George Bush: al Qaida's best friend

[GW in Ohio]

During Coldoleezza Rice's confirmation hearings in '05, Senator Barbara Boxer made the following remarks:


Now, since 9/11, we've been engaged in a just fight against terror. And I, like Senator Feingold and everyone here who was in the Senate at the time, voted to go after Osama bin Laden and to go after the Taliban and to defeat Al Qaida. defeat Al Qaida.

And you say they have less territory; that's not true. Your own documents show that Al Qaida has expanded from 45 countries in '01 to more than 60 countries today.

Well, with you in the lead role, Dr. Rice, we went into Iraq.

I want to read you a paragraph that best expresses my views -- and ask my staff if they would hold this up -- and I believe the views of millions of Californians and Americans. It was written by one of the world's experts on terrorism, Peter Bergen, five months ago. He wrote:

"What we've done in Iraq is what bin Laden could not have hoped for in his wildest dreams. We invaded an oil-rich Muslim nation in the heart of the Middle East, the very type of imperial adventure bin Laden has long predicted was the U.S. long-term goal in the region. We deposed the secular socialist Saddam, whom bin Laden has long despised, ignited Sunni and Shia fundamentalist fervor in Iraq, and have now provoked a defensive jihad that has galvanized jihad-minded Muslims around the world. It's hard to imagine a set of policies better designed to sabotage the war on terror."

This conclusion was reiterated last Thursday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director's think tank, which released a report saying that Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of professionalized terrorists.

That's your own administration's CIA.

NIC Chairman Robert Hutchings said Iraq is, quote, "a magnet for
international terrorist activity."

And this was not the case in '01. And I have great proof of it, including a State Department document that lists every country in which Al Qaida operated prior to 9/11, and you can see the countries. No mention of Iraq. And this booklet was signed off on by the President of the United States, George W. Bush -- was put out by George Bush's State Department and he signed it.

There was no Al Qaida activity there. No cells.


George Bush has fanned the flames of Muslim extremism with his disastrous Iraq war.
The Iraq war has created Muslim extremism where none existed before.
George Bush and Cheney and the rest of that gang of idiots are the best friends al Qaida could have.

[theHawk]

Of course any conflict in the ME is going to galvanize the Muslims into hating us, and thus strengthen the likes of AQ.


Wish the war would galvanize us in the same way instead of dividing us. The best friends AQ could have are the cut-in-run democrats.

[GW in Ohio]

Of course any conflict in the ME is going to galvanize the Muslims into hating us, and thus strengthen the likes of AQ.


Wish the war would galvanize us in the same way instead of dividing us. The best friends AQ could have are the cut-in-run democrats.

Hawk: There are smart ways to combat Muslim extremism, and there are dumb ways.

Invading Iraq and deposing a secularist dictator....precipitating a civil war that we have no clue how to stop.......living up to the worst things the radical Islamists said about us ("imperialists who want to take over our oil fields and start up the Crusades again....")..........opening the door for a radical Isalamofascist state in Iraq........that was so dumb there are no words to adequately capture its dumbness.

[theHawk]

Hawk: There are smart ways to combat Muslim extremism, and there are dumb ways.

Invading Iraq and deposing a secularist dictator....precipitating a civil war that we have no clue how to stop.......living up to the worst things the radical Islamists said about us ("imperialists who want to take over our oil fields and start up the Crusades again....")..........opening the door for a radical Isalamofascist state in Iraq........that was so dumb there are no words to adequately capture its dumbness.


In all your criticisms I have heard no solutions. Dims voted for the war just as much as the Republicans did.

[GW in Ohio]

In all your criticisms I have heard no solutions. Dims voted for the war just as much as the Republicans did.

Yes they did, but it was the Republicans on the Bush team that provided all the bullshit reasons for invading Iraq.

[theHawk]

Yes they did, but it was the Republicans on the Bush team that provided all the bullshit reasons for invading Iraq.

You mean the same bullshit reasons that Clinton claimed during his administration?

[Kathianne]

Hawk: There are smart ways to combat Muslim extremism, and there are dumb ways.

Invading Iraq and deposing a secularist dictator....precipitating a civil war that we have no clue how to stop.......living up to the worst things the radical Islamists said about us ("imperialists who want to take over our oil fields and start up the Crusades again....")..........opening the door for a radical Isalamofascist state in Iraq........that was so dumb there are no words to adequately capture its dumbness.

What are the smart ways that we should have or should combat Muslim terrorism?

[Mr. P]

I like this part......

NIC Chairman Robert Hutchings said Iraq is, quote, "a magnet for international terrorist activity."
Seems like progress to me, or would you rather have San Fran or Chicago or anywhere USA be the magnet instead, GW in Ohio? Come to think of it, Cleveland would not be a lose.

[Kathianne]

I like this part......

Seems like progress to me, or would you rather have San Fran or Chicago or anywhere USA be the magnet instead, GW in Ohio? Come to think of it, Cleveland would not be a lose.

I believe that was called the 'flypaper strategy' and seems to have worked.

[GW in Ohio]

I like this part......

Seems like progress to me, or would you rather have San Fran or Chicago or anywhere USA be the magnet instead, GW in Ohio? Come to think of it, Cleveland would not be a lose.

Here's the thing you don't get....

It isn't that Iraq is a magnet for existing terrorists.

Iraq has created many more terrorists than existed before.

Shithead Bush has set American foreign policy back at least 50 years. He's galvanized most of the Muslim world against us with his Iraq adventure.

Quite an accomplishment....

[Mr. P]

Here's the thing you don't get....

It isn't that Iraq is a magnet for existing terrorists.

Iraq has created many more terrorists than existed before.

Shithead Bush has set American foreign policy back at least 50 years. He's galvanized most of the Muslim world against us with his Iraq adventure.

Quite an accomplishment....

What you fail or refuse (is more like it) to understand is the shit heads have been drawn to Iraq. If you think what the Muslim world thinks will set the U.S. back 50 years, well, yer just dumb as a brick.

[Hagbard Celine]

What you fail or refuse (is more like it) to understand is the shit heads have been drawn to Iraq. If you think what the Muslim world thinks will set the U.S. back 50 years, well, yer just dumb as a brick.

Considering the fact that Muslim extremism is the only major threat to the Western World today, yeah, I do think that what the Muslim world thinks affects US foreign policy. It affects it a whole hell of a lot.

And if you read the exchange posted above, you'll see that what you've claimed here: that "the shit heads have been drawn to Iraq," (before the US invasion) was flatly refuted by both the State Department and the President of the United States. Just pesky facts. Oh well :dunno:

[Monkeybone]

how do we know that it created more terrorist? could these have already been ppl that were this way and now have just come out of hiding/showing their real beliefs?

[Hagbard Celine]

how do we know that it created more terrorist? could these have already been ppl that were this way and now have just come out of hiding/showing their real beliefs?

Before the invasion, Iraqis went to work, went to Mosque, watched tv, went to school, etc. After the invasion, they either die, become a refugee or join a militia/terrorist group.

You can't ignore the variable that the US invasion threw into the equation. During and after the US invasion, things didn't stay the same and then suddenly out of nowhere a bunch of Iraqis decided "Hey! Today I think I'll act on those impulses I've always had to become a terrorist!" Give me a break.

[Mr. P]

Considering the fact that Muslim extremism is the only major threat to the Western World today, yeah, I do think that what the Muslim world thinks affects US foreign policy. It affects it a whole hell of a lot.

And if you read the exchange posted above, you'll see that what you've claimed here: that "the shit heads have been drawn to Iraq," (before the US invasion) was flatly refuted by both the State Department and the President of the United States. Just pesky facts. Oh well :dunno:

I didn't say "BEFORE"...nor did the quote I posted.

[Mr. P]

Before the invasion, Iraqis went to work, went to Mosque, watched tv, went to school, etc. After the invasion, they either die, become a refugee or join a militia/terrorist group.

You can't ignore the variable that the US invasion threw into the equation. During and after the US invasion, things didn't stay the same and then suddenly out of nowhere a bunch of Iraqis decided "Hey! Today I think I'll act on those impulses I've always had to become a terrorist!" Give me a break.

I didn't really think you were this much of a bone-head.

[Hagbard Celine]

I didn't say "BEFORE"...nor did the quote I posted.

The quote you posted stated clearly that the current Iraq conflict has created more terrorists than existed before it started. You were obviously refuting that so you could have only meant what I know you meant, so stop mincing words and own up to it. Do you deny what the original quote says? The State Department report listed all nations harboring al-Qaeda before the US invasion of Iraq. Iraq was not on that list and the President signed off on it. Do you deny that?

[Mr. P]

The quote you posted stated clearly that the current Iraq conflict has created more terrorists than existed before it started. You were obviously refuting that so you could have only meant what I know you meant, so stop mincing words and own up to it. Do you deny what the original quote says? The State Department report listed all nations harboring al-Qaeda before the US invasion of Iraq. Iraq was not on that list and the President signed off on it. Do you deny that?

I posted this quote...:

NIC Chairman Robert Hutchings said Iraq is, quote, "a magnet for international terrorist activity."
Now tell me how that comes close to your first sentence?
Magnets attract they don't "create".

[Hagbard Celine]

I posted this quote...:

Now tell me how that comes close to your first sentence?
Magnets attract they don't "create".

Post number 11 is the post I've been discussing. Before post number 11, I hadn't said anything to you in this thread.

[Kathianne]

Post number 11 is the post I've been discussing. Before post number 11, I hadn't said anything to you in this thread.

That wasn't Mr. P, that was GW, making the claim of 'created terrorists.' Mr. P refuted such.

[Hagbard Celine]

That wasn't Mr. P, that was GW, making the claim of 'created terrorists.' Mr. P refuted such.

No, post number 11 was written by Mr. P. I responded to what HE said in post 12 and so-on.

[Kathianne]

No, post number 11 was written by Mr. P. I responded to what HE said in post 12 and so-on.

try again, you are referring to what he "quoted".

[Hagbard Celine]

try again, you are referring to what he "quoted".

No, I'm not. Read the posts.

[Gaffer]

Hawk: There are smart ways to combat Muslim extremism, and there are dumb ways.

Invading Iraq and deposing a secularist dictator....precipitating a civil war that we have no clue how to stop.......living up to the worst things the radical Islamists said about us ("imperialists who want to take over our oil fields and start up the Crusades again....")..........opening the door for a radical Isalamofascist state in Iraq........that was so dumb there are no words to adequately capture its dumbness.

Let me refresh this and ask Kath's question again...WHAT ARE THE SMART WAYS TO COMBAT MUSLIM EXTREMISM?

I want an answer from you not a spin and dance routine. Not name calling and changing the subject. Give us the answer or shut the fuck up cause you have nothing relevant to say here.

[Monkeybone]

Before the invasion, Iraqis went to work, went to Mosque, watched tv, went to school, etc. After the invasion, they either die, become a refugee or join a militia/terrorist group.

You can't ignore the variable that the US invasion threw into the equation. During and after the US invasion, things didn't stay the same and then suddenly out of nowhere a bunch of Iraqis decided "Hey! Today I think I'll act on those impulses I've always had to become a terrorist!" Give me a break.

no i will admit that some became terrorist because of us, but at the same time i think that alot of these ppl were alrady there and keeping quiet is what i meant.

[Hagbard Celine]

Let me refresh this and ask Kath's question again...WHAT ARE THE SMART WAYS TO COMBAT MUSLIM EXTREMISM?

I want an answer from you not a spin and dance routine. Not name calling and changing the subject. Give us the answer or shut the fuck up cause you have nothing relevant to say here.

I love intelligent repartee.

For a start, it would be wise to not invade Muslim countries on the basis of "preemptively avoiding a future hypothetical attack by extremists who actually reside in a country other than the one we're invading." Since most extremist groups aren't actually a part of the actual governments of most Muslim countries, it would also be good to deal with Muslim governments on ways to avoid supporting extremist groups rather than shunning them and punishing them for "harboring" these groups.

[Hagbard Celine]

no i will admit that some became terrorist because of us, but at the same time i think that alot of these ppl were alrady there and keeping quiet is what i meant.

That may be, but our invasion was the catalyst that made them make the jump from silence to violence.

[Kathianne]

No, I'm not. Read the posts.

Here's #11:


Originally Posted by GW in Ohio View Post
Here's the thing you don't get....

It isn't that Iraq is a magnet for existing terrorists.

Iraq has created many more terrorists than existed before.

Shithead Bush has set American foreign policy back at least 50 years. He's galvanized most of the Muslim world against us with his Iraq adventure.

Quite an accomplishment....
Mr P
What you fail or refuse (is more like it) to understand is the shit heads have been drawn to Iraq. If you think what the Muslim world thinks will set the U.S. back 50 years, well, yer just dumb as a brick.

What part of this are you having trouble with? I was going to 'send you back', then thought it was a waste.

[Gaffer]

Before the invasion, Iraqis went to work, went to Mosque, watched tv, went to school, etc. After the invasion, they either die, become a refugee or join a militia/terrorist group.

You can't ignore the variable that the US invasion threw into the equation. During and after the US invasion, things didn't stay the same and then suddenly out of nowhere a bunch of Iraqis decided "Hey! Today I think I'll act on those impulses I've always had to become a terrorist!" Give me a break.

Before the invasion iraqi's went to work....that is saddams henchmen went to work. They were busy killing people all the time. Digging mass graves and all. Then there were the torture chambers and rape rooms.

You act like everything was hunky dory under saddam and that everyone there lived just like we do in the US. A lot changed after we went in. Mostly for the better. A lot of the extremists that have always been there are now more free to do what they always wanted to do....kill people. Al queda is recruiting there because the country is mostly muslim. And many from other countries are going there to join them.

Where do they get the ideas about attacking us and innocent people. From the mosques, where radical clerics tell them its a good thing to murder. The koran says so.

You and gw need to get your heads out of your asses and stop with the Bush hatred and look at the real world for a change. You can't see the forest for the Bush you hate so much.

[Hagbard Celine]

Here's #11:


What part of this are you having trouble with? I was going to 'send you back', then thought it was a waste.


Iraq has created many more terrorists than existed before. Obviously, "before" means "before the US invasion of Iraq.

And then:


the shit heads have been drawn to Iraq. "Have been" is past tense. Since Mr P is obviously rebutting GW in Ohio here, I assume he is trying to refute what GW in Ohio stated, which is that the Iraq conflict has created more terrorists than there were before the invasion, however Mr P's position is belied by the fact that the original posted exchange in post 1 clearly refutes his position.

[Hagbard Celine]

Before the invasion iraqi's went to work....that is saddams henchmen went to work. They were busy killing people all the time. Digging mass graves and all. Then there were the torture chambers and rape rooms.

You act like everything was hunky dory under saddam and that everyone there lived just like we do in the US. A lot changed after we went in. Mostly for the better. A lot of the extremists that have always been there are now more free to do what they always wanted to do....kill people. Al queda is recruiting there because the country is mostly muslim. And many from other countries are going there to join them.

Where do they get the ideas about attacking us and innocent people. From the mosques, where radical clerics tell them its a good thing to murder. The koran says so.

You and gw need to get your heads out of your asses and stop with the Bush hatred and look at the real world for a change. You can't see the forest for the Bush you hate so much.
Were the Iraqi streets filled with warring factions and the bodies of dead men and women before the US invasion? The answer is no--Saddam maintained order and was no ally of al-Qaeda. Case closed.

[Monkeybone]

i don't know if there is a 'smart' way to fight them other than what we are doing now and making the borders even more secure.

the only problem is that we can't keep doing what we are doing over there, but at the same time we ca'nt exactly just stop IMO.

[Kathianne]

Obviously, "before" means "before the US invasion of Iraq.

And then:

"Have been" is past tense. Since Mr P is obviously rebutting GW in Ohio here, I assume he is trying to refute what GW in Ohio stated, which is that the Iraq conflict has created more terrorists than there were before the invasion, however Mr P's position is belied by the fact that the original posted exchange in post 1 clearly refutes his position.

The flypaper strategy was referred to prior to the invasion, imperfect though on WMD:

http://www.strategypage.com/on_point/20030129.aspx

[GW in Ohio]

That wasn't Mr. P, that was GW, making the claim of 'created terrorists.' Mr. P refuted such.

Mr. P refuted nothing. He disputed my contention that the Iraq war created more terrorists than existed before.

We'll never know for certain, since no one is going to go into Iraq and attempt to survey all the terrorists.

So you right-wing wackos can console yourselves with the comforting Bushian notion that the Iraq fuckaround has done the world a service by luring all the terrorists into our clever Iraq trap, and now we are killing them, one by one.

[Kathianne]

Mr. P refuted nothing. He disputed my contention that the Iraq war created more terrorists than existed before.

We'll never know for certain, since no one is going to go into Iraq and attempt to survey all the terrorists.

So you right-wing wackos can console yourselves with the comforting Bushian notion that the Iraq fuckaround has done the world a service by luring all the terrorists into our clever Iraq trap, and now we are killing them, one by one.

I'm a right wing wacko? Based upon what? You sir, have lost it.

[Gaffer]

Were the Iraqi streets filled with warring factions and the bodies of dead men and women before the US invasion? The answer is no--Saddam maintained order and was no ally of al-Qaeda. Case closed.

So you were a saddam supporter. He would be proud of you. The streets were full of bodies. saddam killed hundreds of thousands of people. saddam kept control over the country with murder and torture. He kept absolute control over everything. A liberals dream.

[GW in Ohio]

Before the invasion iraqi's went to work....that is saddams henchmen went to work. They were busy killing people all the time. Digging mass graves and all. Then there were the torture chambers and rape rooms.

You act like everything was hunky dory under saddam and that everyone there lived just like we do in the US. A lot changed after we went in. Mostly for the better. A lot of the extremists that have always been there are now more free to do what they always wanted to do....kill people. Al queda is recruiting there because the country is mostly muslim. And many from other countries are going there to join them.

Where do they get the ideas about attacking us and innocent people. From the mosques, where radical clerics tell them its a good thing to murder. The koran says so.

You and gw need to get your heads out of your asses and stop with the Bush hatred and look at the real world for a change. You can't see the forest for the Bush you hate so much.


Gaffer: You don't base American foreign policy on vague, high-minded notions like, "Saddam Hussein is a very bad man and oppresses his people. We should take him out."

In the first place, there will always be dictatorial assholes like Saddam Hussein. We can't go around taking them all out.

And in the second place, smart American foreign policy has always been based on pragmatic policies like: "Okay, Saddam is a murderous asshole, but he's a good secular buffer between the crazy guys on the left, and the really crazy guys on the right."

[Kathianne]

Gaffer: You don't base American foreign policy on vague, high-minded notions like, "Saddam Hussein is a very bad man and oppresses his people. We should take him out."

In the first place, there will always be dictatorial assholes like Saddam Hussein. We can't go around taking them all out.

And in the second place, smart American foreign policy has always been based on pragmatic policies like: "Okay, Saddam is a murderous asshole, but he's a good secular buffer between the crazy guys on the left, and the really crazy guys on the right."

When was the last 'smart American foreign policy?'

[OCA]

GW thinks that we can negotiate with terrorists over a falafel and tea. He demonstrates a complete void of knowledge of the mindset of people from that part of the world. The thought that there is such thing as an Arab moderate is a complete myth. In fact most Americans cannot understand the fervor of people outside its borders, you are dealing with people who are willing to commit suicide to further their cause, Americans just can't get that. Hell these people burn and pillage because of a bad call at a soccer game, i've witnessed it.

You will never be able to negotiate with these people and as a Paki friend of mine whom I share music with tells me "negotiation is impossible, its their way or no way, you must kill each and every adherent to achieve victory and that includes women and children".

Our simple unwillingness to get into the mud with these people because of some bullshit mythical high ground will be our defeat.

[OCA]

Gaffer: You don't base American foreign policy on vague, high-minded notions like, "Saddam Hussein is a very bad man and oppresses his people. We should take him out."

In the first place, there will always be dictatorial assholes like Saddam Hussein. We can't go around taking them all out.

And in the second place, smart American foreign policy has always been based on pragmatic policies like: "Okay, Saddam is a murderous asshole, but he's a good secular buffer between the crazy guys on the left, and the really crazy guys on the right."

Translation:"I have no balls and am afraid of confrontation'

[Hagbard Celine]

Translation:"I have no balls and am afraid of confrontation'

There are ways to confront people other than military invasion.

[Gaffer]

Gaffer: You don't base American foreign policy on vague, high-minded notions like, "Saddam Hussein is a very bad man and oppresses his people. We should take him out."

In the first place, there will always be dictatorial assholes like Saddam Hussein. We can't go around taking them all out.

And in the second place, smart American foreign policy has always been based on pragmatic policies like: "Okay, Saddam is a murderous asshole, but he's a good secular buffer between the crazy guys on the left, and the really crazy guys on the right."

We base our policies on immediate threat and future threat from dictators with meglomaniac tendencies. We have rehashed the reasons for going into iraq ad nauseum.

You still haven't given an answer as to what's the smart way to deal with iraq. The invasion is over everything is in the past. What is the smart way to deal with iraq starting with right now?

All I have ever heard from you people is that you hate Bush, it's all Bush's fault and we should run away. I have NEVER heard any rational plan of action...EVER. So do you have one? or are you just going to spout more Bush hatred?

[OCA]

There are ways to confront people other than military invasion.

Name me one time in recent history where negotiation has changed such a fervent and violent mindset.

[GW in Ohio]

We base our policies on immediate threat and future threat from dictators with meglomaniac tendencies. We have rehashed the reasons for going into iraq ad nauseum.

You still haven't given an answer as to what's the smart way to deal with iraq. The invasion is over everything is in the past. What is the smart way to deal with iraq starting with right now?

All I have ever heard from you people is that you hate Bush, it's all Bush's fault and we should run away. I have NEVER heard any rational plan of action...EVER. So do you have one? or are you just going to spout more Bush hatred?

Your question is actually: "How do we clean up the mess Bush and his gang of idiots have created in Iraq and the Middle East?"

It is a difficult question and I'd have to give it some thought before answering.

[Kathianne]

Your question is actually: "How do we clean up the mess Bush and his gang of idiots have created in Iraq and the Middle East?"

It is a difficult question and I'd have to give it some thought before answering.

What would be the 'smart way' of dealing with Islamicists?

[Mr. P]

No, post number 11 was written by Mr. P. I responded to what HE said in post 12 and so-on.

I think you responded to what you think I said..I quoted GW and as he later posted
He disputed my contention that the Iraq war created more terrorists than existed before. Get it?

[OCA]

Your question is actually: "How do we clean up the mess Bush and his gang of idiots have created in Iraq and the Middle East?"

It is a difficult question and I'd have to give it some thought before answering.


Translation:"I have no answer so i'll resort to my Bush bashing, I know its ineffective but its attention getting".

[Hagbard Celine]

Name me one time in recent history where negotiation has changed such a fervent and violent mindset.

What violent mindset? Saddam didn't have anything to do with 911. Why'd we invade Iraq?

[OCA]

What violent mindset? Saddam didn't have anything to do with 911. Why'd we invade Iraq?

When will you realize that 9/11 was not a reason given for invading Iraq? The M.E. could never have been stable with Saddam in power and a stable M.E. and defeating terrorism were and stll are the goals.(and yes Saddam was a supporter of international terorism or do I need to post the facts on that for the hundredth time?)

[avatar4321]

During Coldoleezza Rice's confirmation hearings in '05, Senator Barbara Boxer made the following remarks:




George Bush has fanned the flames of Muslim extremism with his disastrous Iraq war.
The Iraq war has created Muslim extremism where none existed before.
George Bush and Cheney and the rest of that gang of idiots are the best friends al Qaida could have.


because of course muslim extremists didnt hate us before Iraq

Because Muslim extremist didnt exist before Iraq

Friends usually dont kill you.

[avatar4321]

What violent mindset? Saddam didn't have anything to do with 911. Why'd we invade Iraq?

seriously this concept isnt that hard to understand:

The attacks on 9/11 woke us up to the reality of the threat of global terrorism. In order to defeat terrorist we have to eliminate the terrorists and the nations that support them. Saddam has a long record of supporting terrorism.

Wow that was impossible to understand. We are trying to win a world wide war on terror and you guys seem to think this war on terror is over if Osama Bin Laden is killed. You don't give a damn about preventing any other attacks. Youd rather just sit back wait for them to attack us and then get outraged at the President for not doing anything.

We are at war with these people whether you want to believe it or not. you can pretend that we arent at war if we don't fight. But pulling the troops back home isnt going to stop the war. They are still going to fight us. The only real question is if we are going to fight back.

We didn't start the war but we sure as heck are going to finish it.

[avatar4321]

Your question is actually: "How do we clean up the mess Bush and his gang of idiots have created in Iraq and the Middle East?"

It is a difficult question and I'd have to give it some thought before answering.

Freedom in the middle east. What a mess!

How dare President Bush actually take out dictators and let the people determine their own destiny! What a mess he has made. We should have just left it alone and hoped that they would leave us alone. Nevermind the fact that theyve never left us alone.

[Hagbard Celine]

When will you realize that 9/11 was not a reason given for invading Iraq? The M.E. could never have been stable with Saddam in power and a stable M.E. and defeating terrorism were and stll are the goals.(and yes Saddam was a supporter of international terorism or do I need to post the facts on that for the hundredth time?)

911 was the reason for the war on terror and Iraq is the main theater in the war on terror. Seems pretty fucking straightforward to me.

And Saddam was a stablizing presence in the middle east for decades. His presence gave Sunni Muslims the power they needed to maintain a balance against the Shi'a Muslim majority in the region. Now that he's gone, radical Shi'a-ism and Iran (the US's mortal enemy since the Shah was deposed) are free to dominate the region. Now we've got a giant breeding ground for terrorism and a region dominated by our mortal enemy. How the fuck did getting rid of Saddam stablize anything? Post those facts. Saddam was a secular leader who used terrorists when he needed them. He no more "supported" them than the man on the moon. In fact, Bin Laden despised Saddam for his socialist and capitalist ideas.

[Mr. P]

911 was the reason for the war on terror and Iraq is the main theater in the war on terror. Seems pretty fucking straightforward to me.

And Saddam was a stablizing presence in the middle east for decades. His presence gave Sunni Muslims the power they needed to maintain a balance against the Shi'a Muslim majority in the region. Now that he's gone, radical Shi'a-ism and Iran (the US's mortal enemy since the Shah was deposed) are free to dominate the region. Now we've got a giant breeding ground for terrorism and a region dominated by our mortal enemy. How the fuck did getting rid of Saddam stablize anything? Post those facts. Saddam was a secular leader who used terrorists when he needed them. He no more "supported" them than the man on the moon. In fact, Bin Laden despised Saddam for his socialist and capitalist ideas.

Yeah, his invasion of Kuwait was pretty stabilizing. Yep...

[OCA]

911 was the reason for the war on terror and Iraq is the main theater in the war on terror. Seems pretty fucking straightforward to me.

And Saddam was a stablizing presence in the middle east for decades. His presence gave Sunni Muslims the power they needed to maintain a balance against the Shi'a Muslim majority in the region. Now that he's gone, radical Shi'a-ism and Iran (the US's mortal enemy since the Shah was deposed) are free to dominate the region. Now we've got a giant breeding ground for terrorism and a region dominated by our mortal enemy. How the fuck did getting rid of Saddam stablize anything? Post those facts. Saddam was a secular leader who used terrorists when he needed them. He no more "supported" them than the man on the moon. In fact, Bin Laden despised Saddam for his socialist and capitalist ideas.

I guess the Shiites and the Kurds he gassed didn't mean shit, eh? Stabilizing in that he started two wars(Iran and Kuwait), is that your definition of stability Hag?

9/11 was not sole reson for war on terror, just the straw that broke the camel's back. Saddam housed Abu Nidal and Zarqawi, paid money to families of Palestinian homicide bombers etc. etc. etc.

Come on Hag, join us and roll in for the big win because its no fun being a hater 24/7.

[Gaffer]

911 was the reason for the war on terror and Iraq is the main theater in the war on terror. Seems pretty fucking straightforward to me.

And Saddam was a stablizing presence in the middle east for decades. His presence gave Sunni Muslims the power they needed to maintain a balance against the Shi'a Muslim majority in the region. Now that he's gone, radical Shi'a-ism and Iran (the US's mortal enemy since the Shah was deposed) are free to dominate the region. Now we've got a giant breeding ground for terrorism and a region dominated by our mortal enemy. How the fuck did getting rid of Saddam stablize anything? Post those facts. Saddam was a secular leader who used terrorists when he needed them. He no more "supported" them than the man on the moon. In fact, Bin Laden despised Saddam for his socialist and capitalist ideas.

9/11 was when we finally sat up and took notice that someone was at war with us. A war that dates back to 1979. We have two enemies. Al queda and iran.

saddam was never a stabilizing force. He was out to rule the region. And he wanted to attack the US, though he didn't have the means at the time other than through terrorists.

Your giant breeding ground is being reduced to a small breeding ground. There have been thousands of al queda killed and captured. The iraqi's are helping take down the al queda. There are tons of successes going on there that the media is not reporting. The region is not dominated by our enemy. They want to dominate it and they want us to withdraw so that they can. Once the iraqi's can take care of themselves we can pull out and the region is not going to be dominated by al queda or iran. And the iraqi's are coming to realize that. Next few months will be telling.

[emmett]

Here's the thing you don't get....

It isn't that Iraq is a magnet for existing terrorists.

Iraq has created many more terrorists than existed before.

Shithead Bush has set American foreign policy back at least 50 years. He's galvanized most of the Muslim world against us with his Iraq adventure.

Quite an accomplishment....

What do you think JFK would have done? I mean hell, almost 50 years ago we engaged in a "police action" to stop communism in Viet Nam. They had never even attacked out country. Much like Iraq it progressed into a Civil War and resulted in tens of thousands of Americans losing their lives. Republicans got us out.

We need to stop being weak like we were then. We cut and ran and the Khmer Rouge slaughtered millions.

[emmett]

911 was the reason for the war on terror and Iraq is the main theater in the war on terror. Seems pretty fucking straightforward to me.

And Saddam was a stablizing presence in the middle east for decades. His presence gave Sunni Muslims the power they needed to maintain a balance against the Shi'a Muslim majority in the region. Now that he's gone, radical Shi'a-ism and Iran (the US's mortal enemy since the Shah was deposed) are free to dominate the region. Now we've got a giant breeding ground for terrorism and a region dominated by our mortal enemy. How the fuck did getting rid of Saddam stablize anything? Post those facts. Saddam was a secular leader who used terrorists when he needed them. He no more "supported" them than the man on the moon. In fact, Bin Laden despised Saddam for his socialist and capitalist ideas.

The only capitalizing going on in Iraq was Saddam. He murdered people man. Tens of thousands. Innocent folks.

There is so much more to this than an issue to discuss. There is no reset button life like on a video game man.

[NightTrain]

Hawk: There are smart ways to combat Muslim extremism, and there are dumb ways.

The world breathlessly awaits your wisdom.

Are you going to answer the question that several people have asked you? What is the smart way?

[nevadamedic]

The only capitalizing going on in Iraq was Saddam. He murdered people man. Tens of thousands. Innocent folks.

There is so much more to this than an issue to discuss. There is no reset button life like on a video game man.

Hundreds of thousands of innocent people with no reason to die simply because of their background, kind of reminds you of someone else in history...........

[GW in Ohio]

When will you realize that 9/11 was not a reason given for invading Iraq? The M.E. could never have been stable with Saddam in power and a stable M.E. and defeating terrorism were and stll are the goals.(and yes Saddam was a supporter of international terorism or do I need to post the facts on that for the hundredth time?)

The above show that you don't know jack shit about foreign policy, the Middle East, or international politics.

The Middle East was way more stable with Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq.

By toppling him and unwittingly precipitating a civil war in Iraq, we have made the Middle East 10 times more unstable than it was before.

[GW in Ohio]

The world breathlessly awaits your wisdom.

Are you going to answer the question that several people have asked you? What is the smart way?


When attacked, retaliate massively. We did that in Afghanistan following 9/11. We did good work in Afghanistan, but we didn't stay with it. We diverted our attention and troops to Iraq.
We won't defeat al Qaida militarily. They're everywhere, hiding in dark corners. They won't engage us directly. But it's not a military thing with al Qaida, anyway. It's a war of ideas, and right now they're winning. They've convinced millions of Muslims that we are indeed the Great Satan and a threat to Muslims everywhere. Bush and his stupid Iraq war have played right into this and done al Qaida's work for them.
We need to withdraw from Iraq. There is no "winning" there; we've already lost. We need to cut our losses.
We need to undertake a PR campaign to win the good will of the world's Muslims. It will take years, but we need to show these people we are not a threat to them. In a war between Islam and the West there will be no winners, except one: al Qaida.
We need to secure our borders. Close off the border with Mexico and start inspecting every ship's cargo that comes into this country. Put people who may be a threat under surveillance.

[Monkeybone]

When attacked, retaliate massively. We did that in Afghanistan following 9/11. We did good work in Afghanistan, but we didn't stay with it. We diverted our attention and troops to Iraq.
We won't defeat al Qaida militarily. They're everywhere, hiding in dark corners. They won't engage us directly. But it's not a military thing with al Qaida, anyway. It's a war of ideas, and right now they're winning. They've convinced millions of Muslims that we are indeed the Great Satan and a threat to Muslims everywhere. Bush and his stupid Iraq war have played right into this and done al Qaida's work for them.
We need to withdraw from Iraq. There is no "winning" there; we've already lost. We need to cut our losses.
We need to undertake a PR campaign to win the good will of the world's Muslims. It will take years, but we need to show these people we are not a threat to them. In a war between Islam and the West there will be no winners, except one: al Qaida.
We need to secure our borders. Close off the border with Mexico and start inspecting every ship's cargo that comes into this country. Put people who may be a threat under surveillance.


1) agreed, we diverted forces too early, whatever you wanna call it. bu at the same time even if we had 'secured' Afghan, they would have been back as soon as we left. i took it as we were just following them and getting their supply lines.

2)No matter what would have happened, they still would've had those thoughts about us. why else whould they have attacked us in the first place? yes there had been actions by us, but there had also been actions by them that nothing was done about. you can't keep hitting someone and not expect them to finally hit back. and i think we can fight them militarily, of course it doesn't help when they don't follow RoE's and treaties and the likes.

3) so we cut the losses and leave before they can handle us being gone? what good would that do except increase the civil war and then the strongest and betterly funded take over? and the terrorist are basically better than the poor excuse for their police force.

4) but at they same time, yes we could get on 'good grounds' with them but that won't stop another attack. The only way to completely avoid another attazck would be if this was an Muslim/islamic country. they meant to convert the world. or is that just the extremist? i don't think that there is exactly a middle ground with them. it seems like we are either with them (ie part of their religion) or you are an enemy that needs some killin

5)i agree with this point, nothing to say execpt what good is inspecting a ship in our harbor/port when they set off a nuke? or would we have boat that conduct inspections away form our shores?

[glockmail]

When attacked, retaliate massively. We did that in Afghanistan following 9/11. We did good work in Afghanistan, but we didn't stay with it. We diverted our attention and troops to Iraq......

The problem there is that the enemy was/is being supported by outside forces. You have to take those out or cut the supply line in order to defeat the enemy. We made this mistake in Viet-nam.

Also the political climate has to be considered. Bush has done well in Afganistan on that level, which is good for the long term.

[Gaffer]

I've been waiting for this, and just as expected. No answers.


When attacked, retaliate massively. We did that in Afghanistan following 9/11. We did good work in Afghanistan, but we didn't stay with it. We diverted our attention and troops to Iraq.

We did not attack Afghanistan massively. We used a couple of battalions and air power. Most of the fighting was done by the northern alliance under CIA direction. we put more troops in and turned it over to NATO doing the same thing we are doing in iraq. Securing the country and setting up the government. And guess what, its still not completely secure and the troops are still fighting al queda there.


# We won't defeat al Qaida militarily. They're everywhere, hiding in dark corners. They won't engage us directly. But it's not a military thing with al Qaida, anyway. It's a war of ideas, and right now they're winning. They've convinced millions of Muslims that we are indeed the Great Satan and a threat to Muslims everywhere. Bush and his stupid Iraq war have played right into this and done al Qaida's work for them.

This is exactly why a liberal should never be put in charge of anything. We are defeating al queda militarily. We do so on a daily basis. It's a war of ideas alright. And the liberal media here is providing al queda with all the help it can to defeat our country. al queda's ideas come from the koran and all muslims believe in it. Your not going to "change" the muslim idea without getting rid of muslims. It's not that we are a threat to muslims, its that they want to conquer us. iraq is a front in the war with islam. You can't see the big picture because your only seeing your war with Bush.


We need to withdraw from Iraq. There is no "winning" there; we've already lost. We need to cut our losses.

Your butt buddy hairy ried has already made that claim. We haven't lost anything. We are winning. Once we have driven al queda out we can turn it all over to the iraqi's to do as they please. We don't need to cut our losses. We need to create more losses for the enemy. Cutting and running means all the soldiers that were killed died in vain. I won't except that.


# We need to undertake a PR campaign to win the good will of the world's Muslims. It will take years, but we need to show these people we are not a threat to them. In a war between Islam and the West there will be no winners, except one: al Qaida.

We need to get the media on our side, reporting the facts and not propaganda to make the administration look bad. It's that simple. The muslims don't have good will. They only respect strength. There is a world war going on now between the west and islam. And you better hope the west wins because if not you will be one of the first to be beheaded. Along with your family.


We need to secure our borders. Close off the border with Mexico and start inspecting every ship's cargo that comes into this country. Put people who may be a threat under surveillance.

Maybe you could hide under your bed too. We do need to close the borders. And have a lot tighter security system. The ports are be checked but its not posible to check every single container that comes through them. There are just too many. As for survelliance I believe that falls under the Patriot Act, which you hate so much. It's already being done. And you libs are complaining its unconstitutional. Is it only ok when YOU do it?

I'm still waiting for a smart way to do things. So far you have bitched about what was done, complained about what is being done, and offered to do what's already being done.

You blindly hate Bush and all conservatives, and nothing else really matters in this world.

[GW in Ohio]

Your butt buddy hairy ried has already made that claim. We haven't lost anything. We are winning. Once we have driven al queda out we can turn it all over to the iraqi's to do as they please. We don't need to cut our losses. We need to create more losses for the enemy. Cutting and running means all the soldiers that were killed died in vain. I won't except that. --gaffer

Yeah, we're winning......in your dreams.

You'd keep sacrificing our young men in Iraq in an effort to justify Cheney's incompetent decisions?

No, I don't accept that.

Neither do the American people. They've said in no uncertain terms that they've had enough of this shit.

And the politicians are following them. Already there have been defections of key Republicans. There will be more as we move into election season.

Here's something to ponder......

If we had declared victory after toppling Saddam and gotten out, Iraq would have been seen as a victory and Bush's approval ratings would not be in the toilet.

Knowing when to declare victory is the difference between success and failure.

[NightTrain]

[LIST=1]
When attacked, retaliate massively. We did that in Afghanistan following 9/11. We did good work in Afghanistan, but we didn't stay with it. We diverted our attention and troops to Iraq.

This is why we ended up at 9/11 - your boy Clinton didn't do jack shit when we were attacked throughout the '90s. Oh sure, he launched a couple of Tomahawks during the BJ controversy, but nothing tangible. I'll get back to our mission in Iraq in a moment.


We won't defeat al Qaida militarily. They're everywhere, hiding in dark corners. They won't engage us directly. But it's not a military thing with al Qaida, anyway. It's a war of ideas, and right now they're winning. They've convinced millions of Muslims that we are indeed the Great Satan and a threat to Muslims everywhere. Bush and his stupid Iraq war have played right into this and done al Qaida's work for them.

You've got it partially right. It is indeed a war of ideas, and that's why we've taken a country smack dab in the middle of all those backwards countries to make it into a shining democratic example.

The reason there are so many terrorists is because the recruits have no hope. Their lot in life is a sorry thing, and the best they have to look forward to is to gain martyrdom by blowing themselves up. How many democracies produce such people on a mass scale? Nope, none. Oh, sure, you get the occasional idiots but nothing on a mass scale like every one of these middle eastern countries produce. Not one of them has a chance in hell at changing his life for the better.

When Iraq is stable and there is a middle class in a healthy democracy, the poor bastards in all the surrounding countries are going to sit up and take notice. And they're going to want what Iraq has, which will inevitably lead to them overthrowing their Islamo-Fascist governments.

This is why all those leaders in surrounding countries, especially Iran, are so desperate to make Iraq fail. They know that if Iraq succeeds as a democracy, they'll also be getting acquainted with the hangman's noose much the same as Saddam did. They're all dirty and they're all desperate.


We need to withdraw from Iraq. There is no "winning" there; we've already lost. We need to cut our losses.

Cut our losses? What would that gain us? Do you really think that every terrorist in the world wouldn't be emboldened? Your defeatist attitude would doom the West, were it implemented. There is no way in hell we can withdraw from Iraq until the job is done.


We need to undertake a PR campaign to win the good will of the world's Muslims. It will take years, but we need to show these people we are not a threat to them. In a war between Islam and the West there will be no winners, except one: al Qaida.

So, taking out a couple of feel-good ads in the local government-run newspaper will end terrorism? Are you shitting me?

As far as the USA unable to win the war against al Quaida, we could easily flatten the entire Middle East. Personally, I think that's a pretty sound idea but it's unlikely that'll happen. Do a little research about a little conflict called World War II and educate yourself about what this country is capable of when the USA pulls together to get the job done.

The big difference between today and 1941 are liberals running amok. It's damn hard to win a war with pacifists wringing their hands and moaning about collateral damage. Calls for cutting our losses. Declaring the war lost when thousands of troops are fighting. Attacking the Commander In Chief who is trying to win the war.

There were a few knuckleheads running around in the '40s trying the old "give peace a chance" routine, they were promptly locked up until the war was over. Consenquently they didn't have a chance to poison thousands of Americans and divide this country in the time of her greatest need. I personally think this is a policy that needs to be revisited.

We need Iraq to be the domino that begins the chain of revolutions in the middle east.

You, sir, are one of those that happily try to derail every attempt to win this great endeavor.

[GW in Ohio]

You've got it partially right. It is indeed a war of ideas, and that's why we've taken a country smack dab in the middle of all those backwards countries to make it into a shining democratic example.
--nighttrain

You call what is going on in Iraq a "shining democratic example"?

I'd call it a civil war, a free-for-all for terrorists and other murderous assholes, and the biggest fuckaround in American history.

[GW in Ohio]

Cut our losses? What would that gain us? Do you really think that every terrorist in the world wouldn't be emboldened? Your defeatist attitude would doom the West, were it implemented. There is no way in hell we can withdraw from Iraq until the job is done.

The terrorists are *already* emboldened. al Qaida has grown tremendously since we invaded Iraq. Our invasion was the answer to Osama bin Laden's prayers.

There is no way to "get the job done" in Iraq. We can only make a bad situation worse.

It's over. Your boy Bush screwed the pooch big time....really big time.

I said in a previous post if we had declared victory after capturing Saddam and gotten out, Bush would have had a victory.

Now....this is for you, Mr. Bush.......:fu::pee::fu:

[Gaffer]

Yeah, we're winning......in your dreams.

You'd keep sacrificing our young men in Iraq in an effort to justify Cheney's incompetent decisions?

No, I don't accept that.

Neither do the American people. They've said in no uncertain terms that they've had enough of this shit.

And the politicians are following them. Already there have been defections of key Republicans. There will be more as we move into election season.

Here's something to ponder......

If we had declared victory after toppling Saddam and gotten out, Iraq would have been seen as a victory and Bush's approval ratings would not be in the toilet.

Knowing when to declare victory is the difference between success and failure.

If we had just pulled out there would have been a huge civil war with millions dead. And Bush would have been blamed by the likes of you for not staying and finishing the job.

You just keep following what the media tells you about the war. Do as your told and hate Bush. Don't think for yourself and research what's really going on. Just keep blindly hating and following the lib mantra.

[NightTrain]

You call what is going on in Iraq a "shining democratic example"?

I'd call it a civil war, a free-for-all for terrorists and other murderous assholes, and the biggest fuckaround in American history.

The job isn't done yet, is it?

[GW in Ohio]

The job isn't done yet, is it?

The "job" will never be "done."

But it's over. The American people have had enough and the politicians are moving on, also.

[Monkeybone]

if soldiers were allowed to go all out like the terrorist it would help.

and the politicians are following the votes.

[Gaffer]

The terrorists are *already* emboldened. al Qaida has grown tremendously since we invaded Iraq. Our invasion was the answer to Osama bin Laden's prayers.

There is no way to "get the job done" in Iraq. We can only make a bad situation worse.

It's over. Your boy Bush screwed the pooch big time....really big time.

I said in a previous post if we had declared victory after capturing Saddam and gotten out, Bush would have had a victory.

Now....this is for you, Mr. Bush.......:fu::pee::fu:

al queda is embolden because of our media and people like you. What you say here is the type of thing that emboldens al queda, not what our troops are doing.

The war with saddam is over. We won. It was a victory for Bush. Now we are fighting al queda in iraq. It's a front in a bigger war. A war that will last through at least the next two presidencies.

You can't think beyond hatred of Bush. What do you think would happen if we just pulled out of the ME. Do you actually think there would be peace in the world?

As I said before your posts are all about your hatred of Bush. Not about the war with islam, which will continue long after Bush is gone.

[theHawk]

And Saddam was a stablizing presence in the middle east for decades. His presence gave Sunni Muslims the power they needed to maintain a balance against the Shi'a Muslim majority in the region.

It never ceases to amaze me how liberals always stick up for and defend totalitarian dickheads like Saddam because they are a "stablizing" force. Its A-OK for other people to be oppressed with an iron fist, literally being mowed down and slaughtered if they disagree with their dictator, but they scream bloody murder if our own freely elected government wants the authority to listen in on phone calls between terrorists overseas and people in America. Hypocrisy at its best!

[Hagbard Celine]

It never ceases to amaze me how liberals always stick up for and defend totalitarian dickheads like Saddam because they are a "stablizing" force. Its A-OK for other people to be oppressed with an iron fist, literally being mowed down and slaughtered if they disagree with their dictator, but they scream bloody murder if our own freely elected government wants the authority to listen in on phone calls between terrorists overseas and people in America. Hypocrisy at its best!

I guess sectarian genocide is better somehow, but I'm not seeing it :dunno:

[theHawk]

I guess sectarian genocide is better somehow, but I'm not seeing it :dunno:

Understatement of the year. ;)

[Hagbard Celine]

Understatement of the year. ;)

Got anything real to say? Is it better to trade a dictator who rules with an iron fist for murderous anarchy?

[theHawk]

Got anything real to say? Is it better to trade a dictator who rules with an iron fist for murderous anarchy?

Yes, don't know about you but I would much rather have a fighting chance than live in a totalitarian society. To each his own. :cheers2:

[Hagbard Celine]

Yes, don't know about you but I would much rather have a fighting chance than live in a totalitarian society. To each his own. :cheers2:

It's not about what you'd rather do. It's about what's best for the US in the long term. Taking out Saddam not only increases the risk of terrorism by creating more terrorists, it puts our enemy, Iran, into power, it further destablizes an already unstable region, it leaves Iraq basically leaderless (the current government is a joke) with uncertainty over who or what will take Saddam's place, it puts our servicemen and women in danger, it stretches US military strength thin, the war's illegality under UN law makes the US look bad with foreign nations, etc.

I know exactly what you're going to say before you say it.

[Gaffer]

It's not about what you'd rather do. It's about what's best for the US in the long term. Taking out Saddam not only increases the risk of terrorism by creating more terrorists, it puts our enemy, Iran, into power, it further destablizes an already unstable region, it leaves Iraq basically leaderless (the current government is a joke) with uncertainty over who or what will take Saddam's place, it puts our servicemen and women in danger, it stretches US military strength thin, the war's illegality under UN law makes the US look bad with foreign nations, etc.

I know exactly what you're going to say before you say it.

saddam WAS our enemy as much as iran is. Taking him out didn't creat anything that wasn't already there. The area has been destabilized for hundreds of years. al queda and iran both want to establish caliphates in the region.

There is no uncertainty in who is taking over in iraq. There is an elected government there that has taken over. They just need the time to establish themselves. Pulling out now would create a situation where that government could not keep control and then there would be chaos.

I guarantee that if Bush pulled all the troops out today, the country would fall into complete chaos and tomorrow the libs would do a complete about face and blame Bush for pulling the troops out before the job was finished.

[GW in Ohio]

I guarantee that if Bush pulled all the troops out today, the country would fall into complete chaos and tomorrow the libs would do a complete about face and blame Bush for pulling the troops out before the job was finished.

This is a news flash, gaffer, just for you.....

Iraq...is...in...complete...chaos...NOW

You doubt this? Go over there and start walking around the streets of Baghdad. See how long you last.

[Gaffer]

This is a news flash, gaffer, just for you.....

Iraq...is...in...complete...chaos...NOW

You doubt this? Go over there and start walking around the streets of Baghdad. See how long you last.

Only parts are in chaos. And those are slowly being put under control.

As for going over there. If I were younger I would be doing just that.

You still haven't said what you would do smart. And you can't answer what would happen if we just left.

[GW in Ohio]

Only parts are in chaos. And those are slowly being put under control.

As for going over there. If I were younger I would be doing just that.

You still haven't said what you would do smart. And you can't answer what would happen if we just left.

Yeah, I did.

You either didn't read it, or didn't accept it.

Not my problem...

[Gaffer]

Yeah, I did.

You either didn't read it, or didn't accept it.

Not my problem...

You made a one sentence comment that you would cut and run. That's not a plan or smart. the rest of your post was the usual Bush hatred. So try again. With a little detail.

[Kathianne]

You made a one sentence comment that you would cut and run. That's not a plan or smart. the rest of your post was the usual Bush hatred. So try again. With a little detail.

Thank you. I went looking for something I thought I missed. Couldn't find it.

[Abbey Marie]

Hawk: There are smart ways to combat Muslim extremism, and there are dumb ways.

Invading Iraq and deposing a secularist dictator....precipitating a civil war that we have no clue how to stop.......living up to the worst things the radical Islamists said about us ("imperialists who want to take over our oil fields and start up the Crusades again....")..........opening the door for a radical Isalamofascist state in Iraq........that was so dumb there are no words to adequately capture its dumbness.

You actually believe that the reason for 9-11 and all the terror attacks during the Clinton administration, was that al Qaeda believed we were about to take over ME oil fields and start the Crusades again? Seriously?

[Abbey Marie]

GW thinks that we can negotiate with terrorists over a falafel and tea. He demonstrates a complete void of knowledge of the mindset of people from that part of the world. The thought that there is such thing as an Arab moderate is a complete myth. In fact most Americans cannot understand the fervor of people outside its borders, you are dealing with people who are willing to commit suicide to further their cause, Americans just can't get that. Hell these people burn and pillage because of a bad call at a soccer game, i've witnessed it.

You will never be able to negotiate with these people and as a Paki friend of mine whom I share music with tells me "negotiation is impossible, its their way or no way, you must kill each and every adherent to achieve victory and that includes women and children".

Our simple unwillingness to get into the mud with these people because of some bullshit mythical high ground will be our defeat.


Excellent post, OCA. I have to give you this: http://users.telenet.be/honeybee1/punten.gif

[Kathianne]

When attacked, retaliate massively. We did that in Afghanistan following 9/11. We did good work in Afghanistan, but we didn't stay with it. We diverted our attention and troops to Iraq.
We won't defeat al Qaida militarily. They're everywhere, hiding in dark corners. They won't engage us directly. But it's not a military thing with al Qaida, anyway. It's a war of ideas, and right now they're winning. They've convinced millions of Muslims that we are indeed the Great Satan and a threat to Muslims everywhere. Bush and his stupid Iraq war have played right into this and done al Qaida's work for them. I think we have defeated them militarily, just not for the long haul. The real problem is propaganda and that they are winning. Not so much their success as an administration failure.

We need to withdraw from Iraq. There is no "winning" there; we've already lost. We need to cut our losses. I disagree, at least in the short term. The rationale behind the Iraq campaign was correct, we need a 'base' in the ME, every bit as much as al qaeda. Things appear to be going better and it's important. I hope time is given.

We need to undertake a PR campaign to win the good will of the world's Muslims. It will take years, but we need to show these people we are not a threat to them. In a war between Islam and the West there will be no winners, except one: al Qaida. I think we need to try and communicate with our own citizens, that the government is into protecting our people. We could also do a big favor to all and say the rest of the world owes us as much consideration of our culture, that they wish to be given. It wasn't Christians blowing into Muslim high density areas to knock them out this time around. It's way past time to call foul on those that wish to wipe out peoples or threaten violence when they can't have their own way. While many would like to put that type of behavior on US, the history doesn't bear it out. Until 9/11, there were no serious incursions to Muslim lands, save the first Gulf War, which was very limited to the goal of pushing Iraq out of Kuwait.

We need to secure our borders. Close off the border with Mexico and start inspecting every ship's cargo that comes into this country. Put people who may be a threat under surveillance.
Totally agree.

I'm sorry GW, I found this after replying earlier.

[Abbey Marie]

...
We won't defeat al Qaida militarily. They're everywhere, hiding in dark corners. They won't engage us directly. But it's not a military thing with al Qaida, anyway. It's a war of ideas, and right now they're winning. They've convinced millions of Muslims that we are indeed the Great Satan and a threat to Muslims everywhere. Bush and his stupid Iraq war have played right into this and done al Qaida's work for them.
...
We need to undertake a PR campaign to win the good will of the world's Muslims. It will take years, but we need to show these people we are not a threat to them. In a war between Islam and the West there will be no winners, except one: al Qaida.
...


1. No! They've convinced Muslims that Islam requires that infidels (that's us) need to be converted or killed, and that the US is too weak-willed to stand up to them.

2. PR campaign? Anytime you find yourself believing this, read point number one again. Or go to an Islamic web site and read what they say about it themselves.

[OCA]

The above show that you don't know jack shit about foreign policy, the Middle East, or international politics.



Oh but I do, however its readily apparent that you can't get your rabid hatred of Bush to see the big pic. Keep up the talking points........boy.

[OCA]

We need to undertake a PR campaign to win the good will of the world's Muslims.


You've got to be shitting me lol!

Again you have clearly demonstrated on this very board zero understanding of the M.E. mindset or situational international politics as a whole.

[theHawk]

It's not about what you'd rather do. It's about what's best for the US in the long term. Taking out Saddam not only increases the risk of terrorism by creating more terrorists, it puts our enemy, Iran, into power, it further destablizes an already unstable region, it leaves Iraq basically leaderless (the current government is a joke) with uncertainty over who or what will take Saddam's place, it puts our servicemen and women in danger, it stretches US military strength thin, the war's illegality under UN law makes the US look bad with foreign nations, etc.

I know exactly what you're going to say before you say it.

Doing whats best for America would be nuking and/or carpet bombing the entire middle east, taking their oil fields for ourselves, and outlawing Islam everywhere.

[Gaffer]

Doing whats best for America would be nuking and/or carpet bombing the entire middle east, taking their oil fields for ourselves, and outlawing Islam everywhere.

I like that idea too. And definitely outlawing islam.

[theHawk]

We need to undertake a PR campaign to win the good will of the world's Muslims.
Well why don't you start by moving over to the ME.





It will take years, but we need to show these people we are not a threat to them.
On the contrary, we are a threat to them. We believe in things like free speech and freedom of thinking, these simple and basic principles do not mesh with the rule of Islam.




In a war between Islam and the West there will be no winners, except one: al Qaida.
Nice defeatist attitude there. The only reason AQ could possibly win is liberalism will do it for them.

[NightTrain]

Doing whats best for America would be nuking and/or carpet bombing the entire middle east, taking their oil fields for ourselves, and outlawing Islam everywhere.

Have you considered running for Prez in '08?:rock:

[glockmail]

...
On the contrary, we are a threat to them. We believe in things like free speech and freedom of thinking, these simple and basic principles do not mesh with the rule of Islam....... Bingo. But you forgot about Christianity and Judaism- heck any religion other than their own.