• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

US is losing the war

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Reuters

by David Morgan

WASHINGTON - U.S. terrorism experts Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon have reached a stark conclusion about the war on terrorism: the United States is losing.


(Bush) has given them an excellent American target in Iraq but in the process has energized the jihad and given militants the kind of urban warfare experience that will raise the future threat to the United States exponentially.

Steven Simon, a Rand Corp. analyst who teaches at Georgetown University
Despite an early victory over the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, the two former Clinton administration officials say President George W. Bush's policies have created a new haven for terrorism in Iraq that escalates the potential for Islamic violence against Europe and the United States.

America's badly damaged image in the Muslim world could take more than a generation to set right. And Bush's mounting political woes at home have undermined the chance for any bold U.S. initiatives to address the grim social realities that feed Islamic radicalism, they say.

"It's been fairly disastrous," said Benjamin, who worked as a director for counterterrorism at the National Security Council from 1994 to 1999.

"We have had some very important successes getting individual terrorists. But I think the broader story is really quite awful. We have done a lot to fuel the fires, and we have done a lot to encourage people to hate us," he added in an interview.

Benjamin and Simon, a former State Department official who was also at the NSC, are co-authors of a new book titled: "The Next Attack: The Failure of the War on Terror and a Strategy for Getting it Right" (Times Books).

Following on from their 2002 book, "The Age of Sacred Terror" (Random House), Benjamin and Simon list what they call U.S. missteps since the September 11, 2001, attacks on America.

The Bush administration presents the war on terrorism as a difficult but largely successful struggle that has seen the gutting of al Qaeda's pre-September 11 leadership and prevented new attacks in the United States over the past four years.

Bush said last month the United States and its allies had disrupted plans for 10 al Qaeda attacks since September 11, including one against West Coast targets with hijacked planes.

The White House describes Iraq as a central front in the war on terrorism and says the building of democracy there will confound militant aims and help to propel the entire Middle East region toward democracy.

Benjamin and Simon's criticism of the Bush administration in Iraq follows a path similar to those of other critics, including former U.S. national security adviser Brent Scowcroft and former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke.

"We may be attacked by terrorists who receive their training in Iraq, or attacked by terrorists who were inspired, organized and trained by people who were in Iraq," said Simon, a Rand Corp. analyst who teaches at Georgetown University.

"(Bush) has given them an excellent American target in Iraq but in the process has energized the jihad and given militants the kind of urban warfare experience that will raise the future threat to the United States exponentially."

For Benjamin and Simon, the war on terrorism has cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars and failed to counter a deadly global movement responsible for attacks in London, Madrid, Bali, Indonesia, and Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt.

And not even al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, they say, could have dreamed the United States would stumble so badly in the court of Muslim public opinion.

"Everyone says there's a war of ideas out there, and I agree. The sad fact is that we're on the wrong side," said Benjamin, now a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

U.S. fortunes could improve, the authors say, if Washington took a number of politically challenging steps, like bolstering public diplomacy with trade pacts aimed at expanding middle-class influence in countries such as Pakistan.

Washington also needs to do more to ease regional tensions that feed Muslim grievances across the globe, from Thailand and the Philippines to Chechnya and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In a Muslim world of 1.2 billion people, as many as three-in-four hold negative views of the United States.

Because anti-U.S. rhetoric often appeals strongly to impressionable youth, Benjamin and Simon believe many of today's young Muslims will harbor grievances against the United States for the rest of their lives.

The authors believe there is little prospect for fundamental improvement in U.S. policy under Bush "There are resource constraints, there are constraints in the realm of trade, there are political constraints," said Simon.

"These are not the kinds of circumstances that favor bold new policies that require spending political capital that it turns out the White House just doesn't have," he added.

Copyright 2005 Reuters
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
From the weekly newsletters from SSG Paul Farr of the 3rd/112th Armor Bn, 36th Inf Div, here is how the US will prevail in Iraq...

"128,932 people around the world. That’s the latest estimate of people receiving the newsletter as of Sunday, 23OCT05. This has been a very busy week, which is the way we prefer it as it helps the time go by quicker. We visited the two water projects this week and I’m happy to report they are 100% complete as far as we are concerned. Now it’s up to the Mayor to hold up his end of the bargain and get the pipe netting to run to houses, as he promised. The completion of the two water projects marks an end to the bulk of our missions these past two months, overseeing every step of the projects. From the selection of the projects, to the selection of the contractors, to checking on the projects weekly to ensure the terms of the contracts were being met, we are proud of the work done. The team can leave Central Iraq knowing we helped the Iraqi people in this region in ways the other units did not. Although we have been in this area since April, we didn’t receive funding for projects until the middle of August. On September 9th we started laying two electrical lines, refurbishing three schools, and building two water sanitation/distribution sites with a price tag of just over $366,000 USD. In a little over a month all projects are complete and the people benefiting from them are very pleased. Several thousand people are enjoying electricity, many for the first time in their lives. Children are returning to schools once run down and forgotten by Hussein’s regime. Once the Mayor is able to provide the necessary pipe network, several thousand more will enjoy clean potable water for the first time in their lives. As we continue to explain nearly every time we go out, the Coalition Forces can not reverse 3 decades of damage inflicted by Saddam Hussein and his henchmen in the 2 ½ years we have been here."

Link to source
 

mikeey

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 3, 2005
Messages
776
Reaction score
93
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ROBIN in the long run how can we say,thats good comming from me as u know
but,it is a chance that MR BUSH has taken even thought lives has been lost
on all sides, GOD bless the familys who lost there love ones,it might be
right or maybe not. the future will will tell us the anwser,because the middle
east is a problem that we have to solve.

What do u think my good friend

regards mikeey
 

alienken

Active member
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
369
Reaction score
4
Location
near Houston, Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
robin said:
Steven Simon, a Rand Corp. analyst who teaches at Georgetown University
Despite an early victory over the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, the two former Clinton administration officials say President George W. Bush's policies have created a new haven for terrorism in Iraq that escalates the potential for Islamic violence against Europe and the United States.
PRESIDENT Bush and Alquida agree on one thing, Iraq is the main central front of the war on terror. The war looks bad because the only thing the media covers is the car bombs and anyother bad news they can rake together from their hotels.When was the last time Iraq's electric power was in the news?Answer- when the power was out after the initial invasion. Our 24hour news cycle in action. All negative, all of the time. There is no time for positve news because the same 20min. of negative coverage must be shown over and over.
 
M

medad

I think its a wrong policy to end the terrorism around the world this way. and the American administration has no enough knowledge about the nature of people

and before all the above, Mr Bush MUST put a real definition for the terrorism and MUST distinguish between terror and the occupation Resistance which is very will known and approved at the International low and nobody can deny it.
 

Canuck

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
849
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
robin said:
Reuters

by David Morgan

WASHINGTON - U.S. terrorism experts Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon have reached a stark conclusion about the war on terrorism: the United States is losing.


(Bush) has given them an excellent American target in Iraq but in the process has energized the jihad and given militants the kind of urban warfare experience that will raise the future threat to the United States exponentially.

Steven Simon, a Rand Corp. analyst who teaches at Georgetown University
Despite an early victory over the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, the two former Clinton administration officials say President George W. Bush's policies have created a new haven for terrorism in Iraq that escalates the potential for Islamic violence against Europe and the United States.

America's badly damaged image in the Muslim world could take more than a generation to set right. And Bush's mounting political woes at home have undermined the chance for any bold U.S. initiatives to address the grim social realities that feed Islamic radicalism, they say.

"It's been fairly disastrous," said Benjamin, who worked as a director for counterterrorism at the National Security Council from 1994 to 1999.

"We have had some very important successes getting individual terrorists. But I think the broader story is really quite awful. We have done a lot to fuel the fires, and we have done a lot to encourage people to hate us," he added in an interview.

Benjamin and Simon, a former State Department official who was also at the NSC, are co-authors of a new book titled: "The Next Attack: The Failure of the War on Terror and a Strategy for Getting it Right" (Times Books).

Following on from their 2002 book, "The Age of Sacred Terror" (Random House), Benjamin and Simon list what they call U.S. missteps since the September 11, 2001, attacks on America.

The Bush administration presents the war on terrorism as a difficult but largely successful struggle that has seen the gutting of al Qaeda's pre-September 11 leadership and prevented new attacks in the United States over the past four years.

Bush said last month the United States and its allies had disrupted plans for 10 al Qaeda attacks since September 11, including one against West Coast targets with hijacked planes.

The White House describes Iraq as a central front in the war on terrorism and says the building of democracy there will confound militant aims and help to propel the entire Middle East region toward democracy.

Benjamin and Simon's criticism of the Bush administration in Iraq follows a path similar to those of other critics, including former U.S. national security adviser Brent Scowcroft and former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke.

"We may be attacked by terrorists who receive their training in Iraq, or attacked by terrorists who were inspired, organized and trained by people who were in Iraq," said Simon, a Rand Corp. analyst who teaches at Georgetown University.

"(Bush) has given them an excellent American target in Iraq but in the process has energized the jihad and given militants the kind of urban warfare experience that will raise the future threat to the United States exponentially."

For Benjamin and Simon, the war on terrorism has cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars and failed to counter a deadly global movement responsible for attacks in London, Madrid, Bali, Indonesia, and Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt.

And not even al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, they say, could have dreamed the United States would stumble so badly in the court of Muslim public opinion.

"Everyone says there's a war of ideas out there, and I agree. The sad fact is that we're on the wrong side," said Benjamin, now a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

U.S. fortunes could improve, the authors say, if Washington took a number of politically challenging steps, like bolstering public diplomacy with trade pacts aimed at expanding middle-class influence in countries such as Pakistan.

Washington also needs to do more to ease regional tensions that feed Muslim grievances across the globe, from Thailand and the Philippines to Chechnya and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In a Muslim world of 1.2 billion people, as many as three-in-four hold negative views of the United States.

Because anti-U.S. rhetoric often appeals strongly to impressionable youth, Benjamin and Simon believe many of today's young Muslims will harbor grievances against the United States for the rest of their lives.

The authors believe there is little prospect for fundamental improvement in U.S. policy under Bush "There are resource constraints, there are constraints in the realm of trade, there are political constraints," said Simon.

"These are not the kinds of circumstances that favor bold new policies that require spending political capital that it turns out the White House just doesn't have," he added.

Copyright 2005 Reuters
YEs it is an unwinable war Bush already knew this or at least he was told this prior to the war
he chose to go anyways because it meant big profits in a time of economic melt down for USA
&USA lives off it's war machine
it is high time that America abandon the war machine and build a peace machine
 

Attachments

alienken

Active member
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
369
Reaction score
4
Location
near Houston, Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Canuck said:
YEs it is an unwinable war Bush already knew this or at least he was told this prior to the war
he chose to go anyways because it meant big profits in a time of economic melt down for USA
&USA lives off it's war machine
it is high time that America abandon the war machine and build a peace machine
Ridicules. 1).Nobody would start an unwinnable war.2).War does not mean big profits, PRES. Bush is critized by the left because the war is costing so much. There are no profits. 3).A war machine is imortant to defend this country. If we had no military, our country would have been invaded and conquered a long time ago. If we had a bigger military we could get more done with threats. 4). Peace machine?! give me abreak.Focus on the real reality.
 

AK_Conservative

Active member
Joined
Sep 21, 2005
Messages
499
Reaction score
0
Location
Eagle River, Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Canuck said:
YEs it is an unwinable war Bush already knew this or at least he was told this prior to the war
he chose to go anyways because it meant big profits in a time of economic melt down for USA
&USA lives off it's war machine
it is high time that America abandon the war machine and build a peace machine

30 years from now, when Iraq is stable and defending its own nation and is looked upon in the world as a respectable nation, will you still believe that this war was unjustifiable and wrong???

By the way.. i thought you were banned...
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
AK_Conservative said:
By the way.. i thought you were banned...
He was, but then his sentence was up, returned, then got himself banned again.
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
alienken said:
Ridicules. 1).Nobody would start an unwinnable war.2).War does not mean big profits, PRES. Bush is critized by the left because the war is costing so much. There are no profits. 3).A war machine is imortant to defend this country. If we had no military, our country would have been invaded and conquered a long time ago. If we had a bigger military we could get more done with threats. 4). Peace machine?! give me abreak.Focus on the real reality.
1. He thought it was winnable.

2. It means big profits to large corporations such as Halliburton, there are no profits for the US govt., but there is for corporations.

3. A war machine makes us hated, because we coquer too much, it turns the world against, instead of them being friendly to us, war machine makes our enemies multiply. We don't need a large or no military, just enough to defend this countries, not invade others. If we had a larger military, counties would despise us, and try to attack us because they are fearful that we would destroy them first.

4. Most of our enemies want peace, they just don't want our invasions and occupations. They would be willing to have peace, but we don't wanna leave.
 

tecoyah

Back
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
9,777
Reaction score
3,417
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I honestly think we made a mistake, and would see a very different situation in the middle east had we actually finished the Job in Afganistan. This region has been in turmoil for literally thousands of years, and only manages stability when a very strong leadership is in place (see Saudi Arabia). Had we put even Half the resources into Afganistan that we have thrown at Iraq, likely there would be no reason to occupy anything other than Afganistan in the first place. If indeed we want a foothold, a base of operations if you will (this is as far as I can tell the only way to stabilize the areas), there are few places more fitting than Afganistan.
Instead we walked away from the opportunity to "Show" the people of this region what we can do for them, and what a democratic country can become in the context of eastern beliefs.I am of the opinion that the real issue here is one of understanding. We are unlikely to change the underlying mindset of distrust of western democracy, unless we manage to show what it can be.....and this takes time, hard work, and a willing population. Most of this was handed to us in Afganistan, virtually a glob of playdoh ready to be molded, with the extremely important aspect of Taliban/terrorist removal as a fringe benefit.
I simply cannot understand why we abandoned this silver platter, and decided to go after a bit player in the terrorist game(Saddam), unless I want to believe the paranoid conspiracy crap .....and I dont want to believe it.
 

alienken

Active member
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
369
Reaction score
4
Location
near Houston, Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Comrade Brian said:
4. Most of our enemies want peace, they just don't want our invasions and occupations. They would be willing to have peace, but we don't wanna leave.
Iraq is so independent that they could ask us to leave and we would leave. They want us there. They are not fighting us, they are fighting terrorist with us.
 

Sob

New member
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Location
In uncensored land
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
tecoyah said:
I simply cannot understand why we abandoned this silver platter, and decided to go after a bit player in the terrorist game(Saddam), unless I want to believe the paranoid conspiracy crap .....and I dont want to believe it.
Am I correct in my understanding that you think we abandoned our efforts in Afghanistan?

We're still VERY busy there. However, the Navy SEALS are just as happy not to be in the headlines. Which will be the case unless things start going badly in that area--then the networks will be all over it.
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
alienken said:
Iraq is so independent that they could ask us to leave and we would leave. They want us there. They are not fighting us, they are fighting terrorist with us.
Well their first Iraqi govt. leader was voted in because the base of his campagn was to ask the US to leave, we have not left.

And these "terrorists" in Iraq only started after the US invaded.

Have you ever seen all the demonstrations?
 

alienken

Active member
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
369
Reaction score
4
Location
near Houston, Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Comrade Brian said:
Well their first Iraqi govt. leader was voted in because the base of his campagn was to ask the US to leave, we have not left.

And these "terrorists" in Iraq only started after the US invaded.

Have you ever seen all the demonstrations?
Of course. They started in Iraq to get us out. Why would they start before we got there.Why do use "" around terrorist? What else would you call Al-quedi. Which side are you on?..There really are only two sides.
 

tecoyah

Back
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
9,777
Reaction score
3,417
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Sob said:
Am I correct in my understanding that you think we abandoned our efforts in Afghanistan?

We're still VERY busy there. However, the Navy SEALS are just as happy not to be in the headlines. Which will be the case unless things start going badly in that area--then the networks will be all over it.
Abandoned is not the term I would use. We did however, forgo finishing what we started there in my opinion. By failing to eradicate the Taliban , and placing the forces needed to secure the country, I believe we lost a valuable opportunity, Added to this would be the backing we had from the rest of the world to do so, as we were in retribution mode as far as support and coalition.
I could very well be wrong, and making Afganistan an example of what we have to offer might very well have blown up in our face, just as Iraq has, but is seems a far more likely success story in hindsight. I am aware we are still working in the country, I simply feel we would have been better off focusing our efforts there, and using what we built to intimidate, and if needed stage an assault on Iraq, and Saddam.
 

VTA

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 5, 2005
Messages
1,081
Reaction score
163
Location
America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Comrade Brian said:
Well their first Iraqi govt. leader was voted in because the base of his campagn was to ask the US to leave, we have not left.

And these "terrorists" in Iraq only started after the US invaded.

Have you ever seen all the demonstrations?

Numer 1. Our enemies do not want peace. They want a dominant Shariah Law. They want a world with out Israel and a world without the U.S. These are their words, not my interpretation of things.

Number 2. The fighting in Iraq is not the locals resisting, but the foreigners recognizing the strategic goal of the U.S. and fighting against it. While there are Ba'ath loyalists happily in the fray, the core of the insurgency is Al Qeada, who if you remember declared war on America and carried out war like acts against us, in the 7 years before the war in Iraq.
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
alienken said:
Of course. They started in Iraq to get us out. Why would they start before we got there.Why do use "" around terrorist? What else would you call Al-quedi. Which side are you on?..There really are only two sides.
1. I use "" around "terrorist" is because technically the US spread more terror than they have, the US has killed more people. So I don't think they are "terrorist" as many would have people believe.

2. Technically I would be on the "terrorist" because I support their goals of US out of Iraq, I don't necessarily like how they've done it, but they haven't been as bad as the US.

3. There are more than 2 sides to almost every issue. Don't be so naive.

4. Al-Qaeda was a US supported group, originally made as an anti-soviet resistance group in Afghanistan. They recieved CIA weapons and training, now that the Soviets are out of the area, they want to push the US out.
 
Last edited:

alienken

Active member
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
369
Reaction score
4
Location
near Houston, Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Comrade Brian said:
4. Al-Qaeda was a US supported group, originally made as an anti-soviet resistance group in Afghanistan. They recieved CIA weapons and training, now that the Soviets are out of the area, they want to push the US out.[/QUOTE I doubt it, but if we did it was because a larger threat was more of a concern. Soviet Union. In a similar fashion we were allies with Saddam because he fought against Iran.
 
Last edited:

alienken

Active member
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
369
Reaction score
4
Location
near Houston, Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Comrade Brian said:
1. I use "" around "terrorist" is because technically the US spread more terror than they have, the US has killed more people. So I don't think they are "terrorist" as many would have people believe.

2. Technically I would be on the "terrorist" because I support their goals of US out of Iraq, I don't necessarily like how they've done it, but they haven't been as bad as the US.

3. There are more than 2 sides to almost every issue. Don't be so naive.

4. Al-Qaeda was a US supported group, originally made as an anti-soviet resistance group in Afghanistan. They recieved CIA weapons and training, now that the Soviets are out of the area, they want to push the US out.
1).WHAT? The US hasn't targeted civilians like Sept. 11. 2). WHAT?! The terrorist hasn't been as bad as the US in Iraq? Compare Abu Grabe naked prisoner photos with the videos of the be-headings. NO comparison.When our military took on a town that had a terrorist strong hold it was deemed a failer because we missed the leader.Why? Because we told them we were coming so the civilians could evacuate. The terrorist leader also evacuated and still causing us problems to this day. Do you realize how quick and easy it would have been if our military did not care about civilians? We could have leveled their whole town, terrorist leaders and all....3).I know there are two sides and no I am not naive just because I TOTALLY disagree with you. Terrorist side - They hate us and want us to die. U.S. side - we need to kill them first.
 
Joined
Nov 1, 2005
Messages
66
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
alienken said:
1).WHAT? The US hasn't targeted civilians like Sept. 11. 2). WHAT?! The terrorist hasn't been as bad as the US in Iraq? Compare Abu Grabe naked prisoner photos with the videos of the be-headings. NO comparison.When our military took on a town that had a terrorist strong hold it was deemed a failer because we missed the leader.Why? Because we told them we were coming so the civilians could evacuate. The terrorist leader also evacuated and still causing us problems to this day. Do you realize how quick and easy it would have been if our military did not care about civilians? We could have leveled their whole town, terrorist leaders and all....3).I know there are two sides and no I am not naive just because I TOTALLY disagree with you. Terrorist side - They hate us and want us to die. U.S. side - we need to kill them first.
Better Bumper Sticker: God is alive in heaven...He is not from Texas (Praise God) And we don't need Texas in the White House. Amen
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
President Bush has said the war on terror will last a long time........Get use to it........
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,921
Reaction score
8,685
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon

I'll make a note to remember these two idiots in the years to come.:roll: Reformacist in Syria, the youth in Iran, the populous of Indonesia, and the populous of Jordan suggest otherwise. With every new terrorist attack on fellow Muslims, the extremists create more and more enemies as they awake their fellow Muslims to what they are. Much more than recruitments. Of course, I've said this all along.
 
Last edited:

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
alienken said:
3).I know there are two sides and no I am not naive just because I TOTALLY disagree with you. Terrorist side - They hate us and want us to die. U.S. side - we need to kill them first.
Exactly, you think they want to kill you, so you kill them, perfect circle, then they react, then when more die, more get hyped up on fanatiscism and just focus on killing the other people, then claim the other people were gonna do the same to. Both "terrorists" and the US govt.
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
alienken said:
1).WHAT? The US hasn't targeted civilians like Sept. 11.
I don't think the military just goes around shooting all the civilians they can, but somehow the Iraqi civilian death toll is at the lowest estimate 26,000+.
 
Top Bottom