9
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

 
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2007 09:02 am
U.S. May Still Be at War in Iraq 15 Years from Now
Ricks of 'Wash Post': U.S. May Still Be at War in Iraq 15 Years from Now
By E&P Staff
Published: September 20, 2007

Even in a time of growing pessimism over the prospects of disengaging from Iraq -- and on a day when the U.S. Senate turned backed another serious effort to do that - the comments from Thomas Ricks, military reporter at The Washington Post, on Tavis Smiley's PBS interview show last night were startling.

Ricks, author of the acclaimed book about the war called "Fiasco," has long offered a frank and balanced perspective on the course of the war. He did so again in the Smiley interview, suggesting that in some ways Gen. Davis Petraeus's recent report on the "surge" left much to be desired. Then, in closing, he remarked that President Bush's current strategy was simply to make sure there are at least 100,000 troops left in Iraq when he leaves office in January 2009. Further, Ricks said he wouldn't be surprised if "we have troops still fighting in Iraq" when the next president's term ends.

Smiley, perhaps not believing his ears, asked if he meant the next president's first term or possibly his second? Ricks said it could be the latter.

Then Ricks added that when he was writing "Fiasco" he recalls watching kids in kindergarten going off to school and the thought occurred to him that one day one of them might very well be fighting in Iraq when they grow up. He added: "And I still think that's a real possibility."

Earlier this week, in an online chat at www.washingtonpost.com, Ricks replied to a question about antiwar Americans feeling helpless this way: "This sense of despair worries me. I was on tour last month for the publication of the paperback edition of 'Fiasco' and as I gave talks and readings from Massachusetts to Texas to California I was struck by how many expressed this sense that they hate this situation but feel they can't do anything about it.

"I would say that however you feel about the war, you can have an effect. Talk to your member of Congress. Write letters to the editor of your newspaper. Speak up. Iraq isn't going to go away anytime soon, so the participation of American citizens could help the situation."

Then there was this exchange:

Silver Spring, Md. "Why does the media always concentrate on the bad news from Iraq? From what I hear, we are doing great things there, and everybody just wants America to look bad."

Thomas E. Ricks: "Are you serious?"
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2007 12:37 pm
There are those who do not keep up with most of the news coming out of Iraq, and only listen to Bush and his henchmen to base their knowledge. They have no idea about the sectarian divide, and the broken government of Iraq. They jump from "democratic elections" to the Bush-Petraeus "making progress." They no nothing about the history of Iraq, or the infiltration of the Iraqi army by the militia and police force. They ignore the spread of terrorism around the world, and continue to believe that Bush's war on terrorism is working, and that the Iraqi government has closer relationships to Iran (one of the axis of evil) and Saudi Arabia. They are essentially "no-nothings" who would sacrifice more of or men and women to this lost war, and our treasure at 2.7 billion every week - money that is badly needed at home to fix our own problems.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2007 12:38 pm
revel wrote:
Quote:
Terrorists are no different than any other prisoners of war!


Who determines the "terrorist" are terrorist? The government is not omniscient. People are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law of some kind. Someone captured and accused of terroism should be allowed to defend themselves in that court.
I define Terrorist = non-citizen, or a non-legal resident of America, for whom our military possesses sufficient evidence to merely indict them to be an advocate, supporter, planer, financer or perpetrater of the mass murder of civilians. So when I use the word terrorist that definition is what I mean.

When indicted by our military, such persons should be incarcerated as prisoners of war until the terrorist's war is ended. Such persons do not currently have a right under our Constitution to be proven guilty in an American court of law before they are incarcerated.

Historically, in previous wars, prisoners of war have not had or been given the right to trial to prove they are an enemy.

Providing terrorists the right to trial--as of 9/7/2007, there were 60,000 held in Iraq--will make our defense terribly difficult, prolonged, and expensive, or, it will discourage our military taking terrorists prisoners and instead encourage them to kill terrorists as they are encountered, whether they surrender or not.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2007 12:55 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
There are those who do not keep up with most of the news coming out of Iraq, and only listen to Bush and his henchmen to base their knowledge. They have no idea about the sectarian divide, and the broken government of Iraq. They jump from "democratic elections" to the Bush-Petraeus "making progress." They no nothing about the history of Iraq, or the infiltration of the Iraqi army by the militia and police force. They ignore the spread of terrorism around the world, and continue to believe that Bush's war on terrorism is working, and that the Iraqi government has closer relationships to Iran (one of the axis of evil) and Saudi Arabia. They are essentially "no-nothings" who would sacrifice more of or men and women to this lost war, and our treasure at 2.7 billion every week - money that is badly needed at home to fix our own problems.

This is your usual false accusation against those with whom you disagree about the Iraq war. You repeat it so often without any real attempt to refute the arguments given by those you scorn, because they advocate staying in Iraq until we succeed, that it marks you a person who is a know nothing that has no understanding of the probable consequences of our leaving Iraq before we succeed there.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2007 01:29 pm
The Architects of Iraq: background of Petraeus and Crocker -

http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/conflicts/architects_of_Iraq

I had no idea that it was Crocker who was behind the privatization of the oil industry there...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2007 01:39 pm
ican711nm wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
There are those who do not keep up with most of the news coming out of Iraq, and only listen to Bush and his henchmen to base their knowledge. They have no idea about the sectarian divide, and the broken government of Iraq. They jump from "democratic elections" to the Bush-Petraeus "making progress." They no nothing about the history of Iraq, or the infiltration of the Iraqi army by the militia and police force. They ignore the spread of terrorism around the world, and continue to believe that Bush's war on terrorism is working, and that the Iraqi government has closer relationships to Iran (one of the axis of evil) and Saudi Arabia. They are essentially "no-nothings" who would sacrifice more of or men and women to this lost war, and our treasure at 2.7 billion every week - money that is badly needed at home to fix our own problems.

This is your usual false accusation against those with whom you disagree about the Iraq war. You repeat it so often without any real attempt to refute the arguments given by those you scorn, because they advocate staying in Iraq until we succeed, that it marks you a person who is a know nothing that has no understanding of the probable consequences of our leaving Iraq before we succeed there.


ican, You are the one unable to "see" that Iraq is now a lost cause. Everything this administration did in Iraq backfired on them from WMDs to the training of of Iraqi army and police. Their government is in shambles and nowhere near any agreement - but rather splintered to such a degree there is no chance for reconciliation or progress. To succeed in Iraq is now an oxymoron; Bush and company damaged it too far and for too long. That's because they refused to listen to the expert from the very beginning until the Iraq Study Group. Bush thought he knew better, but all he's accomplished is getting more of our soldiers killed and spending more of our treasure.

Yes we broke it, but now we're putting the whole store on fire. When all the content is gone - including the owner and patrons, no insurance is going to bring it back. When everything is gone, to "succeed" is just a worthless word. Iraq is losing about 50 people every day from this work, and to talk about success will not bring them back. It only creates more animosity.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2007 04:06 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
There are those who do not keep up with most of the news coming out of Iraq, and only listen to Bush and his henchmen to base their knowledge. They have no idea about the sectarian divide, and the broken government of Iraq. They jump from "democratic elections" to the Bush-Petraeus "making progress." They no nothing about the history of Iraq, or the infiltration of the Iraqi army by the militia and police force. They ignore the spread of terrorism around the world, and continue to believe that Bush's war on terrorism is working, and that the Iraqi government has closer relationships to Iran (one of the axis of evil) and Saudi Arabia. They are essentially "no-nothings" who would sacrifice more of or men and women to this lost war, and our treasure at 2.7 billion every week - money that is badly needed at home to fix our own problems.

This is your usual false accusation against those with whom you disagree about the Iraq war. You repeat it so often without any real attempt to refute the arguments given by those you scorn, because they advocate staying in Iraq until we succeed, that it marks you a person who is a know nothing that has no understanding of the probable consequences of our leaving Iraq before we succeed there.


ican, You are the one unable to "see" that Iraq is now a lost cause. Everything this administration did in Iraq backfired on them from WMDs to the training of of Iraqi army and police. Their government is in shambles and nowhere near any agreement - but rather splintered to such a degree there is no chance for reconciliation or progress. To succeed in Iraq is now an oxymoron; Bush and company damaged it too far and for too long. That's because they refused to listen to the expert from the very beginning until the Iraq Study Group. Bush thought he knew better, but all he's accomplished is getting more of our soldiers killed and spending more of our treasure.

Yes we broke it, but now we're putting the whole store on fire. When all the content is gone - including the owner and patrons, no insurance is going to bring it back. When everything is gone, to "succeed" is just a worthless word. Iraq is losing about 50 people every day from this work, and to talk about success will not bring them back. It only creates more animosity.

You again avoided one one of the two key issues: What are the consequences if we withdraw before succeeding in Iraq, and why do you think so?

You pontificate only your faith-based belief that all is irreparably lost in Iraq, and the consequences of our remaining in Iraq are limited to wasted lives and wasted money.

Face it! We are going to remain in Iraq at least until January 2009. The consequences of our doing that are not absolutely knowable at this time. All we know at this time is that if we leave before we succeed we are going to have to deal with these al-Qaeda critters at home in America, whether we like it or not.

Here again is some evidence that al-Qaeda's true intentions are to get Americans to leave Iraq, and follow up our departure with many more 9/11 equivalents or worse.

Osama bin Laden wrote:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html
Osama Bin Laden "Declaration of War Against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places"-1996.

I say to you ... These youths [love] death as you love life.
…Those youths know that their rewards in fighting you, the USA, is double than their rewards in fighting some one else not from the people of the book. They have no intention except to enter paradise by killing you. An infidel, and enemy of God like you, cannot be in the same hell with his righteous executioner.

… Few days ago the news agencies had reported that the Defence Secretary of the Crusading Americans had said that "the explosion at Riyadh and Al-Khobar had taught him one lesson: that is not to withdraw when attacked by coward terrorists".

We say to the Defence Secretary that his talk can induce a grieving mother to laughter! and shows the fears that had enshrined you all. Where was this false courage of yours when the explosion in Beirut took place on 1983 AD (1403 A.H). You were turned into scattered pits and pieces at that time; 241 mainly marines solders were killed. And where was this courage of yours when two explosions made you to leave Aden in lees than twenty four hours!

But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu.

Osama bin Laden wrote:

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/fatwah.htm
Osama Bin Laden: Text of Fatwah Urging Jihad Against Americans-1998
… On that basis, and in compliance with Allah's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims:
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah."

Osama bin Laden wrote:

http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00035.html
Al-Qaida Statement Warning Muslims Against Associating With The Crusaders And Idols; Translation By JUS; Jun 09, 2004 from the Al-Qaida Organization of the Arab Gulf; 19 Rabbi Al-Akhir 1425
… No Muslim should risk his life as he may inadvertently be killed if he associates with the Crusaders, whom we have no choice but to kill.

… Everything related to them such as complexes, bases, means of transportation, especially Western and American Airlines, will be our main and direct targets in our forthcoming operations on our path of Jihad that we, with Allah's Power, will not turn away from.


Jordanian journalist, Fouad Hussein in his 2005 book, Al-Zarqawi: al Qaeda's Second Generation, wrote:

Al Qaeda's seven phase plan for world conquest.

Phase 1, the "wakeup call." Spectacular terrorist attacks on the West
(like September 11, 2001) get the infidels (non-Moslems) to make war on
Islamic nations. This arouses Moslems, and causes them to flock to al
Qaedas banner. This phase is considered complete.

Phase 2, the "eye opening." This is the phase we are in, where al Qaeda
does battle with the infidels, and shows over a billion Moslems how
it's done. This phase is supposed to be completed by next year.

Phase 3, "the rising." Millions of aroused (in a terrorist sense)
Moslems go to war against Islam's enemies for the rest of the decade.
Especially heavy attacks are made against Israel. It is believed that
major damage in Israel will force the world to acknowledge al Qaeda as a major power, and negotiate with it.

Phase 4, "the downfall." By 2013, al Qaeda will control the Persian
Gulf, and all its oil, as well as most of the Middle East. This will
enable al Qaeda to cripple the American economy, and American military
power.

Phase 5, "the Caliphate." By 2016, the Caliphate (one government for
all Moslem nations) will be established. At this point, nearly all
Western cultural influences will be eliminated from Islamic nations. The
Caliphate will organize a mighty army for the next phase.

Phase 6, "world conquest." By 2022, the rest of the world will be
conquered by the righteous and unstoppable armies of Islam. This is the
phase that Osama bin Laden has been talking about for years.

Phase 7, "final victory." All the world's inhabitants will be forced to
either convert to Islam, or submit (as second class citizens) to
Islamic rule. This will be completed by 2025 or thereabouts.

In the Booklet, the Pakistani jihadist group Lashkar-e-Taiba (Army of the Pure), wrote:

... the U.S., Israel and India [are] existential enemies of Islam and lists eight reasons for global jihad. These include the restoration of Islamic sovereignty to all lands where Muslims were once ascendant, including Spain, "Bulgaria, Hungary, Cyprus, Sicily, Ethiopia, Russian Turkistan and Chinese Turkistan. . . Even parts of France reaching 90 kilometers outside Paris."


We must defeat Al Qaeda, because if we don't, they will attack the US with wave after wave of suicide bombings and other attacks, all carefully designed to get the US populace to give up trying to protect our democratic republic, and allow those in America who seek a dictatorship to institute a dictatorship (for example, Islamic Dictatorship, Soros Gang Dictatorship, Neo-Conservative Dictatorship, et cetera).

While we might be able to avoid all these dictatorships, if we fence our borders, monitor international communications, and suspend habeas corpus for terroists (as I have defined them below), that will probably not happen until one of these dictatorships is established.

I define a terrorist = a non-citizen and a non-legal resident of America, for whom our military possesses sufficient evidence to merely indict them to be an advocate, supporter, planer, financer or perpetrater of the mass murder of civilians. So when I use the word terrorist that definition is what I mean.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2007 04:17 pm
ican: We must defeat Al Qaeda, because if we don't, they will attack the US with wave after wave of suicide bombings and other attacks, all carefully designed to get the US populace to give up trying to protect our democratic republic, and allow those in America who seek a dictatorship to institute a dictatorship (for example, Islamic Dictatorship, Soros Gang Dictatorship, Neo-Conservative Dictatorship, et cetera).


Exactly how are these terrorists coming into the US - wave after wave? You are a sick man, ican; your reality is completely absent.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2007 04:32 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
ican: We must defeat Al Qaeda, because if we don't, they will attack the US with wave after wave of suicide bombings and other attacks, all carefully designed to get the US populace to give up trying to protect our democratic republic, and allow those in America who seek a dictatorship to institute a dictatorship (for example, Islamic Dictatorship, Soros Gang Dictatorship, Neo-Conservative Dictatorship, et cetera).


Exactly how are these terrorists coming into the US - wave after wave? You are a sick man, ican; your reality is completely absent.

You have a sick memory!

I already answered that question of yours in a previous post.

I'll summarize that post here.

Those not already here will fly to the western hemisphere via airliners. Then travel by land vehicles to US borders.
Then they will walk into the US.
Then they will ride by land vehicle to wherever they want to go.

In one hour of one day--9/11--19 mass murdered almost 3,000. In one month, a thousand could probably mass murder at least one-hundred thousand Americans. In one -year, ten-thousand could probably mass murder at least one-million Americans. Et cetera!

You think not? Why do you think not?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2007 04:40 pm
ican711nm wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
ican: We must defeat Al Qaeda, because if we don't, they will attack the US with wave after wave of suicide bombings and other attacks, all carefully designed to get the US populace to give up trying to protect our democratic republic, and allow those in America who seek a dictatorship to institute a dictatorship (for example, Islamic Dictatorship, Soros Gang Dictatorship, Neo-Conservative Dictatorship, et cetera).


Exactly how are these terrorists coming into the US - wave after wave? You are a sick man, ican; your reality is completely absent.

You have a sick memory!

I already answered that question of yours in a previous post.

I'll summarize that post here.

Those not already here will fly to the western hemisphere via airliners. Then travel by land vehicles to US borders.
Then they will walk into the US.
Then they will ride by land vehicle to wherever they want to go.

In one hour of one day--9/11--19 mass murdered almost 3,000. In one month, a thousand could probably mass murder at least one-hundred thousand Americans. In one -year, ten-thousand could probably mass murder at least one-million Americans. Et cetera!

You think not? Why do you think not?


Because sneak attacks don't directly scale, dammit. How many times must you have this simple fact explained to you?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2007 04:44 pm
You, cice, continue to avoid one one of the two key issues: What are the consequences if we withdraw before succeeding in Iraq, and why do you think so?

Cice, your repeated failures to answer that question, and your repeated slanders of me reveal you to all for what you are.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2007 04:47 pm
By the way,

Quote:
In one -year, ten-thousand could probably mass murder at least one-million Americans. Et cetera!


We know that the streets of America, with a unified and committed populace, not fractured by sectarian strife in the fashion of Iraq, would be an infinitely tougher place for terrorists to strike then the streets of Iraq; yet you casually assume that they will have far more success in killing people here then they have enjoyed in Iraq. Logically, how do you come to this conclusion?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2007 04:48 pm
ican711nm wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
ican: We must defeat Al Qaeda, because if we don't, they will attack the US with wave after wave of suicide bombings and other attacks, all carefully designed to get the US populace to give up trying to protect our democratic republic, and allow those in America who seek a dictatorship to institute a dictatorship (for example, Islamic Dictatorship, Soros Gang Dictatorship, Neo-Conservative Dictatorship, et cetera).


Exactly how are these terrorists coming into the US - wave after wave? You are a sick man, ican; your reality is completely absent.

You have a sick memory!

I already answered that question of yours in a previous post.

I'll summarize that post here.

Those not already here will fly to the western hemisphere via airliners. Then travel by land vehicles to US borders.
Then they will walk into the US.
Then they will ride by land vehicle to wherever they want to go.

In one hour of one day--9/11--19 mass murdered almost 3,000. In one month, a thousand could probably mass murder at least one-hundred thousand Americans. In one -year, ten-thousand could probably mass murder at least one-million Americans. Et cetera!

You think not? Why do you think not?



If it takes one woman 38 weeks to get a child, then it should take two women 19 weeks. And if you had 10 women, it would only take 26 days.

You think not? Why do you think not?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2007 05:12 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
ican: We must defeat Al Qaeda, because if we don't, they will attack the US with wave after wave of suicide bombings and other attacks, all carefully designed to get the US populace to give up trying to protect our democratic republic, and allow those in America who seek a dictatorship to institute a dictatorship (for example, Islamic Dictatorship, Soros Gang Dictatorship, Neo-Conservative Dictatorship, et cetera).


Exactly how are these terrorists coming into the US - wave after wave? You are a sick man, ican; your reality is completely absent.

You have a sick memory!

I already answered that question of yours in a previous post.

I'll summarize that post here.

Those not already here will fly to the western hemisphere via airliners. Then travel by land vehicles to US borders.
Then they will walk into the US.
Then they will ride by land vehicle to wherever they want to go.

In one hour of one day--9/11--19 mass murdered almost 3,000. In one month, a thousand could probably mass murder at least one-hundred thousand Americans. In one -year, ten-thousand could probably mass murder at least one-million Americans. Et cetera!

You think not? Why do you think not?


Because sneak attacks don't directly scale, dammit. How many times must you have this simple fact explained to you?

Cycloptichorn

How many times must I ignore your ignorant pontifications before you realize, I think you do not know what you are talking about.

What is your evidence that terrorist attacks do not directly scale ... that is, are not approximately directly proportional to the number of terrorists mass murdering?

In the month of May 2007 before the surge was fully operational, IBC claims that 3,755 Iraqi civilians were murdered in one month. If that monthly rate were to continue, 45,000 Iraqi civilians would be murdered by the end of April 2008.

How many terrorists do you think executed that May death toll, while resisting over a hundred thousand US and Iraqi military? Don't you yet understand the immense difficulty faced by our and Iraqi troops trying to tell who is and who is not a terrorist among the Iraq people ... until after some terrorists murder a crowd of civilians?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2007 05:18 pm
old europe wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
ican: We must defeat Al Qaeda, because if we don't, they will attack the US with wave after wave of suicide bombings and other attacks, all carefully designed to get the US populace to give up trying to protect our democratic republic, and allow those in America who seek a dictatorship to institute a dictatorship (for example, Islamic Dictatorship, Soros Gang Dictatorship, Neo-Conservative Dictatorship, et cetera).


Exactly how are these terrorists coming into the US - wave after wave? You are a sick man, ican; your reality is completely absent.

You have a sick memory!

I already answered that question of yours in a previous post.

I'll summarize that post here.

Those not already here will fly to the western hemisphere via airliners. Then travel by land vehicles to US borders.
Then they will walk into the US.
Then they will ride by land vehicle to wherever they want to go.

In one hour of one day--9/11--19 mass murdered almost 3,000. In one month, a thousand could probably mass murder at least one-hundred thousand Americans. In one -year, ten-thousand could probably mass murder at least one-million Americans. Et cetera!

You think not? Why do you think not?



If it takes one woman 38 weeks to get a child, then it should take two women 19 weeks. And if you had 10 women, it would only take 26 days.

You think not? Why do you think not?
Laughing
If one terrorist can murder N civilians, then T terrorists can murder T x N civilians.

On the otherhand, if one women can have one baby in 38 weeks, then two women conceiving at the same time can have two babies in 38 weeks.
Rolling Eyes

Please tell me you knew that before I posted it! Crying or Very sad
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2007 05:21 pm
Quote:
Laughing
If one terrorist can murder N civilians, then T terrorists can murder T x N civilians.


I've highlighted the error in your thinking. Perhaps you should enroll in some sort of community college and take a course or two in Logic.

In response to your last post, we don't have a large segment of our population who will hide, support, and finance the terrorists. In fact, I would say that this segment of the population is close to zero. This is in stark contrast to Iraq.

A 'hundred thousand' troops is nothing when compared to a populace of millions. I really think that most of you righties don't understand the first thing about insurgencies or guerrilla warfare. You can rest assured that potential terrorists in the US would have a much, much harder time acting then they do in Iraq.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2007 05:44 pm
since many (most ?) of the new terrorist recruits are living and training in the afghanistan-pakistan border area , i fail to see the obsession with iraq .
pakistan seems to supply plenty of new recruits and since pakistan has effectively given up control over the border area , there is nothing to stop those terrorists from moving to wherever they want to .
the few nato troops don't seem to be able to make any headway against the terorists in afghanistan that appear and disappear as it pleases them .
as long as musharraf remains president in pakistan - and receives U.S. backing - the number of terrorists is likely going to increase - but in a way that doesn't even matter since musharraf has given the border area over to the terrorists already .
might as well forget about iraq ; it's just a convenient way for the terrorists to keep the whole area off balance and bleed the united states - both militarily and financially - with thousands of tiny cuts .
unless i get a completely incorrect reading of the the mood of the american citizens , most seem to be getting pretty sick and tired of the whole "iraq misadventure" .

btw a telling tale of what is happening to america and the american economy - and the american citizens - is the continued slide of the american dollar which at one time was the POWERHOUSE of the world economy .
i can't recall the exact number , but the u.s. needs an influx of billions of dollars every month to keep the economy going - at some point in time the lenders will expect repayment , i'm afraid .
hbg
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2007 06:24 pm
We Have Seen The Enemy, And He Is Us. (Pogo)

Yes, Hamburger, while some worry about terrorists coming in PLANES to attack us, or coming on BOATS and then WALKING across our BORDERS to attack us, the truth (as I see it) is that we are very vulnerable economically. The dollar sank to parity with the Canadian dollar yesterday (1 =1) for the first time. And the dollar hit a low against the Euro. The Euro is only like 8 years old. Oil prices hit a new high of $83 a barrel. We lowered our interest rates but the rest of the world didn't. So the giant sucking sound you hear is foreign investors pulling their money out of the U.S. in favor of investments elsewhere.

We are told that we are a nation at war. But where, beyond the few thousands of soldiers who have died, have we been asked to make any sacrifice? Well, we are piling up debt and, arguably, we are piling up veterans with a lot of problems, but life for most of us goes on as usual.
We are a nation at war? How many of us think that is true for us.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2007 06:32 pm
I mean, jeez.

By your logic, Ican -

19 terrorists killed three thousand in one day, so, 190000 should be able to kill the entire US population in that same time period. Right? There are absolutely no other factors to take into account other then stupid numbers which don't scale. Right?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2007 06:35 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
By the way,

Quote:
In one -year, ten-thousand could probably mass murder at least one-million Americans. Et cetera!


We know that the streets of America, with a unified and committed populace, not fractured by sectarian strife in the fashion of Iraq, would be an infinitely tougher place for terrorists to strike then the streets of Iraq;

We don't know any such thing. We know that domestic serial killers can continue their killing for many many killings until the police eventually discover them and arrest or kill them.

The populace can do nothing to stop them unless they are adequately armed to shoot those they believe are such killers before they kill again. However, the populace will often panic in such cases and kill the innocent with the guilty. While the police do that too, they generally do it less. Remember, the usual case is that police stop serial killers after they have mass murdered, not before. In the case of suicidal mass murderers, the suicidal mass murderers stop themselves in the act of mass murdering. The police are not deterrents of them.


yet you casually assume that they will have far more success in killing people here then they have enjoyed in Iraq. Logically, how do you come to this conclusion?

Believe me it's anything but casual. It's the result of careful analysis, not devotion to other people's platitudes. Terrorists, whether suicidal or not, are parallel and not serial murderers in that they kill many at the same time.

If they are not suicidal, terrorists strive to kill many each time they try. Furthermore, not all terrorists who plan to mass murder have to enter our country at the same time, or even within a given time period. They can enter in small groups as they can, and do significant mass murdering once they organize here, independent of any of their predecessors or successors.

Again, it is necessary to make it difficult for terrorists to enter our country in the first place. Border fences will help. Second, we must be able to monitor at least their international communications to determine their plans before not after they come here and mass murder. Third, once captured and indicted (preferrably off shore), we must be able to keep them incarcerated for as long as it takes to end their determination to mass murder. Court trials will only serve to overload what will already be overloaded police and other counter-terrorist forces, causing them to be far less effective.


Cycloptichorn

Face it, your platitudes cannot solve the terrorist threat problem here in America any more than they can solve them in Iraq or Afghanistan.
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
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 08/04/2025 at 04:43:20