aquapub
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2005
- Messages
- 7,317
- Reaction score
- 344
- Location
- America (A.K.A., a red state)
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
McCain-Feingold put far left radicals like George Soros in charge of the Democrat party. Here is what George Soros thinks about the way things ought to be:
(From the Wall Street Journal Op-Ed by Soros, "A Self-Defeating War.")
The four reasons the War on Terror is self-defeating; four reasons we should stop fighting the enemy...
1) "First, war by its very nature creates innocent victims. A war waged against terrorists is even more likely to claim innocent victims because terrorists tend to keep their whereabouts hidden. The deaths, injuries and humiliation of civilians generate rage and resentment among their families and communities that in turn serves to build support for terrorists."
Translation: If there is any immediate cost or casualties, preventing terror isn't worth it. Terrorists hide, so we shouldn't look for them. It might create more terrorists (just as does NOT fighting the enemy), so we should have let them keep attacking us the way Democrats did under Bill Clinton.
2) "Second, terrorism is an abstraction. It lumps together all political movements that use terrorist tactics. Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Sunni insurrection and the Mahdi army in Iraq are very different forces, but President Bush's global war on terror prevents us from differentiating between them and dealing with them accordingly. It inhibits much-needed negotiations with Iran and Syria because they are states that support terrorist groups."
Translation: Hamas mass murders unarmed civilians to get Israel out of Palestine, Hezbollah mass murders unarmed civilians to get Israel out of existence, and Al Queda mass murders unarmed civilians to unite radical Islam in general Jihad against the West. Calling them all terrorists is narrow-minded and absurd. They are nothing alike.
We should overturn our bedrock national principle of never negotiating with terrorists because Iran and Syria are going to be the two psychotic regimes that defy what centuries of warfare proves time and time again-that regimes like these cannot be defeated through diplomacy.
3) "Third, the war on terror emphasizes military action while most territorial conflicts require political solutions. And, as the British have shown, al Qaeda is best dealt with by good intelligence. The war on terror increases the terrorist threat and makes the task of the intelligence agencies more difficult. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri are still at large; we need to focus on finding them, and preventing attacks like the one foiled in England."
Translation: While terrorists mass murder our civilians, we should be drawing up maps that are more to the liking of the enemy, but never fighting back. We should prioritize good intelligence (but not if it requires wiretapping, the Patriot Act, detaining/interrogating terror suspects, or anything else that might actually lead better intelligence). Terrorists who are no longer a threat to us haven't been captured yet....that proves that we shouldn't be fighting the terrorists (God I love liberals :roll: ). We need to focus on finding figureheads (and, unlike liberals, actually DO something once we find them-Clinton chose not to take Bin Laden into custody/kill him TWICE) rather than destroying their infrastructure..which might actually cost something.
4) "Fourth, the war on terror drives a wedge between "us" and "them." We are innocent victims. They are perpetrators. But we fail to notice that we also become perpetrators in the process; the rest of the world, however, does notice. That is how such a wide gap has arisen between America and much of the world."
Translation: Bush's decision to fight back is what caused Muslims to start seeing things as between Islam and the West...Don't pay any attention to the decade of unanswered Al Queda attacks that took place BEFORE Bush took office (or the decades before that). Fighting back makes the U.S. into killers indistinguishable from the terrorists on every level. The rest of the world doesn't like their gas prices when we do something about Islamic fascists and their terror networks, so their disapproval proves we are on the wrong track.
This is the guy who's in charge of the party that wants to take over. For every threat to America, there is a solution, and a Democrat standing in the way of it.
(From the Wall Street Journal Op-Ed by Soros, "A Self-Defeating War.")
The four reasons the War on Terror is self-defeating; four reasons we should stop fighting the enemy...
1) "First, war by its very nature creates innocent victims. A war waged against terrorists is even more likely to claim innocent victims because terrorists tend to keep their whereabouts hidden. The deaths, injuries and humiliation of civilians generate rage and resentment among their families and communities that in turn serves to build support for terrorists."
Translation: If there is any immediate cost or casualties, preventing terror isn't worth it. Terrorists hide, so we shouldn't look for them. It might create more terrorists (just as does NOT fighting the enemy), so we should have let them keep attacking us the way Democrats did under Bill Clinton.
2) "Second, terrorism is an abstraction. It lumps together all political movements that use terrorist tactics. Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Sunni insurrection and the Mahdi army in Iraq are very different forces, but President Bush's global war on terror prevents us from differentiating between them and dealing with them accordingly. It inhibits much-needed negotiations with Iran and Syria because they are states that support terrorist groups."
Translation: Hamas mass murders unarmed civilians to get Israel out of Palestine, Hezbollah mass murders unarmed civilians to get Israel out of existence, and Al Queda mass murders unarmed civilians to unite radical Islam in general Jihad against the West. Calling them all terrorists is narrow-minded and absurd. They are nothing alike.
We should overturn our bedrock national principle of never negotiating with terrorists because Iran and Syria are going to be the two psychotic regimes that defy what centuries of warfare proves time and time again-that regimes like these cannot be defeated through diplomacy.
3) "Third, the war on terror emphasizes military action while most territorial conflicts require political solutions. And, as the British have shown, al Qaeda is best dealt with by good intelligence. The war on terror increases the terrorist threat and makes the task of the intelligence agencies more difficult. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri are still at large; we need to focus on finding them, and preventing attacks like the one foiled in England."
Translation: While terrorists mass murder our civilians, we should be drawing up maps that are more to the liking of the enemy, but never fighting back. We should prioritize good intelligence (but not if it requires wiretapping, the Patriot Act, detaining/interrogating terror suspects, or anything else that might actually lead better intelligence). Terrorists who are no longer a threat to us haven't been captured yet....that proves that we shouldn't be fighting the terrorists (God I love liberals :roll: ). We need to focus on finding figureheads (and, unlike liberals, actually DO something once we find them-Clinton chose not to take Bin Laden into custody/kill him TWICE) rather than destroying their infrastructure..which might actually cost something.
4) "Fourth, the war on terror drives a wedge between "us" and "them." We are innocent victims. They are perpetrators. But we fail to notice that we also become perpetrators in the process; the rest of the world, however, does notice. That is how such a wide gap has arisen between America and much of the world."
Translation: Bush's decision to fight back is what caused Muslims to start seeing things as between Islam and the West...Don't pay any attention to the decade of unanswered Al Queda attacks that took place BEFORE Bush took office (or the decades before that). Fighting back makes the U.S. into killers indistinguishable from the terrorists on every level. The rest of the world doesn't like their gas prices when we do something about Islamic fascists and their terror networks, so their disapproval proves we are on the wrong track.
This is the guy who's in charge of the party that wants to take over. For every threat to America, there is a solution, and a Democrat standing in the way of it.
