Washington is losing 'war on terror': experts

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

OMFG, did you just link the whitehouse website as a 'credible source'????? :roll:

This just in! The Church of Scientology conducted an internal investigation and has found all the church's claims to be 100% factual. Film at 11.

I posted this is another thread but IMHO it applies... 😀

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge

Originally posted by: Pens1566

OMFG, did you just link the whitehouse website as a 'credible source'????? :roll:

This just in! The Church of Scientology conducted an internal investigation and has found all the church's claims to be 100% factual. Film at 11.

I posted this is another thread but IMHO it applies... 😀

Sweet, where do I sign up?

I'd happily console Tom's ex's!

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Originally posted by: Lazy8s
Are you saying all the information on the whitehouse web site is a lie? Where are you from again? Obviously not the United States and if you are I think you need to move if you lack that much trust in the govenrment.

That is, perhaps, the most unAmerican statement I think I've ever read on this forum. Our nation was built upon the foundation of mistrust of authority. Our founding fathers knew that even our own government couldn't always be trusted.

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: Lazy8s

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: Lazy8s
We're winning:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/achievement/chap1-nrn.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200504220743.asp
http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/Readarticle.asp?ID=9458
http://maroon.uchicago.edu/viewpoints/a...es/2004/02/17/america_is_winning_t.php
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2006/20060620_5462.html
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/weaver/040329
http://www.udnews.org/2006/05/winning_the_war.html
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/15502.html


There ya go is a decent list to start you off rebutting this crap. There are 8 articles listing multiple "experts" claiming that we are winning the war on terror. The difference? They back it up with facts.

The point in my own poll (consisting of me and the 3 guys sitting around me by the way) is that I can call myself an expert and give my opinion and uneducated lazy people can feel free to believe me and call it fact. Just because news organizations do not have to list their sources that does not mean it is intelligent not to.

If you do not list your sources you take credability out of your news. Why? Because obviously the source was not willing to be mentioned. If they are so certain we are losing why not publicly come out and support their statement? What I'm pointing out here is that opinion != fact. It's great that 86% of anonomous sources believe we are losing, but that hardly means we are losing.

It's not that I don't like the results, it's that I like facts. Show me facts proving we are losing and I will believe it. Would you convice someone of murder because 116 experts told you they think the accused person committed the crime? Hell no. Why? Because they didn't prove anything! That's great Dr. Bob Smith that you think the US is losing, can you tell me why? Oh waut, you won't even give me your name? Well heck, I'll believe you anyways!!

I'm sorry that you are so feable minded that the mention of experts is all that it takes for you to believe we are losing the war on terror. Here are some other cool things for you to believe:
Tanning beds are good for your skin, experts support it!! http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=61025

Alcohol makes you healthy!! http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/AlcoholAndHealth.html

Caffeine is a great weight loss drug and makes athletes better performers!! http://www.ineedcoffee.com/05/weightloss/

Cell phones cause cancer!!! http://www.aspirenow.com/elegant_1001_cell_phone_cancer.htm

The End of the world will happen in the year 2000!!! http://www.apologeticsindex.org/usa-01.html This one HAS to be true the FBI came out with a report on it!!!

OMFG, did you just link the whitehouse website as a 'credible source'????? :roll:

/discussion

So wait a second, the government can't put facts on their web site? Are you saying all the information on the whitehouse web site is a lie? Where are you from again? Obviously not the United States and if you are I think you need to move if you lack that much trust in the govenrment. Even if you toss out one of the links for no good reason that hardly rebutts them all. After all, with the links I posted that would mean that 89% of people think that we are winning the war on terror. See how statistics can mean anything you want them to?

the white house link you posted states:

"Fifty million people have been liberated from two of the world?s most brutal and aggressive regimes"

why dont you ask how many iraqis are feeling 'liberated'

also most of the links you provided are outdated and the most recent one is the vice presidents opinion. nice try though.

 

[sandorski]

The White House most certainly can put "facts" on their webpage. I'd like to think though that after 6 years of "facts" proven to be false, everyone would have learned by now not to trust the "facts" put forth by this Whitehouse.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Lazy8s
So wait a second, the government can't put facts on their web site? Are you saying all the information on the whitehouse web site is a lie? Where are you from again? Obviously not the United States and if you are I think you need to move if you lack that much trust in the govenrment. Even if you toss out one of the links for no good reason that hardly rebutts them all. After all, with the links I posted that would mean that 89% of people think that we are winning the war on terror. See how statistics can mean anything you want them to?

You do realize that there is a difference between trusting your country, and trusting your government, right????

Where are you from again? Obviously not the United States and if you are I think you need to move if you lack that common knowledge of 7th grade civics.

 

[Cruise51]

Originally posted by: Lazy8s
We're winning:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/achievement/chap1-nrn.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200504220743.asp
http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/Readarticle.asp?ID=9458
http://maroon.uchicago.edu/viewpoints/a...es/2004/02/17/america_is_winning_t.php
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2006/20060620_5462.html
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/weaver/040329
http://www.udnews.org/2006/05/winning_the_war.html
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/15502.html


There ya go is a decent list to start you off rebutting this crap. There are 8 articles listing multiple "experts" claiming that we are winning the war on terror. The difference? They back it up with facts.

The point in my own poll (consisting of me and the 3 guys sitting around me by the way) is that I can call myself an expert and give my opinion and uneducated lazy people can feel free to believe me and call it fact. Just because news organizations do not have to list their sources that does not mean it is intelligent not to.

If you do not list your sources you take credability out of your news. Why? Because obviously the source was not willing to be mentioned. If they are so certain we are losing why not publicly come out and support their statement? What I'm pointing out here is that opinion != fact. It's great that 86% of anonomous sources believe we are losing, but that hardly means we are losing.

It's not that I don't like the results, it's that I like facts. Show me facts proving we are losing and I will believe it. Would you convice someone of murder because 116 experts told you they think the accused person committed the crime? Hell no. Why? Because they didn't prove anything! That's great Dr. Bob Smith that you think the US is losing, can you tell me why? Oh waut, you won't even give me your name? Well heck, I'll believe you anyways!!

I'm sorry that you are so feable minded that the mention of experts is all that it takes for you to believe we are losing the war on terror. Here are some other cool things for you to believe:
Tanning beds are good for your skin, experts support it!! http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=61025

Alcohol makes you healthy!! http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/AlcoholAndHealth.html

Caffeine is a great weight loss drug and makes athletes better performers!! http://www.ineedcoffee.com/05/weightloss/

Cell phones cause cancer!!! http://www.aspirenow.com/elegant_1001_cell_phone_cancer.htm

The End of the world will happen in the year 2000!!! http://www.apologeticsindex.org/usa-01.html This one HAS to be true the FBI came out with a report on it!!!

I must admitt... I burst into laughfter when I saw that White House link.😀

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Lazy8s
From the article:

In May the influential US magazine Foreign Policy and a Washington-based think-tank questioned 116 leading US experts -- a balanced mix of Republicans and Democrats -- on the progress of the US campaign against terrorism.

Among others, they consulted a former secretary of state, two former directors of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and dozens of the country's top security analysts.

The result? Eighty-four percent believe the United States is losing the "war on terror", 86 percent that the world has become a more dangerous place in the past five years, and 80 percent that a major new attack on their country was likely within the next decade.

So "116 leading US experts" none of whom are listed, a "former secretary of state" which of course is not listed, and "two former directors of the CIA" none of whom are listed are experts? Were the 2 former directors kicked out for contuct? Drinking on the job? Was the secretary of state someone I trust? Who the hell are the "leading experts"?

I can tell you 100% of the leading experts I polled are of the opinion that we are winning the war on terrorism. The experts I interviewed are non-partizan. Do you believe me? Why not, because I don't publish on a web site?

Not only are the sources unlisted, but they are most certainly unreputable. How can I tell? Because they are willing to answer a poll about their beliefs on the war on terror without citing any reasons for them. The Queen of England could tell me she believes we are losing the war on terror and I wouldn't believe her unless she gave me some facts to support her opinion.

Taking a poll anonomously of people that are self-declared experts and then calling the results facts is insanity. The scarriest part of this pole is that people like Pens1566 would rather listen to the opinions of people they do not know and DEFEND THEM rather than take an objective look at the sheets that are being pulled over your eyes. Like I said "My experts could beat up your experts!". You can find an ocean of experts to back up your studies but that does not make their opinions factually based.

ROFL. Did you bother to do any checking at all before you declared the participants to be "not only ... unlisted, but ... almost certainly unreputable [sic]"? Had you troubled yourself to look at Foreign Policy's first-hand report on this study, you'd find they provide a complete list of their experts, the full survey with results, and other information about their methodology and findings. Instead, you just start shooting off your mouth, ignorantly bashing this study because you don't like its results. Rather typical tactic of the Bush faithful, I'm afraid.

More in the next post.

 

[Bowfinger]

I posted a story about this a few weeks ago: America losing the "War on Terror"

Here's my OP with the an excerpt of the material available at Foreign Policy, as well as more details about a couple of their findings.

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
From Foreign Policy:

The Terrorism Index

Is the United States winning the war on terror? Not according to more than 100 of America?s top foreign-policy hands. They see a national security apparatus in disrepair and a government that is failing to protect the public from the next attack.

Following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Americans understandably rallied around the flag. Having just suffered the deadliest attack ever on U.S. soil, huge percentages believed another attack was imminent. But Americans also had enormous faith that the Global War on Terror would help keep them safe. Just one month after 9/11, for instance, 94 percent of Americans told an ABC News/Washington Post poll that they approved of how the fight against terrorism was being handled. The United States then quickly went to war in Afghanistan, closing down a terrorist sanctuary and capturing or killing a number of high-level al Qaeda operatives in the process.

Since 2001, terrorists have found their targets on almost every continent, with bombings in Bali, London, Madrid, and elsewhere. Five years on, however, America has yet to experience another attack. But Americans appear less convinced that their country is winning the war on terror. In the face of persisting threats, including a growing number of terrorist attacks around the world, numerous reports show that Americans are losing faith in their government?s ability to wage the war successfully and to protect them from the terrorists? next volley. Barely half of Americans today approve of the way in which the war on terror is being handled, and more than one third believe the United States is less safe today than it was before 9/11.

These pessimistic public perceptions could easily be attributed to the high cost, in both treasure and lives, of counterterrorism efforts. After all, Americans are constantly being told by their elected leaders that their pessimism is wrong, that the war is being won. But they?re also told that another attack is inevitable. Which is it? To find out, FOREIGN POLICY and the Center for American Progress teamed up to survey more than 100 of America?s top foreign-policy experts?Republicans and Democrats alike. The FOREIGN POLICY/Center for American Progress Terrorism Index is the first comprehensive effort to mine the highest echelons of America?s foreign-policy establishment for their assessment of how the United States is fighting the Global War on Terror. Our aim was to draw some definitive conclusions about the war?s priorities, policies, and progress from the very people who have run America?s national security apparatus over the past half century. Participants include people who have served as secretary of state, national security advisor, retired top commanders from the U.S. military, seasoned members of the intelligence community, and distinguished academics and journalists. Nearly 80 percent of the index participants have worked in the U.S. government?of these more than half were in the executive branch, one third in the military, and 17 percent in the intelligence community.

Despite today?s highly politicized national security environment, the index results show striking consensus across political party lines. A bipartisan majority (84 percent) of the index?s experts say the United States is not winning the war on terror. Eighty-six percent of the index?s experts see a world today that is growing more dangerous for Americans. Overall, they agree that the U.S. government is falling short in its homeland security efforts. More than 8 in 10 expect an attack on the scale of 9/11 within a decade. These dark conclusions appear to stem from the experts? belief that the U.S. national security apparatus is in serious disrepair. ?Foreign-policy experts have never been in so much agreement about an administration?s performance abroad,? says Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and an index participant. ?The reason is that it?s clear to nearly all that Bush and his team have had a totally unrealistic view of what they can accomplish with military force and threats of force.?

Respondents sharply criticized U.S. efforts in a number of key areas of national security, including public diplomacy, intelligence, and homeland security. Nearly all of the departments and agencies responsible for fighting the war on terror received poor marks. The experts also said that recent reforms of the national security apparatus have done little to make Americans safer. Asked about recent efforts to reform America?s intelligence community, for instance, more than half of the index?s experts said that creating the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has had no positive impact in the war against terror. ?Intelligence reform so far has been largely limited to structural reorganization that in most cases produced new levels of bureaucracy in an already overly bureaucratic system,? says index participant Bill Gertz, a journalist who has covered the intelligence community for more than 20 years.

The index?s experts were similarly critical of most of the policy initiatives put forward by the U.S. Congress and President George W. Bush since September 11. Eighty-one percent, for instance, believe the detention of suspected terrorists at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, negatively affects the war on terror. The index?s experts also disapprove of how America is handling its relations with European allies, how it is confronting threatening regimes in North Korea and Iran, how it is controlling the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and its dealings with failing states, to name just a few. ?We are losing the war on terror because we are treating the symptoms and not the cause,? says index participant Anne-Marie Slaughter, dean of Princeton University?s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. ?[O]ur insistence that Islamic fundamentalist ideology has replaced communist ideology as the chief enemy of our time ... feeds al Qaeda?s vision of the world.?

These conclusions about the United States? performance in the war thus far are all the more troubling considering that, although Americans appear to be growing tired of the war on terror, the index?s experts appear to believe that the battle has just begun. Accordingly, a majority agrees that the war requires more emphasis on a victory of ideas, not just guns. That is hardly surprising, considering that nearly 80 percent believe a widespread rejection of radical ideologies in the Islamic world is a critical element to victory. To win the battle of ideas, the experts say, America must place a much higher emphasis on its nonmilitary tools. More than two thirds say that U.S. policymakers must strengthen the United Nations and other multilateral institutions. At the same time, the experts indicate that the U.S. government must think more creatively about threats. Asked what presents the single greatest danger to U.S. national security, nearly half said loose nukes and other weapons of mass destruction, while just one third said al Qaeda and terrorism, and a mere 4 percent said Iran. Five years after the attacks of September 11, it?s a reminder that the greatest challenges may still lie ahead.

There is a lot more information at the sight, including various sidebars and the complete survey report. For those who want to quibble methodologies, they weighted liberal vs. conservative responses to the same baseline. Specifically, since they had more liberal respondents than consevatives, they counted each conservative response as 1, each liberal response as about 0.7. They also provided breakouts by ideology: conservative, liberal, and moderates.

I found it especially telling that there was so much agreement on both ends of the political spectrum. For example, 71% of conservatives do not believe we are winning the "War on Terror". A full 86% of those surveyed believe the world has become more dangerous for Americans today, including 81% of conservatives. That's a pretty sharp rebuke to Bush's claims he's made the world safer since 9/11. It's also rather chilling to see that 79% believe we will get hit with another 9/11-scale attack within the next five years. I suppose this is consistent with their overall pessimism on the effectiveness of Bush's War on Islam ... err .. Terror. You're doin' a heckuva job, Bushie.

Anyway, interesting reading.

I'd encourage everyone to read the original article and its various sidebars and supplements, especially if you're one of the faithful just itching to bash the study. You won't look quite so foolish if you have some idea what you're talking about.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I posted a story about this a few weeks ago: America losing the "War on Terror"

Here's my OP with the an excerpt of the material available at Foreign Policy, as well as more details about a couple of their findings.

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
From Foreign Policy:

The Terrorism Index

Is the United States winning the war on terror? Not according to more than 100 of America?s top foreign-policy hands. They see a national security apparatus in disrepair and a government that is failing to protect the public from the next attack.

Following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Americans understandably rallied around the flag. Having just suffered the deadliest attack ever on U.S. soil, huge percentages believed another attack was imminent. But Americans also had enormous faith that the Global War on Terror would help keep them safe. Just one month after 9/11, for instance, 94 percent of Americans told an ABC News/Washington Post poll that they approved of how the fight against terrorism was being handled. The United States then quickly went to war in Afghanistan, closing down a terrorist sanctuary and capturing or killing a number of high-level al Qaeda operatives in the process.

Since 2001, terrorists have found their targets on almost every continent, with bombings in Bali, London, Madrid, and elsewhere. Five years on, however, America has yet to experience another attack. But Americans appear less convinced that their country is winning the war on terror. In the face of persisting threats, including a growing number of terrorist attacks around the world, numerous reports show that Americans are losing faith in their government?s ability to wage the war successfully and to protect them from the terrorists? next volley. Barely half of Americans today approve of the way in which the war on terror is being handled, and more than one third believe the United States is less safe today than it was before 9/11.

These pessimistic public perceptions could easily be attributed to the high cost, in both treasure and lives, of counterterrorism efforts. After all, Americans are constantly being told by their elected leaders that their pessimism is wrong, that the war is being won. But they?re also told that another attack is inevitable. Which is it? To find out, FOREIGN POLICY and the Center for American Progress teamed up to survey more than 100 of America?s top foreign-policy experts?Republicans and Democrats alike. The FOREIGN POLICY/Center for American Progress Terrorism Index is the first comprehensive effort to mine the highest echelons of America?s foreign-policy establishment for their assessment of how the United States is fighting the Global War on Terror. Our aim was to draw some definitive conclusions about the war?s priorities, policies, and progress from the very people who have run America?s national security apparatus over the past half century. Participants include people who have served as secretary of state, national security advisor, retired top commanders from the U.S. military, seasoned members of the intelligence community, and distinguished academics and journalists. Nearly 80 percent of the index participants have worked in the U.S. government?of these more than half were in the executive branch, one third in the military, and 17 percent in the intelligence community.

Despite today?s highly politicized national security environment, the index results show striking consensus across political party lines. A bipartisan majority (84 percent) of the index?s experts say the United States is not winning the war on terror. Eighty-six percent of the index?s experts see a world today that is growing more dangerous for Americans. Overall, they agree that the U.S. government is falling short in its homeland security efforts. More than 8 in 10 expect an attack on the scale of 9/11 within a decade. These dark conclusions appear to stem from the experts? belief that the U.S. national security apparatus is in serious disrepair. ?Foreign-policy experts have never been in so much agreement about an administration?s performance abroad,? says Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and an index participant. ?The reason is that it?s clear to nearly all that Bush and his team have had a totally unrealistic view of what they can accomplish with military force and threats of force.?

Respondents sharply criticized U.S. efforts in a number of key areas of national security, including public diplomacy, intelligence, and homeland security. Nearly all of the departments and agencies responsible for fighting the war on terror received poor marks. The experts also said that recent reforms of the national security apparatus have done little to make Americans safer. Asked about recent efforts to reform America?s intelligence community, for instance, more than half of the index?s experts said that creating the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has had no positive impact in the war against terror. ?Intelligence reform so far has been largely limited to structural reorganization that in most cases produced new levels of bureaucracy in an already overly bureaucratic system,? says index participant Bill Gertz, a journalist who has covered the intelligence community for more than 20 years.

The index?s experts were similarly critical of most of the policy initiatives put forward by the U.S. Congress and President George W. Bush since September 11. Eighty-one percent, for instance, believe the detention of suspected terrorists at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, negatively affects the war on terror. The index?s experts also disapprove of how America is handling its relations with European allies, how it is confronting threatening regimes in North Korea and Iran, how it is controlling the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and its dealings with failing states, to name just a few. ?We are losing the war on terror because we are treating the symptoms and not the cause,? says index participant Anne-Marie Slaughter, dean of Princeton University?s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. ?[O]ur insistence that Islamic fundamentalist ideology has replaced communist ideology as the chief enemy of our time ... feeds al Qaeda?s vision of the world.?

These conclusions about the United States? performance in the war thus far are all the more troubling considering that, although Americans appear to be growing tired of the war on terror, the index?s experts appear to believe that the battle has just begun. Accordingly, a majority agrees that the war requires more emphasis on a victory of ideas, not just guns. That is hardly surprising, considering that nearly 80 percent believe a widespread rejection of radical ideologies in the Islamic world is a critical element to victory. To win the battle of ideas, the experts say, America must place a much higher emphasis on its nonmilitary tools. More than two thirds say that U.S. policymakers must strengthen the United Nations and other multilateral institutions. At the same time, the experts indicate that the U.S. government must think more creatively about threats. Asked what presents the single greatest danger to U.S. national security, nearly half said loose nukes and other weapons of mass destruction, while just one third said al Qaeda and terrorism, and a mere 4 percent said Iran. Five years after the attacks of September 11, it?s a reminder that the greatest challenges may still lie ahead.

There is a lot more information at the sight, including various sidebars and the complete survey report. For those who want to quibble methodologies, they weighted liberal vs. conservative responses to the same baseline. Specifically, since they had more liberal respondents than consevatives, they counted each conservative response as 1, each liberal response as about 0.7. They also provided breakouts by ideology: conservative, liberal, and moderates.

I found it especially telling that there was so much agreement on both ends of the political spectrum. For example, 71% of conservatives do not believe we are winning the "War on Terror". A full 86% of those surveyed believe the world has become more dangerous for Americans today, including 81% of conservatives. That's a pretty sharp rebuke to Bush's claims he's made the world safer since 9/11. It's also rather chilling to see that 79% believe we will get hit with another 9/11-scale attack within the next five years. I suppose this is consistent with their overall pessimism on the effectiveness of Bush's War on Islam ... err .. Terror. You're doin' a heckuva job, Bushie.

Anyway, interesting reading.

I'd encourage everyone to read the original article and its various sidebars and supplements, especially if you're one of the faithful just itching to bash the study. You won't look quite so foolish if you have some idea what you're talking about.

:beer:

 

[Lazy8s]

Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge

Originally posted by: Lazy8s
Are you saying all the information on the whitehouse web site is a lie? Where are you from again? Obviously not the United States and if you are I think you need to move if you lack that much trust in the govenrment.

That is, perhaps, the most unAmerican statement I think I've ever read on this forum. Our nation was built upon the foundation of mistrust of authority. Our founding fathers knew that even our own government couldn't always be trusted.

Notice the contradiction there? We don't trust our government so we build a tri-cameral system that we should trust? Or how about we shouldn't trust our government but we should trust our founding fathers that set up the government they told us not to trust? You have to trust someone sometime. I'm not saying don't keep watch and give them a blank check but if you don't trust ANY of them you shouldn't be living in America.

Originally posted by: alien42

Originally posted by: Lazy8s
So wait a second, the government can't put facts on their web site? Are you saying all the information on the whitehouse web site is a lie? Where are you from again? Obviously not the United States and if you are I think you need to move if you lack that much trust in the govenrment. Even if you toss out one of the links for no good reason that hardly rebutts them all. After all, with the links I posted that would mean that 89% of people think that we are winning the war on terror. See how statistics can mean anything you want them to?

the white house link you posted states:

"Fifty million people have been liberated from two of the world?s most brutal and aggressive regimes"

why dont you ask how many iraqis are feeling 'liberated'

also most of the links you provided are outdated and the most recent one is the vice presidents opinion. nice try though.

If you read what I was saying I didn't argue my links were more correct just that you can find opinions on "experts" to back up anything so having an "expert" opinion means nothing. OMG 86% of 116 experts agree!!! Wow it must be fact!! 3/4 dentists reccommend Crest?? Omg it must really be reccommended by 75% of doctors!!

I work for a pharmaceutical firm, I have first hand experience with opinions and surveys. They mean squat.

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: Lazy8s
So wait a second, the government can't put facts on their web site? Are you saying all the information on the whitehouse web site is a lie? Where are you from again? Obviously not the United States and if you are I think you need to move if you lack that much trust in the govenrment. Even if you toss out one of the links for no good reason that hardly rebutts them all. After all, with the links I posted that would mean that 89% of people think that we are winning the war on terror. See how statistics can mean anything you want them to?

You do realize that there is a difference between trusting your country, and trusting your government, right????

Where are you from again? Obviously not the United States and if you are I think you need to move if you lack that common knowledge of 7th grade civics.

There is no "country" to trust. I trust bush more than most drivers on the road if that's what you mean. Without a government there is no country therefore trust in your country is trusting your government on more than 1 level. Again, if you don't like America then you don't have to stay here. If you're going to stay around and vote again you HAVE to trust the government otherwise why vote? You either trust the government or you don't. You may not trust bush but fortunately alot more people are in Washington than him.


On a side not I don't spport bush, but this survey=facts is crap as you can see by the "facts" I posted.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Lazy8s
[ ... ]
this survey=facts is crap as you can see by the "facts" I posted.

That's a straw man. It's not a matter of "survey=facts". It's a matter of considering the well-informed analysis and overwhelming consensus of experts, people who have a generally better understanding of the global state of terrorism and who do NOT have the "Happy, happy, joy, joy" self-promoting agenda of Bush and his mouthpieces. It's about injecting a little objectivity and insight into a discussion which has been largely dominated by Bush propaganda.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Lazy8s
[ ... ]
this survey=facts is crap as you can see by the "facts" I posted.

That's a straw man. It's not a matter of "survey=facts". It's a matter of considering the well-informed analysis and overwhelming consensus of experts, people who have a generally better understanding of the global state of terrorism and who do NOT have the "Happy, happy, joy, joy" self-promoting agenda of Bush and his mouthpieces. It's about injecting a little objectivity and insight into a discussion which has been largely dominated by Bush propaganda.

But, but, but just because the survey calls them experts doesn't mean they are!!! 🙂 This is like talking to a brick wall, except the wall makes more interesting points. Bow, I suggest we leave the koolaid(tm) drinker to his beliefs that foreign policy professionals know absolutely nothing about this subject because he disagrees with the result.

 

[Islamistani]

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: maddogchen

We should not be attacking the effects of terrorism but its causes: Wahhabite ideology, Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood. But no one will touch any of those," Chouet argued.

yeah, attack Saudi Arabia...that will make the whole muslim world love us...:roll:

Anyway other things in the article make sense, but I want to see these experts map out what we should be doing instead of stating the obvious on whats wrong.

No one likes the Saudis magdogchen. The only thing that will inflame people is if Mecca starts to be bombed, or Medina. There are very impotant sites, but no one buys the BS that the Saudis are the "defenders of Islam" except for people here.

I hope you meant the Saudi monarchs, and not every Saudi citizen. Terrorising and murdering millions of civilians by bombing Saudi Arabia is certainly not going to make any Muslim happy.

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Originally posted by: Lazy8s
You either trust the government or you don't.

I don't. And many Americans made their way to this nation because they do not trust government and/or authority and desired to live in a land as free of chains of that authority as any in the world. Sure, we're forced to live under government at all times... but this is why we must keep a vigilant, critical and indeed cynical eye on the government.

If you trust government so much then I imagine you would have no problems turning over the entire health care system to the government to run? Do you trust the government to decide what you can read, watch, hear and learn? If the government decided tomorrow Americans no longer have the right to bear arms will you trust they made the right decision?

If we could trust government there would be no need for the Bill of Rights. Why would we need a 1st amendment if we can always trust the government to tell us the truth, allow us to gather in protest or worship the god of our choice? Why would we need the 4th amendment if we can always trust the government to stay out of our homes and not seize our property for no reason?

The Bill of Rights exists specifically because government, even our own, by it's very nature, can't always be trusted to do right by the people.

Frankly, it scares me that anyone can avow such trust in any government.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: ThePresence
Who the hell is an expert on the war on terrorism? What are the qualifications to be an expert in this field?

I would imagine studying this ancient, well-known, well-documented tactic, not to mention the equally time-worn measures to stop it, could lead to some insight. I know, you said this to poke fun at anyone who claims to know more about this subject than you. 😉

 

[Lazy8s]

Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge

Originally posted by: Lazy8s
You either trust the government or you don't.

I don't. And many Americans made their way to this nation because they do not trust government and/or authority and desired to live in a land as free of chains of that authority as any in the world. Sure, we're forced to live under government at all times... but this is why we must keep a vigilant, critical and indeed cynical eye on the government.

If you trust government so much then I imagine you would have no problems turning over the entire health care system to the government to run? Do you trust the government to decide what you can read, watch, hear and learn? If the government decided tomorrow Americans no longer have the right to bear arms will you trust they made the right decision?

If we could trust government there would be no need for the Bill of Rights. Why would we need a 1st amendment if we can always trust the government to tell us the truth, allow us to gather in protest or worship the god of our choice? Why would we need the 4th amendment if we can always trust the government to stay out of our homes and not seize our property for no reason?

The Bill of Rights exists specifically because government, even our own, by it's very nature, can't always be trusted to do right by the people.

Frankly, it scares me that anyone can avow such trust in any government.

You aparently can't see you're proving my point. You're saying the Bill of Rights is there to protect us against the government (which it is) because we don't trust them at all, but if we don't trust them at all what protection does the Bill of Rights give us since they're the ones that enforce it!? You aparently DO trust the government to stand by it's word (The Bill of Rights), to legislate fairly (The Bill of Rights), to actually give you a trial so you can exercise the Bill of Rights they gave you.

If you were arrested tomorrow on no evidence, thrown in prison and given a death penalty without a trial you would be upset. Why? Because you trusted the government. You wouldn't say "Well figures, I didn't trust you guys anyways." would you?

Please stop confusing your mistrust in Bush for a mistrust in the entire American government.

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Lazy8s
[ ... ]
this survey=facts is crap as you can see by the "facts" I posted.

That's a straw man. It's not a matter of "survey=facts". It's a matter of considering the well-informed analysis and overwhelming consensus of experts, people who have a generally better understanding of the global state of terrorism and who do NOT have the "Happy, happy, joy, joy" self-promoting agenda of Bush and his mouthpieces. It's about injecting a little objectivity and insight into a discussion which has been largely dominated by Bush propaganda.

I'm not grasping at straws, read my original post. Survey=fact has been my only gripe from the beginning. You're right it's an overwhelming consensus of a FEW experts. SOME of which might have a better idea about what's going on in Iraq. I have literally dozens of friends (almost my whole highschool football team) over in Iraq and not one of them has a negative view of what's going on. They range from mechanics to M60 gunners on humvees. 2 of them were in the first assault on Baghdad and one has come back injured from a gunshot wound. If you surveyed the entire armed forces in Iraq I would listen to the results because they know. How many of the people polled have even been to Iraq?

I would hardly agree that the war on terror has been "largely dominated by bush propoganda". All you have to do is turn on the evening news to hear how poorly we are doing. In no way is this objectivity, it's polling some armchair generals...not even that much, it's polling politicians during election season to see what they THINK is going on then offering it up as some sort of factual evidence. If this had been presented as "An interresting survey on the opinions of 116 people from Washington" then it would be no problem. But I do object to the notion that it represents any sort of facts.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Lazy8s
SOME of which might have a better idea about what's going on in Iraq. I have literally dozens of friends (almost my whole highschool football team) over in Iraq and not one of them has a negative view of what's going on.

This fact doesn't make their opinions unassailable, and you should know that. It's human nature at its best, and worst, to want to see some value in even the most barbaric of endeavors. If any collective opinion should given automatic credence it should be that of the Iragi people, not those who've been sent to their country to oppress them.

 

[Lazy8s]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Lazy8s
SOME of which might have a better idea about what's going on in Iraq. I have literally dozens of friends (almost my whole highschool football team) over in Iraq and not one of them has a negative view of what's going on.

This fact doesn't make their opinions unassailable, and you should know that. It's human nature at its best, and worst, to want to see some value in even the most barbaric of endeavors. If any collective opinion should given automatic credence it should be that of the Iragi people, not those who've been sent to their country to oppress them.

The survey here wasn't "Are Iraqis happy with the American presence". It's are we losing the war on terror. How do you expect an impoverished nation, most of which don't even own a TV, to know? The troops would at least have a few years worth of personal experiences. Is it getting better or worse? How are the Iraqi people responding to us now compared to a few years ago? Etc Etc. This survey has nothing to do with whether the common Iraqi likes American troops, it's about whether we're winning a global war on terror, not an Iraqi populatiry contest.

EDIT: If you want to see the iraqi opinion here's the latest poll:
http://www.iri.org/pdfs/1
It's a year old but after polls kept coming back mostly supporting troops they stopped polling. A quick Google search shows that they were polled extensively in 2004 and almost 70% thought Iraq was "Significantly better" after the invasion and then the polling pretty much stopped. If you can find a poll from 2006 please post it, I am sure it will be the same since this is almost identical to the 2004 poll. Note that about 10 slides into it they say overwhelmingly their complaints are with their own government and less than 2% complain about the US being there seeing as Security/violence is the second concern to electricity.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Lazy8s

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
That's a straw man. It's not a matter of "survey=facts". It's a matter of considering the well-informed analysis and overwhelming consensus of experts, people who have a generally better understanding of the global state of terrorism and who do NOT have the "Happy, happy, joy, joy" self-promoting agenda of Bush and his mouthpieces. It's about injecting a little objectivity and insight into a discussion which has been largely dominated by Bush propaganda.

I'm not grasping at straws, read my original post. Survey=fact has been my only gripe from the beginning.

Three things are obvious from your response:

1) You don't know what a "straw man" is.

2) You've swallowed the Bush administration deception of conflating the so-called "War on Terror" with his invasion of Iraq.

3) You still did not educate yourself about the study and its respondants by reading the materials at Foreign Policy.

You're right it's an overwhelming consensus of a FEW experts. SOME of which might have a better idea about what's going on in Iraq. I have literally dozens of friends (almost my whole highschool football team) over in Iraq and not one of them has a negative view of what's going on. They range from mechanics to M60 gunners on humvees. 2 of them were in the first assault on Baghdad and one has come back injured from a gunshot wound. If you surveyed the entire armed forces in Iraq I would listen to the results because they know. How many of the people polled have even been to Iraq?

I would hardly agree that the war on terror has been "largely dominated by bush propoganda". All you have to do is turn on the evening news to hear how poorly we are doing.

2) You've swallowed the Bush administration deception of conflating the so-called "War on Terror" with his invasion of Iraq.

Our invasion of Iraq has -- at best -- only a trivial connection with global terrorism, especially terrorism aimed at the United States. Your anecdotal claims re. the opinions of a few of your buddies therefore has no relevence whatsoever. There is no shortage of ignorant people with opinions on Terrah!!! Your buddies may be fine football players, and they may even be soldiers helping to occupy Iraq, but they are simply not experts on global terrorism. They are fighting a largely-homegrown Iraqi resistance force, NOT global terrorists.

The significant value of the study cited in the OP is that it does not rely on such uninformed and often partisan speculation, but that it surveys well-informed experts to bring together their analyses. The really remarkable finding of this study is that although it is weighted to mitigate partisan differences, it still found an overwhelming consensus that we are losing the "War on Terror". Even a majority of the conservatives believe this.

Yes, the media does report on our failures in Iraq. They have given little air time, however, to the ways in which we are aggravating global terrorism, especially targeting the U.S. and its interests. Instead, we mostly get unrebutted BushCo soundbites about how much safer he's made the world. Sadly, according to people who really understand what going on, that's just another bit of dishonest propaganda.

In no way is this objectivity, it's polling some armchair generals...not even that much, it's polling politicians during election season to see what they THINK is going on then offering it up as some sort of factual evidence. If this had been presented as "An interresting survey on the opinions of 116 people from Washington" then it would be no problem. But I do object to the notion that it represents any sort of facts.

3) You still did not educate yourself about the study and its respondants by reading the materials at "Foreign Policy".

While there are undoubtedly some politicians on the list, they are a tiny minority. That you continue to deliberately mischaracterize the participants demonstrates some combination of intellectual laziness and a lack of integrity. I encourage you again to put aside your blind faith in BushCo propaganda and learn what's really going on in the world.

 

[Lazy8s]

Where's the list of people they interviewed? We can go from there. Here is the article from their site.
http://web0.foreignpolicy.com/issue_julyaug_2006/TI-index/index.html


EDIT: Here's one of your "experts". Leslie Garb, quoted in the article. I found a nice little write up written by a harsh critic of both Bush and the war in Iraq: http://www.counterpunch.org/mickey02032005.html
Doesn't sound like much of an expert to me. Even Bush-bashers try and distance themselves from him despite everything he has done.


By the way quit telling me I am pro-Bush. I do not support bush at all; I support critical thinking.

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Lazy8s

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
That's a straw man. It's not a matter of "survey=facts". It's a matter of considering the well-informed analysis and overwhelming consensus of experts, people who have a generally better understanding of the global state of terrorism and who do NOT have the "Happy, happy, joy, joy" self-promoting agenda of Bush and his mouthpieces. It's about injecting a little objectivity and insight into a discussion which has been largely dominated by Bush propaganda.

I'm not grasping at straws, read my original post. Survey=fact has been my only gripe from the beginning.

Three things are obvious from your response:

1) You don't know what a "straw man" is.

I know what a straw man argument is. Since I didn't present one and you just said "That's a straw man" it's not clear you were meaning a straw man argument. Notice I clearly thought you were meaning "you're grasping at straws" indicating not that I do not know what a straw man argument is, but that I did not think you would be referring to something that didn't exist.

Note clearly it is not a straw man argument because the title of the article as well as the thread says the US is losing the War on Terror and then presents only a survey of opinions to back it up. Had they offered factual evidence they could support their claim. I refer you back to my argument about a court case. You cannot convict someone based on 116 opinions, you need some sort of proof.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

You cannot defeat an ideology...all you can do is contain it. I don't necessarily agree with the Bush Administration's strategy for targeting Islamic fundamentalism, but quite honestly, I have not heard anyone propose a reasonable alternative.

The whole idea that they're targeting "Islamic fundamentalism" is absurd. They staged a massive, offensive war on the largest secular nation in the Middle East. I am honestly perplexed by the fact that anyone with a brain believes we attacked Iraq for any reason other than that was the nation that PNAC felt we should go after, in spite of the fact that it was secular, one of the few countries in the region that had not harbored al Qaeda, and had a demonstrably smaller and less-evolved WMD program than other Middle Eastern countries.

 

[Starbuck1975]

The whole idea that they're targeting "Islamic fundamentalism" is absurd. They staged a massive, offensive war on the largest secular nation in the Middle East. I am honestly perplexed by the fact that anyone with a brain believes we attacked Iraq for any reason other than that was the nation that PNAC felt we should go after, in spite of the fact that it was secular, one of the few countries in the region that had not harbored al Qaeda, and had a demonstrably smaller and less-evolved WMD program than other Middle Eastern countries.

Perhaps the reason we went into Iraq is because it was an easy military to eliminate and establish a presence in the very heart of the Islamic world...knowing that the Iraqi people, in being secular, would be less likely to engage in widespread revolt against our occupation force, as we were doing them a favor in eliminating Saddam...can you imagine what a Saudi or Iranian insurgency might look like? The Iraqi insurgency is relatively small compared to other scenarios.

So America topples an unpopular and insane dictator, establishes a presence in the region, and essentially causes a magnet for all the surrounding Islamic wackos...attracting them like flies to crap...and in doing so, forces the Islamic wackos to divert all of their attention and resources to targeting the American presence in Iraq.

Granted, such a strategy would be a stroke of brilliance, nearly as ambitious as MacArthur's aggressive "behind enemy lines" flanking maneuver during the Korean War.

However, I don't think this level of strategic brilliance was the motivating factor behind Bush's decision to invade Iraq.

 

[ITJunkie]

Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge

Originally posted by: Lazy8s
You either trust the government or you don't.

I don't. And many Americans made their way to this nation because they do not trust government and/or authority and desired to live in a land as free of chains of that authority as any in the world. Sure, we're forced to live under government at all times... but this is why we must keep a vigilant, critical and indeed cynical eye on the government.

If you trust government so much then I imagine you would have no problems turning over the entire health care system to the government to run? Do you trust the government to decide what you can read, watch, hear and learn? If the government decided tomorrow Americans no longer have the right to bear arms will you trust they made the right decision?

If we could trust government there would be no need for the Bill of Rights. Why would we need a 1st amendment if we can always trust the government to tell us the truth, allow us to gather in protest or worship the god of our choice? Why would we need the 4th amendment if we can always trust the government to stay out of our homes and not seize our property for no reason?

The Bill of Rights exists specifically because government, even our own, by it's very nature, can't always be trusted to do right by the people.

Frankly, it scares me that anyone can avow such trust in any government.

No sh1t. Never before has the quote "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance" been more apparent than now. ANYONE who trusts our current government is seriously in need of high-dose medication!

 

[Lazy8s]

Originally posted by: ITJunkie

Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge

Originally posted by: Lazy8s
You either trust the government or you don't.

I don't. And many Americans made their way to this nation because they do not trust government and/or authority and desired to live in a land as free of chains of that authority as any in the world. Sure, we're forced to live under government at all times... but this is why we must keep a vigilant, critical and indeed cynical eye on the government.

If you trust government so much then I imagine you would have no problems turning over the entire health care system to the government to run? Do you trust the government to decide what you can read, watch, hear and learn? If the government decided tomorrow Americans no longer have the right to bear arms will you trust they made the right decision?

If we could trust government there would be no need for the Bill of Rights. Why would we need a 1st amendment if we can always trust the government to tell us the truth, allow us to gather in protest or worship the god of our choice? Why would we need the 4th amendment if we can always trust the government to stay out of our homes and not seize our property for no reason?

The Bill of Rights exists specifically because government, even our own, by it's very nature, can't always be trusted to do right by the people.

Frankly, it scares me that anyone can avow such trust in any government.

No sh1t. Never before has the quote "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance" been more apparent than now. ANYONE who trusts our current government is seriously in need of high-dose medication!

Just as with my responses to the other posters, you have to trust them a pretty good ammount to bash them publicly. Would you bash Castro publicly in cuba?