cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Nov, 2006 06:52 am
I'm trying to figure out exactly what right you think you've been missing?

Five years without a terrorist attack on our soil, during a time of war. Is that the one?
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Nov, 2006 06:59 am
attacks on American soil (except of course by Americans) in Clintons presidency-0

GHWB's presidency ditto
Reagan- ditto
Carter-ditto
Ford-ditto
Johnson-ditto
Kennedy-ditto
Eisenhower-ditto
almost forgot Nixon-ditto

bush= 9/11

just exactly what are f*ckers bragging about constantly with this no attacks in 5 years bullshit anyway?
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Nov, 2006 07:03 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
attacks on American soil (except of course by Americans) in Clintons presidency-0

GHWB's presidency ditto
Reagan- ditto
Carter-ditto
Ford-ditto
Johnson-ditto
Kennedy-ditto
Eisenhower-ditto
almost forgot Nixon-ditto

bush= 9/11

just exactly what are f*ckers bragging about constantly with this no attacks in 5 years bullshit anyway?


Whoa, I guess the 1993 WTC bombing doesn't count. Do you also think Atta and the other hijackers were paid by the CIA?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Nov, 2006 08:19 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
attacks on American soil (except of course by Americans) in Clintons presidency-0

GHWB's presidency ditto
Reagan- ditto
Carter-ditto
Ford-ditto
Johnson-ditto
Kennedy-ditto
Eisenhower-ditto
almost forgot Nixon-ditto

bush= 9/11

just exactly what are f*ckers bragging about constantly with this no attacks in 5 years bullshit anyway?


You are dead wrong Bear. The first attempt to take down the World Trade center occurred one year into Clinton's first term. Some (not all) of the perpetrators were American residents, but the direction of this event by al Qaeda has since been verified.

Gicen that the bomb placement was so obviously designed to cause structural failure of the building - a result that would have caused thousands of casualties - it is remarkable that the Clinton Administration failed to connect the dots when this was followed by the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Atrabia; the simultaneous bombing of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; and the bombing of the USS Cole. Clearly something more than unrelated criminal actions was afoot.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Nov, 2006 09:12 am
correct. Overlooked and makes me dead wrong.

Brings up this question though. 1993 to Jan 20 2001, almost 8 years in Clintons presidency, no attacks on American soil (other than by other Americans), 5 years no attacks during the bush reign. How come no one's ever bragging about no attacks in 8 years for clinton?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Nov, 2006 09:37 am
I suspect the reason for no bragging is the rather obvious pattern of escalating acts of terrorism directed at Americans - here and abroad - all by the same group of Islamist terrorists, that occurred during the Clintom Administration. I'm sure that if he didn't find the subject so potentially embarrassing, Clinton would be doing the bragging himself.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Nov, 2006 09:41 am
way to go out on a limb there Laughing
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Nov, 2006 09:46 am
georgeob1 wrote:
I suspect the reason for no bragging is the rather obvious pattern of escalating acts of terrorism directed at Americans - here and abroad - all by the same group of Islamist terrorists, that occurred during the Clintom Administration. I'm sure that if he didn't find the subject so potentially embarrassing, Clinton would be doing the bragging himself.


Which leaves the question why anyone would have a reason to brag about 5 years without an attack on American soil, when simultanously there are almost dozens of terrorist attacks happening every day....

Apparently, the escalation has not stopped. Apparently, Iraq is the new "breeding ground" for terrorists. Apparently, the "War on Terror" has rather been a failure.

Sure, the Clinton administration could have done more. But their failure to prevent further terrorist attacks pales in comparison with the ill-advised adventure in Iraq.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Nov, 2006 10:12 am
cjhsa wrote:
I hope all of you who are here congratulating the demoncraps today spent last night stocking up your gun cabinet.

Yesterday was a black day for American freedom. Tomorrow you will be free to get a latte and sit around the Internet cafe writing blogs about how barbaric hunting is. Enjoy.


When the GOP was in control we weren't free? I didn't realize you felt that way cj. Aren't you glad you are free now?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Nov, 2006 10:15 am
old europe wrote:
[Apparently, the escalation has not stopped. Apparently, Iraq is the new "breeding ground" for terrorists. Apparently, the "War on Terror" has rather been a failure.

Sure, the Clinton administration could have done more. But their failure to prevent further terrorist attacks pales in comparison with the ill-advised adventure in Iraq.


Surely old europe you don't ascribe the distemper that has been building in the Moslem world for well over a century simply to Iraq? The twin evils of Moslem Brotherhood fanaticism and Baathist Fascism go back many decades, and their initiating events involve Europe far more than America. Unfortunately, with very few exceptions, the Moslem world hasn't yet come up with any alternatives to such secular or religious tyrannies.

I don't argue that we may not have added fuel to the fires, but it is clear that, with or without Iraq, the West would still be faced with the spectres of an Islamist cultural challenge and terrorism. Moreover there is no detectable evolutionary process that suggests a benevolent change might be forthcoming.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Nov, 2006 10:16 am
cjhsa wrote:
I'm trying to figure out exactly what right you think you've been missing?

Five years without a terrorist attack on our soil, during a time of war. Is that the one?


5 years but we will have one the minute we elect democrats?

Look out for that terrorist behind that tree cj...
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Nov, 2006 10:20 am
Last year there were probably 5 times the terrorist attacks worldwide that there were in 2000. Hardly something to brag about if the goal is to reduce terrorism worldwide. Oh, but that's right, Americans aren't dying here on US soil. They are just dying in greater numbers overseas.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Nov, 2006 12:39 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Surely old europe you don't ascribe the distemper that has been building in the Moslem world for well over a century simply to Iraq? The twin evils of Moslem Brotherhood fanaticism and Baathist Fascism go back many decades, and their initiating events involve Europe far more than America. Unfortunately, with very few exceptions, the Moslem world hasn't yet come up with any alternatives to such secular or religious tyrannies.


I'm not ascribing the clash between the western culture and muslim culture to the conflict in Iraq. That would be ridiculous. What we are seeing in Iraq is rather the effect than the cause of that "clash of cultures" (I'm somewhat reluctant to use that expression, though). But that wasn't really what I was talking about.

I was rather talking about the strategy in the "War on Terror". Certainly, islamistic terrorism has become a growing concern over the last couple of years, maybe even decades. From that point of view, the intervention in Afghanistan might be seen as justifiable.

From that same point of view, however, there was nothing to be gained by toppling the Saddam regime. Saddam was fighting against the same odds that the US are now fighting against in Iraq - the geographical position in the middle of Iran, Afghanistan and Syria, the divisions along sect lines amongst the population, the danger fundamentalist terrorism posed to his regime, etc. etc.

Of course a lot of that is hindsight. I was opposed to the Iraq war from the beginning, but had the planning been adequate, had there been enough troops and a real effort to involve the international community, we might at least not be faced with the situation we're seeing today. And that is, according not only to international intelligence services, but also mentioned by the recent National Intelligence Estimate, that Iraq has become a haven and breeding ground for international terrorism.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Nov, 2006 12:45 pm
parados wrote:
Last year there were probably 5 times the terrorist attacks worldwide that there were in 2000. Hardly something to brag about if the goal is to reduce terrorism worldwide. Oh, but that's right, Americans aren't dying here on US soil. They are just dying in greater numbers overseas.


How many if you parse out terrorist attacks in Iraq?
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Nov, 2006 09:45 am
WE have already seen how Nancy Pelosi wants to handle the Iraq war.
She told Brit Hume on Special Report wednesday, in an interview that it "wasnt a war,it was a problem to be solved."

She also said that you could "define winning anyway you choose".

So,if its not a war and we can define winning anyway we want,if every US soldier in Iraq dies this week,will she consider that a win?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Nov, 2006 10:27 am
mysteryman wrote:
WE have already seen how Nancy Pelosi wants to handle the Iraq war.
She told Brit Hume on Special Report wednesday, in an interview that it "wasnt a war,it was a problem to be solved."

She also said that you could "define winning anyway you choose".

So,if its not a war and we can define winning anyway we want,if every US soldier in Iraq dies this week,will she consider that a win?


STFU and wait and see. What's been happening has clearly been a major clusterf**k from the get go, brought to you by stunning incompetence.

Tribute to your thought processes that you think that the military action so far has solved these problems.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Nov, 2006 10:48 am
To bad Bushie threw Ahmadinejad's letter in the trash. Most American's would agree with the substance of the letter imo. It would serve as the best starting place for real negotiations aimed at ending conflicts between Christians, Jews and Muslims. But Bushie sees no future in ending conflicts. http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_2607.shtml
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Nov, 2006 10:48 am
Quote:


Pentagon to Reevaluate Strategy and Goals in Iraq

By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 11, 2006; Page A01

The Pentagon is conducting a major review of the military's Iraq strategy to determine "what's going wrong and should be changed" to attain U.S. objectives in the war-torn country, the nation's top general said yesterday.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, initiated the review this fall after starkly deteriorating security in Baghdad led commanders there to rule out any significant cut this year in the level of U.S. troops in Iraq -- now at about 145,000 -- according to senior defense officials and sources.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/10/AR2006111001679.html

0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Nov, 2006 10:54 am
Warrantless wiretaps unlikely to be OK'd By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
Sat Nov 11, 7:16 AM ET

WASHINGTON - Legislation aimed at President Bush's once-secret program for wiretapping U.S.-foreign phone calls and computer traffic of suspected terrorists without warrants shows all the signs of not moving ahead, notwithstanding President Bush's request this week that a lame-duck Congress give it to him.

Senate Democrats, emboldened by Election Day wins that put them in control of Congress as of January, say they would rather wait until next year to look at the issue. "I can't say that we won't do it, but there's no guarantee that we're going spend a lot of time on controversial measures," Democratic Whip Richard Durbin of Illinois said Thursday.

In Senate parlance, that means no.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061111/ap_on_go_co/warrantless_wiretaps_3
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Nov, 2006 12:37 pm
old europe wrote:

I'm not ascribing the clash between the western culture and muslim culture to the conflict in Iraq. That would be ridiculous. What we are seeing in Iraq is rather the effect than the cause of that "clash of cultures" (I'm somewhat reluctant to use that expression, though). But that wasn't really what I was talking about.

I was rather talking about the strategy in the "War on Terror". Certainly, islamistic terrorism has become a growing concern over the last couple of years, maybe even decades. From that point of view, the intervention in Afghanistan might be seen as justifiable.

From that same point of view, however, there was nothing to be gained by toppling the Saddam regime. Saddam was fighting against the same odds that the US are now fighting against in Iraq - the geographical position in the middle of Iran, Afghanistan and Syria, the divisions along sect lines amongst the population, the danger fundamentalist terrorism posed to his regime, etc. etc.

Of course a lot of that is hindsight. I was opposed to the Iraq war from the beginning, but had the planning been adequate, had there been enough troops and a real effort to involve the international community, we might at least not be faced with the situation we're seeing today. And that is, according not only to international intelligence services, but also mentioned by the recent National Intelligence Estimate, that Iraq has become a haven and breeding ground for international terrorism.



That is a realistic estimate of the situation and I agree with most of it. Your insights about the basic geographical and political facts that surround Iraq - under Saddam and today - are particularly apt. Indeed I believe it was these that motivated our government to attempt to get rid of Saddam and install a modern government there. The prospect of such a state between Iran and Saudi Arabia was likely very attractive, and some elements of the economic and political history of Iraq suggest that such a transformation is possible. So far it hasn't worked out that way.

I don't agree with you on the point of international cooperation, We faced no prospect of cooperation from the governments of either France or Germany. From the outset, these governments made opposition to the U.S. a fundamental pillar of both their foreign policies and their domestic political strategies. This has left a residue of resentment among many conservatives in this country that I believe will persist.

I agree that key elements of our post invasion strategy were not self-consistent, but I don't accept the standard criticisms of it. For example economy of military force was, in my view, an appropriate principle for us in view of the likely duration of our commitment in Iraq and the lack of support from some of our major "allies". However this was not compatable with our careless dismissal of all the organs of the former government - police, army, etc. We should instead have undertaken to use, direct, and reform these institutions to preserve order and the whatever unifying influence remained of the former state. Certainly such a strategy would have involved risks, but so did the alternative we followed.

Unfortunately history doesn't reveal its alternatives. We know the troubles attendant to our intervention in Iraq, but we don't know their alternatives. After the Gulf War Saddam was no longer able to alone sustain resistance to the combination of domestic Shiite unrest and Iranian external pressures. I believe our government was seriously concerned about an alliance between him and the largely Sunni terrorist movement that had struck the U.S. and which we had toppled in Afghanistan. There was direct evidence of the beginnings of such an alliance then, and we have seen its fruits in the insurgency that developed, even as we were beginning to occupy the country. (This also illustrates the absurdity of the "breeding ground for terrorism" cliche: Iraq had already started down that road before the invasion - as a matter of survival for the regime.)

After some reflection I have concluded that the only reliable alternative to knocking off Saddam's government would be to have left him in control of Kuwait -- no Gulf War. Exhausted after the long conflict with Iran, Saddam took Kuwait to get their economic resources and perhaps to broaden his base of Sunni control. The boundaries of Kuwait, like those of Iraq, are merely the arbitrary creation of the British Empire. This would have been a great misfortune for the Kuwaiti people, but it would likely have left a strong counterweight to Iran in place in that troubled part of the world.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/03/2024 at 10:56:38