Is America safer now than before Bush invaded Iraq? All of you "Bushniks" out there who believe that Bush invaded Iraq for the safety of America needs to listen to speech today in Tennesee.........It's possible that America will need even more safety by the end of summer because of what Bush's politics did in Iraq. I'll repeat the question. Is America safer now than before Bush invaded Iraq? I don't so! I don't think any realistic thinking american thinks so either!

Yob Atta :)

1) Americans are safer now because covert and not covert operations against terrorism have taken a more aggressive form since 9/11

2) however, what was secret before, or at least kept very low key, is now mainstream. what i mean is the fear of terrorism. if before, the gov't kept it away from people and did not do much about it, now the government makes sure people know... which spreads fear even though the danger itself may have decreased

3) for most people perception i reality

so... are people safer now? yes. do they feel safer? no.

As they say.....Time will tell whether America is safer or not. Right now, after 9/11, I don't think anyone can stop terrorists from coming in if they want to (if they're not here already) and I imagine they're just waiting to do some major damage this year, especially this election year!

Yob Atta :)

The US would probably a lot safer if they wouldn't piss people off so much.

Is the WORLD safer now?

I don't think any country is safe now from terrorists attacks.......I imagine it will only get worst in the future. No one can stop it! I guess you can fight it, but that usually means a "no win" situation anyway. We might as well get use to it, especially now! It's an olympic year and a election year...........

Yob Atta

1) Americans are safer now because covert and not covert operations against terrorism have taken a more aggressive form since 9/11

2) however, what was secret before, or at least kept very low key, is now mainstream. what i mean is the fear of terrorism. if before, the gov't kept it away from people and did not do much about it, now the government makes sure people know... which spreads fear even though the danger itself may have decreased

3) for most people perception i reality

so... are people safer now? yes. do they feel safer? no.


uhm .. what was "secret before"? The government kept the "fear of terrorism" away from the people? So now there is less risk of terrorism in America and at the same time, the public fears terrorism even more because they are more knowledgable about terrorism? :bugeye:

Even if they catch Bin laden, the terrorism will still continue...........Bush invading Iraq put the world's muslim population in a state of extreme anger against the U.S. No matter what happens in Iraq over the next few years will ever change that. What was bad before 9/11 is now even worst thanks to the not-so-intelligent president
Bush and Clinton to. The chinese have a word that describes both of them perfectly....."Boo How"!

Yob Atta

I believe that the Americans are not as safe because the war made many other countries dislike them even more. Now, these "super organized terrorist groups" will want to bomb the hell out of the US even more.

If we thought 9/11 was bad, wait till Bin Laden gets his hands on some nukes.......If that happens, he'll use them and guess who he'll use them on?

Yob Atta

the reason america has become a target in the first place is largely from a long stream of bad decisions regarding international issues going all the way back to the end of ww2. We were told that it is our freedom or our prosperity the terrorists hate... what a load of crap (I'm embarrassed to say I believed this until I looked into the history). The US has a string of shady deals, back stabbing, propped up dictators and abandonment (this is just the stuff in the public record, I can't imagine what horrors exist in classified files somewhere). Bin landen is a creation of these policies, I'm not excusing him by any stretch but he simply wouldn't exist without this "walk loudly and carry a big stick" strategy.

Is america safer now? hell yeah, in the same sense that an arsonist puts out his own fire with a bucket full of gasoline.

Absolutely true. I couldn't agree with you more. Unfortunately, we have a president who has thrown a bucket of gasoline on a fire that was started a generation or more ago. Now the fire is going to rage on for years and years to come thanks to Bush!

Yob Atta :)

to be fair to bush, these policies have been supported, pretty much equally, by both republicans and democrats over the years. Bush just made an already bad situation much, MUCH worse.

The bad thing about it is, if Bush had it to do over again, he would attack Iraq again for the same reasons...........WMD!!! He still thinks they're there!!!

Yob Atta

No, the Busheviks have learned a very hard lesson already, and would certainly not attack Iraq in the same way in some hypothetical replay: Events as they turned out did not conform with the fantastic expectations of the neoconservatives. Although they cannot admit being so criminally wrong at the cost of so many tens of thousands of wasted, destroyed, and disrupted lives, they do know now that they were wrong, because reality is biting hard.

W was, and remains, hopelessly over his head in foreign policy issues, and he fell in with a cabal that had fantastical notions of how the MidBeast would respond to a big stick instead of a carrot. When the Monster balked, and started eating bystanders, the Busheviks were the most surprised people of all: The circus was to feature a tamed lion, not this rampage through the crowd- that isn't, by any means, over yet.

Career diplomats, experienced military leaders, and anyone well familiar with the Mideast, were not surprised in the least at the chaotic and unpleasantly pandoric outcome. Other world leaders, even the ones who most needed to cozey up within the Coalition of the Ass-kissing, now are forced by their constituencies to quietly (or not) say to Uncle Sam "This monster is your baby".

No, if history could ever magically rewind, and the Busheviks could ever wondrously be a tad more world-savvy, then a large Iraqi force in exile, not involving Chalabi, but involving many contemporary/ recent (even Baathist) exfiltraitors, would have carried out a stunning and sudden coup with a quick death for Saddam and his family, backed by intensive US air power, that would convince rebels that Washington wasn't kidding this time around, the Iraqi Army would have been left intact, and there would have been no occupation.

Of course, after sponsoring a successful illegal coup, the jubilant Busheviks would certainly have gotten cockier yet, and would now be meddling in Syria and Iran. The truth would of course come out, be repressed in the US, but destroy the US initiative abroad, and there would be wider conflict as US interests and presence in the Gulf, or anywhere in the Mideast, would be expelled. In the end, the same shitty results.

All hypotheticals aside, the interests controlling this inept President have learned a few lessons even while stupidly throwing lives away. So they won't be so cocksure about direct intervention again, even if they keep power. However, their New American Century agenda is now fully exposed, and the entire world has rejected it, and will fight against it if necessary, tooth and nail, economically, politically, militarily, and unconventionally. This battle is now joined with Mideastern revolutionaries who are gaining popular support as rapidly as have any political movements in history (thanks to American hubris) and they will not stop encouraging bloodbaths until the United States is completely humiliated in the region.

What is crystal-clear to the enemies of the US is that Bushevik- and even mainstream- American rhetoric and outlooks, regarding effective responses to terrorism and assymetrical warfare are intrenched and self-defeating. All that victory for the Jihadis requires is time. For so long as this failure of leadership persists (and it is present among most US leaders of any party) then an inexorable process will continue unto its inevitable conclusion: Lives and violent means, for the "Jihadis" of the world, are vastly cheaper than they are for empires in an Obsolete military-Hegemon mode... It is easy for the "towel-heads" to outexpend the "God Bless the USA" crowd, because they get death on the cheap, and we pay in billions.

Further, the "Jihadis" can thrive on instability, while an Obsolete Hegemon, especially one addicted to vulnerable petroleum supplies, cannot thrive on instability. Instead, highly-developed economies slide into crisis. OHs like the former Soviet Empire can collapse suddenly, as satellite "friends" turn away, and trade turns sour in critical markets. Meanwhile, Jihadis can talk very tough to their longsuffering constituents, who are used to being hungry, and can induce them to make great sacrifice. OHs must keep their public calm, or the economic machine starts stripping its gears, because citizens of OHs don't really know what hardship is, and their first taste ofit makes them turn on each other. Americans pulled together for the Big Ones "over there", but when boiling traffic-jam tempers, gnawing career-slave ulcers, and get-what's mine desperation all coalesce into public unrest over gasoline rations, police brutality, military mobilization, class warfare, and such, then the game will truly be over for a great nation (if we insist on taking it that far).

In the fight that the Busheviks have escalated with the underpriveleged in "Rich" Arab lands, with Islamists who resent Western intrusion, with capitalistic competitors to US economic dominance worldwide, and with general world opinion, there will be many more dire mistakes ahead, because both the American public and their leaders still just don't get it. The USA has just become the World's most conspicuous Asshole, and it would take a miraculously rapid period of contrition, humility, hard work, frugality, diplomacy, and flexibility for the USA to come through the years ahead in any semblance of her present pre-eminence.

If there is a second term for our puppet President, then the responses America will be lead to make, in the face of the tremendous shocks and challenges ahead, will hasten and seal a disastrous fate for us: We would very likely react to the nasty fight ahead with a steep slide into overt fascism.

If there is a Kerry Presidency next, America is still in a great deal of trouble, because this is a fetal administration that has displayed no substantive clarity, and not a few illusions, regarding repairing the tremendous damage done recently to US credibility- They have no clear exit plan from Iraq. The Kerry platform includes no workable plan for mitigating or cooling down the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (central to doing anything in the Mideast). So even with the Busheviks out in disgrace, it's going to be hairy. Kerry.

all the us did was make more people hate them

America is as "safe" as it always was....It doesn't matter who is president there will always be people who hate America/Americans/ the ideals(or the lack of) that this country practices/ and in some cases the ideals this coutry was based on. How does one quantify safety anyway? If I crash a car thats not safe nor does it have any relation to Bush....if what was meant was safe from terrorism well we won't be safe from that until Hate is gone and thats something we are stuck with.....All it takes is one hate filled person to blow a bomb, pull a trigger or crash a plane. I for one am not going to live in fear because of the the events in Iraq.

Odd, Physics, that you can't grasp Newton's 3rd law, and that you consider American security and prosperity as independant constants, when they are highly responsive variables directly influenced by the sum of world-wide goodwill toward the USA. Actions have consequences.

So even with the Busheviks out in disgrace, it's going to be hairy. Kerry.

(chuckle) Cute.

safer? well, if you believe what bush tells you, then yes. america is safer. if, however, you have an iq somewhat greater than that of a cantaloupe, you would suspect that bombing iraq will not serve to deter the terrorist threat. which is not to say that killing terrorists is a bad idea, nor that generally killing people is always a bad idea. just not in iraq. and as for more people hating america, i don't think so. rather, i think those that hated america already have just become more vocal. ;)

I'm sorry I voted for Bush. Americans are not even safe from our own government now that we have the so called Patriot Acts and Homeland Security.
Before Bush, the left was the worst about big heavy-handed government. Bush changed that.
America is picking fights around the world to suit the agendas of the elite who decide things behind the scenes, yet we have millions of invaders coming across our Southern border to which the government closes it's eyes.

"Terrorism" is last of my worries. I'm worried about a lying government and mass media that has gotten too powerful and invisible.

I'm not so sure America was in danger to begin with. 9/11 happened yes, but everything points to it being something of a fluke, something that shouldn't have happened. Then afterward we're told that there are crazy islamic madmen bent on destroying america and everything it stands for. But where were they before 9/11? not in America, well, sure maybe here and there, but it wasn't a pandemic crisis that needed our attention and support against. I was always skeptical when video footage of Osama or some random Arab was broadcast with and overdub, it's kind of scary to see how the boogiemen were created, and whoever 'translates' can tell us whatever they want to tell us.

If anything, America is probably in more danger now than before because Bush has pissed off millions of people. I don't think Bush has done *anything* for the overall 'safety' of America besides talking big and walking with a lot of faux machismo.

If America re-elects Bush again for a second term, watch out! We'll really be in big trouble then. Every Muslim country will be definetly "Anti-American" big time! You can bet on it!

Yob Atta

I agree with the remarks that ex-senator Cleland made about Bush recently (quote: He just 'flat-out-lied' on Iraq), Cleland a decorated vietnam injured vet who says it like it is............

Yob Atta

If Bush finds an Iran link to 9/11, then without question, he'll want to bomb and invade Iran too.........Wait & see!

Yob Atta

This is insane. The attack on 9/11 was a direct result of Clinton's total lack of response to multiple acts of terrorism against the US. Most directly, the abrupt pullout of US troops in Somalia after a few casualties were suffered convinced Osama that the US was a paper tiger, unwilling to put troops in harm's way despite our massive advantage in equipment and training.

To say that we are no safer after destroying Osama's home base and the training ground for future terrorists in Afganistan, is ridiculous. We have disrupted terrorist operations around the globe and certainly are safer than before 9/11. However, just as one may get stung while destroying a hornet's nest in one's yard, we may yet suffer some more attacks. Even if we do, it doesn't mean that we should have ignored the hornet's nest and just hoped we wouldn't get stung too often

There are probably more "Hornet's Nests" now in the world than there were before 9/11 thanks to the "Peace President" Bush! By invading Iraq, the "Peace President" has stirred up many hornet's nests, especially in the middle East that will eventually find a way to sting the U.S. bigtime! Wait & see.

Yob Atta

America still apparently feels the same, so no, it is not safer. Bush is a dumbass.

Madanthonywayne: "To say that we are no safer after destroying Osama's home base and the training ground for future terrorists in Afganistan, is ridiculous. "

I don't see anyone saying that, so it would appear that you are functioning as a neoconservative propagandist/apologist, in distorting what is being expressed. The problem being voiced about the Bush Administration is not that they went after OBL. The problem is that they deceptively used America's shock over 9-11 to pursue other agendas that have cost thousands of lives, inspired many more determined enemies than just al-Qaeda, gravely damaged America's image, and isolated the USA from the support of an entirte world that initially stood in valuable, unprecedented solidarity with America in the wake of 9-11.

I definetly agree!!! Those who vote or voted for Bush are now regretting it. Unfortunately, he still has some more time before the coming election to do more damage and he will..........

Yob Atta

I said: "To say that we are no safer after destroying Osama's home base and the training ground for future terrorists in Afganistan, is ridiculous. "Hypewaders said: I don't see anyone saying that, so it would appear that you are functioning as a neoconservative propagandist/apologist, in distorting what is being expressed.

The name of this thread is, "Is America Safer". I, perhaps mistakenly, assumed this meant the topic was the effectiveness of Bushes response to 9/11. Since the majority response on this board seems to be that America is less safe, and the invasion of Afganistan was a key part of his response, that's exactly what EVERYONE of you paleoliberal propagandists are saying.

I think america is safer simply because they know that if they blow up something here we will blow up something there or go in and kill a bunch of people to clean up the terrorists for them because they bother us here. Now it might not be totally effective but its better then doing nothing and asking others for help like the EU OR UN which will never help nor do anything because they are useless at this sort of thing. Whining about how US steps on a few toes or kills a few wrong people here and there is a bit late clean your own house or we will do it for you. IF US kills off a few sects or even populations in its strive for survival its totally justified because the bottom line is kill or be killed.

P.S. shove diplomacy up ur azz you liberal fanaticz or better yet go and diplomicize with the terrorists until they chop your dumbazz head off. "War is also diplomacy just by other means."

P>S>S> Just because someone disagrees with you on this issue doesn't mean they are a neoconservative saying that and putting them on the spot doesn't mean you will shame them out of their opinion. What you are in fact doing is showing how feeble and arrogant your point of view is that you are ignoring any other. Personally I will enjoy voting for Bush. But I wish he said he would legalize pot and do some other things I would like to see but lowering taxes for everyone was a good and fair thing. I m not rich, I m a student so I m broke. I personally like to be a devils advocate and looking at it from other side. But diplomacy doesn't work with people like this becaue they mentally autamaticly assume their superiority that means either its their way or the highway there is no compromise. Sure it woulda been nice to have the UN & every other world entety support the US. But the well greased palms of european leaders wouldnt have allowed any support for US and any armed intervention against land based terrorists.

Now if we think from the Kerry/Clinton side of things what would they do after 9/11. Lots of speeches of how terrorists will be brought to justice just as soon as we get the backing of international community. And after several years when it all boils down it would be swept under the carpet and boasts of ecconomic reccovery and other successes would sweep the public mind to a different focus. Personally this would work it worked with clinton after the first bombing with that blind sheik and the bombings in the african embassies. But I do not like the repurcussions and repeats of the cycle coming back to haunt us.

I think america is safer simply because they know that if they blow up something here we will blow up something there or go in and kill a bunch of people to clean up the terrorists for them because they bother us here.

Amen. It's nice to know I'm not the only one with some sense on this board.

I'm still a little confused why the Bush administration can't put more resources into finding Osama Bin Laden..........If he found him (dead or alive), then I think he could just about assure himself of re-election for the next term. However, I don't think Bush's major priority is in finding him. He's to pre-occupied with Iraq and in the meantime, Osama is still smiling!

Yob Atta

Mad Anthony Wayne, Eluminate you're still dissembling. Most critics, including those posting here, did not have a problem with the US going after Bin Laden in Afghanistan- I have no problem with the fact that they actuallly got him: Osama was killed at Tora Bora. But his villainous persona was far too valuable a political tool for dishonest leaders to just let die, so the US government became Osama's greatest promoter, even immortalizer. And this administration continues unwittingly aiding Osama's dream tremendously.

You may recall, or can review, that al-Qaeda's objectives publicized before 9-11 included drawing the US into a Mideastern conflict, as a rallying point for Islamist mujaheddin to expel the "infidels" once and for all. The occupation of Iraq played right into the hands of al-Qaeda and and their many imitators from the start, in casting the US in an even more interventionist role. The occupation continues to fuel not only radical ideologies to purge the infidels, but also more mainstream ones in the Mideast, that the United States is not to be trusted because of wild interventions, and also not to be feared- because of wild interventions we haven't sufficient stomach for.

Lacking the "guts" to "do it right" will be America's only saving grace, at least in extricating ourselves, if not saving our doomed Petrodollars. As the terrorists knew from the start, in order for Americans to rule the Mideast, they would have to become equally oppressive as were British, Turk, and Roman overlords of the past, in an age when such heavy-handedness is far out of vogue. The war for the favorable sentiments of the Arab world had already been decisively lost by the USA, in large part due to our unique affinity for zionism. But the arrogant nature Iraq occupation, and it's basest abuses drove the point home, that the USA was no champion of the Arab street.

Revealing a critical lack of understanding of how far we were from winning Arab hearts and minds, neoconservatives publicly heralded flowered parades, with Iraqis gratefully welcoming our heroic liberation troops in the streets of Iraq. For you who belived the words of this administration leading up to the occupation, this could have been your first clue. Now, clues abound:

As the Arabian American (Oil) Company (ARAMCO) continues to be de-Americanized along with the entire petroleum infrastructure of the Mideast, as the Saudi regime totters, and as an American civilian exodus commences from an increasingly dangerous kingdom and region- as Iraq continues to import its oil, as more than 1000 US servicepeople pay with their lives for the occupation, and as Iraq inexorably descends into civil war- As terrorism against American civilians grinds on worldwide, and recruitment for hundreds of militant islamist organizations you haven't heard the names of skyrockets- As shady governments return America's new comfort with unlawful detentions in kind- As kidnappings and killings of Americans abroad rise to levels exceeding those following the Iranian revolution- And yes, as foreign terrorism returns to American Soil- You will not hear me saying "I told you so". I would instead tell you, as I am telling you now, Wake Up.

As the geoeconomic implications of declining American credibility and goodwill take effect, you will have many more clues to ponder, with respect to the critical damage the Bush Administration is doing to American economic security. Emerging global currencies, and immense, fast-emerging new consumer markets are going to dominate where the US dollar, US products, and US consumerism once seemed king of the hill. This sea change is commencing at the very same moment that the international image of the USA is reaching an all-time low. Nevertheless, the Bush administration has continued heedlessly expending international clout.

America's global economic empire is now running critically low on the goodwill, innovation, productivity, and immunity from conflict that made us such a great success. Now, we Americans are in very big trouble regarding our Place in the World, and the Bush 43 Administration has most unfortunately been the wrong leadership at the wrong time, making all the wrong moves. As a result, America is in very grave danger, not only in terms of our national security and economy, but also in terms of the very character of our society.

Most of the damage to US credibility, the loss of life, and resultant domestic criticism has resulted from deliberate and callous manipulation of America's sorrow, confusion, and rage resulting from 9-11. Even following popular American recognition of neoconservative lies and recklessness, and following their narrow defeat in the fast-approaching election, these trials and hardships to are going to confront us soon, ready or not.

The bottom line we still have Bush the so-called "Peace President" in office.........and right now we still haven't caught Osama Ben laden. The Iraq problem is getting worst everday and we most certainly can expect more terrorist attacks against the U.S........So is it going to get better? Only a very stupid person would say yes!

Yob Atta

Hey buffys, good points.

I don't think we're necessarily safer, but after 9/11 we are at least more aware of the salient threats opposing us.

Whether Iraq helped or hindered our domestic security is too difficult to tell, I think.

Thanks to Bush the so-called "Peace President", Iraq opened the door for more worldwide Muslim extreme hatred toward Americans..........You can bet that now domestic security will become more threatened than ever with Muslim terrorists and extremists willing to commit suicide for Osama Ben Laden just to get a shot off at America and they eventually will again, just like 9/11!

Yob Atta

The US would probably a lot safer if they wouldn't piss people off so much.
well said :)

This is insane. The attack on 9/11 was a direct result of Clinton's total lack of response to multiple acts of terrorism against the US. Most directly, the abrupt pullout of US troops in Somalia after a few casualties were suffered convinced Osama that the US was a paper tiger, unwilling to put troops in harm's way despite our massive advantage in equipment and training.

To say that we are no safer after destroying Osama's home base and the training ground for future terrorists in Afganistan, is ridiculous. We have disrupted terrorist operations around the globe and certainly are safer than before 9/11. However, just as one may get stung while destroying a hornet's nest in one's yard, we may yet suffer some more attacks. Even if we do, it doesn't mean that we should have ignored the hornet's nest and just hoped we wouldn't get stung too often
Wow, this is the first intelligent pro-war stance I have read. Good points. I can't say I agree, simply because I don't think Iraq had much to do with terrorism, Afganistan did, Iraq was a favor to US oil.

I think america is safer simply because they know that if they blow up something here we will blow up something there or go in and kill a bunch of people to clean up the terrorists for them because they bother us here.
I thought this was kind of silly when I first read it, wasn't going to reply, but now that someone agreed, I'd like to repost on hypewader's observant comment that Bush still quite "deceptively used America's shock over 9-11 to pursue other agendas that have cost thousands of lives".

America was safer after Afganistan, yes. The original post did not ask this: between before the Iraq war and afterwards, we are not safer.

Before or after doesn't matter anymore. Now America is not safe at all thanks to Bush!

Yob Atta

nah, america is unsafe because of it's historically draconian foreign policy. Bush just fanned the flames but he made a formerly small blaze into a full blown forrest fire.

Nawwwwww, its no safer, man have you seen all these attacks on our soil since 9-11...... I mean everyday I live in fear. bombs going off there ....... chemical bombs going off here......... I am so petrified.......arghghahghgh.

Do half of you even live in the USA? ----- I do ----I feel safer because I am------are any of you or I completely safe ??? dont think so....

The question was..."Is America Safer Now?"

It is most assuredly.

Does anyone on this board deal with truths ? Or do you all make shit up as you go ?

lmao.

It probably won't be to long from now when there will be another attack on U.S. soil from terrorists. Don't bet against it! It happened on 9/11 and it will probably happen again. So if you think you're safer now with Bush as president, then maybe you better think again. Best thing for you to do is to stay at home, lock the door and hide in the freezer for a couple of days. then you'll be one cool dude.

Yob Atta :)

Hypewader said: Mad Anthony Wayne, Eluminate you're still dissembling......bla bla bla

Look, the whole thing is pretty simple. Afganistan was a no brainer. We had to respond to the attack on the US and Afganistan was the base of operations for Osama and friends. Once that was done, we had to figure out a way to get at terrorists that were spread all over the world in small groups. Here we were with the most powerful military in the world, but with an enemy too dispersed to bring it to bear. So we attacked Saddam. A known enemy of the US who was in violation of the cease fire agreement that ended the first gulf war to such a degree that it required a constant US presence in Iraq ever since at great expense to this nation. Also, a known supporter of international terrorism with a history of developing WMD's. Oh yeah, he also is known to have tried to assassinate a former US president who happens to be GWB's dad. While any of there reasons might have justified the war, the real reason wasn't any of these and had NOTHING TO DO WITH OIL! If we wanted the oil all we had to do was allow him to resume selling it and BUY IT. Much simpler and cheaper the the billions we've spent on the war. The purpose of the war was to draw the Islamic extremists from their various hiding holes to a field of battle of our choosing so that we could KILL THEM. This is why Bush said, "Bring it on!" It's better for heavily armed, well equiped, well trained US soldiers to fight these bastards in Iraq than for unarmed civilians to fight them in the streets of America. Also, a democratic Iraq will serve as an example for other nations in the middle east or, at least, not be actively supporting terrorism throughout the world. Of course if Kerry wins, or if Bush wimps out and pulls out too soon, the whole thing could backfire.

Better yet, why don't we have cowboy Bush and Sadam slug it out in some soccer field somewhere. The winner takes all. If Sadam wins, no more fighting in Iraq. The U.S. troops go home. If Bush wins, he get's to wear his "I Love The U.S.A. T-Shirt" again on the streets of Iraq without fear of being beheaded and the troops stay! Sounds like a fair way to settle the conflict over there.

Yob Atta

"MAW:"...the whole thing is pretty simple."
Dream on.

"Afganistan was a no brainer... we had to respond...."
I've mostly conceded that, but we'll leave the unfinished "nation-building" there, and Taliban resurgence there alone for now, just to keep it at least a little more simple for you.

"Once that was done, we had to figure out a way to get at terrorists that were spread all over the world in small groups."
Oh-Oh: That's not very simple now, is it?

"Here we were with the most powerful military in the world, but with an enemy too dispersed to bring it to bear. So we attacked Saddam."
Brilliant! All terrorists will surely come running into our gunsights! (not)

"A known enemy of the US who was in violation of the cease fire agreement that ended the first gulf war to such a degree that it required a constant US presence in Iraq ever since at great expense to this nation."
Oops, feeling a little shaky, so you took a new tack. Comparitively, sanctions were cheap, were working very well, in so far as keeping Iraq down with a sustainable coalition. Sanctions did, however take a cruel toll on the most economically vulnerable Iraqis. I think there was much work to do in mitigating disease and hunger while keeping the heat on Saddam. Sanctions clearly were keeping Saddam from becoming any military threat to anyone again. For the US, the price of that system of controls was much lower in every way, as compared to the situation today.

"Also, a known supporter of international terrorism with a history of developing WMD's."
You have just justified war with most of the planet, including war on the USA, which is as guilty (http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/TerrorInUSA/faq/WesternTerrorism.asp) as Iraq ever was in these respects.

"Oh yeah, he also is known to have tried to assassinate a former US president who happens to be GWB's dad. While any of there reasons might have justified the war..."
Just how much danger do you think Poppy was actually in, since the plot was foiled before he travelled to Kuwait? And did Clinton not retaliate militarily for the plot before Bush 43 did? Ofcourse he did. And why did George Herbert Walker Bush himself reject the idea of invading Iraq? Well, he told us:
Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

...As the conflict wound down, we felt a sense of urgency on the part of the coalition Arabs to get it over with and return to normal. This meant quickly withdrawing U.S. forces to an absolute minimum. Earlier there had been some concern in Arab ranks that once they allowed U.S. forces into the Middle East, we would be there to stay. Saddam's propaganda machine fanned these worries.

[The invasion of Iraq had] "...NOTHING TO DO WITH OIL! "
Hmm. You conspicuously neglected to support that sweeping assertion with any information at all. You should come back to that argument, and I'll be happy to discuss Halliburton's deals, and US fears regarding the implications of an Arabian revolution to the South.

"The purpose of the war was to draw the Islamic extremists from their various hiding holes to a field of battle of our choosing so that we could KILL THEM. This is why Bush said, "Bring it on!""
That is not what this government told the American People about our objectives before the war. Think rationally: Why should devastating operations like 9-11 be abandoned by determined terrorists, in order to instead confront armored columns with infantry weapons and IEDs? Do you really think the Saudi rebels who planned and carried out 9-11 would have abandoned their mission, and headed for Fallujah, if only the 101st Airborne had been patrolling the outskirts in 2001? Iraq is not their fight, and not their style- although Arabian revolutionaries and terrorists will certainly be benefitting from America's Iraq debacle.

"It's better for heavily armed, well equiped, well trained US soldiers to fight these bastards in Iraq than for unarmed civilians to fight them in the streets of America."
It is muddle-headed to persist in confusing Iraqi resistance with all international terrorists. Iraqis fighting American occupation forces do not embody international terrorism, and do not monopolize all terrorist activity. Rather, they are inspiring it elsewhere. Iraqi "Mujaheddin" are clearly powerfully augmenting radical anti-American and Islamist recruitment worldwide.

"Iraq will serve as an example for other nations in the middle east or, at least, not be actively supporting terrorism throughout the world."
Look, terrorism does not require a state apparatus. 9-11 was not perpetrated by a state, not by Iraq, and not by any government. It was planned and carried out by independent radicals without states, who strive to cause political instability to sweep the Mideast, so that a fundamentalist Sunni movement can take over the rubble. Iraq is serving as an example of how the USA can be provoked into causing greater instability than mere terrorism can accomplish, and it is ignorance and folly to assume that other terrorists are not taking notice. For Islamist revolutionaries, a clear technique has been demonstrated in how to get Uncle Sam to do the heavy lifting in regional destabilization.

"Of course if Kerry wins, or if Bush wimps out and pulls out too soon, the whole thing could backfire."
The whole thing has already backfired: The Bush Administration is continuously warning Americans to get prepared for new terrorist attacks, warning that we remain woefully unprepared (but remember it's not leadership's fault), legislating our incremental submission to martial law. Obviously, the present administration does not subscribe to your preposterous theory that massive military interventions stamp out assymetrical warfare, unconventional resistance, desperation, rage, and terrorism.

It is a ridiculous assertion to insist that interventions such as the occupation of Iraq attract terrorists to congregate and die, like filthy "Injuns" before the dapper U.S. Cavalry in Spaghetti-Westerns. This is nothing but a naiive fantasy, borne out of frustration with new realities, and a refusal to concede that military might, however overwhelming, can't fix our most frustrating security problems. Massive military response to international terrorism, in vain hopes that we can beat the world into submission with ovewhelming force, can only incite ever more bitter, deranged, and unconventional resistance in the future, and if pushed to the limit, such inflammatory tactics will leave the relatively open society Americans still enjoy completely shattered.

The underlying problems that are sparking terrorism are not simple. The police and intelligence work required in dismantling terrorist organizations is not simple. The understanding that the public must gain, in order to understand and support alternatives to escalation are not simple. We don't have enough of a grip on counterterrorism to oversimplify the challenges. And we don't have forever to figure this out. If we sincerely want to overcome and mitigate terrorism, then we have to look very long and carefully at the very intricate, dangerous, and vulnerable world we live in, while avoiding the primitive urge to recklessly lash out. America can't win by wantonly sacrificing our political and economic stability, in order to get at criminals who want to destroy our political and economic stability.

Solution to USA's safety problem:


Consrtuct a giant nuclear/bomb/everything proof bubble around the country, letting nobody in or out of it. Cut off all communication to the outside world. Get the American news to insist to other people that the USA is the only place on earth and the rest is space (or aren't they already going forward with that step?). Kill every criminal who harms others. For many white people to be safe, all visible minorities or someone with an accent should die. Everyone will be given an automatic weapon at birth.

Tada! you're not the safest place in the world! Isn't that what Bush wants?

HW: Look, terrorism does not require a state apparatus

Boy, do you hate the word, simple. Nevertheless, some things are simple. There is good, and there is evil. Murderous savages who cut off the heads of innocent civilians and crash hijacked plains into buildings are evil. They must be opposed, jailed, or killed. While it's true that terrorism can not be 100% eliminated by any means, it can be 99% eliminated by removing its state sponsers. 9/11 would not have happened without the funding, planning, and training that took place in Afganistan under Osama bin Laden. The best historical example is Thomas Jefferson's military solution to the problem of piracy by attacking it's state sponsers on the Barbary coast. Big surprise, Europe didn't support us that time either and favoured diplomatic 'solutions' such as paying tribute and ransoming the crews of the various ships kidnapped by pirates. Jefferson sent the US Navy (and the Marines, as in, "on the shores of Tripolli") who, in a series of daring raids, convinced the various state sponsers of piracy to leave US ships alone. Force must be met with force, appeasement will never work, and these terrorists, and their state sponsors, must simply be destroyed or at least convinced to stop messing with us.

While it is true that the war in Iraq is not attracting all of the terrorists in the world it is causing a lot of them to poke their heads up where they can get hammered. A lot of the resistance in Iraq is being caused by professional foreign forces. If these forces are occupied attempting to kill American soldiers then there is a much smaller pool of volunteers to draw on for other missions. Terrorism is expensive and requires a great deal of funding and sovereign nations are a great source for terrorist. America simply said that if you support people who actively wish to harm us then we will insure that you are no longer in a position to do so. While I do not like bush’s stand on freedom and privacy I believe that he is like flu in American politics we can recover from him. I believe that a pull out will only encourage more terrorism and waste the lives of all those who have died over there

MadAnthonyWayne"[Terrorism] can be 99% eliminated by removing its state sponsers."
Bullshit. Terrorist movements can and do have private support spanning states. You persist in drawing parallels between counterterrorism and conventional warfare and with romanticized shibboleths like the Barbary Wars. You also persist in unfairly calling alternatives to military retaliation "appeasement". All because the terrorists have thus far conquered your brain.

Ignore the fact that provoking warfare can be a terrorist objective, and you are not part of the solution in the case of al-Qaeda. Ignore the fact that there is much more to be done than just military campaigns, and you are not part of the solution. Ignore the fact that militarizing antiterrorism glorifies martyrs, while criminalizing and prosecuting terrorists steals their mojo, and you are not part of the solution.

Ignore these and other things, and you are instead a real part of the problem. Through a refusal to understand the methods and motivations of the multiplying Islamic terrorists like al-Qaeda, you play into their hands: Wreak devastation throughout the mideast; destroy every mideast state but Israel; stigmantize and isolate America: AL-Qaeda and the like will gratefully rejoice for this, and will still be there to appeal more resonantly than ever for "Death to America" when all the big rubble has been reduced to small rubble. All the while, their power will increase, while America's will decline.

There is no escaping this conclusion through a persistent militaristic response to the challenge of Islamist terrrorism. Our present militaristic, oversimplistic mode of retaliation is counterproductive and unsustainable. The terrorists' methods are highly effective, and can persist even through an apocalypse of civilization.

Don't speak to me of Jefferson in support of what this endless and counterproductive warfare is doing to the American soul. Jefferson would have no part of this. You sir, until you awaken to what liberty over tyranny really means, as was expressed at the founding of our country, are an enemy of freedom, and are yourself under the evil spell of criminal terrorists. The terrorist enemies of America are victorious over you, because they have convinced you to support our own destruction through highly inappropriate retaliation for terrorism.

"Boy, do you hate the word, simple."
Perhaps. Much more, I hate the grossly oversimplistic cancer on America that your outlook embraces. The misunderstanding you have succumbed to is a dire threat to the Liberty our founders enjoined us to defend, because it corrupts our national character into a force for destruction that will harm our defining Cause far more than it will that of our (and the world's) terrorist enemies.

LaughingWeasel: Please substantiate your claim that "A lot of the resistance in Iraq is being caused by professional foreign forces."

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5590346
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3998839/
http://www.nationalcenter.org/2004/06/here-in-baghdad-we-are-facing-serious.html

There are several more sights that talk about how few of the captured detainees are foreign nationals. My explanation for this is that the serious professional does not get captured and they are the ones who are pulling off the moderately successful ambushes. They also are performing training and similar support missions. I included the propaganda piece because it is an individual soldier’s account.

Hypewaders: militarizing antiterrorism glorifies martyrs, while criminalizing and prosecuting terrorists steals their mojo

So you support the Clinton method that was so successful after the first world trade center attack in preventing another attack? al-Qaeda declares war on us, and we should respond by reading them their Miranda rights and then let them go on some technicality? You can not win a war if you refuse to admit it is one and try to fight it with police and the courts. We must either eliminate terrorism at it's source, or turn our nation into an armed camp with metal detectors at every shopping mall and soldiers patrolling the streets. If you think our freedoms are being lost now, wait and see what happens if another large scale attack occurs on US soil. Frankly, the response might be even more draconian under a Kerry administration since he'll have to go out of his way to prove he's not soft on defense.

"We must either eliminate terrorism at it's source"

And how do you plan on doing that? How, exactly, do you win a war aganst a type of warfare? This 'war on terror' is like declaring a 'war on guerilla warfare'. We are fighting against an ideology whos population is so relatively small and whose opinions are so extreme that they are willing to use a kind of warfare we have not seen before. Terrorism works because we have pissed people off enough for individuals to be willing to kill themselves to hurt us... US foreighn policy needs to change, because the easiest way to prevent terrorism, as Chomsky says, is not to participate in it.

There is good, and there is evil. Murderous savages who cut off the heads of innocent civilians and crash hijacked plains into buildings are evil.
It is as evil as any war is. Dropping bombs to burn, boil, and bake civilains isn't "good" either. Look up firebombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firebombing).

They must be opposed, jailed, or killed. While it's true that terrorism can not be 100% eliminated by any means, it can be 99% eliminated by removing its state sponsers.
No, it cannot. Removing state sponsors of terrorism isn't in the intention of the current administration (How many of the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia? How much money goes to terrorists from Saudi Arabia?), but even if it was, private hands hold most of the money behind terrorist attacks.

9/11 would not have happened without the funding, planning, and training that took place in Afganistan under Osama bin Laden.
Mr. Laden is still running around funding terrorists with his millions of $. Had we killed him, the US would have been a lot safer. Attacking Iraq and creating yet another failed state in the middle east only keeps al-Qaeda recruitment lists overflowing.

Failed states cause terrorism, you can list them on your hand: Afghanistan, Lebanon, Somalia. Any time you create a vacuum, it’s where discontented people flock to fight wars.

The best historical example is Thomas Jefferson's military solution to the problem of piracy by attacking it's state sponsers on the Barbary coast ... [blah blah Europe is weak] ... a series of daring raids ... convinced the various state sponsers of piracy to leave US ships alone. Force must be met with force, appeasement will never work, and these terrorists, and their state sponsors, must simply be destroyed or at least convinced to stop messing with us.
I don't see how pirates are a good (not to mention 'the best') historical comparison to terrorists. To build a vessel, attack another vessel, steal cargo, and get away with it takes a completely different amount of resources than it does to buy some airplane manuals, take some flying classes, and sneak weapons onto an airplane.

this reminds me of "the war on drugs".

hundreds of billions of dollars spent, crimes inflicted on numerous countries, dictators propped up and jails full of people for life that are guilty of nothing more than abusing themselves. So, with all that invested one might expect some results right? well, drug use in america is unchanged (increased actually), the government's coffers are significantly lighter and drug lords are enjoying higher prices and profits above anything in the past.

war on terrorism - hundreds of billions spent, thousands of lives lost, thousands imprisoned without trial or attorney, mired in a war-zone with no way to exit, international support gone. What is the return on this investment? new international terrorist groups popping up everyday, former allies turning their backs and some becoming very nearly enemies and the freedoms of american citizens being eroded.

this approach to terrorism isn't just flawed, like the war on drugs it's a full blown disaster.

Buffy: I agree with your characterization of the war on drugs, but the war on terror is not the same thing. Fighting a "war" to stop people from abusing themselves is ridiculous and counterproductive. Fighting a war against people who have actually attacked our nation is the only reasonable response.

Gro$$: The pirates didn't have to build the vessels, they often hijacked or stold them. They used hijacking, kidnapping, and murder to achieve their goals. Sounds familiar to me.

my point is both wars are/were attacking randomly, not really addressing the cause. In both cases it's like carpet bombing a disease causing bacteria, this method may kill a few bacteria here and there but the action ends up strengthening the cause instead of defeating it (precisely why the war on drugs failed).

If you kill a nation to stop terrorism the organization just moves somewhere else (and more importantly your action turns formerly indifferent people into prime terrorist candidates). The only benefits are to the terrorist 'organism', it gets smarter, more mobile and an increasing number in the international community see you as a threat on the level (or greater) of the terrorists you're trying to fight.

I agree that we need to create a counter terrorism unit that is capable of provoking fear in the terrorist leadership (swordfish where are you at) but the terrorist have to be resisted up until the point that amore effective way of combating them is discovered. I do not consider giving them what they want to be an effective strategy.

Gro$$: The pirates didn't have to build the vessels, they often hijacked or stold them. They used hijacking, kidnapping, and murder to achieve their goals. Sounds familiar to me.Still, I cannot say I agree that you can compare terrorism to pirates. Pirates were motivated by profit, not an religious war they believe to have been going on for hundreds of years. They were not willing to die in their cause, and they were looking to get away alive, not blow themselves up somewhere where it's crowded. On top of that, the world has changed enough with modern technology to allow terrorists to base their attacks out of anywhere in the world. They can move in hours across the globe and restart operations in days.

madanthonywayne: "So you support the Clinton method that was so successful after the first world trade center attack in preventing another attack? al-Qaeda declares war on us, and we should respond by reading them their Miranda rights and then let them go on some technicality? You can not win a war if you refuse to admit it is one and try to fight it with police and the courts. We must either eliminate terrorism at it's source, or turn our nation into an armed camp with metal detectors at every shopping mall and soldiers patrolling the streets. If you think our freedoms are being lost now, wait and see what happens if another large scale attack occurs on US soil. Frankly, the response might be even more draconian under a Kerry administration since he'll have to go out of his way to prove he's not soft on defense."

That's quite an impressive volley of wild potshots, there. There is no "Clinton Method", nor is there any method that can magically eliminate all terrorism over a short campaign. The USA had an unprecedented opportunity for international police and intelligence cooperation after 9-11, and squandered it. The willful neglect of legal means of pursuing terrorism, mindful of national sovereignty, has left the US government mostly blind as to who they are really fighting. International police efforts are the only effective way to hunt terrorists without creating blowback, and legal methods are the most effective way to end the careers of any criminals, including terrorists, while providing deterrence. Do police and courts "get" all criminals? Of course not: They provide deterrent, with far less damage to the societies they are designed to protect, than does warfare, which always surpasses terrorism in terms of the senseless, provocative, and counterproductive deaths of innocents.

As Gro$$ pointed out in evoking Chomsky, the motivations of terrorists are the primary factor that cannot be stubbornly ignored, especially in an open government's dialogue with the public regarding terrorism, because corrupt policy breeds retaliation. Open and frank policy review would be wonderfully therapeutic for our dysfunctional democracy, for our foreign relations, and as an added bonus, would allow reforms that remove the basis of support for terrorism against the US. We don't have to be "appeasing terrorists" to openly examine foreign policies- this should be the hallmark of a representative government. There is ample justification for policy review because terrorists are not the only people in opposition to flawed and unjust policy. Policy review and reform primarily serves the American people's interest.

However, open examination and reform of policy does not always serve powerful and non-democratic special interests. The Bush administration revealed their fear of scrutiny, and their fear of scrutiny of their masters, when they tried to propagandize the public with the notion that the root of terrorism is that they "hate our freedoms": That was a vicious and revealing lie, painting freedom as the root of terrorism.

"United We Stand" would have been a valid post-9/11 slogan, had it not been perverted by domestic partisanship, "With us or against us", blind nationalistic protofascism. "United We Stand" could have powerfully resonated globally, but instead an arrogant unilateralism, and disdain for the sovereignty of weaker nations canceled the potential. "United We Stand" could have been America's rallying cry to the whole world, to cooperate in addressing the motivations for political killings, while relentlessly pursuing and taking out or isolating individual criminals involved in killing innocents. The accusation you made that Kerry is more prone to lashing out militarily, in order to look tough, than Bush is, was a cheap and baseless partisan shot. That is a perfect example of how the "War on Terror" is in disarray, and why it consistently hits so far wide of the mark. We are misdirecting our wrath, squelching internal and external dialogue, while exacting staggering death tolls on foreign non-combattants. We are remaining stubbornly unwilling to examine the real issues, because we are afraid to pull back the curtain, to reveal who is really manipulating the levers of power. At the core of our failings in the War on Terror is a failure of democracy: The American majority does not want to take responsibility for the policies of their government, but instead pines for blissful public ignorance and an ingenius, all-resolving Good War, blasting the world into submission without intruding on our lifestyles: Big Mistake.

In either case, if Bush is re-elected then terrorists worldwide will focus on the U.S. and U.S. interests abroad. If we thought 9/11 was bad, wait untill Bush goes for another four.......

Yob Atta

my point is both wars are/were attacking randomly, not really addressing the cause. In both cases it's like carpet bombing a disease causing bacteria, this method may kill a few bacteria here and there but the action ends up strengthening the cause instead of defeating it (precisely why the war on drugs failed).

Interesting anology. That's called the "shotgun approach" and is the method most often used to fight infections. Pennicillin, Zithromax, Cipro, etc. are all broad spectrum antibiotics used to "carpet bomb" the bacteria into submission and are quite effective. The only way this "strengthens" the infection is if the treatment regimen is discontinued before a sufficient number of bacteria have been killed. The same thing applies to the war on terror. We must beat them into submission and continue doing so long enough to convince them that opposing us is pointless.

Madanthony, I'm curious how much force you think that it would be necessary to unleash, and on how many countries, in order to subdue terrorism against the USA.

Good Question. I'd say, whatever it takes. Up to and including nuclear, although I'd reserve that for reprisal against any WMD attack within the United States. In the words of Jim Malone, "You wanna know how you do it? Here's how, they pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue! That's the Chicago way..."

As far as against how many countries, any and all countries that actively support terrorism. Of course, as we move down the list, hopefully some terror sponsors will decide to change teams. This has happened already with Libya.

The US has anti-goverment terrorists that are born and bred americans residing in your borders, mcveigh is a good example (christian fundamentalists). If they'd been "smoked out" in a similar fashion I'd find your views much less hypocritical.

Maybe Madanthony isn't a hypocrite: How do you feel about martial law in the USA, and troops on continual search-and-destroy missions in our American streets, Madanthony?

hell, if the search and destroy missions were focused on everyone equally, I'd be far less concerned.

It's the fact that america jumps to fight other countries while ignoring it's own, home grown, terrorists I find scary. That's what makes the "war against evil" seem ridiculous to me.

I agree that terrorism is a blight on humanity but if you have terrorists in your own country, how can you claim to be better than those you fight?

Interesting anology. That's called the "shotgun approach" and is the method most often used to fight infections. Pennicillin, Zithromax, Cipro, etc. are all broad spectrum antibiotics used to "carpet bomb" the bacteria into submission and are quite effective. The only way this "strengthens" the infection is if the treatment regimen is discontinued before a sufficient number of bacteria have been killed. The same thing applies to the war on terror. We must beat them into submission and continue doing so long enough to convince them that opposing us is pointless.

Good Question. I'd say, whatever it takes. Up to and including nuclear, although I'd reserve that for reprisal against any WMD attack within the United States. In the words of Jim Malone, "You wanna know how you do it? Here's how, they pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue! That's the Chicago way..."

As far as against how many countries, any and all countries that actively support terrorism. Of course, as we move down the list, hopefully some terror sponsors will decide to change teams. This has happened already with Libya.

First off, I'm not sure why you guys are comparing terrorists to pirates and bacteria... these guys aren't just criminals or microorganisms.

These are professional killers (good ol' CIA training) that will stop at absolutely nothing to hurt the world (not just the USA). They are willing to die, kill, steal, and sabotage.

Although nuking the world and building a big wall around the US would work for keeping most terrorists out, the ends do not always justify the means. We have lived in a world with terrorist threat for a long time, and 9/11 should not mean we now have to suddenly throw over our liberties and declare martial law.

Maybe Madanthony isn't a hypocrite: How do you feel about martial law in the USA, and troops on continual search-and-destroy missions in our American streets, Madanthony?

That's exactly what I'm hoping to avoid by destroying terrorism at it's source. However, I fear that's what it may come to.

The US has anti-goverment terrorists that are born and bred americans residing in your borders, mcveigh is a good example (christian fundamentalists). If they'd been "smoked out" in a similar fashion I'd find your views much less hypocritical

McVeigh was an aberation. The 'exception that proves the rule'. Why don't you try to cite another example? You can't. The whole militia movement pretty much died out after the Oklahma City bombing. If fundamentalist christians presented an ongoing threat, of course I'd be in favor of "smoking them out". But they don't. Islamic fundalmentalism is unique in the world and is at war with just about every group they come into contact with. Hindus, animists, Christians, Russians, Chinese, and of course, the US. Hell, they just attacked the US embasy TODAY!

The Bush administration revealed their fear of scrutiny, and their fear of scrutiny of their masters, when they tried to propagandize the public with the notion that the root of terrorism is that they "hate our freedoms": That was a vicious and revealing lie, painting freedom as the root of terrorism
That was not a lie. How many freedoms existed in Afganistan under the Taliban? The goal of the Islamic fundamentalist is nothing short of world domination with the entire world living under "Sharia" (sp?) You liberals need to get that thru your heads. It's YOU they hate the most. It is truly ironic that if those the Islamic fundamentalists most want to destroy, are the ones who refuse to fight.

Just to point out the Iraq is not the Vietnam type quagmire all you libs are hoping for, check out this link: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005430

Just to point out the Iraq is not the Vietnam type quagmire all you libs are hoping for, check out this link: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005430

Maybe not yet, but give it time...........

Yob Atta :)

The geography's too different.

Maybe not yet, but give it time...........

Yob Atta :)

Yes, Mr. Atta, time will tell and I'm confident that you'll be disapointed.

Terrorists were already pissed at US for years and will attack whenever they have a chance. As a matter of fact, they did attack when they had their chances.

Will America be safer if nothing was done after 9/11 so that terrorists can be pleased? My answer to this one is NO!!! Is it safer now compared to doing nothing after 9/11? ABSOLUTELY!!!

Yes, Mr. Atta, time will tell and I'm confident that you'll be disapointed.

Like any war, Vietnam only started out with just some american advisors and we sent a few troops to South Vietnam just to make sure we could could support the South Vietnamese government if they couldn't scare away the communists from the North...........The rest is history. Iraq started out with Bush thinking he could walk in, grab Sadam and take control and any would-be terrorist would probably fall over dead out of fear of the mighty american military war machine...........Wrong! Now Bush's Iraq war has backfired and guess what? The terrorists and Osama are really happy we're over there because now it really justify's their cause! Vietnam? Yea......sure. It's just a question of time before Iraq becomes just like Vietnam. No end in sight! Except this time we have a lunatic for a president!

Atta Boy :)

Sometimes a lunatic is the right man for the job. Only a lunatic, or a drunk, would have continued to throw away the lives of his soldiers the way Grant did in the civil war, but ultimately Grant prevailed over the much more capable Robert E. Lee.

Sometimes a lunatic is the right man for the job.

well, when the thread gets to this point the discussion is basically over.

If you can say a lunatic may be needed to lead, further argument is impossible. Every one of history's most notorious monsters could have used that defense during their reign, it's a response that can be used to validate any action.

lunacy can happen to anyone at any time
it is caused by oversanity


Philosopher Philocrazy

Jeez Buffy. I was just trying to come up with a snappy comeback to Mr. Atta's Ad Hominem attack on president Bush.