Jump to content

War on terror - hard to deny success


ready182
This topic is 6607 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

I admit I have been hesitant to post on this topic. You know, "knock on wood", superstition, etc. But here we are. You can bet your ass Osama and his fuckhead supporters wanted to make a major strike on U.S. soil before this election, a la Spain. Yet, God forbid something happening tomorrow, we effectively thwarted their intentions. The credit for this success goes to our military, and to our current administration who had the courage to attack the bastards where they used to hide, and to disrupt the means they need to be successful (for example, the flow of their money, and their havens in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia).

 

Screw Iraq, Gore wouldn't have had the balls to go into Afganistan! Like Clinton, reacting to 9-11. Gore would have fired a few cruise missles into the ocean, and called it even. Likewise, Kerry wouldn't have the guts to fire a shot even if Jane Fonda or Theresa's Ketchup empire was in danger!

 

Al Quida is a very dangerous enemy, and sorry to say the John Lennon/Yoke approach will not keep us safe.

 

Ready

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. I think this has been, overall, a failure, mainly BECAUSE of the focus becoming Iraq instead of Afghanastan.

 

I think with Gore or Kerry at the helm we would have gone to war with Afghanistan, and I agree action was needed there after 9/11. Osama Bin Laden had to be hunted down (which still hasn't happened). I'd even go so far as to say that I feel you're right up UNTIL the point where the focus became Iraq with this administration. We WERE doing well, and Bush's actions directly after 9/11 were good IMO. But after that, I feel it's been a complete disaster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Be fair for once. The fact is that there have been no attacks on the US since 9/11 and the anthrax incidents which occurred almost simultaneously. You can claim the Gore or Kerry would have done a better job, but you can have no facts to back it up. Kerry has not been a leader in Congress and has never had an executive of administrative position. He will, I predict be Jimmy Carter Jr., the most feeble and silly President ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Be fair for once. The fact is that there have been no attacks

>on the US since 9/11 and the anthrax incidents which occurred

>almost simultaneously. You can claim the Gore or Kerry would

>have done a better job, but you can have no facts to back it

>up. Kerry has not been a leader in Congress and has never had

>an executive of administrative position. He will, I predict be

>Jimmy Carter Jr., the most feeble and silly President ever.

 

Actually, Gore or Kerry would have finished the job in Afghanistan, captured osama bin Laden and not allowed Al Qaeda to regroup as George Bush has done. They would have taken out Ayman al-Zawahiri when they had the chance instead of letting him go like Bush. They would have focused on the war on terror instead of Saddam and Iraq.

 

The most feeble and silly president ever is the Current Occupant. However, it sounds as though you have resigned yourself to Kerry winning on Tuesday. Good call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Actually, Gore or Kerry would have finished the job in

>Afghanistan, captured osama bin Laden and not allowed Al Qaeda

>to regroup as George Bush has done. They would have taken out

>Ayman al-Zawahiri when they had the chance instead of letting

>him go like Bush. They would have focused on the war on

>terror instead of Saddam and Iraq.

 

Yes they would have done an excellent job just like Carter and Clinton. The Democrats have done an excellent job in the past...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Be fair for once. The fact is that there have been no attacks

>on the US since 9/11 and the anthrax incidents which occurred

>almost simultaneously. You can claim the Gore or Kerry would

>have done a better job, but you can have no facts to back it

>up. Kerry has not been a leader in Congress and has never had

>an executive of administrative position. He will, I predict be

>Jimmy Carter Jr., the most feeble and silly President ever.

 

You're right. I can't say for sure how Gore or Kerry would have done. But my gut feeling is better. I don't feel we'd be in a war with Iraq, and I do feel we would have stayed on course with Afghanistan and Al Quaida. Which is what I feel we needed to do.

 

Now I can't guarantee that, but frankly, I don't feel *most* administrations would have gone to war with Iraq at the time we did.

 

And as far as predictions, while you say I have no real evidence for what I'm saying, I don't feel you have evidence for Kerry being feeble and silly as President either.

 

Bottom line from my point of view, you never can tell how a President will TRULY be in office. You can just make an educated guess and hope you're right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>I admit I have been hesitant to post on this topic. You

>know, "knock on wood", superstition, etc. But here we are.

>You can bet your ass Osama and his fuckhead supporters wanted

>to make a major strike on U.S. soil before this election, a la

>Spain. Yet, God forbid something happening tomorrow, we

>effectively thwarted their intentions. The credit for this

>success goes to our military, and to our current

>administration who had the courage to attack the bastards

>where they used to hide, and to disrupt the means they need to

>be successful (for example, the flow of their money, and their

>havens in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia).

>

>Screw Iraq, Gore wouldn't have had the balls to go into

>Afganistan! Like Clinton, reacting to 9-11. Gore would have

>fired a few cruise missles into the ocean, and called it even.

> Likewise, Kerry wouldn't have the guts to fire a shot even if

>Jane Fonda or Theresa's Ketchup empire was in danger!

>

>Al Quida is a very dangerous enemy, and sorry to say the John

>Lennon/Yoke approach will not keep us safe.

>

>Ready

>

>

 

Bravo, Ready! You've stated your case with all the youthful exuberance and ignorance of a ten year old who hasn't paid much attention to learning the basics like spelling and sentence structure and history, for starters. I can fully appreciate a small group of people will profit if Dubya is reselected, but I seriously doubt you will. Whenever I feel the need to be reminded that America has its fair share of dimwits who only think with their reptilian brains, I'll be sure to search for your posts.

 

Thanks ever so much for sharing your DEEP INSIGHTS!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Yes they would have done an excellent job just like Carter and

>Clinton. The Democrats have done an excellent job in the

>past...

 

They got us through two World Wars and saved the world for democracy. At least Western Europe and Japan. . . And they were able to unite America behind the effort. America became the greatest power in the world under Democratic leadership. So put that up your ass and smoke it! }(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ready, can you really describe Bush's policies as success? Do you feel that over 1'000 American casualities in Iraq and more than 10,000 Iraqi casualties, despite the fact that there are no WMD's and no Hussein-bin Laden connection, has been justified?

Do you not wonder why Iraqi Oil Fields have been well-secured, while the rest of the country has fallen into chaos?

Do you not wonder about the following facts:

The US has been led into a war under false pretences, from which there is no good exit. Osama bin Laden is no closer to capture than he was in AD2000. The amount of terrorist attacks, worldwide, have increased rather than decreased under Bush's administration... Spain, Turkey, Indonesia, Russia. Not to mention Old Faithful, Israel.

Is this really the World the Republicans want?

 

 

Trix

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My reaction the last week's Osama tape wat that it proved that Bush's war on terror has been a complete failure! Here we are three years later in a quagmire of war in Iraq (costing thousands of lives and billions of dollars), when Iraq had no link to Al Queda. Now here is Osama Bin Laden who is not on the run, but in a studio somwhere, still threatening the U.S. All analysts agrees that the newest tape was made with professional grade recording equipment, professional lighting and professional sound. This was not the hand hel video in the caves. Osama looked like he was in good health, and he has the money and ability to make and distribute a professional video like this. Obviously he is being harbored by some existing govenment somewhere in the Middle East. I think that his existence, and showing that he still has power, shows the failure of Bush policies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This reminds me of the joke about the guy who kept snapping his fingers.

 

When they asked him why he did it, he said it was to keep away the pythons.

 

When they pointed out that there were no pythons on the continent, he said, "See! It works!"

 

Meanwhile, the news this morning is that an American soldier has been kidnapped in Iraq.

 

I wonder how his parents will feel about our success against terrorists, when his body is returned to them in two pieces.

 

Probably about the same way that the parents of a thousand other dead Americans felt.

 

At least we're winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.

 

Well, except for the 100,000 who have died since our invasion.

 

How many did Saddam kill in the last five years?

 

How many friends did that make him?

 

Not many. But it is hard to deny the success he had in his own personal war against those he considered terrorists.

 

He was winning it, up until the day he had to leave town.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In terms of dealing with terror and the intentions of terrorists, the result for the USA has been abject failure. Part of the purpose of terrorist tactics is to get the country attacked to react in such a way that its fundamental principles are breached. This is part of a longer term objective to increase the perception of it faults.

 

The Bush junta's reactions in terms of the Partiot Act and its attack on the civil rights of Americans is one victory for Bin Laden. Another is the attack on Iraq which has confirmed the perception of the USA as an enemy of Islam and, combined with Bush's withdrawal from engaging the Israel/Palestine peace process, has reinforced the country as a supporter of Israel.

 

Gitmo Bay has done for the USA in an even more extreme for what internment without trial did for the IRA's cause when it was used in the UK to counter Irish nationalist terrorism. The repression confirms what opponents have said about the country.

 

As well as failing to engage with Israel, Bush has also failed to see the other problems in the Middle East that are the excuse for and incubator of, if not the direct motivation for terrorist attacks in the region. The USA supports and maintains corrupt regimes in many of the countries in the region, from Pakistand to Saudi Arabia and beyond. Despite the oil reserves in some countries, the riches are concentrated in a limited elite who are supported to maintain oil supplies. Unemployment is endemic with millions in the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan actually forbidden by their status from working except in medial jobs. Overall something like 60% of Arabs are living on less than $2 per day.

 

Addressing questions of poverty, inequality and jutice in the Middle East and indeed throughout the least developed countries, is vital to prevent terrorist attacks in the future and is just as important as hunting down a few foreigners in Afghanistan. As far as that country is concerned, even with help the USA has failed to track down their previous clients who they encouraged to fight the Soviets. The warlords who took the bribes to fight with the West are now reaping the benefits of the replanted poppy fields that were razed under the Taliban.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Be fair for once. The fact is that there have been no attacks

>on the US since 9/11

 

You be fair and admit that is an absurd statement. On 9/10/2001 we could have said that since there has not been a successful terrorist attack on American soil since 1993, President Clinton and our security apparatus must have done a wonderful job of preventing terrorism. Twenty-four hours later we learned that we had in fact been doing a terrible job that left us vulnerable to the most devastating terrorist attack in our history.

 

 

>and the anthrax incidents which occurred

>almost simultaneously. You can claim the Gore or Kerry would

>have done a better job, but you can have no facts to back it

>up.

 

You're right. There are no facts to support a claim about what someone would have done who never had the chance to do it. The facts we do have, however, show that Bush has made a series of devastating mistakes in conducting the war in Iraq, and thousands of Americans have been killed and maimed as a result. If that is not a reason to fire a president, what would be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You missed the point of OBLs tape. He did 9/11 and promptly saw the US take over two Muslim countries. No only has OBL attacked us again, but now he wants a truce: "If you don't attack us, we won't attack you." Clearly a plea for mercy and an admission of defeat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The election looks as though it is a victory for terrorism. Since you miss the point that the whole purpose of the method is to provoke even more extreme reactions externally, which it has, and to increase fear and represson at home. Again a success.

 

Fear and hysteria means Bush's re-election and bankruptcy for the US economy? Looks like a sucess to me, for Bin Laden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

In order to post in the Political Issues forum, all members are required to acknowledge that their post is in compliance with our Community Guidelines.  In addition, you acknowledge that it meets the following requirements: 

  • No personal attacks: Attack the issue not the person
  • No hijacking: Stay on the subject of the thread 

  • No bullying, hate speech or offensive terms/expressions

In addition, if the moderators feel someone is reporting content simply because if it’s political stance (such as but not limited to reporting it as off topic but not other off topic replies by those that agree with your stance), the reporting person may receive a warning as well.

Content that does not comply with the above requirements will be removed.  Multiple violations may result in a loss of access to this forum.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...