Questions Republicans just can't answer

What is [a] plan for winning the war on terror?

Subquestions:

Why should the average American fear terrorism more than other causes of death?

In what way can Islaamic Fundamentalism conquer America?

How would an Islaamic army cross the Atlantic ocean and attack us?

How would they force Americans to convert to Islaam?

How would Islaamic terrorists hold America once it has been conquered?

What is being done to defend our borders and ports?

What is being done to defend our chemical and nuclear facilities?

2. Closely monitor all written and spoken communications, using computers and other technology, programmed to detect the occurrence of words, phrases, and sentences in those communications, that intelligence personnel are looking for to detect terrorist planning of the deliberate killing of non-combatant Americans anywhere in the world.

What is [a] plan for winning the war on terror?

Subquestions:

...
How would an Islaamic army cross the Atlantic ocean [or any other ocean] and attack us?

...

Hello, Big Brother.

How long before this tool gets turned to other purposes?

Remember that the 'psychotic' dems will be in control sooner or later...

Cycloptichorn

Eyebrows popped up last week when none other than Richard Perle, former Reagan assistant secretary of defense, former Bush brain-truster on the Defense Policy Board, and a key promoter of the war to find Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, blistered the administration as "dysfunctional" when it comes to stopping someone from bringing "a nuclear weapon or even nuclear material into the United States." "Knowing that there are people who wish to do that," Perle said, "knowing they are seeking weapons of mass destruction, you would think that we would have put in place a system or at least be working assiduously in the development of a system that would allow us to detect nuclear material entering the New York Harbor or Boston Harbor or what have you. "But we haven't done that," he said at a Center for Strategic and International Studies gathering. "And the reason we haven't done that is hopeless bureaucratic obstruction. Somebody needs to shake that loose." Perle added that while some have tried to overcome the bureaucracy, no one has succeeded. "I think we have an administration today that is dysfunctional," Perle said. "And if it can't get itself together to organize a serious program for finding nuclear material on its way to the United States, then it ought to be replaced by an administration that can.

Okay, JP, when you see me agreeing with Richard F*cking Perle about a problem, you know we've entered some sort of bizzaro world:

What is the plan for winning the war on terror?

Subquestions:

Why should the average American fear terrorism more than other causes of death?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

What is the plan for winning the war on terror?

Subquestions:

Why should the average American fear terrorism more than other causes of death?

Cyclops, you wanted me to answer your questions on this thread. One will suffice for now, so I am taking the first question. I will answer your question with a question. Why should the average American fear murderers more than other causes of death?

It should be obvious that your question as well as my question may contain a false assumption and that the questions also invite pointless answers. Without even addressing any more of your questions, this one amply demonstrates what I said about your questions, cyclops.

No, it doesn't demonstrate anything like what you said.

The answer to your question is: they shouldn't.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

No, it doesn't demonstrate anything like what you said.

The answer to your question is: they shouldn't.

Besides other questions that need to be asked to answer your question, one key one is what is your question based on, past actions by terrorists or on potential terrorist threats in the future? In other words, are future acts of terrorism potentially far worse than what we have seen so far and how does that impact your answer?

Cyclops, the reason I said your questions were stupid is demonstrated in the first question. It is a leading question begging an answer that you want, and I am not going to give it to you because your answer is wrong If you would take the time to just use just a little reasoning concerning the subject, you would hopefully recognize this.

[The matter of past-future terrorism having an impact on the question is immaterial.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

[The matter of past-future terrorism having an impact on the question is immaterial.

Cycloptichorn

Your question was: "Why should the average American fear terrorism more than other causes of death?"

And you say that the matter of past-future has no impact? I say it does, and it has a huge impact. To say it doesn't is to imply that the risk of dying from obesity, or smoking, or diabetes, or heart disease, might be minimal as of now, so the problem might be acceptable. This answer of course ignores the obvious fact that the risk may increase exponentially if we simply accept the condition.

Your question should be rephrased to read: "Should the average American fear terrorism more or less than other causes of death, and provide reasons for your answer? I have another question for you, cyclops. Should the average homeowner fear a leaky roof more or less than a leaky faucet, and why?

Time for round two: What is the plan for winning in Iraq? That's pretty straightforward, I think. If you wish to go into detail, that would be nice too.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Time for round two: What is the plan for winning in Iraq? That's pretty straightforward, I think. If you wish to go into detail, that would be nice too.

Cycloptichorn

First of all, you imply by your question that we are not winning at all. I think we have and we are to an extent, so I think your question is poorly phrased.

Secondly, it is crucial that those that voted for Bush's authority to go to war own up to their own decision. That would help our efforts to win. We must win the battle of public opinion in the press. The war is being fought on many fronts, and public opinion is one important one. Responsibility and perserverance are of utmost importance, and it starts with us here in America, not only with the politicians but with us, the people, and then we would have a better chance of total success in Iraq. I think we have had some success, but the success is being spun as no news while continued terrorist actions make the news.

Thirdly, we may need to take some fairly drastic and new actions in Iraq, in terms of clearing neighborhoods, bringing factions together and giving them clear choices to clean themselves up. Any and all tactical and political options may need to be put on the table. Beyond that, I am not a military expert, and I believe we should simply employ our best military and political minds concerning modern warfare and the problem in Iraq. To succeed, we must believe we are capable of it, and that includes our politicians.

We've not totally won any war since WWII, at least to the point of one side winning and the other side totally surrendering, so it seems that this problem is not unique to Iraq, and therefore we need to incorporate this fact into how we judge our degree of success. So perhaps I am suggesting that we are already possibly more successful than we are giving ourselves credit for. Cyclops, you suggested in the first question that the risk of death from terrorism is perhaps an acceptable risk, while at the same time you apparently believe the losses we suffer in Iraq are not acceptable in the course of making changes in the political landscape of terrorist infested Iraq. So I am suggesting you may need to re-evaluate your thinking on this. Instead of taking a defeatist attitude, which will only bring further defeat, I think a change in attutude is in order.

P.S. You said my question was comparing apples and oranges, but this reveals the obvious fact that your question was also comparing apples and oranges. You say "dead is dead," which is true, but I contend that "leaks are leaks," but how people die and how things leak have different impacts on the rest of the population and on the rest of the house, whichever case applies.

First of all, you imply by your question that we are not winning at all. I think we have and we are to an extent, so I think your question is poorly phrased.