Sickening

... but then shouldn't we be doing very basic stuff like securing our own borders, improving airline security, etc., etc.? The 9/11 Commission had a whole lot of recommendations for pragmatic solutions (and Kerry was all for implementing them ASAP), but they haven't been implemented widely yet. On the table, hope they will, but not a done deal. There are a whole lot of basic security measures at HOME that haven't happened yet.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

The Clinton (and no doubt, Kerry) approach to terrorism? Pursue the criminal terrorists using law enforcement techniques all the way to the borders of Afghanistan, then ask the Taliban to turn them over on the basis of our warrant? And when they refuse? Fire some cruise missles at an aspirin factory?

The war in Afghanistan is an entirely different animal from the war on Iraq.

Again, the Iraq war has nothing to do with terrorism.

0 Replies

MerlinsGodson wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
The Clinton (and no doubt, Kerry) approach to terrorism? Pursue the criminal terrorists using law enforcement techniques all the way to the borders of Afghanistan, then ask the Taliban to turn them over on the basis of our warrant? And when they refuse? Fire some cruise missles at an aspirin factory?

The war in Afghanistan is an entirely different animal from the war on Iraq.

Again, the Iraq war has nothing to do with terrorism.

You just go right ahead and keep repeating that to yourself.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Therefore; it is imperative that we deal with terrorists like we would deal with any other criminal organization, and leave this stupid military response idiocy out of it. All we've done is spent tons of money, killed thousands of innocents, and convinced thousands more to fight us. Not a good track record.

Cycloptichorn

Comparing terrorism to the early 1900 is just silly. The ability of terrorists to destroy an entire city and millions of lives is very real... notice all of the examples in your article are single targets until it mentions Clinton and the bombing of the U.S. military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. Don't you agree that terrorism is a growing threat? Why wait until the numbers of deaths reach those of traffic accidents or heart disease to do anything about it?

You keep saying we should "deal with terrorism." How? How do you "deal with terrorists like we deal with any other criminal organization?"

0 Replies

Damn you and your logic, Soz!!! But it won't work on Republicans.

Quote:

You just go right ahead and keep repeating that to yourself.

Quote:

We've done a lot more than what you've indicated. We've dispelled the notion that the US would take the approach you've advocated. We've shown the inclination to not just take it on the chin without mounting a serious opposition. And we've shown that we are disinclined to just sit back and take it, and take it ...

We'll keep repeating it as long as it takes to sink through your thick skulls.

Tico, you sound like an 18 year old boy. 'We'll show 'em! America isn't going to lay down and take this, by jingo!'

Really mature attitude towards world politics and governance, there.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Again, the Iraq war has nothing to do with terrorism.[/quote]

IYO. Not a fact.

0 Replies

It IS a fact.

The only thing it has to do with terrorism is that there are a hell of a lot more terrorists in Iraq now than when we got there.

You may be implying that we went to Iraq so that the terrorists would fight us there, and not here; but that would be the most morally bankrupt thing I've ever heard someone suggest for our actions in Iraq.

Is that what you are implying?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

jpinMilwaukee wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Therefore; it is imperative that we deal with terrorists like we would deal with any other criminal organization, and leave this stupid military response idiocy out of it. All we've done is spent tons of money, killed thousands of innocents, and convinced thousands more to fight us. Not a good track record.

Cycloptichorn

Comparing terrorism to the early 1900 is just silly. The ability of terrorists to destroy an entire city and millions of lives is very real... notice all of the examples in your article are single targets until it mentions Clinton and the bombing of the U.S. military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. Don't you agree that terrorism is a growing threat? Why wait until the numbers of deaths reach those of traffic accidents or heart disease to do anything about it?

You keep saying we should "deal with terrorism." How? How do you "deal with terrorists like we deal with any other criminal organization?"

Anyone, anyone please Question above^^^^^^^ :wink:

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

MerlinsGodson wrote:

Again, the Iraq war has nothing to do with terrorism.

You just go right ahead and keep repeating that to yourself.

The only people still claiming that the war on Iraq is combating terrorism are Bush and Cheney. The 9/11 commission and even Tony Blair have indicated otherwise.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It IS a fact.

The only thing it has to do with terrorism is that there are a hell of a lot more terrorists in Iraq now than when we got there.

You may be implying that we went to Iraq so that the terrorists would fight us there, and not here; but that would be the most morally bankrupt thing I've ever heard someone suggest for our actions in Iraq.

Is that what you are implying?

Cycloptichorn

No I am saying that is your opinion NOT FACT. Just like it is my opinion that the war in Iraq is all about the fight on terrorism.

0 Replies

The only people still claiming that the war on Iraq is combating terrorism are Bush and Cheney. The 9/11 commission and even Tony Blair have indicated otherwise.[/quote]

Link? Tony Blair.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
We've done a lot more than what you've indicated. We've dispelled the notion that the US would take the approach you've advocated. We've shown the inclination to not just take it on the chin without mounting a serious opposition. And we've shown that we are disinclined to just sit back and take it, and take it ...

Tico, you sound like an 18 year old boy. 'We'll show 'em! America isn't going to lay down and take this, by jingo!'

Really mature attitude towards world politics and governance, there.

Cycloptichorn

And it's about time we had a President with the cojones to actually do something about terrorism. Clinton was a miserable failure on that front. A mature failure, perhaps, but a failure nonetheless.

0 Replies

cannistershot wrote:

cannistershot wrote:
You keep saying we should "deal with terrorism." How? How do you "deal with terrorists like we deal with any other criminal organization?"

Anyone, anyone please Question above

You catch them and prosecute them. Just like any other organized crime syndicate. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

One way I'd like to see a President do something about terrorism is to implement the 9/11 Commission's recommendations.

Hope he does. (Note future tense.)

0 Replies

cannistershot wrote:

Quote:
The only people still claiming that the war on Iraq is combating terrorism are Bush and Cheney. The 9/11 commission and even Tony Blair have indicated otherwise.

Link? Tony Blair.

"The truth is, as was abundantly plain in the motion before the House of Commons on 18 March, we went to war to enforce compliance with UN Resolutions. Had we believed Iraq was an imminent direct threat to Britain, we would have taken action in September 2002; we would not have gone to the UN. Instead, we spent October and November in the UN negotiating UN Resolution 1441. We then spent almost 4 months trying to implement it."

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1162991,00.html

0 Replies

Quote:

No I am saying that is your opinion NOT FACT. Just like it is my opinion that the war in Iraq is all about the fight on terrorism.

The difference being, MY opinion is based upon the FACT that there weren't a significant number of terrorists in Iraq, there wasn't a significant amount of money being spent on terrorism in Iraq, and there are many many more terrorists there now than before we invaded.

EVERY piece of evidence we have found confirms what I hold as my opinion. You, on the other hand, have little if no evidence to back up your claim, other than the fact that you believe that America is doing the right thing.

Then again, this really does highlight the difference between the Secular and Religious modes of thought; my opinions are based upon logic and critical examination of my own opinion, whereas yours are based upon..... ?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Soz, the logical nature of what you've said! Again!

Let's see if ANY of those things are done within a year. Somehow I doubt it.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

One way I'd like to see a President do something about terrorism is to implement the 9/11 Commission's recommendations.

Hope he does. (Note future tense.)

I agree with you soz... but don't you think it would be foolish to stop there?

0 Replies

JpInMilwaukee Wrote:

Quote:

I agree with you soz... but don't you think it would be foolish to stop there?

What do you mean?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

We can tighten the borders but there is no way we can secure them completely. Metal detectors and air marshals and airport security is great but it is still only defensive measures.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know