If capturing Saddam didn't make the U.S. safer, what would?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Originally posted by: alchemize

So what went wrong with the last leadership, if your scenario is correct? We had 8 years...and yet...
Ah, here comes the Clinton finger pointing.


Clinton obviously failed in addressing the threat of Islamic Fundamentalism. No administration in US history has yet to successfully deal with it...
So why do you think the next one will? By providing a "shining example" as you mentioned? I'm not pointing a finger at Clinton. I'm saying your logic fails, because we've already provided a shining example for 40+ years.

They know we have democracy. They know we have wealth. They hate it. THEY HATE IT.

You want to deal with cancer, you kill it, starve it, excise it.

 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: alchemize
So what went wrong with the last leadership, if your scenario is correct? We had 8 years...and yet...
I take it this is another one of your magnificent and informative treatises, not one of those smarmy one-liners you disdain?

 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: alchemize
So what went wrong with the last leadership, if your scenario is correct? We had 8 years...and yet...
I take it this is another one of your magnificent and informative treatises, not one of those smarmy one-liners you disdain?
Actually, little boy, I followed up with a post once he responded. It was an open ended question. We are having a dialouge, something you are unfamiliar with.

 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: alchemize
So what went wrong with the last leadership, if your scenario is correct? We had 8 years...and yet...
I take it this is another one of your magnificent and informative treatises, not one of those smarmy one-liners you disdain?
Actually, little boy, I followed up with a post once he responded. It was an open ended question. We are having a dialouge, something you are unfamiliar with.
You lose. Something you are quite familiar with.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: alchemize
So what went wrong with the last leadership, if your scenario is correct? We had 8 years...and yet...
I take it this is another one of your magnificent and informative treatises, not one of those smarmy one-liners you disdain?
Actually, little boy, I followed up with a post once he responded. It was an open ended question. We are having a dialouge, something you are unfamiliar with.
You lose. Something you are quite familiar with.
OK I lost on the other thread, the bigger ass competition.

On this thread, I've lost the whiney pissy little bitch competition. Congratulations! You da man!

I'm 0-2 when it comes to losing to you!

Care to win again?
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: alchemize
OK I lost on the other thread, the bigger ass competition.

On this thread, I've lost the whiney pissy little bitch competition. Congratulations! You da man!

I'm 0-2 when it comes to losing to you!

Care to win again?
Other than being large enough to contain your head, I have no idea how big your ass is.

As I said in the other thread where you chose to raise your childish grudge, go away twit.


Edit: to everyone else, sorry, I'm done.
 

MonstaThrilla

Golden Member
Sep 16, 2000
1,652
0
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Originally posted by: alchemize

So what went wrong with the last leadership, if your scenario is correct? We had 8 years...and yet...
Ah, here comes the Clinton finger pointing.


Clinton obviously failed in addressing the threat of Islamic Fundamentalism. No administration in US history has yet to successfully deal with it...
So why do you think the next one will? By providing a "shining example" as you mentioned? I'm not pointing a finger at Clinton. I'm saying your logic fails, because we've already provided a shining example for 40+ years.

They know we have democracy. They know we have wealth. They hate it. THEY HATE IT.

You want to deal with cancer, you kill it, starve it, excise it.
Who's they? If its Al Qaeda and terrorists with blood on their hands, then I agree that they need to be exterminated by force.

But I was replying to the more general question the poster posed, which was how to deal with the spread of Islamic Fundamentalism. How to stop those young men in Islamic countries from becoming terrorists. These men aren't born with a vehement hatred for us, they're taught it. The more reasons we give them to hate us, the more they will. My solution is to stop giving them reasons to hate us, and instead give them reasons to want to imitate us.

I don't agree with your notion that the shining example method isn't working. The young people's reform movement in Iran is one example.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Originally posted by: alchemize

So what went wrong with the last leadership, if your scenario is correct? We had 8 years...and yet...
Ah, here comes the Clinton finger pointing.


Clinton obviously failed in addressing the threat of Islamic Fundamentalism. No administration in US history has yet to successfully deal with it...
So why do you think the next one will? By providing a "shining example" as you mentioned? I'm not pointing a finger at Clinton. I'm saying your logic fails, because we've already provided a shining example for 40+ years.

They know we have democracy. They know we have wealth. They hate it. THEY HATE IT.

You want to deal with cancer, you kill it, starve it, excise it.
Who's they? If its Al Qaeda and terrorists with blood on their hands, then I agree that they need to be exterminated by force.

But I was replying to the more general question the poster posed, which was how to deal with the spread of Islamic Fundamentalism. How to stop those young men in Islamic countries from becoming terrorists. These men aren't born with a vehement hatred for us, they're taught it. The more reasons we give them to hate us, the more they will. My solution is to stop giving them reasons to hate us, and instead give them reasons to want to imitate us.

I don't agree with your notion that the shining example method isn't working. The young people's reform movement in Iran is one example.
And yet...where has that revolution gotten them? Last I heard they got their butts handed to them a few months ago when they took to the streets. Not one single goverment in the muslim world is a true democracy.

Nothing will change in those countries until the goverments are overthrown. And unfortunately, they'll be overthrown by fundies before they will by those who admire democracy.

I don't know what the answer is, but I'll disagree with you that being an example is it.



 

outriding

Platinum Member
Feb 20, 2002
2,718
1,573
136
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Originally posted by: alchemize

So what went wrong with the last leadership, if your scenario is correct? We had 8 years...and yet...
Ah, here comes the Clinton finger pointing.


Clinton obviously failed in addressing the problem of Islamic Fundamentalism. No administration in US history has yet to successfully deal with it...

Actually if you do some research you will see that during the clinton years there were several times that terrorists plots that were stopped before they happened. And Clinton also doubled the spending on anti-terrorists groups.

But i guess if it was not on Faux News it never happened.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
70,111
5,289
126
Nothing will change in those countries until the goverments are overthrown. And unfortunately, they'll be overthrown by fundies before they will by those who admire democracy.
------------------------------------
You talking about the Supreme Coup and the US?
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,216
126
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Originally posted by: alchemize

So what went wrong with the last leadership, if your scenario is correct? We had 8 years...and yet...
Ah, here comes the Clinton finger pointing.


Clinton obviously failed in addressing the threat of Islamic Fundamentalism. No administration in US history has yet to successfully deal with it...
So why do you think the next one will? By providing a "shining example" as you mentioned? I'm not pointing a finger at Clinton. I'm saying your logic fails, because we've already provided a shining example for 40+ years.

They know we have democracy. They know we have wealth. They hate it. THEY HATE IT.

You want to deal with cancer, you kill it, starve it, excise it.
We sure did a shinig job in 1953 in Iran didn't we? Set an example of supporting democracies with Pinochet? Yep 40+ years of it, more. Maybe there is more than envy to it. Maybe you want to become familiar with the American history they are. Perhaps that shining example is tarnished. Maybe we need to stop paying lip service, and stop fscking with people. Until we do there is no reason for them to trust the US.


 

ReiAyanami

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2002
4,466
0
0
My solution is to stop giving them reasons to hate us, and instead give them reasons to want to imitate us.

the League of Nations solution to a certain dictator was to appease him. those fundamentalists will NEVER like us nor will they ever "want to imitate us,". they don't even get along with themselves [Suuni vs Baath vs Shiites and of course Kurds]

they will hate us no matter what unless we all become amish. the only alternative is to disable their ability to strike terror

appeasement is not a solution, you have to play hard and make 'em break down libya style. North Korea is a clear example of how appeasement has gone way wrong. japan/SK/US donate over $200 million in food plus fuel alone to Dictator Kim Jong Il, what did he do? he puts (and still does) all the donated food into storage instead of distributing it. he uses it to feed one of the world's largest army's. AND MOST IMPORTANTLY while we gave him billions in aid, he built nukes. job well done.

if he just wanted nukes, we coulda donated them ourselves... from a b2 bomber
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Nothing will change in those countries until the goverments are overthrown. And unfortunately, they'll be overthrown by fundies before they will by those who admire democracy.
------------------------------------
You talking about the Supreme Coup and the US?
Yes, of course, I forgot about the Supreme Coup. Sorry my bad. I see you've been warming up the Illuminati plots for 2004 lately too moonie.

Thanks for adding some intelligence to the conversation
 

MonstaThrilla

Golden Member
Sep 16, 2000
1,652
0
0
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
My solution is to stop giving them reasons to hate us, and instead give them reasons to want to imitate us.

the League of Nations solution to a certain dictator was to appease him. those fundamentalists will NEVER like us nor will they ever "want to imitate us,". they don't even get along with themselves [Suuni vs Baath vs Shiites and of course Kurds]

they will hate us no matter what unless we all become amish. the only alternative is to disable their ability to strike terror

appeasement is not a solution, you have to play hard and make 'em break down libya style. North Korea is a clear example of how appeasement has gone way wrong. japan/SK/US donate over $200 million in food plus fuel alone to Dictator Kim Jong Il, what did he do? he puts (and still does) all the donated food into storage instead of distributing it. he uses it to feed one of the world's largest army's. AND MOST IMPORTANTLY while we gave him billions in aid, he built nukes. job well done.

if he just wanted nukes, we coulda donated them ourselves... from a b2 bomber
What's with the quick rush to label anything that isn't unilateral, preemptive war as appeasement? When I was talking about "them", I meant the millions of Muslims around the world. I wasn't talking about their leaders. You need to seperate the two ideas. George W. Bush isn't the American people and Osama Bin Laden isn't Islam. Give the people a reason to want to be like Americans, and let them fight their own revolutions against their own despots. Protecting our own people on our own homeland doesn't have to involve unilateral, preemptive war.

I'm not for appeasement, and never did I suggest it. Don't put words into my mouth.

 

MonstaThrilla

Golden Member
Sep 16, 2000
1,652
0
0
Originally posted by: outriding
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Originally posted by: alchemize

So what went wrong with the last leadership, if your scenario is correct? We had 8 years...and yet...
Ah, here comes the Clinton finger pointing.


Clinton obviously failed in addressing the problem of Islamic Fundamentalism. No administration in US history has yet to successfully deal with it...

Actually if you do some research you will see that during the clinton years there were several times that terrorists plots that were stopped before they happened. And Clinton also doubled the spending on anti-terrorists groups.

But i guess if it was not on Faux News it never happened.
Yeesh man. Read some of my other posts before brandishing me as a Fox News watching Clinton hater. I need to take a shower now...

But the 1993 WTC bombing, African Embassy bombings, and USS Cole bombing all occured during Clinton's term. Yes, the 1995 plot to blowup 10-12 jetliners over the Pacific was squashed in Manila. But that doesn't make up for the fact that those other terrorist attacks killed our people. And for that, I say Clinton failed...
 

outriding

Platinum Member
Feb 20, 2002
2,718
1,573
136
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Originally posted by: outriding
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Originally posted by: alchemize

So what went wrong with the last leadership, if your scenario is correct? We had 8 years...and yet...
Ah, here comes the Clinton finger pointing.


Clinton obviously failed in addressing the problem of Islamic Fundamentalism. No administration in US history has yet to successfully deal with it...

Actually if you do some research you will see that during the clinton years there were several times that terrorists plots that were stopped before they happened. And Clinton also doubled the spending on anti-terrorists groups.

But i guess if it was not on Faux News it never happened.
Yeesh man. Read some of my other posts before brandishing me as a Fox News watching Clinton hater. I need to take a shower now...

But the 1993 WTC bombing, African Embassy bombings, and USS Cole bombing all occured during Clinton's term. Yes, the 1995 plot to blowup 10-12 jetliners over the Pacific was squashed in Manila. But that doesn't make up for the fact that those other terrorist attacks killed our people. And for that, I say Clinton failed...
Sorry i wasnt focusing on you more on alchemize. :beer:

It is unfair to blame clinton for hte 1993 WTC bombing as he was
ONLY IN OFFICE FOR 38 DAYS !!!!

Here is some really good articles about the efforts put forth during the Clinton years...

http://cronus.com/terrorism/
http://www.cdt.org/policy/terrorism/adm-anti-terror-otl.html
http://blogs.salon.com/0003052/stories/2003/10/18/911AndALackOfPresidentialLeadership.html
 

MonstaThrilla

Golden Member
Sep 16, 2000
1,652
0
0
Originally posted by: outriding
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Originally posted by: outriding
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Originally posted by: alchemize

So what went wrong with the last leadership, if your scenario is correct? We had 8 years...and yet...
Ah, here comes the Clinton finger pointing.


Clinton obviously failed in addressing the problem of Islamic Fundamentalism. No administration in US history has yet to successfully deal with it...

Actually if you do some research you will see that during the clinton years there were several times that terrorists plots that were stopped before they happened. And Clinton also doubled the spending on anti-terrorists groups.

But i guess if it was not on Faux News it never happened.
Yeesh man. Read some of my other posts before brandishing me as a Fox News watching Clinton hater. I need to take a shower now...

But the 1993 WTC bombing, African Embassy bombings, and USS Cole bombing all occured during Clinton's term. Yes, the 1995 plot to blowup 10-12 jetliners over the Pacific was squashed in Manila. But that doesn't make up for the fact that those other terrorist attacks killed our people. And for that, I say Clinton failed...
Sorry i wasnt focusing on you more on alchemize. :beer:

It is unfair to blame clinton for hte 1993 WTC bombing as he was
ONLY IN OFFICE FOR 38 DAYS !!!!
Its cool. I agree with you that Clinton shouldn't be to "blame" for the terrorist attacks during his term just like Bush shouldn't be blamed for 9/11 (he was only in office for 9 months). But I'm a firm believer that the buck stops at the President's desk, and whoever is in office during an attack bares the responsibility for not doing enough to stop it, no matter how long they've been in office. I know there's alot of unfair finger pointing at Clinton for problems we have now, but I just wanted to be consistent with my criticism of all recent Presidents. :)
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,677
136
This whole get tough and conquer the world line of reasoning strikes me as absurd. Particularly whe considering the stated reasons for the Al Quaeda attacks- The presence of corrupting US troops on sacred Saudi soil.

Heck, we didn't invade Saudi Arabia, we were invited, and we aroused that kind of hatred. Invading Muslim nations is bound to have an even greater impact on their psyches....
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
70,111
5,289
126
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Nothing will change in those countries until the goverments are overthrown. And unfortunately, they'll be overthrown by fundies before they will by those who admire democracy.
------------------------------------
You talking about the Supreme Coup and the US?
Yes, of course, I forgot about the Supreme Coup. Sorry my bad. I see you've been warming up the Illuminati plots for 2004 lately too moonie.

Thanks for adding some intelligence to the conversation
I never said :roll. I don't think :roll is intelligent or adding intelligence to a conversation. In fact I see it as a rather frank admission of brainlessness. I mean, check this out: You're so smart, :roll Got yur ass, huh. :Roll

 

AnImuS

Senior member
Sep 28, 2001
939
0
0
Put military troops on our borders. Along with a better fence/wall, reinforced with landmines/etc like the soviets did in berlin. Quit telling illegals its ok to break our LAWS since they seem to have the same rights as a citizen or a person who went through the process. Quit giving so much of US tax payers money to welfare nations (israel and others). I want my money to be spent here in the US.

All this can be done by bring the offcial "Military expenditures" which is $280Billion down and much much more. Saying theres no funding is complete BS. The cold war is over. Theres no fear that any country will attack us since we have enough nukes to restart or end civilization. Though i only see this happening if im president :)

If you think im wrong then your a fool.

thanks
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS