AMERICA NEEDS TO WAKE UP! At war for years now

I guess bin Laden's lucky we weren't in charge.

But that's the problem, Bill Occom. The question of our own penalties is "irrelevant," it's everyone else who must suffer the consequences of their own transgressions. We're barefaced hypocrites when we spew this crap about morality to the world all the while acting with self-righteous impunity. "FREEDOM!" "DEMOCRACY!"

"I think you were wrong about not Nuking after 9/11, too. If I were in charge; Bin Ladin would have been vaporized in the Tora Bora Valley after we dropped a 50 Megaton H-Bomb over the mountain range reducing the entire area to vapor (quite literally)."

So - dead Afghans are as nought compared with dead Americans?

Nevermind that Bin Laden was an American stooge gone wrong.

What is the ratio of Americans to non-Americans that is acceptable to you?

1/1,000? 1/200? What?

And there, Bill, we part debating company on this.

If you are prepared to vaporise a mountain range and its inhabitants in such a situation - clearly the gap in our thinking is so huge that it is foolish to attempt to communicate across it on such a matter.

How does visibility figure in?

On film raises the ante, or not?

Bush Turns Another Bush Mistake (Zarqawi) into Another Glorious Reason To Vote for Bush
by David Corn

published by DavidCorn.com

Bush Turns Another Bush Mistake (Zarqawi) into Another Glorious Reason To Vote for Bush

It's amazing how Bush can turn his mistakes into glorious reasons for his reelection.

Two days ago, he delivered a campaign speech on national security in New Jersey and continued to slam John Kerry by misrepresenting Kerry's postions (for instance, claiming Kerry would allow other nations to veto US national security actions). But this was nothing new. What was fresh was that Bush spoke at length about Abu Musab Zarqawi, the Jordanian terrorist apparently responsible for carbombings, beheadings and other horrific terrorist actions in Iraq. Bush pointed to Zarqawi as a reason to vote for Bush. His argument: Kerry doesn't understand that if the United States was not now pursuing Zarqawi in Iraq, Zarqawi would be wreaking havoc not in Iraq but in the United States. Yet Bush neglected to mention that his administration repeatedly passed up the chance to strike Zarqawi before the war in Iraq. That is, the war in Iraq was not necessary to deal with the threat posed by Zarqawi. Still, with his primary argument for the war--Saddam Hussein possessed stockpiles of WMDs and was in cahoots with al Qaeda--no longer operative, Bush has embraced the battle against Zarqawi as his latest justification for the war in Iraq.

It's important to note that before the war, Zarqawi was reportedly operating in northern Iraq, in territory close to the area controlled by the US-allied Kurds. When Colin Powell presented the administration's case for war to the United Nations Security Council in February 2003, he showed satellite photos of the camp where Zarqawi was allegedly based. That means the administration, which was then maintaining no-fly zones in this part of Iraq, knew-or thought it knew--where he was. Yet it took no action. Why not? An NBC News story from last March (posted below) notes, the "administration feared destroying the [Zarqawi] terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam." I recently spoke with a former national security official who says that this is the explanation he has heard from his former colleagues.

Let's recap: to justify his invasion of Iraq and to prove he's a better leader than Kerry, Bush waves a finger at Zarqawi, a threat he seemingly neglected before the war, who has become a greater threat due to the war. In a way, Bush is saying, I am the only guy tough enough to handle the danger that was increased by the the mess I created. Well, you got to work with what you have.

Below are Bush's remarks on Zarqawi:

The case of one terrorist shows what is at stake. The terrorist leader we face in Iraq today, the one responsible for beheading American hostages, the one responsible for many of the car bombings and attacks against Iraq is a man named Zarqawi. Before September the 11th, Zarqawi ran a camp in Afghanistan that trained terrorists in the use of explosives and poisons, until coalition forces destroyed that camp. (Applause.) He fled to Saddam Hussein's Iraq, where he received medical care and set up operations with some 2,000 terrorist associates. He operated in Baghdad and worked with associates in northern Iraq. He ran camps to train terrorists, and conducted chemical and biological experiments, until coalition forces arrived and ended those operations. (Applause.) With nowhere to operate openly, Zarqawi has gone underground and is making a stand in Iraq.

Here, the difference between my opponent and me is very clear. Senator Kerry believes that fighting Zarqawi and other terrorists in Iraq is a "diversion" from the war on terror. I believe that fighting and defeating these killers in Iraq is a central commitment in the war on terror. (Applause.)

If Zarqawi and his associates were not busy fighting American forces in Iraq, does Senator Kerry think they would be leading productive and peaceful lives? (Laughter.) Clearly, these killers would be plotting and acting to murder innocent civilians in free nations, including our own. By facing these terrorists far away, our military is making the United States of America more secure. (Applause.)

If Zarqawi has been an essential target in the war on terrorism, why did the Bush administration not do everything possible to take him out before the invasion of Iraq? (imagine what Bush would be saying now if Kerry had voted against authorizing an operation aimed at Zarqawi.) And in his chronology, Bush leaves out a crucial fact: according to numerous published reports, after the Taliban regime was crushed, Zarqawi left Afghanistan not for Iraq, but for Iran. It seems he operated out of Iran at some points during the post-Taliban period--as well as spent time in Baghdad and northern Iraq.

Now here is the NBC News report that has been widely circulated on the Internet regarding the White House decision to leave Zarqawi alone before the war:

March 2, 2004
AVOIDING ATTACKING SUSPSECTED TERRORIST MASTERMIND

By Jim Miklaszewski, NBC News
With Tuesday's attacks, Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant with ties to al-Qaida, is now blamed for more than 700 terrorist killings in Iraq.

But NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself--but never pulled the trigger. In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.

The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.

"Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn't do it," said Michael O'Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.

The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq."People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president's policy of preemption against terrorists," according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.

In January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in Iraq. The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it. Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi's operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

The United States did attack the camp at Kirma at the beginning of the war, but it was too late--Zarqawi and many of his followers were gone. "Here's a case where they waited, they waited too long and now we're suffering as a result inside Iraq," Cressey added.
And despite the Bush administration's tough talk about hitting the terrorists before they strike, Zarqawi's killing streak continues today.

Though Kerry has referred to this story on the campaign trail, this episode has not received much attention. Did Bush and his aides really let Zarqawi off the hook three times because they wanted to preserve their case for invading Iraq? If so, shouldn't that be at least as big a deal as, say, Kerry's reference to Mary Cheney as a lesbian? Not only has Bush received little flak for that decision; he has exploited the awful results for his own political gain.

You know better, so that's a cheap shot. It is my opinion that such a demonstration of intolerance for those who shelter our enemies would reduce the number of sanctuaries they have or will have. How many people live in the target area of the Tora Bora Mountains anyway? More or less than have died in Iraq because our threat wasn't sufficiently credible, despite our awesome power?

Irrelevant. So was Oswald... should that get him a pass?


I didn't think you'd enjoy this one too much. <shrugs>

Boy Deb, 5 edits? I'd love to see what's on the cutting room floor. What's that about? If that Ante/Visibility question is for me; that is a publicity thing... and no, to me it makes no difference. If I were in charge, I would make public an attitude that we have a Zero Tolerance and that every terrorist mission is a suicide mission. No Quarter.

That's a problem, IB, but it isn't the problem and frankly it isn't our problem. Someone has to be the Alpha. As bad as you think we are, I don't think many countries would be better. I would probably agree with you about many of our mistakes; there are enough to fill many books (and have). But don't hold your breath until we cede power to an international authority. And even if we did; a contract with the Alpha is only as good as the Alpha's willingness to honor it anyway. You won't be seeing Bush brought up on any charges.

Bill, if I were a terrorist I would love you.

When the country has this "Zero Tolerance" attitude, it plays right into the hands of the terrorists. The terrorists goal is to maximize fear in their target country and anger in their base country. That is exactly what your macho rhetoric does.

"No Quarter" means that after every successful terrorist strike, the US is going to do something brash. They will level a house, bomb, assassinate etc. This almost always is seen as an affront to the civilians in the area and often results in civilian casualities.

Most importantly it gives the terrorists exactly what they need. It doesn't materially harm the terrorists (it may kill some but this doesn't damage their cause). It also gives their cause legitimacy among many of the civilians, and feeds the anger and desperation that motivates people to become extremists.

Look. This should be obvious.

Who are the two countries with the strongest "Zero Tolerance", "No Quarter" attitude?

They are Russia and Israel. Both of these nations have had brutally strong military campaigns against terrorist movements for decades.

So there are at least two good examples of countries who have taken your attitude. How do you think it has worked?

With all due respect, Ebrown, this is even more simplistic than my stance. Terrorists become terrorists for real reasons with real goals... They are desperate to affect some kind of change, somehow and probably feel they have run out of options. I don't think many do it just do it for the love of the hate. Restricting your response to their crimes against humanity, because you fear their response to yours, is what plays into their hands. That is when they know they're succeeding. Only when all people understand that NOTHING can be achieved through terrorism will we have a chance to defeat it. For as long as the powers that be cave in to terrorist demands, terrorism will continue to be a viable, effective, even prudent solution for the overmatched desperate people of the world.

To defeat it, you have to take away all proceeds from it. We'll never be able to stop a suicide bomber. We can demonstrate that suicide bombs are not only useless for "the cause", but also an automatic death warrant for everyone of the organizing membership.

No Quarter means no such thing. I use it metaphorically, but it's true meaning is to kill every man, woman, child, dog, pig, bird in a geographic area. King Edward the "long shanks" was the most feared man alive because of his willingness to employ this strategy. With no phones, Internet nor television the word spread quickly enough. My use of it is simply that every member of the terrorist organization is guilty of murder as soon as the group commits it's first, just as surely as the getaway driver is guilty when his partner kills the guard in a bank robbery.

Neither of these countries follow through with the other side of my designs, Ebrown. The carrot AND the stick. They're both pretty much all stick.

I believe our economic supremacy should be shared only with countries who respect the natural rights of their citizens. Our support of totalitarian despotic regimes makes us a party to their crimes (my definition). I agree that just the stick won't work because desperate times call for desperate measures. (Nothing justifies suicide bombs, however.) But if we succeed in leaving a representative system of government in place of our conquered despotic foes; do you really think we won't find less resistance next time? Do you really believe the people on the outside looking in at that new found freedom and liberty won't desire it for themselves (if it suceeds mind you)?

We are not half as responsible for their lots in life as the religious nuts (Bin Laden) would have their followers believe... and if we can prove as much, by helping them gain a voice in their own governance, while demonstrating the futility of their resistance, their numbers will eventually dwindle away to nothing.

If Saudi terrorists believe Americans are somewhat responsible for Saudi suffering because we support the ruling class that keeps them down... they're somewhat right. Somewhat. Ultimately, the people need to take control of their own government to level the playing field. To the degree, we assist said government in keeping its citizens down is the degree of our responsibility. Scoff at the idea of spreading liberty and freedom if you wish, but I believe it's the only way we'll ever eradicate the terrorists.

In the long run, it's in our best interest to do so. I'll continue to support doing work that needs to be done sooner, rather than later.

(Dlowan, Craven, others and I discussed some of this at some length here. I found that to be a most interesting conversation.)

Our faults are someone else's problem?

That's textbook sociopathy, BO.

Yeah, someone has to be Alpha, but aside from the sociopathic approach, that does not preclude acting in ways that do not incite insurgency and reaction. The best defense is not to offend, or go down like the sociopathic Alphas of the past and be smeared off the face of the globe.

Yes... and you know it.


In a broad context, perhaps. In this specific context; it is a simple statement of fact. Our behavior will not please all of the people, all of the time, so will always be those who are left with two choices; like it or lump it.

That is utter nonsense. In the first place, we are arguably the most benevolent Alpha there has ever been. Most peoples who've adapted our ideals have done so voluntarily. In the second, your suggestion that we can stave off doom by not offending murderous despots and religious fanatics is as absurd as it is naïve.

I agree that our time at the top is limited. But it's my contention that technology is rapidly closing the window of opportunity on survival. In the last hundred years our ability to kill has advanced one thousand fold or better. Our desire not to has hardly moved , let alone kept pace.

I don't believe for one second that if we spend our time at the top just tolerating the inhuman (or is it too human) cruelty around the world that we'll survive when the torch is passed. Our replacement will likely be worse, not better. And besides; replacing us at this time would require a near extinction level event.

IMHO, our best hope for survival, perhaps our only hope in the long run, is to use our time as the only superpower to rid the world of totalitarian despotic governments once and for all. I believe people are (or should be) born with many of the inalienable rights we have in this country… and that as long we ignore, tolerate, "try not to offend" the despotic scum that governs those who do not, peace will be an illusion. Poor hungry people will always be willing to fight the people they believe responsible for their plight… and manipulating them has been proven quite easy. No nation in history has been blessed with our strength, and the ability that comes with it, to end the state level oppression that creates such desperation. This should be our legacy.

To accomplish this, we require both the carrot AND the stick.

Save the references to the Alphas of the past. Technology has changed too dramatically. There is no precedent for the power that we as a species now possess. We can use it to rid the world of oppressive despotic scum… or wait until they use it to rid the world of us. I'd choose the former but am, as of yet, unsatisfied with our progress.

Hafta stop installing the despots first, Bill.

That done - well, then you may be in a position to dare to talk about being global police/judges/executioners.

Oh - the edits in the previous post were about getting the damn italics right.

The fancy bits don't woek in Opera, I have to do 'em manually.

There you go making sense again, O'Bill.

The ones who always talk about us being the "alpha" and things like our time will give way to some other "alpha" are the ones who are working hard to take down this country and what it has always stood for..

They don't like that we're on top. Europe hates it that we're on top. Yet, we do more good for people around the world than ANY of those countries.. If America just stayed within its borders and never went overseas to combat the communist invaders or the terrorists in our world, we would have them knocking on our doorstep in no time at all. That is why we fight and spill our soldiers blood for others. It is simple as that...

Our country would be the only nation left on the planet, if we didn't help others out. Then how would we defend ourselves?

Yes- if astounding arrogance ignorance is sense in Bill.

Global police? When you flout international law? The war in Iraq has done unspeakable damage to the fledgeling strength of international law. Great police.

What law WILL you adhere to?

What you feel like?

Based on what? American ignorance (amply demonstrated here) about its own recent history, and the world?


Your president won't even take advice about whether Sweden has an army.

Damn D. Your last two responses appear to be written by two different people. Hmmm. I'll respond to the first one. :wink:

Agreed. But who knows? Maybe we have. As my favorite fictional, fictional character (Sofia :wink: ) once said, "Every passing minute is another chance to turn it all around."

<Smiles at JW. >

As for it being a "cheap shot" to call you on nuking the mountains of Afghanistan - how so?

Yiou say it is unfair to say your words say you value American lives more than Afghani ones - yet, for the loss of what, 2,500 American lives (lots were foreigners, you know) you speak of nuking a mountain range.

I have been trying to find out how many live there - so far I have only got 14,000 refugees because, what with Afghanistan having become one of those lucky playgrounds of the superpowers, nobody really knows how many Afghanis there are - and population data for that region is difficult. (Of the roughly 27 million - more than 2 million are refugees. )

Lemme tell you something though Bill - there are a lot more than 3,000.

Would you have checked that before you nuked, on the off chance of getting Bin Laden?

I am carping you FOR WHAT YOU SAID.

What you said amounts to "I am happy to promote killing a large number of innocent Afghanis because a very much smaller number of innocent Americans were killed".

You always appeal to something like - "You know I am a nice guy - I wouldn't mean that, and you are really mean and low to imply I did."

That is actually what really scares me Bill - you ARE a nice guy - yet you happily recommend such actions - and do not like having it brought home to you what they mean.

America IS usually "a nice guy" too - and yet it does terrible stuff, too - then lots of you wiggle and bleat when someone dares tell you what America has done - and express some doubts about your rights to be world ruler and cop and judge and executioner, as I said.

You're just another fallible country - another big kid with huge and scary toys. YOU like the rest of us, need policing.

I very much hope it is so.

If it is, I will be the first to applaud.

You've read at least a half a dozen times that I believe some strong, deadly responses result in a net of less dead, less suffering. (Like striking Yongbyon in the early 90's for instance). If causing more death today causes less death in the future than I say go for it. And nationality has NOTHING to do with it. Pin that label on someone else, it doesn't fit me.



Don't be a piker D. Terrorists and the despotic scum that support them kill people measured in millions. That 14,000 number sounds familiar to me, and yes, as President I would have ordered that strike (if no better idea were posed to me). Not because I place a higher value on our 2,500 dead; because I believe the action would result in a net reduction of lives lost. A strike of that magnitude would have scared the good guys and bad guys alike, removing all doubt about the futility of attacking western civilization (shock and awe). I believe Saddam would have rolled over, or took exile or whatever else we told him he was going to do, because he would no longer have the ill-conceived notion that we're bluffers. Iran, North Korea, Syria and every other potential foe would have no choice but to recognize the potential extinction in messing with us and supporting those that do. No one would want to be next on our sh!t-list.



There's plenty of grounds to call me heavy handed... or even downright nuts if you like, D, but none to say I'm selective about Nationality. :wink: Your numerous paraphrases to the contrary are all patently false. I'm not appealing to my "niceness" when I remind you that you know better; I'm asking for an honest depiction of my madness, (if that's what you think it is). I don't care for the nationality shot, because it is untrue.

Now you sound like just another silly idealist with this "same as everyone else", "need policing" nonsense. As a nation, we are not the same; we are the Alfa. That's not a statement of pride; it is a statement of fact. We can be policed by ourselves, or by no one at all. Unless you figure this fact into your equations, you will consistently come up with incorrect answers. Garbage in-> garbage out.

Ahhhh, at last. Something we can agree on completely! :wink: