Do You Believe We're Not Going to Fight Them Here?

[Iriemon]

:boohoo:

You people always cry about each and every cost of doing ANYTHING about foreign threats.

DEMOCRATS let Al Queda attack us with impunity for eight years, did nothing about Saddam, retreated from terrorists, and appeased North Korea while they went nuclear...big freaking improvement.

Only makes sense based upon the worldview of you people that Iraq attacked us on 9-11.

We knew it would create turmoil to go in and actually do something about Saddam, but allowing a genocidal terro-sponsor to remain in power after 9/11, after 15 years of failed diplomacy was not an option to any responsible leader.

Only makes sense based upon the worldview of you people that Iraq represented an imminent threat because of its WMDs.

Look at how much upheaval we created by removing Hitler. There is always some historically ignorant boob like you freaking out about the immediate cost of long term solutions and crapping on anyone who dares to show some spine and common sense with foreign threats. :roll:

Only makes sense based upon the worldview of you people that Iraq attacked us on 9-11.

 

[Iriemon]

Do you consider an attempt to assassinate a former US president a "terrorist attack"?

No. If it were, you would be labelling the American Govt as a terrorist organization, as it has tried to or has assassinated leaders of various countries, including Iraq, on numerous occassions.

Meh, quibbling if it's a "terrorist attack" or not is beside the point... the issue is that trying to kill an ex Prez (no matter who that Prez was) is all the causi belli we need to take him out.

Does it matter whether our government tried to kill him first? And whether there is causi belli is not the same as whether the action taken is reasonable and justified. This was not one of the reasons (or at least a significant one) the Admin gave for the invasion in 2003.

But I suspect it was one of the main reasons in Bush's mind. His dad was embarrassed because Hussein survived the '91 war and US inspired insurgent uprisings thereafter. And there was some evidence of the plot. IMO, these these were likely major reasons behind Bush's determination to go to war against Iraq -- a war of private avengance.

 

[Goobieman]

:boohoo:
You people always cry about each and every cost of doing ANYTHING about foreign threats.

And they dont offer any credible alternatives or solutions.

In fact, their entire solution to the current 'problem' is to leave, and now.

 

[Iriemon]

And they dont offer any credible alternatives or solutions.

In fact, their entire solution to the current 'problem' is to leave, and now.

It's you people are the ones who don't offer any credible alternatives or solutions.

In fact, your entire solution to the current 'problem' you people created is to put your heads in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist, and pass the buck to the next administration to deal with.

 

[DeeJayH]

So then what the hell are we doing there if it's not going to yeild results of "fight them there and not here"?

the point was, that we could pull completely out of Iraq and the Middle east as a whole, and they would still find a reason to hate us and the West

 

[DeeJayH]

Here is the essence of the illogic and untruth of the GOP. Nowehre has any Democrat EVER suggested that we stop fighting terrorism. Never, ever...prove me wrong...show me a concerted effort by the Democratic party to allow Terrorism to fester / prosper.

What sane people (nonn-Bushaholics) often suggest is that our resources are being so consumed in a war in Iraq that is hopelessly lost and has become a Civil War (that we created BTW) that the real War on Terror has been damaged due to our lack of resources in actually fighting our true enemies.

The bottom line for me is that Iraqis are not our enemy, never were. We were never actually threatened by Saddam or Iraq and the diversion that this damn war has caused has made us much less safe today in 2006 than we ever were in Feb. of 2003.

Please show me statistics that prove that the Iraqi war has made us even one percent safer....

par for the course for democrats
no solutions, just crititicisms
good luck with that in November and 2008

 

[DeeJayH]

I think we should take a clue from the Brits.

With international cooperation, good investigative work, and good police work, the Brits foiled a potential terrorist attack. Our forces in Iraq are creating terrorists faster then we can destroy them.

The war against terrorism will not be won with soldiers and bombs.

Think what we could do with that 5 billion a month, we're spending in Iraq, to shore up our homeland defensives.

I will not support any candidate who does not promise to get us out of Iraq.

the ACLU and the NYTimes and in some cases our Bill of Rights, do not allow us to use the tools available in Britain
next suggestion please

 

[Voidwar]

Only makes sense based upon the worldview of you people that Iraq attacked us on 9-11.

Islam attacked us on 9 / 11. We smashed Afghanistan in a few weeks, but that was not enough, so . . .

Saddam was squashed because he was the last Muslim leader to shake his fist at us. Don't bother gripin about how "secular" Iraq was, the populace is Muslim.
Object lesson to the rest of Islam.
Not so tuff to understand is it ?
Quackdaffi sure got the hint.

 

[aquapub]

I grasped your "explanation" just fine. If you followed your own concept, you'd read that the studies cited showed that folks who were not otherwise terrorists are going to Iraq to become terrorists because of the infidel occupation of the holy land. So here's another radical concept for you -- our occupation of Iraq is doing exactly what Bin Laden wants -- creating more terrorists against the US.

Which studies cited?

The Democrats' retreat from Bin Laden put Al Queda on the map; it made Bin Laden into a hero; it exponentially increased Al Queda's numbers.

I know this reality doesn't fit into the way you want things to be, but Democrats already proved that retreating and appeasing creates many, many more terrorists than previously existed.

Therefore, your point is invalid. YES, we created more terrorists by removing a genocidal terror sponsor. But since we create just as many terrorists by NOT doing anything about them, creating terrorists is irrelevant.

Like I said before...you people need to stop neurotically obssessing about the fact that war has immediate costs (like creating more terrorists) and just focus on stopping them.

The fact that you people don't get this is why you don't win elections anymore.

 

[Goobieman]

Like I said before...you people need to stop neurotically obssessing about the fact that war has immediate costs (like creating more terrorists) and just focus on stopping them.
The fact that you people don't get this is why you don't win elections anymore.

They have a better way. Appeasement.

 

[aquapub]

I would love to see the source on this, please? How come you don't post sources when your post screams out for them? Are you just ignorant of the proper way to post and document a point of view...or lazy...or unable to prove what you say...is that what a dishonest person would do?

Insert foot in mouth...as usual. :doh

The last 3x liberals challenged this assertion, I provided a link to the PBS interview. Forgive me for treating you people like you could read.

Thanks for all the personal attacks though, genius. :roll:


"The youth...realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat. And America forgot all the hoopla and media propaganda ... about being the world leader and the leader of the New World Order, and after a few blows they forgot about this title and left, dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat."-Bin Laden

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/miller.html

 

[AcePylut]

Better yet, just post Bin Laden's Declaration of War fatwa...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

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.

 

[Iriemon]

Which studies cited?

cited 2 -3 times in this thread.

The Democrats' retreat from Bin Laden put Al Queda on the map; it made Bin Laden into a hero; it exponentially increased Al Queda's numbers.

I know this reality doesn't fit into the way you want things to be, but Democrats already proved that retreating and appeasing creates many, many more terrorists than previously existed.

Therefore, your point is invalid. YES, we created more terrorists by removing a genocidal terror sponsor. But since we create just as many terrorists by NOT doing anything about them, creating terrorists is irrelevant.

Like I said before...you people need to stop neurotically obssessing about the fact that war has immediate costs (like creating more terrorists) and just focus on stopping them.

The fact that you people don't get this is why you don't win elections anymore.

What is your source that terrorists were exponentially created because of Democrats? What is expontential is the growth in the number of terrorist attacks against Americans since we invaded Iraq.

 

[Iriemon]

They have a better way. Appeasement.

Right, leaving Iraq would be "appeasment" because after all, it is our country and our oil under the ground.

 

[Iriemon]

Insert foot in mouth...as usual. :doh

The last 3x liberals challenged this assertion, I provided a link to the PBS interview. Forgive me for treating you people like you could read.

Thanks for all the personal attacks though, genius. :roll:


"The youth...realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat. And America forgot all the hoopla and media propaganda ... about being the world leader and the leader of the New World Order, and after a few blows they forgot about this title and left, dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat."-Bin Laden

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/miller.html

That is the source of your position? The leader of the terrorists! LOL

If you are going to tell us that bin Laden is credible, then let's look at what else he has said.

 

[AcePylut]

No. If it were, you would be labelling the American Govt as a terrorist organization, as it has tried to or has assassinated leaders of various countries, including Iraq, on numerous occassions.

Does it matter whether our government tried to kill him first? And whether there is causi belli is not the same as whether the action taken is reasonable and justified. This was not one of the reasons (or at least a significant one) the Admin gave for the invasion in 2003.

But I suspect it was one of the main reasons in Bush's mind. His dad was embarrassed because Hussein survived the '91 war and US inspired insurgent uprisings thereafter. And there was some evidence of the plot. IMO, these these were likely major reasons behind Bush's determination to go to war against Iraq -- a war of private avengance.

I don't define targeting the US president as a "terrorist" attack, but I do define it as an act of war. Targeting a US Civilian (not soldiers), of which all ex-presidents are, would be an act of terrorism. Targeting any US Civilians (including soldiers), imho, is an act of war.

Any attack on a US Civilian, or US soldier for that matter, is an act of war and should be acted upon at that time with everything the United States of America can bring to the battle. There is no statuate of limitations on this, and a weak willed president not taking action does not in any manner make it "less justifiable or reasonable" should the next president decide to take action. IMHO, "Not" taking action against such a blatant aggression is what's unreasonable and can not be justified.

This act was indeed one of the many reasons given for war upon Saddam, and to call it "not a major reason" because it wasn't repeatedly force fed to us does not make it any less of the only reason we need, to take him out.

 

[AcePylut]

That is the source of your position? The leader of the terrorists! LOL

If you are going to tell us that bin Laden is credible, then let's look at what else he has said.

When trying to learn "what creates terrorists", the best source of information is those who are terrorists, and what better terrorist to use as a source than the leader of those terrorists?

Please don't confuse "credible" with "deluded" when discussin Bin Laden's words. Me, I happen to believe that he speaks honestly, but the beliefs that his honesty stems from is deluded. Understand what I'm trying to say? He may honestly believe that the sky is red, and when he says "the sky is red", he isn't "lying" to you per se, but he's just deluded in thinking that "blue" is really "red".

 

[Iriemon]

I don't define targeting the US president as a "terrorist" attack, but I do define it as an act of war. Targeting a US Civilian (not soldiers), of which all ex-presidents are, would be an act of terrorism. Targeting any US Civilians (including soldiers), imho, is an act of war.

I honestly would have a hard time disagreeing if it was the president. Targeting on civilian is questionable as to whether it is terrorism, which by definition is an act designed to induce terror. The plan to kill Bush1 would have been based on revenge, not on inducing terror.

Any attack on a US Civilian, or US soldier for that matter, is an act of war and should be acted upon at that time with everything the United States of America can bring to the battle. There is no statuate of limitations on this, and a weak willed president not taking action does not in any manner make it "less justifiable or reasonable" should the next president decide to take action. IMHO, "Not" taking action against such a blatant aggression is what's unreasonable and can not be justified.

You have an argument, I agree, but the US has never really followed this rule -- eg Panama.

I think your position of "should be acted upon at that time with everything the United States of America can bring to the battle" is neither justifiable or logical. That would mean we should fire nukes if some nut took a potshot at a soldier.

This act was indeed one of the many reasons given for war upon Saddam, and to call it "not a major reason" because it wasn't repeatedly force fed to us does not make it any less of the only reason we need, to take him out.

The only reason we went to war, according to the president before the war, was Iraq's WMDs. If Iraq had given up its WMDs (which it didn't have) there would have been no war, according to Bush:

"America will be making only one determination: is Iraq meeting the terms of the Security Council resolution [1441] or not?... If Iraq fails to fully comply, the United States and other nations will disarm Saddam Hussein."— President George W. Bush
November 8, 2002, the day the UN Security Council
passed Resolution 1441

"The world needs him [Saddam Hussein] to answer a single question: Has the Iraqi regime fully and unconditionally disarmed, as required by Resolution 1441, or has it not?"— President George W. Bush
press conference, March 6, 2003

Everything else was fluff.

 

[Navy Pride]

Better yet, just post Bin Laden's Declaration of War fatwa...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

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.

Clinton did that on every terrorist attack whether it be Somalia WTC 1 or the USS COLE........Unfortunately he was to busy with his infidelity to accomplish any paybacks.......

 

[Iriemon]

When trying to learn "what creates terrorists", the best source of information is those who are terrorists, and what better terrorist to use as a source than the leader of those terrorists?

Please don't confuse "credible" with "deluded" when discussin Bin Laden's words. Me, I happen to believe that he speaks honestly, but the beliefs that his honesty stems from is deluded. Understand what I'm trying to say? He may honestly believe that the sky is red, and when he says "the sky is red", he isn't "lying" to you per se, but he's just deluded in thinking that "blue" is really "red".

I personally don't put a lot of trust the guy, what he was saying sounded more like PR to me. But in any case, is statements about the Americans taking off from Somolia isn't evidence that that caused many Muslims to join their cause, or that it was a main reason those who had, or did join, did so. I mean, I don't hang out with terrorists, but I can't imagine many of them were thinking -- "By Allah, look at that! The Americans withdrew from Somalia! I think I'll join Al-Quaida."

But I can imagine a lot of them being furious at the indfidels indefinitely occupying their holy lands -- as an insult to their pride if not for religious reasons.

 

[aquapub]

Look at how much upheaval we created by removing Hitler..

Only makes sense based upon the worldview of you people that Iraq attacked us on 9-11.

So let me get this straight....


Your argument: we shouldn't remove a genocidal terror-sponsor with WMD after 15 years of failed diplomacy because it will create terrorists.

My counterpoint: creating upheaval/more terrorists shouldn't determine whether or not we do something about foreign threats.

And your counterpoint to that is....?

You think...stopping foreign threats even if it causes upheaval/creates more terrorists (as does NOT stopping foreign threats) only makes sense if you accept the notion that Iraq attacked us on 9/11?

Wow. That's dumb.

And BTW, show me one instance where I ever asserted that Iraq caused 9/11. No one here is asserting that.

Um..sure. Nice logic there....:roll: I love arguing with liberals.

 

[aquapub]

Only makes sense based upon the worldview of you people that Iraq represented an imminent threat because of its WMDs.

Newsflash: Saddam...

-DID have WMD,
-routinely launched missiles at a nuclear power (Israel),
-openly sponsored terror,
-was linked to Hammas, Hezbollah, and Al Queda,
-tried to assassinate one of our presidents,
-used WMD to commit genocide,
-attacked Saudi Arabia,
-attacked Iran,
-attacked Kuwait....

Not a threat? Like I always say, conservatives base their arguments on facts and evidence, liberal arguments require this: :notlook:


And the reason Iraq didn't have MORE American blood on its hands than it did was that it had Israel to attack right next door-which answers the question of this thread....YES, terrorists having someone close to attack is going to lessen the amount of terrorists coming HERE to attack us.

 

[Iriemon]

So let me get this straight....

Your argument: we shouldn't remove a genocidal terror-sponsor with WMD after 15 years of failed diplomacy because it will create terrorists.

No, my argument is that maintaining an indefinite occupation is creating more terrorists. Failed diplomacy in the ME goes back well more than 15 years.

My counterpoint: creating upheaval/more terrorists shouldn't determine whether or not we do something about foreign threats.

And your counterpoint to that is....?

Maybe shouldn't "determine" it, but IMO should be a factor considered. If our goal is to reduce terrorism, it would be patently stupid not to consider.

You think...stopping foreign threats even if it causes upheaval/creates more terrorists (as does NOT stopping foreign threats) only makes sense if you accept the notion that Iraq attacked us on 9/11?

Wow. That's dumb.

No, I was saying that your argument was premised upon the notion that Iraq attacked us on 9/11. That's what was dumb.

And BTW, show me one instance where I ever asserted that Iraq caused 9/11. No one here is asserting that.

That was the logical premise behind your assertion tying Hussein with the terrorist attack.

Um..sure. Nice logic there....:roll: I love arguing with liberals.

Thanks!

 

[Iriemon]

Newsflash: Saddam...

-DID have WMD,

sums up your worldview right there. We were in imminent danger of Hussein digging up those old gas shells and lobbing them at us.

 

[AcePylut]

I honestly would have a hard time disagreeing if it was the president. Targeting on civilian is questionable as to whether it is terrorism, which by definition is an act designed to induce terror. The plan to kill Bush1 would have been based on revenge, not on inducing terror.

You have an argument, I agree, but the US has never really followed this rule -- eg Panama.

I think your position of "should be acted upon at that time with everything the United States of America can bring to the battle" is neither justifiable or logical. That would mean we should fire nukes if some nut took a potshot at a soldier.

The only reason we went to war, according to the president before the war, was Iraq's WMDs. If Iraq had given up its WMDs (which it didn't have) there would have been no war, according to Bush:

"America will be making only one determination: is Iraq meeting the terms of the Security Council resolution [1441] or not?... If Iraq fails to fully comply, the United States and other nations will disarm Saddam Hussein."— President George W. Bush
November 8, 2002, the day the UN Security Council
passed Resolution 1441

"The world needs him [Saddam Hussein] to answer a single question: Has the Iraqi regime fully and unconditionally disarmed, as required by Resolution 1441, or has it not?"— President George W. Bush
press conference, March 6, 2003

Everything else was fluff.

'eh forgive me for not specifically excluding Nuke, Bio, or Chem weapons in the statement that we should bring 'everything' to bear. I was thinking more along "strategic" lines, in that when we should bring "everything" to bear, it's in a 'military, economic, diplomatic, etc.etc.etc.' (excluding WMD's as a first strike weapon) frame of reference. Nuke us, or dump bio weapons on us, or throw some chem weapons at us, and all bets are off with regards to NBC usage.

Res 1441 recalled all the previous resolutions levied against Saddam, and as such, compliance with 1441 would require him to comply with all other resolutions. He didn't do that. Bush laid out many of the reasons for war, many times. That the policy that scored big points with an worldly ignorant US public was WMD's, and thats what was pushed via media outlets to get the the public on board, doesn't really refute that he did indeed lay out many reasons, each of which by themselves was enough justification to take him out.