Here's an interesting topic

[Deudalus]

I have my opinion, what is your's?

I'd hope the trolls saying "OMG ANYTHING BUT WHAT BUSH DOES" will stay away. Just lay out basically how you would solve the problem of terrorism.

Whether it be military action or whatever you're course would be. Give us the basic steps you'd take to solve the problem.

 

[Tab]

1 - Admit the Iraq war is a mistake, but we will make the best out of a bad situation.
2 - Give those in Gitmo their rights, we're better than that. We don't need to hide behind military tribunals.
3 - Get world support, apparently fighting this on our own doesn't work well.
4 - Put a lot more effort into training the Iraq military and police. Making the American Military do police patrols is a bad idea.
5 - More pressure put on muslim leaders, they need to condem these acts.
6 - A ton of pressure on leaders in Saudi Arabia and Iran. These are where the real terrorists are.

Thats what I'd do... If I thought I could fix the situation...

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: Tab
1 - Admit the Iraq war is a mistake, but we will make the best out of a bad situation.
2 - Give those in Gitmo their rights, we're better than that. We don't need to hide behind military tribunals.
3 - Get world support, apparently fighting this on our own doesn't work well.
4 - Put a lot more effort into training the Iraq military and police. Making the American Military do police patrols is a bad idea.
5 - More pressure put on muslim leaders, they need to condem these acts.
6 - A ton of pressure on leaders in Saudi Arabia and Iran. These are where the real terrorists are.

Thats what I'd do... If I thought I could fix the situation...

Going to go ahead and address your list though I hope the topic won't break down from here to analysis of what you or I think. I hope people will do as you did and contribute their 2 cents.

1) I disagree with #1, but not going to go there cus that will derail the thread.

2) I think we should follow the Geneva Convention guidelines that brings all of them up before a military tribunal to review their case and distinguish them as P.O.W. or unlawful combatants and then followed internation law accordingly.

3) We have a coalition right now that is about the same size as the 1991 Gulf War which the UN approved of. I don't see your point there.

4) Totally agree.

5) I totally agree there too and this what really worries me. I hear way too much rationalizing of suicide bombers and terrorist acts in general from Muslim leaders around the world. If that continues this could degrade into a war of civilizations which never ends well.

6) I totally agree there too though that is partially why I disagree with #1 of your points, because I think us in Iraq puts alot more pressure on Saudi Arabia and Iran.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Originally posted by: Tab
1 - Admit the Iraq war is a mistake, but we will make the best out of a bad situation.
2 - Give those in Gitmo their rights, we're better than that. We don't need to hide behind military tribunals.
3 - Get world support, apparently fighting this on our own doesn't work well.
4 - Put a lot more effort into training the Iraq military and police. Making the American Military do police patrols is a bad idea.
5 - More pressure put on muslim leaders, they need to condem these acts.
6 - A ton of pressure on leaders in Saudi Arabia and Iran. These are where the real terrorists are.

Thats what I'd do... If I thought I could fix the situation...

Going to go ahead and address your list though I hope the topic won't break down from here to analysis of what you or I think. I hope people will do as you did and contribute their 2 cents.

1) I disagree with #1, but not going to go there cus that will derail the thread.

2) I think we should follow the Geneva Convention guidelines that brings all of them up before a military tribunal to review their case and distinguish them as P.O.W. or unlawful combatants and then followed internation law accordingly.

3) We have a coalition right now that is about the same size as the 1991 Gulf War which the UN approved of. I don't see your point there.

4) Totally agree.

5) I totally agree there too and this what really worries me. I hear way too much rationalizing of suicide bombers and terrorist acts in general from Muslim leaders around the world. If that continues this could degrade into a war of civilizations which never ends well.

6) I totally agree there too though that is partially why I disagree with #1 of your points, because I think us in Iraq puts alot more pressure on Saudi Arabia and Iran.

1 - We can agree to disagree for now, but I don't think you're going to get a lot of support when the vast majority Europe hates your guts... You can fix a mistake before admitting you made one.

2 - We are "technically" following the Geneva convention guidelines... The fighters in Iraq/Afganistan aren't fighting for are particular country therefore they don't get the rights that normal POWs would... We aren't torturing anyone, we just deport them to Syria and let there goverment handle it...

3 - Look at our recruiters, they need more recruits... It's obivious that our troops are at best moderately stretched out... Let's give them a break...

4 - Sounds good.

5 - It seems to be improving, how much support did we see over the london attacks? None.

6 - Who has nuclear reactors? Iran.. Who's being accussed of attempting to make enriched uranium? Iran... Where did the vast majority of 9/11 hijackers come from? Saudia Arabia...

 

[Deudalus]

6 - Who has nuclear reactors? Iran.. Who's being accussed of attempting to make enriched uranium? Iran... Where did the vast majority of 9/11 hijackers come from? Saudia Arabia...

Which brings us to the real question, and for this let's play a game similar to the beginning of the movie 2010. For the next 2 posts you speak truth and I speak truth, not party line bickering.

How would you put pressure on Iran and Saudi Arabia and Iran?

Point 1) Bush has come under fire for high oil prices. We invaded Iraq which pre-war supplied us with only 3% of our total crude per year. Saudi Arabia provides far more than that. Can you imagine the oil prices if we attacked them or put major sanctions on them and stopped buying their oil?

2) Bush is constantly criticized by the left for having no just cause to go to Iraq. Yet with Iraq we did have a history of aggression, 13 or so UN resolutions broken, and ties to terrorism (though you disagree on that point I think you will admit there are ties just not strong enough ties to say they are definitely linked which is a personal opinion thing between us). What real justification could we make to legally invade Saudi Arabia or Iran?

So would the left not be so extremely anti-Bush if he would have gone to Iran or Saudi Arabia?
Would you agree to drill off of California, Florida, and Alaska if we refused to buy Saudi oil until they clean up their act?

 

[Deudalus]

1 - We can agree to disagree for now, but I don't think you're going to get a lot of support when the vast majority Europe hates your guts... You can fix a mistake before admitting you made one.

As I pointed out in another thread, the vast majority of Europe contributes virtually nothing to a war effort anyways. Take the 1991 Gulf War where France took a whopping 2 soldier deaths compared to our 300 or so here in America.

Sadly, even when they agree with our policies the only real support we get from the majority of Europe (even the major players like France, Germany, and Spain) is vocal.

 

[Kalbi]

1) invade (entire) middle east
2) secure oil fields
3) tactically nuke islamo govts
4) imperialize
4-2) convert to buddhism (so they are a peaceful people)
5) oil is now cheaper than ocean water

 

[conjur]

How about getting Pakistan to stop training terrorists:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld...0,1838806.story?coll=la-home-headlines

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

6 - Who has nuclear reactors? Iran.. Who's being accussed of attempting to make enriched uranium? Iran... Where did the vast majority of 9/11 hijackers come from? Saudia Arabia...

Which brings us to the real question, and for this let's play a game similar to the beginning of the movie 2010. For the next 2 posts you speak truth and I speak truth, not party line bickering.

How would you put pressure on Iran and Saudi Arabia and Iran?

Point 1) Bush has come under fire for high oil prices. We invaded Iraq which pre-war supplied us with only 3% of our total crude per year. Saudi Arabia provides far more than that. Can you imagine the oil prices if we attacked them or put major sanctions on them and stopped buying their oil?

2) Bush is constantly criticized by the left for having no just cause to go to Iraq. Yet with Iraq we did have a history of aggression, 13 or so UN resolutions broken, and ties to terrorism (though you disagree on that point I think you will admit there are ties just not strong enough ties to say they are definitely linked which is a personal opinion thing between us). What real justification could we make to legally invade Saudi Arabia or Iran?

So would the left not be so extremely anti-Bush if he would have gone to Iran or Saudi Arabia?
Would you agree to drill off of California, Florida, and Alaska if we refused to buy Saudi oil until they clean up their act?

Wouldn't getting into Iran and Iraq be off-topic? I've been speaking the truth for quite a while, I started a long time ago once I stopped supporting the republicans.

1 - That happen before, Saudia Arabia wasn't very pleased with our support of Isreali. That wasn't a good thing at all, but we got through it. Stronger support to companies that use more effecient fuel systems and more support of alternatives that could end our dependance on oil.

2 - 13 Resolutions broken? Which ones are those? Lets see them. I never ever said we should invade Iran or SA.

Umm no?

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

1 - We can agree to disagree for now, but I don't think you're going to get a lot of support when the vast majority Europe hates your guts... You can fix a mistake before admitting you made one.

As I pointed out in another thread, the vast majority of Europe contributes virtually nothing to a war effort anyways. Take the 1991 Gulf War where France took a whopping 2 soldier deaths compared to our 300 or so here in America.

Sadly, even when they agree with our policies the only real support we get from the majority of Europe (even the major players like France, Germany, and Spain) is vocal.

Was Europe even remotely as bitchy about the original Iraq-Kuwait issuse? NO.

 

[Deudalus]

-- Iraq has delayed and prevented U.N. inspection teams from examining facilities believed to contain materials associated with Iraq's production of weapons of mass destruction;

-- Iraq has allowed, "and we suspect orchestrated," a deterioration in the security of U.N. personnel, which has resulted in numerous attacks, including the shooting death of a U.N. humanitarian guard;

-- Iraq has repudiated the authority of the U.N. Commission to demarcate its border with Kuwait and has refused to participate in the most recent session of that commission;

-- Iraq has violated Resolution 688 in failing to extend an agreement allowing the United Nations to bring humanitarian relief to Iraqis denied adequate food, medicine and essential supplies;

-- Iraq has broken off negotiations on Resolutions 706 and 712, which would allow Iraq to sell oil in exchange for food and end the continued suffering of its population, and

-- Iraq has continued and intensified attacks against its Shia population in the south, constituting another violation of Resolution 688.

There's afew, gimme time I'll dig up the rest.

 

[Deudalus]

Was Europe even remotely as bitchy about the original Iraq-Kuwait issuse? NO.

I don't follow you, sorry.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

-- Iraq has delayed and prevented U.N. inspection teams from examining facilities believed to contain materials associated with Iraq's production of weapons of mass destruction;

-- Iraq has allowed, "and we suspect orchestrated," a deterioration in the security of U.N. personnel, which has resulted in numerous attacks, including the shooting death of a U.N. humanitarian guard;

-- Iraq has repudiated the authority of the U.N. Commission to demarcate its border with Kuwait and has refused to participate in the most recent session of that commission;

-- Iraq has violated Resolution 688 in failing to extend an agreement allowing the United Nations to bring humanitarian relief to Iraqis denied adequate food, medicine and essential supplies;

-- Iraq has broken off negotiations on Resolutions 706 and 712, which would allow Iraq to sell oil in exchange for food and end the continued suffering of its population, and

-- Iraq has continued and intensified attacks against its Shia population in the south, constituting another violation of Resolution 688.

There's afew, gimme time I'll dig up the rest.

I'd like a link to your source and the "13" resolutions you referred too...

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Was Europe even remotely as bitchy about the original Iraq-Kuwait issuse? NO.

I don't follow you, sorry.

Did Europe disagree with our involvement in the Iraq-Kuwait conflict? No, they didn't.

 

[tommywishbone]

*The Saudi/US connection is as strong if not stronger than the Great Britian/US connection. No military action or sanctions directed at the Saudis will EVER take place. Any talk of such actions is moot.

*What is this preoccupation & life changing fear regarding Iran and nuclear weapons? What was the last western country that Iran invaded? What is their motivation for nuking France or whoever? This preoccupation with policing the world is absurd and only fuels anti-US feelings.

*The US's unbending and absolute support of Israel is a huge problem. I do not have the answer, but as long as Israelis kills Arabs, Arabs will hate us. That is elementary and will not change.

* The Bush administration will never, ever, in a million years admit to making a mistake regarding the invasion & occupation of Iraq. Any hope or discussion of this happening is silly. After Bush & Cheney & Rummy are gone, the work can start and the US can begin the long process of not being hated by all Iraqis.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Deudalus
I have my opinion, what is your's?

I'd hope the trolls saying "OMG ANYTHING BUT WHAT BUSH DOES" will stay away. Just lay out basically how you would solve the problem of terrorism.

Whether it be military action or whatever you're course would be. Give us the basic steps you'd take to solve the problem.

realize that it is a political problem and kill it at the root.

 

[Stunt]

Realize war is not the solution to terrorism, we live in a world where it is not a regime change that changes the mindsets of a nutty few but understanding who the nutty few are and defend against these people. We must speak out against nations who support terrorist activities, but understand that training and rallying of this mindset can happen in our own backyard and not solved with democracy and the like.

1) convert military campaigns to intelligence campaigns
2) get effective global databases of suspects and questionable figures
3) strong domestic patrol and ID practices for bomb building substances, transit systems, air travel, etc
4) address the issue in a global integrated fashion, multilateral approach will be far more effective.

 

[BBond]

FLASH!!!

Please LOCK THIS THREAD because...

The "war on terror" is over!!!

Bush Declares an End To Phrase 'War on Terror'

The Bush administration has apparently declared an end to the phrase "War on Terror." The White House has quietly changed the name to "the global struggle against violent extremism." The New York Times cites administration officials as saying that the phrase "war on terror" may have outlived its usefulness, because it "focused attention solely on the military campaign." Gen. Richard Myers, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the National Press Club on Monday that he had "objected to the use of the term 'war on terrorism' before, because if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as being the solution." Administration and Pentagon officials say the new name grew out of meetings of President Bush's senior national security advisers that began in January. It also comes as Bush appoints one of his most trusted aides, Karen Hughes, to lead the administrations international propaganda and PR campaign.

What a genuine POS.

Link to qoute can be found in my sig.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: tommywishbone
*The Saudi/US connection is as strong if not stronger than the Great Britian/US connection. No military action or sanctions directed at the Saudis will EVER take place. Any talk of such actions is moot.

*What is this preoccupation & life changing fear regarding Iran and nuclear weapons? What was the last western country that Iran invaded? What is their motivation for nuking France or whoever? This preoccupation with policing the world is absurd and only fuels anti-US feelings.

*The US's unbending and absolute support of Israel is a huge problem. I do not have the answer, but as long as Israelis kills Arabs, Arabs will hate us. That is elementary and will not change.

* The Bush administration will never, ever, in a million years admit to making a mistake regarding the invasion & occupation of Iraq. Any hope or discussion of this happening is silly. After Bush & Cheney & Rummy are gone, the work can start and the US can begin the long process of not being hated by all Iraqis.

So says the terrorists' P&N public relations specialist.

I have a better idea: Ignore misplaced, ignorant "Muslim Rage" and smoke any jihadist pig that takes arms against the US and our vital interests... among other things.

Pretty soon they'll have to up the ante of their paradise by offering 144 virgins to the Islamo-martyrs.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: BBond
FLASH!!!

Please LOCK THIS THREAD because...

The "war on terror" is over!!!

Bush Declares an End To Phrase 'War on Terror'

The Bush administration has apparently declared an end to the phrase "War on Terror." The White House has quietly changed the name to "the global struggle against violent extremism." The New York Times cites administration officials as saying that the phrase "war on terror" may have outlived its usefulness, because it "focused attention solely on the military campaign." Gen. Richard Myers, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the National Press Club on Monday that he had "objected to the use of the term 'war on terrorism' before, because if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as being the solution." Administration and Pentagon officials say the new name grew out of meetings of President Bush's senior national security advisers that began in January. It also comes as Bush appoints one of his most trusted aides, Karen Hughes, to lead the administrations international propaganda and PR campaign.

What a genuine POS.

Link to qoute can be found in my sig.

Considering the strategy against the terrorists and their supporters has encompassed political, economic, diplomatic, and yes, military aspects from the beginning, this is not at all surprising. "War on Terror" has been a stupid slogan from the start. Much like your posts.

 

[Tab]

This thread just died...

 

[Stunt]

Blame troll one for the flamebait, and troll two who went for it

 

[Tab]

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Deudalus
I have my opinion, what is your's?

I'd hope the trolls saying "OMG ANYTHING BUT WHAT BUSH DOES" will stay away. Just lay out basically how you would solve the problem of terrorism.

Whether it be military action or whatever you're course would be. Give us the basic steps you'd take to solve the problem.

1. Get out of the Middle East.
2. Cut off Israel.
3. Cut off all other foreign aid to countries in that region.
4. In times of disaster, only fund through international relief agencies - no direct interventions.

With the United States effectively a neutral party, we become a worthless target for terrorists.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: EatSpam
With the United States effectively a neutral party, we become a worthless target for terrorists.

A neutral US is an unrealistic pipe dream... and immoral.

And thinking a "neutral" US would quell the Islamafacists is one nut short of a mix.