[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Bobboau
realy well, lets think about it, 19 terrorists killed 3,000 people, if there was 100,000 of them well lets see here.. that means they can kill about 16 million people, granted that still leaves about 900 million of us left, but I think you get my point

Very big if, though.

And assuming that none are caught or killed before / during the act.  And that security is lax enough to give them the opportunity for a 9/11 or Beslan style 'spectacular' (the latter is admittedly more likely).

IMO (one of, rather) the fundamental argument is; will putting tanks in the Middle East really stop some nut hi-jacking an airliner from Boston?   Will it stop people (specifically Islamic fundamentalists in this case) supporting terrorism or even participating in it?

[Flipside]

I don't think the problem is with the threat though, regardless of how large or small that threat is, the current course of action is actually inflaming the wounds between East and West, not healing them. Yes, you are angry about 9/11, Bin Laden claims he is angry after he entered a massacred village. Saddam was angry because Kuwait was nicked from under his nose.

In fact, so many people are busy being angry at each other for things other people did that most people can't even remember when, where or how it all started.

[aldo_14]

I think you can only tackle terrorism - even global terrorism - by doing 2 things; hunting the terrorists (law enforcement and international co-operational), and removing the basis of their grass-roots support.

The latter requires actually acknowledging you may have made some mistakes in the past and present, which is why no-one seems to do it... there will always be a bunch of irrational hard-core nutcases to deal with, of course, but the key aim in any 'war on terror' surely has to be to deal with the people who grow up to become these nutters?

(no, not deal as in negotiate, deal as in tackle the problem pre-emptively by resovling those issues which can be resolved)

[.::Tin Can::.]

Originally posted by Rictor
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6806255/


You know, nothing shows how loved the respected you are by the people than having to hide behind an army of Secret Service agents at your own inauguration. And helicopters.

Hail Caesar!

I know. Caesar was great.

[Flipside]

He also had an superiority complex that would have had Napoleon crying into his soup

[aldo_14]

And he was bisexual (Julius, that was - "every woman's man and every man's woman." - although homosexuality and pedastry was common in those times, so many if not all of his predecessors and successors would be too).

[Rictor]

Lib:

terrorism (and I use the term much less broadly than you) may be a unique kind of threat, but I don't think you can reasonably say that it is overall a greater threat than some of the enemies of the past. If you look at it statistically, and no through the lens of fear and paranoia kicked up by the media, you will see that the chances to dying in a terrorist attack are very, very small indeed.

I think that Bush, and the entire US government, is being overly paranoid about matters of security, and I also don't think that the aim of such actions is not to substaintially improve the security of the American people. The Democrats can't use the "oooh, terrorists" card, but they come up with other ways to stifle dissent, or at least public dissent. Thats what its about, keeping the naysayers on the margins and out of sight, out of mind. Did you see the video of Bush's 2001 inauguration? Now point to a previous president that has recieved that kind of "welcome", and remember this is before the big bad terrorisrt struck, so it was just ordinary Americans.

Well, thats my opinion anyway..

[karajorma]

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
I know. Caesar was great.

Great at being stabbed by a man he had virtually adopted. Even Bush doesn't have to worry about that

[aldo_14]

I dunno, just give Rumsfeld and Cheney a chance......

[ShadowWolf_IH]

Aldo i agree with your ideas on how terrorism will eventually be brought down.  Right now we are the sherriff of nottingham to bin laden's robin hood.  

I remember watching tv on 9-11, and beyond the obvious, i clearly remember the site of people dancing in the streets over it.  overjoyed at the attack on us.  it didn't matter to them that most of the people killed were civilians just going to work.  What mattered was an attack on the US.  I think that anti american sentiment  would have to be the first thing addressed if we are to undermine the civil support for terrorists.  I am not saying that all of the arabic people support terrorism, but i think that in the end, so long as terrorists are attacking america and americans, they will continue to gain aproval of the actions.  we need to first change how we deal with certain affairs, and only when we have been at it for a generation will we begin to see the change.  

I don't think we can change the minds of most people right now, old prejudices and such.  But we could change the minds of the next generation.  unfortunately, we change presidents every four years, sometimes 8...so i don't see that happening.

[vyper]

You can change their minds very easily with a reversal of foreign policy that rapes their countries.

I'm not asking anyone to actually do it, just recognise that's the only way to actually destroy the reasons for people to attack the US.

[pyro-manic]

True. America needs to mind it's own ****ing business. People won't get pissed off if you're not shafting them at every opportunity.

[Mongoose]

Ah yes, I see it now.  Being a Bush supporter makes one either a religious nutjob or an ass-kissing redneck, or maybe even both.  How silly of me; I can finally know my true self.  Thank you all for this remarkable revelation.

Seriously, though, I don't give a damn about what the terrorists "feel."  The people around the world who support killing the "infidels" need to wake the hell up and get into the twenty-first century.  As for me, I don't care how small-minded it is; the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.  At least the US is doing something about the problem; unlike certain nations (which will remain nameless) who are too pussy-footed to actually do something.  I'd love nothing more than to have Bin Laden's head on a platter.   I don't care what made him become a terrorist; I just want him dead.  "Understand" the terrorists? Sure, that works great for some neo-yuppie sipping a mocha latte, but try telling that to the people who died in the African embassies, or on the USS Cole, or in the World Trade Center, or how about the innocent Iraqis being killed every day due to homicide (and I know that's going to piss some people off, but I don't give a damn) bombers, or the innocent people in shopping malls in Israel.  I'm sick of this Bush-hating ****; I'm sick of hearing you people belittle everything he has done.  Well, guess what:  at least he's done something. And I, for one, think it's the right thing.  I don't care how much I get flamed or called an obsessive Bush-lover; I just want stand up and say to the rest of you that your viewpoint isn't right just because you say it is.

[aldo_14]

I don't think Bush has achieved anything beyond destabilising the world.

EDIt; what do you think he has achieved, then?  Beyond ripping up the Geneva convention and basic civil liberties with Gitmo and the Patriot act, of course.

Yes, it's all very nice to kill terrorists; but that isn't going to solve the problem in the long term, is it?  Not when you're killing people who are happy to die, to become martyrs and thus rally more to the cause.

I dunno, maybe you could work and figure out why people become terrorists?  Possibly even *shock, horror* figure out how to pre-emptively solve the problem?

Or are you already equating 'Muslim angry at the West' with 'terrorist'?  Because if you treat them as such, they'll eventually become that.

[Flipside]

As I've said before, the list of casualties on both sides goes on and on, it's regurgitating stuff like that ad nauseum that got us into this mess in the first place.

I've stated my opinion several times on this board, and I've taken America's side when necessary, but as I've said before, sticking a bit of chewing gum to block a nuclear leak is 'doing something'...

[Genryu]

Well certain nation may be too pussy footed to act. But it is better to act when the result is worse than the original problem ? Sure, Iraqui are 'free' now, but infrastructures are still not totally rebuilt, they are even more afraid for their lives than during Saddam, ffs !
As it has been said and re-hashed before, Saddam wasn't the worse dictator by far. I mean, just look at NK, or, for those without blinders, even at China. Only difference is that it would have taken a true courageous person to go to war with nations like that, who can defend themselves.
Frankly, give me one of the numerous reason bush gave for going to war in irak that hadn't been debunked, and I'll admit i'm wrong. Just one, that's all I ask.

[.::Tin Can::.]

Originally posted by karajorma


Great at being stabbed by a man he had virtually adopted. Even Bush doesn't have to worry about that

Thats why it sucks to be Caesar!

[Mongoose]

No, aldo, I'm not equating the two.  In fact, I'll be the first to admit that my post isn't really practical.  I just felt like blowing off some steam.  There's just something about seeing so much criticism that just sometimes get me rather pissed off.  I mean, I'll be the first to admit that Bush is far from the perfect President, and that he's made many mistakes, but at least he does what he thinks is right.  At least he tries to solve problems, regardless of whether or not his solution is the best one.  I have no problems when people disagree with his decisions/policies.  I have myself in the past.  What I do have a problem with are irrational, overblown fear-mongering and *****ing about Bush, along the lines of "destroying the Constitution, eroding civil liberties, making war for oil, etc."  Anyone with half a grain of common sense knows that none of these statements are true.

Genryu, you really think that Iraqis are worse off now than under Saddam?  Have you ever looked at the details of what he did?  He was a psychopath who had a disturbing history of gassing his own people.  That, for me, is more than reason enough to get rid of him.  Yes, things don't look good right now, but need I remind you that the transition from dictatorship to democracy has never been easy; plus, when you're dealing with Islamikazis, this adds a whole new level of difficulty.  Iraq has made some very notable progress, and the upcoming election is another big step.  As for reasons that Bush gave for going to war, you can look them up yourself.  Don't fall victim to the media's "WMD hype."  That was only one of the regions Bush gave; another was that the eventual establishment of a stable democracy in the region would lead to its long-term viability.  Do the research yourself; the facts don't lie.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Mongoose
No, aldo, I'm not equating the two.  In fact, I'll be the first to admit that my post isn't really practical.  I just felt like blowing off some steam.  There's just something about seeing so much criticism that just sometimes get me rather pissed off.  I mean, I'll be the first to admit that Bush is far from the perfect President, and that he's made many mistakes, but at least he does what he thinks is right.  At least he tries to solve problems, regardless of whether or not his solution is the best one.  I have no problems when people disagree with his decisions/policies.  I have myself in the past.  What I do have a problem with are irrational, overblown fear-mongering and *****ing about Bush, along the lines of "destroying the Constitution, eroding civil liberties, making war for oil, etc."  Anyone with half a grain of common sense knows that none of these statements are untrue.

Well... let me think.  First we have Guantanamo bay, which breaks the Geneva convention and thus human rights.  But that is involving (mostly) foreign people, who don't count I guess.

We then have lying to the American people over WMD in Iraq, which I'd imagine is a bit of a biggy.  but I'll allow the benefit of the doubt there, i mean it's not like they'd sent in weapons inspec..... oh.

How about the Patriot act, which Feds are using to force journalists to turn over their material and sources (1st amendment rights?).  Or the legislation that can force ISPs to make their systems insecure so the federal authorities can monitor them (CALEA).  Or the issue over banning homosexual marriage, which can be said to violate both the UN charter of Huamn Rights and also the amendment that states the government can't make religious laws (based on the fact that the only objection to homosexuality is surely religious in nature?).

And...well, there are people with more examples than me.

What happens is, I reflect on Bush's time in office so far, and I think "what has he done right?".  And, in all honesty, nothing comes immediately to mind.

Originally posted by Mongoose
Genryu, you really think that Iraqis are worse off now than under Saddam?  Have you ever looked at the details of what he did?  He was a psychopath who had a disturbing history of gassing his own people.  That, for me, is more than reason enough to get rid of him.  Yes, things don't look good right now, but need I remind you that the transition from dictatorship to democracy has never been easy; plus, when you're dealing with Islamikazis, this adds a whole new level of difficulty.  Iraq has made some very notable progress, and the upcoming election is another big step.  As for reasons that Bush gave for going to war, you can look them up yourself.  Don't fall victim to the media's "WMD hype."  That was only one of the regions Bush gave; another was that the eventual establishment of a stable democracy in the region would lead to its long-term viability.  Do the research yourself; the facts don't lie.

And do you really think there is a snowballs chance in hell of Iraq becoming a proper democracy?

(oh, and the US is also building a number of permanent military bases in Iraq, BTW; it's a useful strategic point vs Syria and Iran, plus if they get chucked out of Saudi.)

[Genryu]

ffs, do a bit of research yourself. That wasnever his people he gased. iranian with the help of the US, yes. AFAIK, kurd who would sooner separate from irak than do anything else, yes. his own people, never. never said the guy was a saint, far from it, but he is not the monster the media made him to be. Otherwise, let me also call Bush a monster for all the carpet bombing the US did. Fair's fair.
And if you think than IMPOSING a democracy will lead to stablity, can you direct me to what you're smoking, and share some with me ? People in the Middle-east are used to other form of government than democracy. Imposing it on them without preparing the population first is simply asking for trouble, trouble that you received.