How Do We "Win" a War on Terror? - Page 31 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Botnst · #**451** 09-05-2006, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soypwrd

Hey Bot, I think a good many of those HAF folks you are talking about actually don`t hate their country, they just want it to be a better country.

Would you not also agree that labeling people as you did ('all Bush apologists') might be an over-generalization?

That was my point.

B

Honus · #**452** 09-05-2006, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

So my asking you a question in my own words is incorrectly paraphrasing you???

My head is spinning. You claimed to have quoted my entire sentence. I responded by pointing out that you didn't quote me at all. Now you come back with this.

Quote:

You meant to imply, in fact you stated it, that Bush had linked Saddam's Iraq directly to the 9/11 attacks. He never did.

"Directly"? I'm pretty sure I never said "directly."

Quote:

Clinton's administration felt the same way about many things regarding Al Qaida as you do about Iraq. Both of you are/were wrong.

Reading between the lines here to try to figure out what positions you ascribe to me, I guess you are saying that Clinton failed to appreciate the risk that al Qaida posed and that I failed to appreciate the risk posed by Iraq. On the first part, Clinton may have missed the mark, but he was way closer than W was during the first 8 months of his presidency. As to the risk posed by Iraq, I'd have to say that I was right. Iraq was no threat to the US until after we invaded.

mikemover · #**453** 09-05-2006, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

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

Tom W

The importance is that it illustrates the fact that we ARE engaged in a conflict of societies and ideals. This IS a war against radical Islam, and those who fight to advance its violent, oppressive, intolerant agenda.

The fact that so many people, especially in the media, refuse to call them what they are... ISLAMIC terrorists... illustrates that they are more concerned with political correctness and cultural sensitivity than they are with dealing with the reality of the situation.

Mike

mikemover · #**454** 09-05-2006, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

Even when the initial attempt on bombing the World Trade Center occured, was there a war . . . or a criminal investigation?

Obviously there SHOULD have been!

But Clinton was distracted by more important things... Interns and such....

Mike

aklim · #**455** 09-05-2006, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

1. Good example of your black and white view. You assert that I say it was our fault. Rather, I'm saying that we had a part in the tone of things getting to the present, less than optimal state. We cannot only behave as thought the other side is evil, evil to the core and that explains everything.

2. As long as we're there, fools are going to be slitting the throats of people who cooperate with the Americans. It will not stablilize while we're there. Oh maybe that's the idea: permanent occupation.

3. More like Islamic nationalism. The fascist label is moronic.

4. You got a blueprint for a UN like organization that would work any better?

5. Instead, lets act like we're the ones who are needed to straighten things out and like our notion of the best path forward is unfailingly accurate.

It is and we made it that way.

I think this is a little late and moot to quibble about whether it is your fault, my fault or Joe's fault. I agree we should figure out who did what but later. Lets fix the problem first.

You think it will stabilize if we pulled out tomorrow? You so sure that it won't turn to Afghanistan II?

Could that be a problem for us? I would say so.

The UN is about as lame a duck as we can think of. But since nobody has a better idea, maybe be best be doing it ourselves seeing as there is nobody else that can do it.

Well, if you want to trust your fate to others, I suppose. Bedtime stories do that. Look at Little Red Riding Hood. Woodcutter comes to take care fo the wolf and they live happily ever after. However, we know that in real life for the most part, the woodcutter will be asking for sex with LLRH, she'll get pregnant and lead a miserable life.

mikemover · #**456** 09-05-2006, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

If Bush does not want a war of civilizations, he will drop these propaganda terms that are designed to inflame passions rather than inform the public of the nature of the war we are in, and the war we are not in.

Rubbish.

It doesn't matter what "Bush wants."

We ARE in a war of civilizations. It started long before Bush was President, and it will exist long after.

Radical Islamic "civilization" -vs.- the rest of the relatively-sane world. That IS the nature of this conflict.

You don't have to use the word "war"... You can call it whatever you want...

But RADICAL MUSLIMS intend to bring death to YOUR doorstep.

At least George W., even with his many, many, many shortcomings and screw-ups, can see it for what it really is, and is trying to do something about it.

Mike

Honus · #**457** 09-05-2006, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

Obviously there SHOULD have been!

But Clinton was distracted by more important things... Interns and such....

Mike

And investigations and a civil lawsuit. He had to spend time dealing with those, too.

At least the people behind the 1993 bombing are in prison now.

soypwrd · #**458** 09-05-2006, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Would you not also agree that labeling people as you did ('all Bush apologists') might be an over-generalization?

That was my point.

B

You`re right bot, and I certainly don`t put you in the camp of bush apologist. It was an unfair generalization in this instance.

mikemover · #**459** 09-05-2006, 10:30 AM

People who have such concern over the term "Islamic fascism" - those who try to dismiss it as merely being crude Bush-administration propaganda, neo-conservative war-mongering, a veiled excuse to do Israel's bidding, or just old-fashioned paranoia.... They are fools, and obviously have not studied much history, or even recent events, for that matter.

While everyone is so focused on the Middle East, people are not seeing what is happening in the Pacific Rim where, over the past 50 years, millions have converted (or have been coerced into) to Islam!! And for the most part, NOT the benign, "moderate" Islam that we are told is a "peaceful religion"....

Where is the highest oceanic piracy rate in the world? The Pacific Rim.

Coincidence?....

What is the true motive behind these pirate acts?

It could just be the booty... or is it something more sinister? I suspect it is both, and one of the major Jihad groups is backing them.

Why are they commandeering gas and oil rigs just for long enough to learn how to operate them?... They keep them long enough to collect a ransom and when the ships are recovered, the owners have reported they have been stripped of all operational manuals! Hmm....

Take a gas container ship for example: I wonder how much saran gas can be dispensed from such a ship? How about a massive explosion of natural gas or fuel oil if the ship is moored in a strategic port?

How 'bout Iran's plan of hiding short range missiles on freighters to attack central states of America?

We know there are many radical Muslim groups hell bent on destroying us. What we don't know is exactly how many of them are organized enough to be working together in any meaningful way...

But I'm not willing to take that risk. I say that they ALL need to be crushed.

This IS a cultural war. This IS a war against the spread of radical Islam, and people had better wake up to this fact SOON!

Mike

aklim · #**460** 09-05-2006, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surf-n-Turf

If Al Gore or John Kerry were in office since 2000, and everything played out excatly as it has for GW Bush. Afghanistan, Iraq, Abu Grahib, Katrina, Tsunami, etc. etc. even if Edwards had shot his buddy in the face. And they showed the determination and vigor to eliminate this newest enemy, Islamo-Facism. I would back them up 110%. For me it's a matter of policy over person. I choose Bush because he has the guts to do what needs to be done, without the blessings of the rest of the world. They will thank us later.

I doubt they will thank us or anything. The evil that men do will live after them. The good is oft intered with the bones. However, whether they will thank us or not is irrelavant. Yes, there are somet things I disagree as far as what Bush has done. In this part, I think he did the right thing, just like with Kyoto, he shows that he will refuse that stupid thing if he doesn't feel it benifits us.

450slcguy · #**461** 09-05-2006, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

Obviously there SHOULD have been!

But Clinton was distracted by more important things... Interns and such....

Mike

Clinton's distractions with one "Intern" was only occasional and probably lasted only as long as required. Let's not "blow" it out of proportion and move on to more important issues. What was disproportionate were the 3 years the Republican's spent on focusing all their energy to bring down the President.

Did Clinton get any support from the Republicans when he launched the missle attack on Osama's camp? He tried to take offensive action. Instead he was mistakenly accused of trying to distract the public away from the Republican's self serving political interest of the impeachment procedeings. That response and lack of support effectively stopped any further action to get Osama's organization.

Clinton was well aware of the potential dangers posed in his time as President concerning the radical Islamic threat. If I'm not mistaken it's his administration that identified Osama's network of terrorism. During the turnover of powers to GWB, Clinton's team briefed the current administration in detail about the impending dangers. Did GWB take it seriously and followup on those briefings? During the first 9 months of GWB's Presidentcy he spent close to half of that time in Texas, doing what? Also during his time in Texas, GWB's security and intelligence people had ample suspicions and even potential evidence that something was in the works concerning a domestic attack, they even breifed him on several occasions. I'm not blaming GWB for what happened on 911, just pointing out how he basically ignored the issue.

People have short memories of what occured in the mid/late 90's and the single minded obsession of focusing on destroying the Clinton Presidency at any costs. All the other ball's got dropped, and as a result Al Quida and Osama florished into what it is today.

Honus · #**462** 09-05-2006, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surf-n-Turf

...They will thank us later.

Lets hope that I'm wrong and you're right about that.

aklim · #**463** 09-05-2006, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 450slcguy

Clinton's distractions with one "Intern" was only occasional and probably lasted only as long as required. Let's not "blow" it out of proportion. What was disproportionate was the 3 years the Republican's spent on focusing all their energy to bring down the President. Did Clinton get any support from the Republicans when he lauched the missle attack on Osama's camp? No, they accused him of trying to distract the public away from the Republican's self serving political interest of the impeachment procedeings.

Clinton was well aware of the potential dangers posed in his time as President concerning the radical Islamic threat. If I'm not mistaken it's his administration that identified Osama's network of terrorism. During the turnover of powers to GWB, Clinton's team briefed the current administration in detail about the impending dangers. Did GWB take it seriously and followup on tose breifings During the first 9 months of GWB's Presidentcy he spent close to half of that time in Texas, doing what? Also during his time in Texas, GWB's security and intelligence people had ample suspicions and even potention evidence that something was in the works concerning a domestic attack, they even breifed him on several occasions. I'm not blaming GWB for what happened on 911, just pointing out how he basically ignored the issue.

People have short memories of what occured in the mid/late 90's and the single minded obsession of focusing on destroying the Clinton Presidency. All the other ball's got dropped and as a result Al Quida and Osama florished into what it is today.

Wasn't he? Yes, he had all that sexual harrassment stuff on him too to distract from. WTF is firing a missle going to do? Once more, they are not impressed with how far your missile can go and hit a target the size of a postage stamp. They are imopressed by massive kills. A large area turned to a glass zone. Maybe he should have tossed a couple rocks while he was at it for all the good it would do. Missiles are about as productive as tossing rocks at a tank brigade. See Tienamen Square.

If he was so aware, why didn't he do something? Why just pass the buck? Isn't it his duty to do something till the last day he is in office? Would you have pardoned Bush if he did that? Yes, 911 was an issue that should have been dealt with immediately but lets face it, everybody didn't think it would come to that. Everybody was wrong. Let me ask this, if I had told you on 9/09 that we would have this problem from muslims, what would you have said?

People from one side tend to focus on dirt on the other side to make their side look better. Tell me that didn't happen before Clinton if Bush Sr had given them the chance. Look at the shooting from Cheney. Tell me that they aren't doing the same witch hunt thing. Look at it. Month or so it was in the news. Each day with a little more drivel. He shot someone. It is being investigated. Close of subject. Move on. If I shot you, I doubt it would even get front page mention.

450slcguy · #**464** 09-05-2006, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

If he was so aware, why didn't he do something? Why just pass the buck? Isn't it his duty to do something till the last day he is in office? Would you have pardoned Bush if he did that? Yes, 911 was an issue that should have been dealt with immediately but lets face it, everybody didn't think it would come to that. Everybody was wrong. Let me ask this, if I had told you on 9/09 that we would have this problem from muslims, what would you have said?

And what would you have had him do? Who shoud we have invaded at that time?

Passed the buck, I don't think so. Not untill 911 was there a valid reason and a specific country to invade. Afganistan and the Taliban.

How Iraq played into the picture of 911 is still under debate by some. The Iraq war as I see it , was "created" as a prelude to a much larger war to come. In that logic maybe it isn't a bad Idea to be prepositioned. But then again, would the current tensions with Iran exist if we hadn't invaded Iraq? Maybe to alot lesser degree than were at now. Why do you think Iran all of sudden needs a "peacefull nuclear program". Think they feel threatened?

I believe the big difference between Clinton and Bush is that Clinton wasn't in a hurry to be a war monger and choose to take small steps rather than enflame the whole middle east and America. Maybe if 911 had happened during Clinton's Presidency, things would have been different, but it didn't so he took the cautious road. Not a reckless policy in my mind.