NIE Terrorism Report Released

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Todd33
Of course they will not release it all, they cherry pick the parts they want. Classic Bush WH.

Bush has asked for the entire report to be declassified.

So, as usual, you are full of FUD.

Wrong again. As usual.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
lol, you still keep missing the main interogative, just as your party keeps missing the same: HOW?

We are currently fighting a war on terror in over 30 countries, not just Iraq and Afghanistan. So, again, HOW would change that?

It sounds as though you all wish to pull every US troop in the world back to our borders and just hope and pray everything beyond our own walls is ok...? no?

How what? What confuses you so much? Most of this "war" on terror would conducted the same no matter who was president. We go after the banks that help funnel money, we share intel with other nations to watch and capture suspects. We do this stuff all the time, just like in London a month or so back. Did that take a military action? This is run of the mill stuff, the Dems would do it the same way. It the disasters they would do differently. Iraq has zero to do with terror so of course spending $300B much needed cash and committing 140,000 troops is a negative thing. Iran is more powerful and emboldened than it has ever been in the region - we handed them a great gift in Iraq. We also pulled troops and support out of Afghanistan pre-maturely for Iraq, now the Taliban is slowing taking it back and Bin Laden is where?

It clear to everyone save the right wingers that the colossal mess ups are not making us safe, they are just stretching our troops thin, stretching our international goodwill thin and making the US look incompetent bullies. Then we have Abu Gareb, Gitmo, torture, etc. We look no better than the people we fight to the moderate world that we rely on for help.

But carry on blaming the Dems. They "have no message", "have no plan", "cut and run" and every other right wing echo chamber cliche you and your type repeat. At least the Dems have reality and facts our their side, now we just need the voters to start caring and stop watching American Idol.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Todd33
Of course they will not release it all, they cherry pick the parts they want. Classic Bush WH.

Bush has asked for the entire report to be declassified.

So, as usual, you are full of FUD.

Wrong again. As usual.

Bush has authorized only the release of nouns and pronouns from the report.
Verbs, adverbs, and gerunds are to be redacted.

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

I have yet to see Pabster come back and state that it appears he was wrong about the declassification of the whole report.

Profjohn than obfuscates the report's finding by sidetracking into political agendas (the reports leak indicates politics are their worst) and not addressing the fact that the report paints a rather negative picture concerning Iraq overall and the state of terrorism worldwide.

If we really believe that success in Iraq (whatever that means) will cause the terrorists to give up (who love to fight regimes they think are Zionist/Western controlled) than we are more ignorant than I thought.

For the record I am a conservative Republican who cannot stand the current administration's foreign policy.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Todd33
Of course they will not release it all, they cherry pick the parts they want. Classic Bush WH.

Bush has asked for the entire report to be declassified.

So, as usual, you are full of FUD.

Wrong again. As usual.

Bwwaaaaaahahahaha! Laughing @ u Pabster! :laugh:

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33
I have yet to see Pabster come back and state that it appears he was wrong about the declassification of the whole report.

I was wrong.

Profjohn than obfuscates the report's finding by sidetracking into political agendas (the reports leak indicates politics are their worst) and not addressing the fact that the report paints a rather negative picture concerning Iraq overall and the state of terrorism worldwide.

Perhaps the entire report will be declassified. Until then it seems debating any of it is senseless as there is no foundation to go with the summary.

If we really believe that success in Iraq (whatever that means) will cause the terrorists to give up (who love to fight regimes they think are Zionist/Western controlled) than we are more ignorant than I thought.

The summary states that winning in Iraq would be a major blow (as if I needed a report to figure that out) to terror. They never suggested it would end it.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33
I have yet to see Pabster come back and state that it appears he was wrong about the declassification of the whole report.

I was wrong.

We are all wrong daily, glad you returned and didn't cut and run

 

[ProfJohn]

When are any of you going to admit to being wrong for what you said based on the leaked report?

How about this statement on Negroponte:

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
That's interesting - so he puts his own opinion out there in lieu of producing actual text from the NIE that supports his opinion. Of course Negroponte isn't going to agree with the assessment that Iraq has increased the terror threat, but I don't want his opinion on the matter, I want the opinion of the intel orgs that allegedly agree with him.

So let's hear it. Where in the NIE does it specifically agree with Negroponte?

Link to "leak" thread

 

[palehorse]

ok, let me try this: In 2008, should the non-neocons win the Presidency, AND gain the House and Senate, how do you envision their first two years? What would they do in Iraq? Would they pull out every last one of our troops there? Will they re-position the troops in a different formation? Boost troop strength in Iraq? How about Afghanistan? Will they attempt to persuade Pakistan to allow us entrance into their NW frontier? How about Iran? How about the Hezbollah in Lebanon who still completely refuse to disarm?

What do you think they would do? Those who oppose Bush, what would they do if they are handed the reigns to all of these situations?

 

[ProfJohn]

As always you lefties are amazing.

When the leaked part of the report stated that Iraq made the war on terror worse you were all jumping up and down and point out how this supports your believes.

Now that a more balanced view has emerged through a larger release of the report you are jumping up and down and complaining how the full report needs to be released. How come you weren?t saying this when all we had was leaks that backed up your point of view?

And why haven?t any of you addressed this point I made:

The Iraq conflict has become the cause celebre for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.

Or put another way, if they succeed in Iraq, we?ll have MORE fighters inspired to carry on the fight.
So the war has become a recruitment poster for jihadists. At the same time the NIE says that if the same jihadists are viewed as losing in Iraq ?we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.? Wow so if we win in Iraq there will be fewer terrorists. No wonder Bush so big on staying the course.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
ok, let me try this: In 2008, should the non-neocons win the Presidency, AND gain the House and Senate, how do you envision their first two years? What would they do in Iraq? Would they pull out every last one of our troops there? Will they re-position the troops in a different formation? Boost troop strength in Iraq? How about Afghanistan? Will they attempt to persuade Pakistan to allow us entrance into their NW frontier? How about Iran? How about the Hezbollah in Lebanon who still completely refuse to disarm?

What do you think they would do? Those who oppose Bush, what would they do if they are handed the reigns to all of these situations?

Well, you ignored my response again, so I'll just repost it again. I know it is easy to pick the easy targets to respond to... but don't keep coming back and asking the same question...


Very simple. We should have done an 1000x better job catching the terrorists in tora bora.. after securing Afghanistan(and not letting violence get out of hand by ignoring it like we are doing now). Then we should beef up our borders, increase our inspections at our ports, and prepare a comprehensive plan to deal with future emergencies(even including something like Katrina, which is pretty similar of a disaster).

That is it. The "terrorists" term is mainly a bogeyman.. there will ALWAYS be terrorists... after 1993, there were no attacks until 2001... and that was without doing anything like attacking Afghanistan and trapping and killing the Taliban/Al Qaeda. We aren't surrounded by terrorists in this country...we simply keep interfering with the middle east and try to control oil for our benefit.

Since oil is the only production of the Middle East that we need and it is their main means of income, if we simply followed Brazil and use alternative fuel, we will slowly bankrupt the ME byu refusing their oil and acting as a role model for the world including Russia and China in using alternative fuel. Since we no longer would have any personal interest in the Middle East, the terrorists would focus their efforts to other countries interfering with the ME(since we won't be).

There. Is that so complicated? Attacking everything in site makes no sense. Iraq makes no sense. We are no closer to eliminating dependency on foreign oil. Bush said we are dependant on oil yet has done NOT ONE SINGLE DAMN THING to change that since that speach!

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
As always you lefties are amazing.

When the leaked part of the report stated that Iraq made the war on terror worse you were all jumping up and down and point out how this supports your believes.

Now that a more balanced view has emerged through a larger release of the report you are jumping up and down and complaining how the full report needs to be released. How come you weren?t saying this when all we had was leaks that backed up your point of view?

And why haven?t any of you addressed this point I made:

The Iraq conflict has become the cause celebre for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.

Or put another way, if they succeed in Iraq, we?ll have MORE fighters inspired to carry on the fight.
So the war has become a recruitment poster for jihadists. At the same time the NIE says that if the same jihadists are viewed as losing in Iraq ?we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.? Wow so if we win in Iraq there will be fewer terrorists. No wonder Bush so big on staying the course.

The leaked info was identical to what was in the declassified parts... the report stated the war in Iraq is creating a breeding ground for terrorists... We can't "win" in Iraq... That is the problem here. It's been 3 years and each year there is more violence and no progress... If we COULD have won, it would have been at the beginning with a comprehensive strategy. Since observant people realize that the situation is no longer winnable, the declassified report is very important.. it shows that what we are CURRENTLY DOING is creating more terrorists...

It has nothing to do with "lefties"... that is just more "if they don't agree with me, they must be on the other side, and against me!" nonsense.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
ok, let me try this: In 2008, should the non-neocons win the Presidency, AND gain the House and Senate, how do you envision their first two years? What would they do in Iraq? Would they pull out every last one of our troops there? Will they re-position the troops in a different formation? Boost troop strength in Iraq? How about Afghanistan? Will they attempt to persuade Pakistan to allow us entrance into their NW frontier? How about Iran? How about the Hezbollah in Lebanon who still completely refuse to disarm?

What do you think they would do? Those who oppose Bush, what would they do if they are handed the reigns to all of these situations?

So in other words, how would they fix all the mistakes of Bush? I thought it was how would they wage the war on terror differently. I love how one group spends five years screwing things up and all you can say is "how would the others fix it, see see no plans!"

I guess it depends on who wins and what cabinet they put together. Biden has some pretty detailed plans, but again why did take the discussion OT to a 2008 hypothetical win by an unknown Dem? You have nothing to add about the NIE other than attack the out of power opposition party? Classic.

I have a more realistic question, why do you support people you know are incompetent and have messed things up? I thought the GOP was the party of personal responsibility? How about we start holding people responsible and *gasp* fire them when they fail over and over. Start with Rumsfeld and then to Condi. Can you fire the VP? Humm...

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Very simple. We should have done an 1000x better job catching the terrorists in tora bora.. after securing Afghanistan(and not letting violence get out of hand by ignoring it like we are doing now). Then we should beef up our borders, increase our inspections at our ports, and prepare a comprehensive plan to deal with future emergencies(even including something like Katrina, which is pretty similar of a disaster).

Let me hop in my Delorean and order the military to do a better job at Tora Bora. :roll:

That is it. The "terrorists" term is mainly a bogeyman.. there will ALWAYS be terrorists... after 1993, there were no attacks until 2001... and that was without doing anything like attacking Afghanistan and trapping and killing the Taliban/Al Qaeda. We aren't surrounded by terrorists in this country...we simply keep interfering with the middle east and try to control oil for our benefit.

Since oil is the only production of the Middle East that we need and it is their main means of income, if we simply followed Brazil and use alternative fuel, we will slowly bankrupt the ME byu refusing their oil and acting as a role model for the world including Russia and China in using alternative fuel. Since we no longer would have any personal interest in the Middle East, the terrorists would focus their efforts to other countries interfering with the ME(since we won't be).

That is the ticket right there, all we need to do is get the entire world to convert to alternative energy sources and stop using oil. Should be easy right?
BTW: Brazil only uses 1.9 million barrels of oil a day. The entire world uses about 82 million barrels a day. The US uses 10 times as much as Brazil, 5 million barrels a day is used just in our cars and trucks.

There. Is that so complicated? Attacking everything in site makes no sense. Iraq makes no sense. We are no closer to eliminating dependency on foreign oil. Bush said we are dependant on oil yet has done NOT ONE SINGLE DAMN THING to change that since that speach!

Let's look at the "four underlying factors" fueling "the spread of the jihadist movement:"
"(1) Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness;
(2) the Iraq 'jihad;'
(3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and
(4) pervasive anti-U.S. sentiment among most Muslims -- all of which jihadists exploit."

hmmm Don't see anything about oil in there...

 

[Todd33]

ProfJohn you are a master of deflection. You are arguing with a ghost. Did anyone suggest we lose in Iraq? How do you define "win" BTW? Everyone outside of far right sees the NIE as a huge negative and negates Bush's "reason" that Iraq is central to the war on terror. The bottom line is Iraq is the 1980s Afghanistan of today. Instead of Russia slowly bleeding dry it is the US and you support it blindly for partisan reasons. The first step to a solution is to recognize that is a was a huger blunder and start holding people accountable. That means replacing people in charge and not rewarding with the status quo. Re-electing this current do nothing rubber stamp Congress is just way of giving Bush a pass on all the screw ups. Having two different parties in control of the WH and Congress is the best thing to have at this point. A monopoly of power has only led to corruption and no oversight.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Todd33
ProfJohn you are a master of deflection. You are arguing with a ghost. Did anyone suggest we lose in Iraq? How do you define "win" BTW? Everyone outside of far right sees the NIE as a huge negative and negates Bush's "reason" that Iraq is central to the war on terror. The bottom line is Iraq is the 1980s Afghanistan of today. Instead of Russia slowly bleeding dry it is the US and you support it blindly for partisan reasons. The first step to a solution is to recognize that is a was a huger blunder and start holding people accountable. That means replacing people in charge and not rewarding with the status quo. Re-electing this current do nothing rubber stamp Congress is just way of giving Bush a pass on all the screw ups. Having two different parties in control of the WH and Congress is the best thing to have at this point. A monopoly of power has only led to corruption and no oversight.

In response to this line "Did anyone suggest we lose in Iraq?" I give you this:

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
blah blah blah We can't "win" in Iraq... That is the problem here. It's been 3 years and each year there is more violence and no progress... If we COULD have won, it would have been at the beginning with a comprehensive strategy. blah blah blah

Saying we can't win is the same as suggesting we will lose, right? If no please explain exactly what that line means.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Very simple. We should have done an 1000x better job catching the terrorists in tora bora.. after securing Afghanistan(and not letting violence get out of hand by ignoring it like we are doing now). Then we should beef up our borders, increase our inspections at our ports, and prepare a comprehensive plan to deal with future emergencies(even including something like Katrina, which is pretty similar of a disaster).

Let me hop in my Delorean and order the military to do a better job at Tora Bora. :roll:

That is it. The "terrorists" term is mainly a bogeyman.. there will ALWAYS be terrorists... after 1993, there were no attacks until 2001... and that was without doing anything like attacking Afghanistan and trapping and killing the Taliban/Al Qaeda. We aren't surrounded by terrorists in this country...we simply keep interfering with the middle east and try to control oil for our benefit.

Since oil is the only production of the Middle East that we need and it is their main means of income, if we simply followed Brazil and use alternative fuel, we will slowly bankrupt the ME byu refusing their oil and acting as a role model for the world including Russia and China in using alternative fuel. Since we no longer would have any personal interest in the Middle East, the terrorists would focus their efforts to other countries interfering with the ME(since we won't be).

That is the ticket right there, all we need to do is get the entire world to convert to alternative energy sources and stop using oil. Should be easy right?
BTW: Brazil only uses 1.9 million barrels of oil a day. The entire world uses about 82 million barrels a day. The US uses 10 times as much as Brazil, 5 million barrels a day is used just in our cars and trucks.

There. Is that so complicated? Attacking everything in site makes no sense. Iraq makes no sense. We are no closer to eliminating dependency on foreign oil. Bush said we are dependant on oil yet has done NOT ONE SINGLE DAMN THING to change that since that speach!

Let's look at the "four underlying factors" fueling "the spread of the jihadist movement:"
"(1) Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness;
(2) the Iraq 'jihad;'
(3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and
(4) pervasive anti-U.S. sentiment among most Muslims -- all of which jihadists exploit."

hmmm Don't see anything about oil in there...

Let's look at the "four underlying factors" fueling "the spread of the jihadist movement:"
"(1) Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness;
(2) the Iraq 'jihad;'
(3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and
(4) pervasive anti-U.S. sentiment among most Muslims -- all of which jihadists exploit."

hmmm Don't see anything about oil in there...

Absolutely does. But you have to think a little... We continue to interfere and manipulate ME affairs because of our need for oil. That is number 1 on your list and number 4 on your list. That is why they dislike us.. our constant meddling. As I said.

We cannot help them economically.. but we CAN influence the dictators by refusing oil. Without such a strong(rich) leadership, the people are more likely to rise up and want part control... As it is now, the leaders of ME countries are rolling oil money, therefore giving them power and control of their people.

As for your previous response.. Are you saying that since Brazil is smaller, we cannot do what they are doing on a larger scale? Shoudn't our technological superiority mean anything? What steps HAVE we taken to BEGIN towards this goal? Didn't Bush say we are dependant on oil and need to stop? Name ONE step that he has taken toward this goal!

You do not think our reliance of oil lead us to interfere in the ME and therefore cause resentment? You do not think that this fuels their hatred of us?

 

[Pens1566]

The NIE points out that there is no 'win' in Iraq. We've already lost because it has INCREASED terrorist activity. Note to certain posters with strawmen at the ready: I did not say Iraq is responsible for all terrorism. Yes it existed before we invaded. However, the invasion has made it worse.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Todd33
ProfJohn you are a master of deflection. You are arguing with a ghost. Did anyone suggest we lose in Iraq? How do you define "win" BTW? Everyone outside of far right sees the NIE as a huge negative and negates Bush's "reason" that Iraq is central to the war on terror. The bottom line is Iraq is the 1980s Afghanistan of today. Instead of Russia slowly bleeding dry it is the US and you support it blindly for partisan reasons. The first step to a solution is to recognize that is a was a huger blunder and start holding people accountable. That means replacing people in charge and not rewarding with the status quo. Re-electing this current do nothing rubber stamp Congress is just way of giving Bush a pass on all the screw ups. Having two different parties in control of the WH and Congress is the best thing to have at this point. A monopoly of power has only led to corruption and no oversight.

firing people and changing the lineup makes about as much sense as going into Iraq without a gameplan for winning...

I dont agree with every move this Admin has made, and I AM willing to listen to alternatives. That was the point of my hypothetical 2008 questions.

The problem is that people spend too much time placing blame, flaming, and saying "fire them," instead of offering up realistic and well thought-out alternatives. You spend too much time listing the mistakes and describing the obvious situation rather than brainstorming viable solutions.

So what is step 2 after we fire Rummy and Condi? or after we impeach Bush? What happens THEN? Should we just tear apart our current Admin "without a plan for actually winning the war"?

How about, instead of harping on all of the mistakes and crying over spilled milk, you tell me what we're supposed to do NOW and in the FUTURE to fight or "win" the GWOT? (give us an alternative to "staying the course"!)

ps: yes, alternative fuel is one of the longterm strategies, but I'm talking about something that gives us victory in 10 to 15 years, not 40-50. The alternative fuels will certainly help, but that should be done regardless of whatever else we do.

 

[soundforbjt]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
[BTW: Brazil only uses 1.9 million barrels of oil a day. The entire world uses about 82 million barrels a day. The US uses 10 times as much as Brazil, 5 million barrels a day is used just in our cars and trucks.

The reason Brazil only uses 1.9 million barrels of oil a day is because they are doing something about their consumption. By next year Brazil will be energy independent.

They are using ethanol made from sugar cane, a cheap source and highly efficient cost/gal to produce. We (because of farmers) are using corn to make ethanol, one of the most in-efficient cost/gal sources you can use. The farm industry is blocking importation of more efficient sources for the production of ethanol to save their interests.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: soundforbjt

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
[BTW: Brazil only uses 1.9 million barrels of oil a day. The entire world uses about 82 million barrels a day. The US uses 10 times as much as Brazil, 5 million barrels a day is used just in our cars and trucks.

The reason Brazil only uses 1.9 million barrels of oil a day is because they are doing something about their consumption. By next year Brazil will be energy independent.

They are using ethanol made from sugar cane, a cheap source and highly efficient cost/gal to produce. We (because of farmers) are using corn to make ethanol, one of the most in-efficient cost/gal sources you can use. The farm industry is blocking importation of more efficient sources for the production of ethanol to save their interests.

I don?t think it is energy independence, I thought it was oil independence, but I could be wrong.

Look at Brazil?s GDP and compare it to ours (GDP is a decent indicator of energy usage)
Total:
US 12,485,725,000,000
Brazil 792,683,000,000
Our GDP is 15 times larger than theirs, that is a lot of energy.
Per capita:
US: 42,000
Brazil: 4,320
10 times more per person, again a HUGE difference.

We can certainly do more to improve our own energy independence, such as drilling in ANWR and the Gulf, but it is simplistic at best to say that we can match Brazil by being energy independent, especially via ethanol.
Read this for more facts and data:
Lessons from Brazil

According to Per Capita Oil Consumption and Production, oil consumption in Brazil is 4.2 barrels per person per year. In the U.S., oil consumption is 27 barrels per person per year, 6.4 times as much per person as Brazil's.

All we have to do is go from using 6 times as much oil per person to 3 times as much as we too can be oil independent. Easy right

 

[ProfJohn]

More interesting stuff?
In Brazil gas must be 20-25% ethanol. So let?s say that tomorrow we could instantly convert all gas in the country to 25% ethanol.
Right now we use 5 million barrels of oil a day to power our cars. So if we converted 25% of that oil usage to ethanol usage we would reduce our daily oil usage to 3.75 million barrels a day. Make sense?
Of course that assumes that one gallon of ethanol has as much energy as one gallon of gas which it doesn?t ?Ethanol contains approx. 34% less energy per gallon than gasoline, and therefore will get 34% fewer miles per gallon?

At that point we are only using 3.75 million barrels of oil a day for just our cars, which is still more than the 1.9 million barrels that Brazil uses per day for EVERYTHING.

Get it?
Ethanol is not THE magic bullet, it may be part of the solution, but it is not THE solution.
Ethanol explained via Wikipedia

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Stay on topic?

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Todd33
ProfJohn you are a master of deflection. You are arguing with a ghost. Did anyone suggest we lose in Iraq? How do you define "win" BTW? Everyone outside of far right sees the NIE as a huge negative and negates Bush's "reason" that Iraq is central to the war on terror. The bottom line is Iraq is the 1980s Afghanistan of today. Instead of Russia slowly bleeding dry it is the US and you support it blindly for partisan reasons. The first step to a solution is to recognize that is a was a huger blunder and start holding people accountable. That means replacing people in charge and not rewarding with the status quo. Re-electing this current do nothing rubber stamp Congress is just way of giving Bush a pass on all the screw ups. Having two different parties in control of the WH and Congress is the best thing to have at this point. A monopoly of power has only led to corruption and no oversight.

firing people and changing the lineup makes about as much sense as going into Iraq without a gameplan for winning...

I dont agree with every move this Admin has made, and I AM willing to listen to alternatives. That was the point of my hypothetical 2008 questions.

The problem is that people spend too much time placing blame, flaming, and saying "fire them," instead of offering up realistic and well thought-out alternatives. You spend too much time listing the mistakes and describing the obvious situation rather than brainstorming viable solutions.

So what is step 2 after we fire Rummy and Condi? or after we impeach Bush? What happens THEN? Should we just tear apart our current Admin "without a plan for actually winning the war"?

How about, instead of harping on all of the mistakes and crying over spilled milk, you tell me what we're supposed to do NOW and in the FUTURE to fight or "win" the GWOT? (give us an alternative to "staying the course"!)

ps: yes, alternative fuel is one of the longterm strategies, but I'm talking about something that gives us victory in 10 to 15 years, not 40-50. The alternative fuels will certainly help, but that should be done regardless of whatever else we do.

There is no "win" or "victory."

not even your GOP camp can offer a "win" or a "victory," this isn't a football game.

The best our country can hope for is to fix our broken government system, get back to "checks and balances," and protect our constitution. There will always be a boogyman, question is whether or not we allow the boogymen to run our lives.

As far as military strategy, no one here has any clue (in particular you) so I don't know why you continue to ask us on how to "Win" the war on Terror...pathetic.

I will tell you one thing, I know how to LOSE the War on Terror, the current Administration is doing a very good job of showing us all that. Iraq is OBL's, and any other terrorist leaders, wet dream come true.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Very simple. We should have done an 1000x better job catching the terrorists in tora bora.. after securing Afghanistan(and not letting violence get out of hand by ignoring it like we are doing now). Then we should beef up our borders, increase our inspections at our ports, and prepare a comprehensive plan to deal with future emergencies(even including something like Katrina, which is pretty similar of a disaster).

Let me hop in my Delorean and order the military to do a better job at Tora Bora. :roll:

That is it. The "terrorists" term is mainly a bogeyman.. there will ALWAYS be terrorists... after 1993, there were no attacks until 2001... and that was without doing anything like attacking Afghanistan and trapping and killing the Taliban/Al Qaeda. We aren't surrounded by terrorists in this country...we simply keep interfering with the middle east and try to control oil for our benefit.

Since oil is the only production of the Middle East that we need and it is their main means of income, if we simply followed Brazil and use alternative fuel, we will slowly bankrupt the ME byu refusing their oil and acting as a role model for the world including Russia and China in using alternative fuel. Since we no longer would have any personal interest in the Middle East, the terrorists would focus their efforts to other countries interfering with the ME(since we won't be).

That is the ticket right there, all we need to do is get the entire world to convert to alternative energy sources and stop using oil. Should be easy right?
BTW: Brazil only uses 1.9 million barrels of oil a day. The entire world uses about 82 million barrels a day. The US uses 10 times as much as Brazil, 5 million barrels a day is used just in our cars and trucks.

There. Is that so complicated? Attacking everything in site makes no sense. Iraq makes no sense. We are no closer to eliminating dependency on foreign oil. Bush said we are dependant on oil yet has done NOT ONE SINGLE DAMN THING to change that since that speach!

Let's look at the "four underlying factors" fueling "the spread of the jihadist movement:"
"(1) Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness;
(2) the Iraq 'jihad;'
(3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and
(4) pervasive anti-U.S. sentiment among most Muslims -- all of which jihadists exploit."

hmmm Don't see anything about oil in there...

You got nuthin'.