"Success is not, no violence." - GWB (05/02/2007)

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Ah I see, so we're hoping they'll run out of terrorists? How's that working out so far?

I hope with every breath I take that they'll eventually run out of terrorists... then again, I have the common sense to realize that it isn't going to happen anytime soon, if ever. So, I'll continue to get up and go to work each day in an effort to eliminate them one at a time - until somebody smarter than me figures out a better (or faster) way to get rid of them...permanently.

I believe the history books will eventually refer to this as The Hundred Year War. So be it.

 

[ayabe]

Bottom line - if our end result isn't the end of terrorist activities in Iraq then no matter what we will be leaving the job unfinished and those we left are going to follow us home right?

That further erodes that ridiculous argument.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Ah I see, so we're hoping they'll run out of terrorists? How's that working out so far?

I hope with every breath I take that they'll eventually run out of terrorists... then again, I have the common sense to realize that it isn't going to happen anytime soon, if ever. So, I'll continue to get up and go to work each day in an effort to eliminate them one at a time - until somebody smarter than me figures out a better (or faster) way to get rid of them...permanently.

I believe the history books will eventually refer to this as The Hundred Year War. So be it.

How do you run out of terrorists, by killing all of them? Are you delusional?

You get rid of them by not playing Cowboy and Indian. IOW, you fight them by fighting poverty and double standards.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Ah I see, so we're hoping they'll run out of terrorists? How's that working out so far?

I hope with every breath I take that they'll eventually run out of terrorists... then again, I have the common sense to realize that it isn't going to happen anytime soon, if ever. So, I'll continue to get up and go to work each day in an effort to eliminate them one at a time - until somebody smarter than me figures out a better (or faster) way to get rid of them...permanently.

I believe the history books will eventually refer to this as The Hundred Year War. So be it.

How do you run out of terrorists, by killing all of them? Are you delusional?

You get rid of them by not playing Cowboy and Indian. IOW, you fight them by fighting poverty and double standards.

I believe that you have to do each of those things simultaneously - as well as pushing diplomatic efforts with the moderate Islamic nations, changing foreign policies concerning Islamic nations, offering economic assistance to poverty-stricken Islamic lands, bringing in more coalition partners to assist in all of these efforts, and seriously pursuing the development of alternative fuels.

A combination of all of the above, including the continued hunting killing of terrorists, will eventually bring us to a new era of peace.

But, all of this may take 25-50 years to accomplish effectively; and I just don't see most Americans being patient enough to deal with it.... do you?

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Ah I see, so we're hoping they'll run out of terrorists? How's that working out so far?

I hope with every breath I take that they'll eventually run out of terrorists... then again, I have the common sense to realize that it isn't going to happen anytime soon, if ever. So, I'll continue to get up and go to work each day in an effort to eliminate them one at a time - until somebody smarter than me figures out a better (or faster) way to get rid of them...permanently.

I believe the history books will eventually refer to this as The Hundred Year War. So be it.

How do you run out of terrorists, by killing all of them? Are you delusional?

You get rid of them by not playing Cowboy and Indian. IOW, you fight them by fighting poverty and double standards.

I believe that you have to do each of those things simultaneously - as well as pushing diplomatic efforts with the moderate Islamic nations, changing foreign policies concerning Islamic nations, offering economic assistance to poverty-stricken Islamic lands, bringing in more coalition partners to assist in all of these efforts, and seriously pursuing the development of alternative fuels.

A combination of all of the above, including the continued hunting killing of terrorists, will eventually bring us to a new era of peace.

But, all of this may take 25-50 years to accomplish effectively; and I just don't see most Americans being patient enough to deal with it.... do you?

The moderate Islamic nations are not the problem, so working with them won't get sh!t completed. What we need to do is look at all those "kingdoms" and dictatorships and tell them to implement democracy now or else we will stand by if there is an uprising in their homeland. Remember, it was not the citizens of extreme Islamic nations that attacked, but friends and allies. We need to get our priorities in order.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: OrByte
I wish I could make this point clearer. But it is really complex in how he presents his argument.....

My head is hurting.

I just can't grasp the concept of GWB being really complex in thought or speech etc.

Does not compute, does not compute....

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: shira
So, if Iraq is the front line in the war on terror, then Bush is bound by his statement that there is no "acceptable level" of terrorism, in which case there is no acceptable level of violence in Iraq. OR, Bush can acknowledge that Iraq has very little to do with global terrorism, in which case why in the hell are we there?

As usual, Bush wants it both ways.

Come on, it's not that complicated.

The acceptable level of violence/terorism in the US is less (prolly far less) than what is acceptable in Iraq.

It's seems just that simple.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: ayabe
Bottom line - if our end result isn't the end of terrorist activities in Iraq then no matter what we will be leaving the job unfinished and those we left are going to follow us home right?

That further erodes that ridiculous argument.

Re: Bolded section.

I think the "finished job" means leaving behind a stable & self staining (hopefully democratic) governement, and one that is capable of defending itself from elements of radical Islam that will no doubt (IMHO) attack it.

Seems pretty much all the governments in the ME face resistance from some source. No reason to think Iraq won't.

An Iraq as I decribed above, located right between Iran & Syria, may prove extremely beneifical to us.

As far as terrorists "following us home", well they were following us home before 911 (1st WTT bombing was in the early 90's) and they'll continue to try "following us home" for a long long time (I believe).

Fern

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Fern

An Iraq as I decribed above, located right between Iran & Syria, may prove extremely beneifical to us.

Fern

The Iraq you describe is a fantasy.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: ayabe
Bottom line - if our end result isn't the end of terrorist activities in Iraq then no matter what we will be leaving the job unfinished and those we left are going to follow us home right?

That further erodes that ridiculous argument.

Re: Bolded section.

I think the "finished job" means leaving behind a stable & self staining (hopefully democratic) governement, and one that is capable of defending itself from elements of radical Islam that will no doubt (IMHO) attack it.

Seems pretty much all the governments in the ME face resistance from some source. No reason to think Iraq won't.

An Iraq as I decribed above, located right between Iran & Syria, may prove extremely beneifical to us.

As far as terrorists "following us home", well they were following us home before 911 (1st WTT bombing was in the early 90's) and they'll continue to try "following us home" for a long long time (I believe).

Fern

Well I find it reassuring that you've seemed to soften your stance on that "follow us home" rhetoric, it's a complete fallacy and rings pretty damn hollow nowadays.

Each and every day I'm a little more convinced that our version of democracy will not work in the Iraq of 2007. Perhaps someday down the road it will, but not anytime soon.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Narmer
The moderate Islamic nations are not the problem, so working with them won't get sh!t completed.

you are completely out of your mind if you believe that the already moderate Islamic nations are not the keys to the entire region.

What we need to do is look at all those "kingdoms" and dictatorships and tell them to implement democracy now or else we will stand by if there is an uprising in their homeland.

or we simply find a way to encourage them to slowly become more moderate... remember, nothing happens quickly in that part of the world. nothing... not even the creation and propping up of a fledgling democracy (ahem).

Remember, it was not the citizens of extreme Islamic nations that attacked, but friends and allies. We need to get our priorities in order.

If you are equating those who attacked us to "friends and allies," based solely upon their countries of citizenship, then you need a serious lesson in terrorism 101.

So yes, while some in the Saudi Kingdom, and others, do need a wakeup call; the problem lies in their fundamentalist mosques and poverty-stricken villages. Those places are where we need to focus our energies in effecting a gradual shift toward moderate beliefs and behavior.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: ayabe
Well I find it reassuring that you've seemed to soften your stance on that "follow us home" rhetoric, it's a complete fallacy and rings pretty damn hollow nowadays.

it only rings hollow because men and women are out there protecting you 24/7/365... they are down your streets, in your towns, patrolling your highways, guarding your airports, watching the ships, monitoring foreign communications, analyzing intelligence, interrogating detainees, etc; and they are are doing all of this for you. Then again, the majority of this work takes placed abroad in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. Without troops and others out there doing so, without a doubt, you would be left to deal with real attacks on US soil.

Hundreds of plots and attacks have been thwarted that you may never hear about - through efforts which you hardly seem to appreciate.

That is the only reason the threat "rings pretty damn hollow" to you.

get a clue.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Fern

An Iraq as I decribed above, located right between Iran & Syria, may prove extremely beneifical to us.

Fern

The Iraq you describe is a fantasy.

Yup, I'm afraid it is, given the Dems' position on the matter.

The Iraq I expect is one that is chaotic, weak and likely ever increasing Iranian influence. Kurds will likely be attacked by the Arabs for their oil fields etc.

A lot of nervous (to say the least) ME countries such as Kuwait & Saudi. Likely an increase threat from Hezbollah, overtaking more of Lebanon and pressuring Israel. Etc.

I'm not optimistic.

Fern

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: ayabe
Well I find it reassuring that you've seemed to soften your stance on that "follow us home" rhetoric, it's a complete fallacy and rings pretty damn hollow nowadays.

it only rings hollow because men and women are out there protecting you 24/7/365... they are down your streets, in your towns, patrolling your highways, guarding your airports, watching the ships, monitoring foreign communications, analyzing intelligence, interrogating detainees, etc; and they are are doing all of this for you. Then again, the majority of this work takes placed abroad in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. Without troops and others out there doing so, without a doubt, you would be left to deal with real attacks on US soil.

Hundreds of plots and attacks have been thwarted that you may never hear about - through efforts which you hardly seem to appreciate.

That is the only reason the threat "rings pretty damn hollow" to you.

get a clue.

Ok and if we left Iraq all of that would change? They are doing a fantastic job now, but if we left all of our protections would instantly become impotent?

You are ranting against the wrong person buddy get a grip and has absolutely nothing to do with what I am talking about.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

ayabe said:

Well I find it reassuring that you've seemed to soften your stance on that "follow us home" rhetoric, it's a complete fallacy and rings pretty damn hollow nowadays.

Every time I hear GWB or some follower of his say that the enemy will follow us home, I remember the same argument was made for staying in Vietnam: as a TV special of the time put it,

"And if we forget the Vietnamese, we might as well learn to speak Chinese."

Well, we left Vietnam in 1975, and neither the Vietnamese nor the Chinese invaded the U.S.

The terrorists know where we live. It's not like America's address is a big secret. You cross the Atlantic and turn right.

Maybe to Bush those are confusing directions, and that's why he thinks they need to "follow us home" in order to get here.

 

[palehorse]

The terrorists are "following us home" every day... but all of you are safely shielded from that fact and their world.

In other words, you just don't know any better... so I can forgive your ignorance.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
The terrorists are "following us home" every day... but all of you are safely shielded from that fact and their world.

In other words, you just don't know any better... so I can forgive your ignorance.

Zoom.

You missed the point, again.

You've been gone for a couple weeks and I missed your perspective, did you go on a coke bender or something? Your reading comprehension was far superior before.

 

[palehorse]

ok.. try explaining your point again. I've re-read your posts several times, and it just seems to me that you do not agree with "they will follow us home." Is that not the case?

derrrr.. maybe it's all the sun I've been getting here... ?

 

[OrByte]

I think that if we were stopping terrorists plans left and right or attacks on our soil we would have heard by now.

No sense keeping that kind of propoganda secret. That type of stuff is political capitola!!~

which leads me to believe that this whole, "fighting them over there so we dont have to over here" business is just snappy rhetoric. Something GI Joe would say. nevermind the question of who gets to pick and choose where the wars are fought? because I don't think Iraqi's had much say in that now did they? I would be ashamed if I was over there in Iraq proclaiming such rhetoric...

So sorry PH, I just don't buy it. Maybe it's because of all the crap we been forced to deal with. The lies, the secrets, the incompetence.

I'd feel frustrated if I was in the military and this is the type of political environment my Federal Administration created. It certainly makes it hard to give credibility to anyone these days.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: OrByte
I think that if we were stopping terrorists plans left and right or attacks on our soil we would have heard by now.

I thought the Tenet mentioned something 20 foiled attempts?

Then I heard on the news that somebody from the agency said that number was too low?

Haven't read the book, so don't really know.

Fern

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: OrByte
I think that if we were stopping terrorists plans left and right or attacks on our soil we would have heard by now.

I thought the Tenet mentioned something 20 foiled attempts?

Then I heard on the news that somebody from the agency said that number was too low?

Haven't read the book, so don't really know.

Fern

Does that statistic include the Fearsome Al Qaida Dope Gang busted by the FBI in Florida?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: GrGr
Does that statistic include the Fearsome Al Qaida Dope Gang busted by the FBI in Florida?

Dunno really.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
ok.. try explaining your point again. I've re-read your posts several times, and it just seems to me that you do not agree with "they will follow us home." Is that not the case?

derrrr.. maybe it's all the sun I've been getting here... ?

Bro, the argument that I'm making is that they are constantly trying to hit us here so it is disingenuous to say we have to stay in Iraq, no matter what, because if we leave they will follow us here.

I do not buy that, yet still to this day, Bush is using this as a primary defense of his policy. I am not trying to disparage our military or downplay the threat to us that is very real and very tangible.

I do however, firmly believe that terrorists would much rather try to kill civilians than try to take on a platoon of 1st ID badasses in Iraq. This is where we need those troops, not fighting in some foreign country, being target practice for a bunch of psychos trying to kill each other who otherwise would not be trying to kill Americans.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
The terrorists are "following us home" every day... but all of you are safely shielded from that fact and their world.

In other words, you just don't know any better... so I can forgive your ignorance.

You're claiming to be something you're not. But since you like to act like you're my protector and all, tell me this: knowing who you are and what you represent, do you think that you are part of the problem or part of the solution? Please provide reasons.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: OrByte
I think that if we were stopping terrorists plans left and right or attacks on our soil we would have heard by now.

actually, no, you wouldn't have; and you won't.

...and you're very very wrong.