How Do We "Win" a War on Terror? - Page 29 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

peragro · #**421** 09-04-2006, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

I admit that anytime I see the names "Stephen Hayes" and "Weekly Standard" in the same sentence, "fantasy" is one of the first words that comes to mind, but I don't think it applies to that article. I don't see anything controversial there. As far as I know most people agree that Saddam and al Qaeda crossed paths from time to time. I believe they even tried to form alliances a few times, but the weight of the evidence is that they were rivals, if not enemies, but the time we invaded in 2003. Bin Laden emphasized their adversarial relationship when he released a recorded statement urging muslims to rise up against the infidel Saddam Hussein.

The President continues to link Saddam Hussein to 9/11. He also continues to deny that he would make any such link. It's very dishonest.

I'm sure that you have some definitive proof for that 9/11 Iraq link.

I guess we really should consider Iraq the epicenter of today's war, since Bin Laden has called it that.

peragro · #**422** 09-04-2006, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

i dont see what difference it is whether you say islamic facism or terrorism. just words.

tom w

Words can be very important to some. At times the difference between this word and that can and does overshadow the actual meaning and intent of what it said.

t walgamuth · #**423** 09-04-2006, 06:07 PM

Now if you could explain the importance in this case....

Tom W

peragro · #**424** 09-04-2006, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

Now if you could explain the importance in this case....

Tom W

It's not that important to me in this case. I always understood that the "war on terror" referred to the primary, but not lone, tactic used by various radical islam groups in an effort to change world order and undermine/destroy the west. You could call them fascist islamists, messianic medievalists, islamofascists, whatever. That's why I never understood the sole focus on only Al Qaida and Bin laden. There are more groups than AQ who are just as ruthless and have the same gameplan. Hezbollah comes to mind. While I would like to see OBL dead, I'm content with marginalization and defanging for the time being so that resources can be focused on more immediate threats. AQ in Iraq, for example.

The phrase "war on terror" seems to be a misguided attempt at some type of PR campaign. Folks who take the threat seriously know what the intent of the statement is, those who don't spend their time mocking the statement.

t walgamuth · #**425** 09-04-2006, 06:30 PM

personally i feel that the phrase "war on terror" is used to suggest we are at war so that the president can use various war powers.

of course he hasn't wanted to spend the political capital necessary to get an actual declaration of war, has he?

along similar lines, he is willing to send national guard units over there three times, but is not willing to spend the political capital to initiate a draft.

it seems to me our pres who professes not to care what folks think is pretty careful in how he spends his political capital.

tom w

peragro · #**426** 09-04-2006, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

personally i feel that the phrase "war on terror" is used to suggest we are at war so that the president can use various war powers.

of course he hasn't wanted to spend the political capital necessary to get an actual declaration of war, has he?

along similar lines, he is willing to send national guard units over there three times, but is not willing to spend the political capital to initiate a draft.

it seems to me our pres who professes not to care what folks think is pretty careful in how he spends his political capital.

tom w

So, are we or are we not in a war?

Honus · #**427** 09-04-2006, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

I'm sure that you have some definitive proof for that 9/11 Iraq link...

What 9/11 Iraq link?

I'm pretty sure there was no such link. Are you wondering whether I have definitive proof that there was no link?

Quote:

I guess we really should consider Iraq the epicenter of today's war, since Bin Laden has called it that.

That's true.

t walgamuth · #**428** 09-04-2006, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

So, are we or are we not in a war?

it doesnt fit the traditional definition of war i dont think. what is the definintion of war?

kindof like the definition of love. you know like when a young man is hot he may say he is in love when he is actually....not.

tom w

soypwrd · #**429** 09-04-2006, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

.. The phrase "war on terror" seems to be a misguided attempt at some type of PR campaign.

More of rove putting his mark where he has no damn business.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

.. Folks who take the threat seriously know what the intent of the statement is, those who don't spend their time mocking the statement.

I know exactly what the intent is, but mock the attempt to deal with the deadly situation in real terms more than the lame phraseology.

The incompetence is frightening.

soypwrd · #**430** 09-04-2006, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

... of course he hasn't wanted to spend the political capital necessary...
tom w

The reality is his pockets are empty.

aklim · #**431** 09-04-2006, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

of course he hasn't wanted to spend the political capital necessary to get an actual declaration of war, has he?

Who would he declare war against? This isn't a conventional war where you can say "I declare war against the country of XXX"

peragro · #**432** 09-04-2006, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

What 9/11 Iraq link?

I'm pretty sure there was no such link. Are you wondering whether I have definitive proof that there was no link?That's true.

No, a definitive link that Bush had said that Iraq planned and instigated 9/11. As I heard the president, he said that there was no definitive link, yet both groups are sponsors of terrorists, both groups mean the US harm, both groups have similar goals, etc.... However, as we all know Iraq is and has been a central issue on the war on terror (see definition above). Al Qaida is not the only threat. It has never been the only threat except in the minds of various Democratic senators.

peragro · #**433** 09-04-2006, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Who would he declare war against? This isn't a conventional war where you can say "I declare war against the country of XXX"

He did say that with regard to countries that activly support terror networks.

I can just imagine the evening news if he came out with the "war on Islamofascism".

"war on terror", though lame, is pretty much one of the only safe ways of saying what is intended. I guess people will just have to be smart enough to figure out that 99.9% of the folks using terror are Muslims. Too bad many are so wrapped up in the hatred of one guy to see the obvious.

Honus · #**434** 09-04-2006, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

No, a definitive link that Bush had said that Iraq planned and instigated 9/11...

I never said that he made that claim. Your "editing" of my comment reminds me of the tactic adopted by the administration on this issue. First, Bush or one of his people will link Iraq to 9/11. Usually, there is noone there to challenge the bogus claim, but when a reporter does call them on it, they say something like, "Nobody in this administration ever said Saddam ordered the attacks on 9/11."

Here are a couple of statements from W's press conference about a week ago:

"Imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of the world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens."

A literally true statement, but one that helps feed the still commonly-held misconception that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. A reporter called the President on that issue and he obfuscated:

"nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September 11 were ordered by Iraq."

There are other instances where administration officials mention 9/11 when talking about why we invaded Iraq. Maybe I will try to google some of those, although it's not that easy googling up specific little snippets.

Here's an old link to a BBC compilation of Bush statements implying a connection between Saddam and 9/11: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm

Quote:

...However, as we all know Iraq is and has been a central issue on the war on terror (see definition above). Al Qaida is not the only threat. It has never been the only threat except in the minds of various Democratic senators.

So, are you saying that Saddam posed a threat to the United States in 2003?