- and like I said he was my CiC, and therefore I can speak firsthand about that event. You can't seem to understand that I don't make comments unless I know something to be fact, or I clearly label it as an opinion.
E1
The problem with all this talk about mission goals is that there is ONLY ONE GOAL THAT MATTERS: getting our troops out of Iraq and leaving behind a self-governing, stable, West-friendly democracy.
Now, I and other sane people know that the chances of this happening are similar to a snowball surviving in Hades. I think the best we can hope for at this point is to allow Iraq to be divided into 3 countries.
Sunniville aka Sadamistan in the West
Kurdistan aka "Turkey's worst nightmare" in the North
and "New Iran" or "Little Iran" or "West Iran" in the East
After all, this is what they really want. It's high time we abandon our expectations for a new Iraq to become a shining beacon of democracy, tidy up the best we can and get the hell out.
Originally posted by EternalOne:
In otherwards you'd rather have entire countries fall into the hands of terrorist leaders, willing and able to exert their influence across the entire region? Do you even understand what this would do to the global economy, or do you just not care?
E1
I don't care about the global economy or the region. I care about what is best for The American People. I don't think perpetuating the hatred for the west by constantly meddling in the ME and suporting Isreal is good for us
Originally posted by Pete D:
I don't care about the global economy or the region. I care about what is best for The American People. I don't think perpetuating the hatred for the west by constantly meddling in the ME and suporting Isreal is good for us
And yet you do not realize how that would directly affect the American public at large?
Say we did leave, what do you think Iran would do? Or Syria? You think they'd just say, "Oh! The Americans left! Let's throw a party and lower our oil prices!!!"
Give me a break... Your method would destroy the entire global economy, leading to a fundamental breakdown in everything we hold dear, along with giving an entire region to terrorists, where they will then set their sights back on US Soil.
E1
Originally posted by EternalOne:
And yet again you refuse to accept the fact that President Clinton was handed Osama on a silver platter, yet refused to act, even though it would have ultimately saved thousands of lives.
i can see you won't budge from bush's lap. whatever...it's all clinton's fault.
Originally posted by EternalOne:
Mission Goals for the Iraqi Campaign....
these look like your goals. the way i remember it was the war in iraq being tied directly to the wot. and while there has been accomplishments in cleaning up some of the mess in iraq, the overwhelming fact is that it's in a downward spiral of disarray and the me is more unstable than ever. now when you look at that larger picture of the wot i fail to see how we've accomplished any of the goals there. like i said before some of these may be longer term than previously expected, but that's just the problem. the expectation was never set other than remove saddam from power. now we're in a bottome$$ quagmire and we have few options for the short term that will improve the situation in iraq or the wot.
Originally posted by BP:
the way i remember it
Nice. You're basically admitting that you're ill-informed and proceeding on selective memory.
Originally posted by EternalOne:
Originally posted by Pete D:
I don't care about the global economy or the region. I care about what is best for The American People. I don't think perpetuating the hatred for the west by constantly meddling in the ME and suporting Isreal is good for us
And yet you do not realize how that would directly affect the American public at large?
Say we did leave, what do you think Iran would do? Or Syria? You think they'd just say, "Oh! The Americans left! Let's throw a party and lower our oil prices!!!"
Give me a break... Your method would destroy the entire global economy, leading to a fundamental breakdown in everything we hold dear, along with giving an entire region to terrorists, where they will then set their sights back on US Soil.
E1
I'm trying to follow your train of thought here. How does the US pulling out of the ME (and especially ending all ties to Isreal) end up in the collapse of the global economy and our way of life as we know it 
Originally posted by BP:
Originally posted by EternalOne:
And yet again you refuse to accept the fact that President Clinton was handed Osama on a silver platter, yet refused to act, even though it would have ultimately saved thousands of lives.
i can see you won't budge from bush's lap. whatever...it's all clinton's fault.
The way I read his posts, he conceded that other administrations have placed terrorism on a back burner & did little to abate the problem - as did I. His point was ... Well you know what he was saying, it just seems to get all jumbled up somewhere between your computer screen & you keying in a response on your keyboard. Clinton's lap seems to be a popular place for both you & Monica.
Originally posted by BP:
i can see you won't budge from bush's lap. whatever...it's all clinton's fault.
Yet again you refuse to see my point. I can ONLY comment on what I know to be FACT. You refuse to admit that Clinton could have taken out Osama and saved us a ton of headaches, and that Osama started his Jihad against American DURING Clinton's watch... Sure enuff if Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would have become a major terror player in 5 years you'd have no problem blaming Bush.
Originally posted by BP:
these look like your goals. the way i remember it was the war in iraq being tied directly to the wot.
These are the EXACT mission goals from the Iraqi campaign. Goes to show that you have NO idea what we are really doing there.
Originally posted by BP:
the expectation was never set other than remove saddam from power.
See my previous post for actual mission objectives.
Originally posted by Pete D:
I'm trying to follow your train of thought here. How does the US pulling out of the ME (and especially ending all ties to Isreal) end up in the collapse of the global economy and our way of life as we know it
Let's see how this would work out.
First, Isreal would be destroyed, or at the very least occupied. Next you would have Syria and Iran gaining in power in the region, able to say and do whatever they want, and shutting out all outside sources of information, thus winning the propaganda war, and bringing more youngsters under their reign. You would also have total collapse of the int'l waterways in the region, since currently the US Navy ensures open transport routes free of pirates. Adding in that Iran and Syria would then exert their influence on every country in the region once again (Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, etc) and now you have the majority of the worlds oil in control of a rogue group. With int'l shipping hurting, and oil under their control, what do you think would happen here? Those large numbers of youngers I talked about above? Yeah, I'm sure they'd be happy with their small section... No, actually they'd then set their sights on the moderate Mulim nations, such as Egypt, Saudi, etc -- those with any ties to the West. From there you've now ended up creating an entire region of the world that is lawless and a breeding ground for terror. You think Iraq is bad now? Imagine an area 50x the size, where instead of 1% of the people willing to die to kill any American you have more along the lines of 50%, growing each year...
Understand now? And that's a VERY high level overview...
E1
Originally posted by TourDeForce:
The way I read his posts, he conceded that other administrations have placed terrorism on a back burner & did little to abate the problem - as did I.
Thank you, very well put. And yes, this is what I meant, although I admit it might not have come out this clear.
E1
Originally posted by Jeb Hoge:
Nice. You're basically admitting that you're ill-informed and proceeding on selective memory.
so you're saying bush isn't linking the war in iraq to the wot? please correct me if i'm wrong, i'm sure the rest of the country would like to hear it too. thanks jeb.
Originally posted by TourDeForce:
The way I read his posts, he conceded that other administrations have placed terrorism on a back burner & did little to abate the problem - as did I.
if you say so. maybe that's some sort of secret communication tactic you conservative boys came up with in your reach around circle jerks cause that's not what i read.
Originally posted by EternalOne:
...
you can't keep your finger off of the blame button. i konw it's easy to use, but it doesn't help us out. you guys keep talking about who's fault it is, rather than who's currently responsible for making it better. i can understand how it'd be difficult to have confidence that bush can make it better, but at least put on a good show rather than making excuses for him.
Originally posted by BP:
maybe that's some sort of secret communication tactic you conservative boys came up with in your reach around circle jerks cause that's not what i read.
This sentence proves you have absolutely no inclination to have a meaningful logical debate. It's all "us against them" mentality with your typical partisan name calling.
Originally posted by IRingTwyce:
Originally posted by BP:
maybe that's some sort of secret communication tactic you conservative boys came up with in your reach around circle jerks cause that's not what i read.
This sentence proves you have absolutely no inclination to have a meaningful logical debate. It's all "us against them" mentality with your typical partisan name calling.
Wow, is all i gotta say.
I agree you tried to express your views here. Seeing the debate start was great. As soon as you made that imature statement. All of your prior thoughts and so called facts went to shame. Sorry your anger got ahead of you.
bottom line..... now you said that, everything you said before is useless.
Your statemnts don't hold any water now.
Originally posted by EternalOne:
First, Isreal would be destroyed, or at the very least occupied.
No disagreement here, nor would I care
Quote:
Next you would have Syria and Iran gaining in power in the region, able to say and do whatever they want, and shutting out all outside sources of information, thus winning the propaganda war, and bringing more youngsters under their reign.
Probably, not a concern of mine though.
Quote:
You would also have total collapse of the int'l waterways in the region, since currently the US Navy ensures open transport routes free of pirates.
Modern piracy isn't a huge problem in that part of the world (although I am sure you will say that is because of our presence there ). Regardless, even if this was the case, and worse case scenario they shut down the suez canal, I don't see the huge impact on the US of A, as that isn't a major trade route for us.
Quote:
Adding in that Iran and Syria would then exert their influence on every country in the region once again (Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, etc) and now you have the majority of the worlds oil in control of a rogue group.
Not sure about global numbers, but these countries don't contribute as much oil as you think to the US. Regardless, even as much as these countries might hate the US (or the West) they aren't dumb enough to cut off their only good source of income.
Quote:
With int'l shipping hurting, and oil under their control, what do you think would happen here? Those large numbers of youngers I talked about above? Yeah, I'm sure they'd be happy with their small section... No, actually they'd then set their sights on the moderate Mulim nations, such as Egypt, Saudi, etc -- those with any ties to the West. From there you've now ended up creating an entire region of the world that is lawless and a breeding ground for terror. You think Iraq is bad now? Imagine an area 50x the size, where instead of 1% of the people willing to die to kill any American you have more along the lines of 50%, growing each year...
Infighting might increase no doubt. But isn't like they are all going to hold hands and unify against the west. Lets not forget how much many of these sects hate each other.
Originally posted by BP:
Originally posted by EternalOne:
...
you can't keep your finger off of the blame button. i konw it's easy to use, but it doesn't help us out. you guys keep talking about who's fault it is, rather than who's currently responsible for making it better. i can understand how it'd be difficult to have confidence that bush can make it better, but at least put on a good show rather than making excuses for him.
And you are doing what exactly to support the President in his effort to make things right? Seems to me talking about (aka: critisizing or cutting the legs from under) the guy who is currently trying to make it better is a step in the wrong direction. Relay that to your party leaders won't you, please?
Originally posted by EternalOne:
Originally posted by TourDeForce:
The way I read his posts, he conceded that other administrations have placed terrorism on a back burner & did little to abate the problem - as did I.
Thank you, very well put. And yes, this is what I meant, although I admit it might not have come out this clear.
And for the record BP, from one of my first posts in this thread:
Quote:
"Clinton & other administrations tried to ignore them & leave them alone & look where that got us."
Doesn't look like much of a secret code. Must be that jumbly-wumbly thing happening again.
Originally posted by IRingTwyce:
It's all "us against them" mentality with your typical partisan name calling.
remember the statement "you're either with us or against us" ? wonder who said that? that made nearly impossible to patriotic dissenter. no wonder this country was more divided than ever over the past 5 years or so. it's changing now that more people who were standing behind the bush mantra are now seeing the light.
Originally posted by Harrry:
Wow, is all i gotta say.
I agree you tried to express your views here. Seeing the debate start was great. As soon as you made that imature statement. All of your prior thoughts and so called facts went to shame. Sorry your anger got ahead of you.
bottom line..... now you said that, everything you said before is useless.
Your statemnts don't hold any water now.
lol. i must've missed your insightful contribution to this thread. what a shame. anyways there's more threads than this one on the ceg to entertain you. kthxbye!
Originally posted by TourDeForce:
And you are doing what exactly to support the President in his effort to make things right? Seems to me talking about (aka: critisizing or cutting the legs from under) the guy who is currently trying to make it better is a step in the wrong direction.
i'm supporting our troops and my family first and foremost! they're the ones out there trying to make right in a wrong situation.
constructive criticism of our leaders *is* support. do you think should we just pat him on the back whenever he screws up?
Originally posted by TourDeForce:
"Clinton & other administrations tried to ignore them & leave them alone & look where that got us."
looks like singling out to me. i guess i'm the bad guy because i point out who these "other administrations" are. you guys are way too sensitive. whenever someone mentions bush in anything but flattering light here you come running to redirect the issue from the mistakes he's made and problems he has responsibility for resolving. nice. way to go.
Originally posted by BP:
Originally posted by Harrry:
Wow, is all i gotta say.
I agree you tried to express your views here. Seeing the debate start was great. As soon as you made that imature statement. All of your prior thoughts and so called facts went to shame. Sorry your anger got ahead of you.
bottom line..... now you said that, everything you said before is useless.
Your statemnts don't hold any water now.
lol. i must've missed your insightful contribution to this thread. what a shame. anyways there's more threads than this one on the ceg to entertain you. kthxbye!
Your anger again is getting ahead of you.
You seem to have som insecurity problems. 
Originally posted by BP:
Originally posted by TourDeForce:
The way I read his posts, he conceded that other administrations have placed terrorism on a back burner & did little to abate the problem - as did I.
if you say so. maybe that's some sort of secret communication tactic you conservative boys came up with in your reach around circle jerks cause that's not what i read.
Keep this discussion civil and don't stoop to name-calling or other childish tactics. This has been a pretty good debate. Keep it clean and adult.
Didn't the Brits have their hands full with a handful of radical fundamentalist mullahs urging their followers to wipe out infidels in 1897? Our WOT is not likely to take merely decades.
I regret that Clinton did not pull the trigger on OBL effectively and sooner. On the other hand, asking our country to trust Mr. "Mission Accomplished" to fix much of anything is not very realistic.
Originally posted by Shaggy:
Keep this discussion civil and don't stoop to name-calling or other childish tactics. This has been a pretty good debate. Keep it clean and adult.
i can accept the warning and admit i provoked, however there were additional responses in the same context as the comment i made.
in the interest of fairness i'd appreciate if you distribute warnings via pm or address all participants in the discussion.
thanks.
I'm no fan of Clinton, but
this Snopes page outlines how he didn't just pretend these attacks didn't happen. I'd also point out that the political climate of the time was by no means gung ho about launching a major attack against suspected terrorist sites (Sen. Specter, for example, was vocal about the few missiles Clinton did launch as being a diversion from the Lewinsky scandal).
Originally posted by Viss1:
I'm no fan of Clinton, but this Snopes page outlines how he didn't just pretend these attacks didn't happen. I'd also point out that the political climate of the time was by no means gung ho about launching a major attack against suspected terrorist sites (Sen. Specter, for example, was vocal about the few missiles Clinton did launch as being a diversion from the Lewinsky scandal).
Sorry, but that Snopes page only further bolsters my point.
Originally posted by E1:
for YEARS we warned of the pending strikes, yet they were ignored. When we got SOLID intel on the location of OBL the intel was sat on for over a week before a single cruise missle was lobbed that direction, missing the target.
Originally posted by E1:
Everyone up the chain of command was telling him what to do, but the political climate and economic stability at the time prevented him from taking action. (That's my thoughts at the time, at least.)
First attack: February 1993
First (and only) strike by US: August 1998
E1
Originally posted by BP:
Originally posted by TourDeForce:
And you are doing what exactly to support the President in his effort to make things right? Seems to me talking about (aka: critisizing or cutting the legs from under) the guy who is currently trying to make it better is a step in the wrong direction.
i'm supporting our troops and my family first and foremost! they're the ones out there trying to make right in a wrong situation.
constructive criticism of our leaders *is* support. do you think should we just pat him on the back whenever he screws up?
Constructive criticism is fine. I have no problem with you pointing out weaknesses or errors made by the current administration. The democratic party & their relentless bashing without any viable input or alternatives is what I object to. Bitching is easy. Anybody can [censored]. Doing stuff takes character.
Originally posted by BP:
Originally posted by TourDeForce:
"Clinton & other administrations tried to ignore them & leave them alone & look where that got us."
looks like singling out to me. i guess i'm the bad guy because i point out who these "other administrations" are. you guys are way too sensitive. whenever someone mentions bush in anything but flattering light here you come running to redirect the issue from the mistakes he's made and problems he has responsibility for resolving. nice. way to go.
All I keep asking for is some support for the President. No, I don't think he's done everything right, but the dems should be offering a better way instead of tearing the country appart with relentless bashing of the administration. It's a political hatchet job all the way, and does NOTHING positive. From the dem party, give us something positive to help fight the WOT instead of bitching.
No sorry necessary, since we pretty much agree... but it was worth pointing out that Clinton 1) didn't just pretend attacks didn't happen, and 2) wasn't the only who didn't have the same crystal ball that the intelligence community apparently had.
