Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 36 of 36
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    Totally off topic. Or are you suggesting that Bush or the war in Iraq have facilitated a solution for Israel?
    Why your reluctance to answer a simple question...this thread has already drifted.

    Also, do you view Saddam's $20,000 payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers as supporting terrorism?
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    Even if this would be the case, it would only be that because a strategically and operationally challenged US president made it that. 1. It is not (only) the Iranians fault. Much of it is also Sunni violence. And the Kurds only stay quiet because they have their own region under control. Also, Iraq is not about Islamistic terrorism mainly, it is Sunni and Shiite militia fighting for influence, oil, etc. Al Qaeda and Islamistic terror is only a minor part in the problem.

    2. The more "terrorists" (or Sunni/Shiite fighters) you kill, the more will follow the example of their older brothers, cousins, fathers, uncles, etc. The Iraqis will only hate the US more and more until you lose any remaining support. What you seem to fail to understand is that the number of "terrorists" is not a given, new ones are constantly added.

    The US have five times the homicide rate of most EU countries, why don't you close all police departments and use the army to take care of the problem? In the past years, many terrorist plots have failed and were stopped in time thanks to police and intelligence work. You may be the only person left who thinks the mess in Iraq speaks in favour of fighting "terrorism" by occupying a country (specifically a country with little or no ties to radical Islam).

    I am quite sure that deep down (or also not so deep down outside of the context of this board) you know that Bush is a loser, that his errors and those of Rumsfeld and the rest of the administration have led to a disaster, with little or no advantage in exchange, a no-win situation in Iraq, loss of options regarding Iraq and their quest for "nuclear power", etc.

    I am also quite sure that you are aware of the fact that the majority of the people in the US (I don't mean Democrats) will not support the mess in Iraq for much longer (and I am not saying this is a good thing), so that in the end, the Iraq war was nothing more than a useless disaster, caused by Bush and his neo-con dreamers. Did you read the article quoted in the "neo culpa" thread? Any comments?
    Iraq is the geographic center of the middle east. Choosing to fight here reflects neither strategic or operational ignorance. Creating a stable, democratic government here will ripple across this region. If it fails, well then I hope we adopt the "more rubble, less trouble" approach.

    I understand full well that terrorists, or as I think you prefer to call them, insurgents, recruit. They fail, however, when they perceive futility in resisting. Then a political settlement can be found. This can take decades to happen, even when they're not receiving external support. Given the media's presentation of this phase of the war on terror, (See the CNN sniper video...talk about your recruiting tools. Or the Boston Globe's hot exclusive on US soldiers "raping" Arab women...taken from an Arab porn site. Or Newsweek's flushing Koran, or the NYT's constant frontpage leaking of classified intelligence programs) they sense weakness and continue the fight. (Not to mention statements by politicians like Kerry, Durbin, Kennedy, etc.) How can they not think they're on the verge of winning when respected politicians compare US soldiers to Nazis?)

    This may come as a shocker...but I don't care a whit about Iraq's ties or lack thereof to radical Islamism. All I care about is that this is prime real estate right in the enemy's back yard, and they're coming to us over here. That Saddam got his neck stretched and we killed his two psychotic punk sons is just the cherry on top.

    I think it is strange that you equate homicides conducted by criminals with an international religious based war on the west. Please address my point...which was that we tried it your way and bin Laden was unimpressed. Police work is playing defense. This is a war, and you don't win wars by waiting for the enemy to strike you.

    I did not read the thread you referenced. Are you familiar with the writings of Mark Steyn? Victor Davis Hanson?

    Do not presume to write about what I think. You reek of Euro Arrogance when you do.

    PS-When I wrote one of my responses I put in Ansar Salam as a place holder, I wanted to make sure I got the spelling right for Ansar Al Sunnah. Anyway, that was a school boy error. Thanks for the correction.
    Last edited by 1911sforever; 01/13/2007 at 12:12 PM.
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever View Post
    Police work is playing defense. This is a war, and you don't win wars by waiting for the enemy to strike you.
    This is war because some president chose to call it "war on terror". Apparently he then deduced that if it is called war, one has to use the army, and if one wants to use the army, one has to chose a country where to use it... that's logical, isn't it? Never mind checking the validity of the premises, and the collateral damage (physical, political, financial) involved.

    Police work may be reactive to some extent, intelligence work certainly is not. There have been numerous plots which failed thanks to the increased intelligence and police efforts.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    This is war because some president chose to call it "war on terror". Apparently he then deduced that if it is called war, one has to use the army, and if one wants to use the army, one has to chose a country where to use it... that's logical, isn't it? Never mind checking the validity of the premises, and the collateral damage (physical, political, financial) involved.

    Police work may be reactive to some extent, intelligence work certainly is not. There have been numerous plots which failed thanks to the increased intelligence and police efforts.
    No. The police mentality is why the US just prosecuted a couple people the first time bin Laden bombed the WTC.

    Afghanistan was protecting al Qaeda for many years, and refused to give in to diplomatic pressure. Police work, and intelligence work, do not eliminate state sponsors of terror. It took a war to oust the Taliban and rout al Qaeda in Afghanistan. It took military pressure to get Musharraf to cooperate in the war on terror. It took a war to oust Saddam. It took a war with Saddam to pressure Ghaddafi to give up his nuclear weapons program and renounce terrorism.

    And the military will play a key role, directly or indirectly, in Iran and Syria. That is, without the threat of military action, we would be powerless against them.
  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    ...There have been numerous plots which failed thanks to the increased intelligence and police efforts.
    I take it we're not talking about the "illegal" intelligence efforts
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    I take it we're not talking about the "illegal" intelligence efforts
    Yes. I see Clulup has 100% faith in the same intelligence agencies that didn't forecast the collapse of the Soviet Union, let alone interdict 9/11. The same intelligence agencies that the world over maintained that Saddam had WMD.

    Folly.
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever View Post
    Yes. I see Clulup has 100% faith in the same intelligence agencies that didn't forecast the collapse of the Soviet Union, let alone interdict 9/11. The same intelligence agencies that the world over maintained that Saddam had WMD.

    Folly.
    While you trust the military responsible for Pig Bay?

    Of course the intelligence and law enforcement community is not perfect, but still much better in fighting terrorists than an army. Apart from that, I am not even against using an army e.g. in the case of Afghanistan. But Iraq? Look what you have got - the world's number one IED development and deployment facility. How long until that knowledge will be used in the Western world, too?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  8. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
    #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    I take it we're not talking about the "illegal" intelligence efforts
    hmm. how about that? what if it turns out that several plots have been foiled using "illegal" intelligence?
    I gotta have more cowbell
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    While you trust the military responsible for Pig Bay?
    Actually, the CIA was responsible for the Bay of Pigs. It failed mainly because Kennedy didn't send the military in.
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Actually, the CIA was responsible for the Bay of Pigs. It failed mainly because Kennedy didn't send the military in.
    Most likely because he knew better...
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    Most likely because he knew better...
    "While you trust the military responsible for Pig Bay?"

    You incorrectly blamed the military for the Bay of Pigs blunder. And now you suggest that Kennedy made the right decisions.

    How about we stick to a subject you know something about? How's the Swiss cheese industry doing?
  12. #32  
    Full of holes?
  13. #33  
    Full of holes?
  14. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
    #34  
    giggle.
    I gotta have more cowbell
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    Most likely because he knew better...
    I doubt that. I think Kennedy was trusting the US intelligence community too much (obviously, if you have seen the movie The Good Shepherd, but even without its help). No one seemed to trust anyone during that time, and Kennedy fell prey to this mistrust. He might have opted for a military solution had he knew how dysfunctional the US intelligence was.
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    Why would GWB be the nemesis of Islamistic terrorists? After all, it was he who gave them the opportunity of showing their power and capabilities in Iraq, he provided them with an ideal training ground for urban warfare, including the possibility of killing Americans, he created the situation in which US soldiers were showed torturing, humiliating, raping and killing Muslim civilians, thus providing the ideal basis for recruiting new terrorists, he cannot catch Bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders, etc.

    All things considered, Bush causes more terrorism, not less. Bush certainly isn't the nemesis of Islamistic terrorism, he is a cosponsor.
    Sarcasm is healthy, thanks for sharing. I certainly see the irony in fighting terror while it (fighting terror) increases the act of terror and terrorism worldwide.
    But, if I may ask: what should have been the White House response to 9/11? I debate that all the time in my head: Could or should Bush had done it differently? What should he had done?
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions