TSA WARNING: Commuters must be in Uniform

[NEDude]

Appearently your relying on the 3 pages they spent in your high school on US History. Let me inform you that this is the same Gov. that defeated the British Empire with a militia army,Won and reunited a destroyed country in the American Civil War, Defeated Germany in WW1, Defeated Nazi Germany And at the same time defeated a fanatical suicidal disciplined Japanese Empire in WW2, defeated a much larger North Korean and chinese army in Korea, Won the cold war monetarily against the Russians. But somehow we will be defeated by islamic extremists. Again please inform me how the present course has not worked this far. All you can do is bash the current policy but never offer solutions. Just like the the elected officials who voted for it but for some reason have changed their story just in time nearing the end of the Bush's second term. Please understand, I dont mean any direspect but I cant understand how people can not support this objective. Can you imagine what this country would be like with terrorism as a common occurence. Whose side are you on?

If you are comparing GWB and his government to the founding fathers or the great leaders of WW2 you are living in a fantasy land and there is no point in continuing this discussion. I will for the time give you the benefit of the doubt.

As far as defeating terrorism by Islamic extremists, all our present course has done is open another avenue by which terrorists can train and develop. Iraq has become a fertile breeding ground for Islamic extremists terrorists. There is an entire new generation of young people who hate the United States and want to strike at us. They view the war in Iraq not as freeing them from a tyrranical leader, but about the United States wanting control of their oil and imposing western values. That is how the present course in Iraq has not worked so far. How about presenting an argument as to how the present course has worked?

As for solutions, you and I do not have enough experience or information to offer a comprehensive solution. But I do know that a group of the most respected, experienced and informed middle east experts from both political parties studied Iraq policy in great detail and came up with a bunch of recommendations, and GWB tossed them and their recommendations aside.

If you think the United States is winning in Iraq, you are in a clear minority. If you think that it has made the United States safer from terrorism then you are probably one of about ten people in the world who think that.

As for not supporting the objective, it depends on what objective you mean. The objective of making the United States safer from terrorism, then yes, of course I think we all support that. If you mean the tactic by which we are trying to do that, then of course I don't support it.

I may not have all of the solutions, but I don know this - the war on terror is not a conventional war by any means. It is driven by an ideology that crosses national and ethnic boundaries. You cannot win this war by conventional tactics. You could put 5 million U.S. troops in Iraq and lock the country down and you would still not stop the terrorism.

The other thing the U.S. needs to do is greatly reduce our presence in the middle east. Our dependence on foriegn oil has helped fuel the flames of this current conflict. Looking for different energy solutions would go a long way toward getting us out of the middle east mess.

As for changing opinions, that is the biggest weakness of GWB. It is okay to say "you know what this isn't working and maybe we need to do something different". I don't have a problem with any politician who has done that. I think we all got caught up in the emotions following 9/11. But for many, time has allowed us to gain a new perspective on things. To say to someone that they have flipflopped because their views have changed since 9/11 is a foolish campaign buzzword. The ability to critique, analyze and even change a view point based on more information is a good quality, not a bad one, and it is one that I wish our current commander in chief had the ability to do.

 

[Captain Morgan]

Agreed, that we need less troops over in Iraq. We need them on our current borders more than ever. Agreed, we need less dependency on foreign oil. But if you think that Iraq was full of extremists and suicide bombers and torturers ever since the Bush Admin. you are extremely wrong. They have been savages ever since Mohammed and the Koran came into the picture.

 

[Prop2Jet]

I love catnip.....

 

[John Pennekamp]

So you are saying the plan has failed? Seems pretty succesful to me. Have we been attacked? Where is your "proof" the plan has failed?
What was your excuse when Clinton's abortion in Somalia and Haiti failed miserably? Oh thats right, we were on a humanitarian mission. Your just against the Bush admin wich is fine but this issue is not political, but rather the security of OUR country, dont you think?

Proof? Can you prove the sun will come up tomorrow? Can you prove it won't rain today? That's not how you debate. You express ideas and attempt to convince people with the most logical argument. But for the benefit of doubt here we go... let's look at the "successes" of this war.

US invades Afghanistan. Defeats Taliban. Hoorah!

US and Britain invades Iraq. Sock and Awe. Topples Saddam Government. Hoorah! Mission Accomplished!

Power vacuum that even the cold war strategists warned Dubya of ensues. Iraq descends into civil war. Al Quaida fighters enter the company and fan the flaime, focusing the aggression against the US. Iraq becumes a launchpad for Al Quaida fighters who fan out across the world. Meanwhile, our millitary focus on Iraq allows the war in Afghanistan to languish, and the Taliban resurges.

London underground is bombed. Hotels in Indonesia are bombed. Glasgow airport is bombed. Al Quaida sleeper cells are broken up three times in the US, serendipitously. We're waiting for the next attack.

Yeah, what a successful plan. Terrorism has spread out across the globe, and now they have an even bigger reason to attack us... revenge. Sopunds like a success to me.

As for Clinton/Somalia/Haiti, that's a red herring. Not a pert of this discussion. Besides, I never stated I agreed with it.

 

[John Pennekamp]

Double post...

 

[John Pennekamp]

The enemy? STATES THAT SPONSER TERRORIST ACTIVITY-Taliban and yes Iraq. This was stated in the presidents speech right after 911. Again how quickly we forget.

I haven't forgotten 9/11/01. All of the moving speeches did nothing but capitalize on people's emotion and were devoid of common sense. That's Orwell at its best. We weren't told who the "enemy" was then, except for the "Axis of Evil" speech.

Could you name those "states" for us? Did you mean Alabama, lol?

Let's see... the Taliban is not in charge of Afghanistan anymore, because we installed a friendly puppet government, so can't blame that state. Oh, and Iraq also is run by a sympathetic puppet government, so we can't blame them. So what states are we still fighting?

Wait, I know, Iran! Let's turn Iran into a glass-paved self-lighting parking lot! Hoorah!

 

[John Pennekamp]

States that support, sponser, harbor and FUND terrorism. The CIA knows more than we do. Have some faith in your government. They have done a decent job so far in our 200 years of existance.

Faith in the our government? The CIA? Let's see...

Slavery. Yeah great idea.

Kill all the "Injuns" if they won't leave "our" land. God gave us a right to take this land from coast to coast!

Great depression. Caused by robber barons who built our economy into a house of cards while the government looked the other way.

"Surprise" attack at Pearl Harbor. Guess the radar wasn't that good that day. Right. We enter WWII

Japanese interment. Yeah good call.

Cold War. Gotta defeat the "evil empire". Let's hold the world hostage for 40 years under the threat of nuclear annhailation.

Failed attempts to assinate several world leaders, including Castro. Bay of Pigs, yeah, good one.

Cuban missile crisis. Way to go CIA! We were 6 hours from being nuked.

Vietnam. How'd THAT one turn out?

Haiti/Somalia (since you brought it up earlier). Good call.

9/11: We declare war on "terrorism". Orwell's prophesized World War III ensues. Patriot Act passes, Americans lose more rights with the stroke of a pen than ever in the history of this nation. TSA is created, a modern Gestapo with unlimited power to declare ANYBODY a terrorist without right to appeal, and no oversight. Intended to oversee transportation security, but then given full authority nationwide as the Department of Homeland Security's police force. Government capitalizes on people's fear after 9/11 and focuses them on the "enemy" so that they won't notice the huge power grab under way . "Either you're with us or against us". Secret prisons in Guantanamo Bay Cuba. Foreign nationals, and even American citizens held indefinitely without due process. Reports of worldwide torture of suspected terrorists and "renditions" under the auspices of the CIA. "Faulty intelligence" about Saddam's WMDs leads to the war in Iraq.

So what were you saying about trusting the government and the CIA? It seems their record aint too good, especially after 9/11.

 

[VWDrvr21]

If you are comparing GWB and his government to the founding fathers or the great leaders of WW2 you are living in a fantasy land and there is no point in continuing this discussion. I will for the time give you the benefit of the doubt.

As far as defeating terrorism by Islamic extremists, all our present course has done is open another avenue by which terrorists can train and develop. Iraq has become a fertile breeding ground for Islamic extremists terrorists. There is an entire new generation of young people who hate the United States and want to strike at us. They view the war in Iraq not as freeing them from a tyrranical leader, but about the United States wanting control of their oil and imposing western values. That is how the present course in Iraq has not worked so far. How about presenting an argument as to how the present course has worked?

As for solutions, you and I do not have enough experience or information to offer a comprehensive solution. But I do know that a group of the most respected, experienced and informed middle east experts from both political parties studied Iraq policy in great detail and came up with a bunch of recommendations, and GWB tossed them and their recommendations aside.

If you think the United States is winning in Iraq, you are in a clear minority. If you think that it has made the United States safer from terrorism then you are probably one of about ten people in the world who think that.

As for not supporting the objective, it depends on what objective you mean. The objective of making the United States safer from terrorism, then yes, of course I think we all support that. If you mean the tactic by which we are trying to do that, then of course I don't support it.

I may not have all of the solutions, but I don know this - the war on terror is not a conventional war by any means. It is driven by an ideology that crosses national and ethnic boundaries. You cannot win this war by conventional tactics. You could put 5 million U.S. troops in Iraq and lock the country down and you would still not stop the terrorism.

The other thing the U.S. needs to do is greatly reduce our presence in the middle east. Our dependence on foriegn oil has helped fuel the flames of this current conflict. Looking for different energy solutions would go a long way toward getting us out of the middle east mess.

As for changing opinions, that is the biggest weakness of GWB. It is okay to say "you know what this isn't working and maybe we need to do something different". I don't have a problem with any politician who has done that. I think we all got caught up in the emotions following 9/11. But for many, time has allowed us to gain a new perspective on things. To say to someone that they have flipflopped because their views have changed since 9/11 is a foolish campaign buzzword. The ability to critique, analyze and even change a view point based on more information is a good quality, not a bad one, and it is one that I wish our current commander in chief had the ability to do.

6 years no attacks, thats how its worked so far. Your plan is just talk. In the end all your flipfloppers will be scrambling to get a piece of the success saying how they really did support it.This is purely political and if you cant see that you are the one in fantasy land. Do you think the WW11 gov.was all rosy? Again your lack of history shows.This is the same gov. that tested nuclear weopons on its own soldiers and citizens. It got the job done just like it will now. Do you really think the Iraqi populace supports murder in its streets? Islamic extremists control the people with fear and violence.Iraqis are getting a taste of freedom and capitalism and extremists are losing thier influence. This is not a conventional war and just like every other conflict we are adapting to fight it. It takes time, again the the President outlined in the beginning.

 

[John Pennekamp]

Appearently your relying on the 3 pages they spent in your high school on US History. Let me inform you that this is the same Gov. that defeated the British Empire with a militia army,Won and reunited a destroyed country in the American Civil War, Defeated Germany in WW1, Defeated Nazi Germany And at the same time defeated a fanatical suicidal disciplined Japanese Empire in WW2, defeated a much larger North Korean and chinese army in Korea, Won the cold war monetarily against the Russians. But somehow we will be defeated by islamic extremists. Again please inform me how the present course has not worked this far. All you can do is bash the current policy but never offer solutions. Just like the the elected officials who voted for it but for some reason have changed their story just in time nearing the end of the Bush's second term. Please understand, I dont mean any direspect but I cant understand how people can not support this objective. Can you imagine what this country would be like with terrorism as a common occurence. Whose side are you on?

Mr Cheney? It's Casper Weinberger...

 

[John Pennekamp]

6 years no attacks, thats how its worked so far. Your plan is just talk. In the end all your flipfloppers will be scrambling to get a piece of the success saying how they really did support it.This is purely political and if you cant see that you are the one in fantasy land. Do you think the WW11 gov.was all rosy? Again your lack of history shows.This is the same gov. that tested nuclear weopons on its own soldiers and citizens. It got the job done just like it will now. Do you really think the Iraqi populace supports murder in its streets? Islamic extremists control the people with fear and violence.Iraqis are getting a taste of freedom and capitalism and extremists are losing thier influence. This is not a conventional war and just like every other conflict we are adapting to fight it. It takes time, again the the President outlined in the beginning.

I guess your history class wasn't that good either. The US also tested nuclear weapons on its soldiers ans citizens. Oh and infectious diseases too. Ever heard of the Tuskegee experiment?

Taste of Freedom and Capitalism? Wave that flag kid. Got any other campaign buzzwords for us?

You are ranting like a moron and your posts aren't even making sense anymore. Give up.