Something To Remember

[Rohirrim]

"We are a nation in danger."
- President George W. Bush,
August 2, 2004

I don’t buy it.

I think America in 2004 is about as far removed from fundamental danger as any nation in history has ever been. We may be scared, but we are, in fact, safe. Safe, at least, by any reasonable historic measure.

No other country on earth has military might even close to ours. Has such a global monopoly on armed power ever existed? Has any nation had less to fear from its neighbors and foreign armies?

Modern America does know real danger. The nuclear duel of the Cold War was real danger. America is safer than it was when the Soviet Union existed. The threat of nuclear proliferation, of a nuclear attack from a small state or terrorists, existed then, too. The country is probably better prepared to prevent that now.

We are safer from plague, pestilence, famine and weather than any of our ancestors ever were.

We have one of the most stable governments in human history. There is no risk of a dictator, a Gestapo or a civil war.

I'm quite certain that I've never been accused of being an optimist. But even I can't accept the dark, frightened dictate the president issued, ironically, from the Rose Garden.

America does have enemies - crazy, sadistic, tenacious, growing and wily enemies. America is an open and ethnically diverse society with vast borders, huge tourism and immigration.

So the country is of course vulnerable to terrorism. After 9/11, Americans feel that acutely and perhaps that is sad. But no one in government underestimates the country's vulnerability or the power of the unconventional enemy.

This does not, however, add up to a nation in danger. It adds up to something that sounds too callous for politicians to say out loud. America is vulnerable to the tragedy and trauma of a terrorists attacks. There is a much more remote danger of an act of terror with a nuclear device that could eclipse 9/11. But there is no danger of the equivalent of war on our soil, of mass loss of life, of a crippled economy, disrupted civilian life and destabilized government.

Israel is in danger. Palestinians are in danger. Iraq is in danger. Sudan is in danger. Colombia is in danger. America is not in danger.

And America is not at war.

What happened in Afghanistan and Iraq was war. We should have stuck to that old-fashioned use of the word war. The battle now and ahead with the evildoers is not likely to be helped by calling it war any longer.

Perhaps it was necessary to use the rhetoric of war after 9/11 to marshal an adequate and swift response to the newly real threat. Perhaps. We’ve had wars on crime, a war on drugs and even a war on poverty. Why not a war on terror? There is no intrinsic reason why not.

But war, and even war rhetoric, can rationalize unwise and uncharacteristic choices at home – restricted civil liberties, plundered treasury, over-reaching bureaucracy, fear-mongering, and misplaced secrecy. Both the administration and the opposition party have bungled that balance; the glaring example of that is the dishonest case that was sold and bought for invading Iraq. Both sides have squandered credibility.

"War" is a word that ends arguments. So is "danger." The president has tried to sell a lot of policy by saying it was necessary because we are at war and in danger and so have the Democrats.

We don’t need to declare ourselves "a nation in danger" or "a nation at war" to carefully reform the intelligence bureaucracy, to respond to discovered plots and threats, to catch terrorists or to get other nations to help our cause.

We don’t need to be a nation of crybabies or a nation that cries wolf.

[Exile_In_SJ]

I wonder what people will say if a suitcase nuclear weapon is detonated in some American city?

We are a nation in danger. Al Queda has stated it's aims and we're wise to be concerned.

Adolf Hitler laid out his plan in Mein Kampf and the world ignored it, much to it's loss.

The question is, are we a september 10th, 2001 nation or a september 11, 2001 nation?

[Rohirrim]

Maybe you should hide under your bed. Or you could build a bomb shelter. The average American has as much chance getting killed by a terrorist as getting killed by a shark attack. The point is, the overwhelming fear is unjustified - unless you want to use it for political manipulation. I agree with this writer - the American people are better, and braver, than that.

[TexanBob]

We have one of the most stable governments in human history. There is no risk of a dictator, a Gestapo or a civil war.

Would you please convince LABF and his friends on the loony left of this? I don't think they'd agree with you.

[TexanBob]

The average American has as much chance getting killed by a terrorist as getting killed by a shark attack.

Tell that to the 3000 families that lost loved ones on 9-11. When was the last shark that killed 3 people, much less 3000?

BTW, we are not hiding under our beds - we are meeting the challenge. What do you think Afghanistan and Iraq were all about? America clearly told our politicians "tell us all you can, give us warnings", so when our politicians issue warnings, folks complain that they are scaremongering. I personally think they don't tell us even 25% of what they know precisely because they don't want to create a panic.

If I knew more of what they knew, I might be upset with how little or how much they are saying but since I don't I can only conclude they are warning us on a need-to-know basis.

[Exile_In_SJ]

I'm not gonna hide under the bed, but to say we aren't in danger is silly. We have to be vigilant. They just arrested two members of the 'religion of peace' for trying to obtain a shoulder fired anti-aircraft missile for a terorist. That is a sign that we are in danger.

I fly once a month and the threat is real enough I don't mind the extra security. I'd prefer the Israeli methods...

[watermock]

This is the osterich patrol calling in to check their cell signal. What? The WTC went down? I have to change my provider! That antenna was mine!

WTF are you talking about?

Do you think they are going away?

Didn't you watch Clinton stand on his hands, eventually tipping the balance in Bosina to the Muslims?

You missed the Embassy Bombings? The Kohbar Bombings? The Cole Bombings? The first WTC Bombing? It goes back further. WTF are you talking about? There are these damn cockroaches running all around the world and we have to exterminate them, not appease them.

Every time times get rough, the USA is expected to put the ****ing world back together again. This time might be the hardest of all. It's demonic religion based on treachery and deciet and murder, kidnaping and slavery.

Call it what you want. I have gone thru this without a peep but have been told to cool it. The very nature of the movement says it's going to lead to a bigger war. So whatever. Keep believing in tolerance when they just this week blew up 6 Christian Churches and their Export pipeline.

Keep telling us while they hold weapons in hospitals, schools and mosques they are peacefull. Go and keep deluding yourselves.

[Rohirrim]

Tell that to the 3000 families that lost loved ones on 9-11. When was the last shark that killed 3 people, much less 3000?

BTW, we are not hiding under our beds - we are meeting the challenge. What do you think Afghanistan and Iraq were all about? America clearly told our politicians "tell us all you can, give us warnings", so when our politicians issue warnings, folks complain that they are scaremongering. I personally think they don't tell us even 25% of what they know precisely because they don't want to create a panic.

If I knew more of what they knew, I might be upset with how little or how much they are saying but since I don't I can only conclude they are warning us on a need-to-know basis.

I'm still trying to figure what Iraq was all about. I guess it's just nation building - for their own good. Hell, I don't mind if my grandchildren have to pay for it. They need a new infrastructure and new schools more than we do.

[watermock]

The problem is that Saddam tried to kill Dubya's father in 1992.

The mistake was leaving the hiway of death after 48 hours when we could of killed half a million and marching.

The mistake was asking the UN for permission when it's totally worthless.

It would of been much cleaner to totally mop up the highway of death and totally wipe out the enemy. Ten years later, we had to finish the job, and it's not been pretty.

Anyone seen this clown dyke under courtmartial, this England Broad? What a joke. She behaves like a recent brain transplant. And I don't even care that much, but there were liberties taken. WTF. what the hell do you think this is, T-Ball?

She was an idiot broad unsupervised. Don't even get me going on women in the military.

At any rate, The Iraq War was about finishing the job, despite the possible consequences of a theocracy flooding up from Iran. I find it humorous noone even realizes this.

I talked to Seals, and the strategy was to let them fight a war of attrition, but eventually, someone had to take control of the Basara Oil Depot and the Persian Gulf.

You people amaze me.

At the Point we had emasculated Saddam in Basara, and given the continuing corruption of the Food for Terrorism Program, the descision was made to change the regime in Iraq, and yes, we knew the Fundamentalist Shia would try to take control. At least I did.

They are weaker than you think. It's only our own temperance that allows this baloney while we try to prevent a general insurrection. It's not much different than the dance we have played for a decade, except 1000 men are dead in this stupid war that is benevolent.

Hell, I am a liberal, so don't go there, but I'll be damned if I led these animals push me around.

[Captain_Poncho]

Maybe you should hide under your bed. Or you could build a bomb shelter. The average American has as much chance getting killed by a terrorist as getting killed by a shark attack. The point is, the overwhelming fear is unjustified - unless you want to use it for political manipulation. I agree with this writer - the American people are better, and braver, than that.

So now it comes down to odds, then?

Since my chances of being personally killed by a nutty Islamic Taliban bedwetting psychopath are low, I shouldn't care if they're looking to off some more of us. Chances are, I won't be the one, so let's just be merry!

On the other hand, we probably ought to have the government invade shark-infested waters and off a few of those Anti-American bastards!

Who's with me?!

[alkemical]

i live near tmi - i am not really worried about terrorists - i'm more scared of the righties & lefties tearing this country apart

[watermock]

Well, call me crazy, but I want to kill terrorists. Let me qualify that remark.

It wasn't kill terrorism. It was KILL TERRORISTS. I am not in the mood to wast time an energy on this scum. I have no problem capping them and going to see my maker. None At All. I have no problem with these cockroaches. Give me the gun. You might think this is bravado, it isn't. I'm too old to fight unless called at 44 but I have no problems capping these cockroaches..I'll fight them till 94.

[watermock]

When was the last time the Muslim Nation offered a truce?

[mosca]

I think America in 2004 is about as far removed from fundamental danger as any nation in history has ever been.

this says a lot about your stance on terrorism. i find it unbelievable that you can't see the effect another devastating attack would have. countless more americans dead, those who survive forced to deal with the economy taking another hard hit... imagine if they destroyed the stock exchange? it's the economy stupid? these aren't far-fetched ideas of anyone crying wolf, either. this could easily happen. sure our country wouldn't be as bad off as iraq or colombia or sudan, but i like it the way it is not and sure as hell don't want it to get any closer to resembling those countries, either.



What happened in Afghanistan and Iraq was war. We should have stuck to that old-fashioned use of the word war. The battle now and ahead with the evildoers is not likely to be helped by calling it war any longer.

i agree with you here. while our forces may be fighting still in afghanistan and iraq, i don't think the situation there is accurately described as 'war' in the old-fashioned sense of the word. if we truly decide to go to 'war' with the evildoers they will know it for sure because then the gloves will be off.

[TexanBob]

I'm still trying to figure what Iraq was all about. I guess it's just nation building - for their own good. Hell, I don't mind if my grandchildren have to pay for it. They need a new infrastructure and new schools more than we do.

My personal opinion as to why we invaded Iraq (in no particular order):

1) Overthrowing Saddam stablizes the region, maybe not short term but I believe long-term, we are removing a madman from the region and implementing a government that, it is hoped, will be more U.S. - friendly.

2) Enforcing the U.N. sanctions placed against Iraq at the end of the Gulf War as a requirement to end hostilities. IOW, we got a cease-fire *provided* Saddam stuck to the terms of the agreement. He didn't, so we are enforcing the agreement they signed back then.

3) Greater security for Israel. Not to be overlooked is cutting off the cash flow for suicide bombers and removing someone with the capability to shoot missiles into Israel at a moment's notice.

4) A military presence in the region. Instead of being based in a tiny land like Qatar or Yemen, we can set up a base that can easily reach Syria, Iran, Jordan, Pakistan, etc. in a matter of minutes. It should make those governments easier to deal with now that they've seen how quickly we can overthrow Saddam. They know now we're serious about rooting out terrorists.

5) A new source of oil. Once the hostilities die down, I will expect us to make agreements with the new Iraqi government to buy oil from them. This will, in turn, make us less dependant on the Saudis who have been ambivalent about going after terrorists. We could, if necessary, wean ourselves off of Saudi oil if they don't cooperate with us. Right now, we're the bitch of the Sauds cause we need their oil. With a new competitor in the neighborhood, we can better control the prices.

6) Taking out a nest of terrorists. There should be no question by now that there are terrorists in Iraq, whether they were already there or if they came in after Saddam was toppled. But they're shooting their wad in a country halfway around the world instead of setting off their bombs in Manhattan and D.C. And while the loss of American lives is unfortunate, at least they were mostly U.S. soldiers and others who are trained in combat and not Ma and Pa Kettle on their way to the supermarket in Anytown U.S.A.

So what about the WMDs? We needed to know if Saddam had them or not. He acted like he was hiding them and maybe he did hide them or maybe he dismantled them or shipped them off to Syria or Libya. Nobody knows right now. But if it turned out that the threat was exaggerated, I still support what we've done there for the reasons I've enumerated above.

Call it opportunism or "the end justifies the means", but I think the Middle East is on the road to greater stability with what we've done and we've put the remaining rogue states on notice that if they don't play ball with us, they could be next.

[Northman]

My personal opinion as to why we invaded Iraq (in no particular order):

1) Overthrowing Saddam stablizes the region, maybe not short term but I believe long-term, we are removing a madman from the region and implementing a government that, it is hoped, will be more U.S. - friendly.

2) Enforcing the U.N. sanctions placed against Iraq at the end of the Gulf War as a requirement to end hostilities. IOW, we got a cease-fire *provided* Saddam stuck to the terms of the agreement. He didn't, so we are enforcing the agreement they signed back then.

3) Greater security for Israel. Not to be overlooked is cutting off the cash flow for suicide bombers and removing someone with the capability to shoot missiles into Israel at a moment's notice.

4) A military presence in the region. Instead of being based in a tiny land like Qatar or Yemen, we can set up a base that can easily reach Syria, Iran, Jordan, Pakistan, etc. in a matter of minutes. It should make those governments easier to deal with now that they've seen how quickly we can overthrow Saddam. They know now we're serious about rooting out terrorists.

5) A new source of oil. Once the hostilities die down, I will expect us to make agreements with the new Iraqi government to buy oil from them. This will, in turn, make us less dependant on the Saudis who have been ambivalent about going after terrorists. We could, if necessary, wean ourselves off of Saudi oil if they don't cooperate with us. Right now, we're the bitch of the Sauds cause we need their oil. With a new competitor in the neighborhood, we can better control the prices.

6) Taking out a nest of terrorists. There should be no question by now that there are terrorists in Iraq, whether they were already there or if they came in after Saddam was toppled. But they're shooting their wad in a country halfway around the world instead of setting off their bombs in Manhattan and D.C. And while the loss of American lives is unfortunate, at least they were mostly U.S. soldiers and others who are trained in combat and not Ma and Pa Kettle on their way to the supermarket in Anytown U.S.A.

So what about the WMDs? We needed to know if Saddam had them or not. He acted like he was hiding them and maybe he did hide them or maybe he dismantled them or shipped them off to Syria or Libya. Nobody knows right now. But if it turned out that the threat was exaggerated, I still support what we've done there for the reasons I've enumerated above.

Call it opportunism or "the end justifies the means", but I think the Middle East is on the road to greater stability with what we've done and we've put the remaining rogue states on notice that if they don't play ball with us, they could be next.



all of that you just wrote will NEVER happen. you still dont get it, we are hated by a entire culture and the ones who dont hate us are too scared to do anything about it. the Iraqi's are already getting tired of us being there this long and you think they will allow us to put up a base there? lmao! come on TexasPete, snap back into reality now.

[BroncoInferno]

1) Overthrowing Saddam stablizes the region, maybe not short term but I believe long-term, we are removing a madman from the region and implementing a government that, it is hoped, will be more U.S. - friendly.

Stablize the region? I think it's just created another target for the fundamentalists.

[Exile_In_SJ]

My personal opinion as to why we invaded Iraq (in no particular order):

1) Overthrowing Saddam stablizes the region, maybe not short term but I believe long-term, we are removing a madman from the region and implementing a government that, it is hoped, will be more U.S. - friendly.

2) Enforcing the U.N. sanctions placed against Iraq at the end of the Gulf War as a requirement to end hostilities. IOW, we got a cease-fire *provided* Saddam stuck to the terms of the agreement. He didn't, so we are enforcing the agreement they signed back then.

3) Greater security for Israel. Not to be overlooked is cutting off the cash flow for suicide bombers and removing someone with the capability to shoot missiles into Israel at a moment's notice.

4) A military presence in the region. Instead of being based in a tiny land like Qatar or Yemen, we can set up a base that can easily reach Syria, Iran, Jordan, Pakistan, etc. in a matter of minutes. It should make those governments easier to deal with now that they've seen how quickly we can overthrow Saddam. They know now we're serious about rooting out terrorists.

5) A new source of oil. Once the hostilities die down, I will expect us to make agreements with the new Iraqi government to buy oil from them. This will, in turn, make us less dependant on the Saudis who have been ambivalent about going after terrorists. We could, if necessary, wean ourselves off of Saudi oil if they don't cooperate with us. Right now, we're the bitch of the Sauds cause we need their oil. With a new competitor in the neighborhood, we can better control the prices.

6) Taking out a nest of terrorists. There should be no question by now that there are terrorists in Iraq, whether they were already there or if they came in after Saddam was toppled. But they're shooting their wad in a country halfway around the world instead of setting off their bombs in Manhattan and D.C. And while the loss of American lives is unfortunate, at least they were mostly U.S. soldiers and others who are trained in combat and not Ma and Pa Kettle on their way to the supermarket in Anytown U.S.A.

So what about the WMDs? We needed to know if Saddam had them or not. He acted like he was hiding them and maybe he did hide them or maybe he dismantled them or shipped them off to Syria or Libya. Nobody knows right now. But if it turned out that the threat was exaggerated, I still support what we've done there for the reasons I've enumerated above.

Call it opportunism or "the end justifies the means", but I think the Middle East is on the road to greater stability with what we've done and we've put the remaining rogue states on notice that if they don't play ball with us, they could be next.



very good post. forget the naysayers, people were saying similar things about Japan and Germany after WWII. It just takes guts to act and not be intimidated by the naysayers.

[Northman]

very good post. forget the naysayers, people were saying similar things about Japan and Germany after WWII. It just takes guts to act and not be intimidated by the naysayers.


fighting soldiers is one thing ( japan, Germany ). fighting terrorist is another story all together but go ahead and live that pipe dream.

[Exile_In_SJ]

What pipe dream? Can you predict the future? You're guessing just like anyone else.

You stick with negativity and I'll stick with why not?

[Hogan11]

fighting soldiers is one thing ( japan, Germany ). fighting terrorist is another story all together but go ahead and live that pipe dream.

I could almost buy the WWII occupation theory if it was just remnants of the Fedadeen and Saddam loyalists out there raising hell...but we're also dealing with fanatical fundementalists of one of the world's largest religions here coming into the country from all over the place and that makes things just a little bit different than the occupation of Germany and Japan because they didn't have a seemingly steady stream of foreign fighters coming in to screw with the occupying force/new goverment back then.....this is a whole new and different ballgame.

The only way to deal with that effectively is to kill them all with no hesitation...you want Al-Sadr? then level the mosque he's hiding in, destroy the militias and flatten the city...holy place or not. Whatever it is, it can be rebuilt.

[enjolras]

1) Overthrowing Saddam stablizes the region, maybe not short term but I believe long-term, we are removing a madman from the region and implementing a government that, it is hoped, will be more U.S. - friendly.

2) Enforcing the U.N. sanctions placed against Iraq at the end of the Gulf War as a requirement to end hostilities. IOW, we got a cease-fire *provided* Saddam stuck to the terms of the agreement. He didn't, so we are enforcing the agreement they signed back then.

3) Greater security for Israel. Not to be overlooked is cutting off the cash flow for suicide bombers and removing someone with the capability to shoot missiles into Israel at a moment's notice.

4) A military presence in the region. Instead of being based in a tiny land like Qatar or Yemen, we can set up a base that can easily reach Syria, Iran, Jordan, Pakistan, etc. in a matter of minutes. It should make those governments easier to deal with now that they've seen how quickly we can overthrow Saddam. They know now we're serious about rooting out terrorists.

5) A new source of oil. Once the hostilities die down, I will expect us to make agreements with the new Iraqi government to buy oil from them. This will, in turn, make us less dependant on the Saudis who have been ambivalent about going after terrorists. We could, if necessary, wean ourselves off of Saudi oil if they don't cooperate with us. Right now, we're the bitch of the Sauds cause we need their oil. With a new competitor in the neighborhood, we can better control the prices.

6) Taking out a nest of terrorists. There should be no question by now that there are terrorists in Iraq, whether they were already there or if they came in after Saddam was toppled. But they're shooting their wad in a country halfway around the world instead of setting off their bombs in Manhattan and D.C. And while the loss of American lives is unfortunate, at least they were mostly U.S. soldiers and others who are trained in combat and not Ma and Pa Kettle on their way to the supermarket in Anytown U.S.A.

So what about the WMDs? We needed to know if Saddam had them or not. He acted like he was hiding them and maybe he did hide them or maybe he dismantled them or shipped them off to Syria or Libya. Nobody knows right now. But if it turned out that the threat was exaggerated, I still support what we've done there for the reasons I've enumerated above.

Call it opportunism or "the end justifies the means", but I think the Middle East is on the road to greater stability with what we've done and we've put the remaining rogue states on notice that if they don't play ball with us, they could be next.

Many of those are very good reasons. But I'll ask you the same question I always ask when this comes up (at the risk of skating off on a tangent).

Why didn't our 'leaders' choose to sell us the war based on those reasons? Why didn't they say "Sacrificing 1000 American lives will give us these 6 things..." and then give us that list? This is something that I've never gotten a satisfactory answer to, and I'm hoping someone can give me one.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I don’t buy it.

Neither do I.

We already know 9/11 happened because Gigglekill was asleep at the wheel.

When Kerry replaces this record-number-of-vacation-days-taking poseur, we can all breathe a sigh of relief where our safety is concerned.

[Rohirrim]

The point is (IMO) that terrorism cannot win. Here's OBL's agenda - in order: Get all infidels out of Arab lands, restore the Caliphate in Turkey, win back Andalusa in Spain, destroy Vienna for stopping the Ottoman empire, restore the Arab world of 1100 A.D.

I mean, that reminds me of one of those Bond villains from Thrush or something - "I will take over the world! Everyone will come under my evil dominion!" His whole line of bs is like something out of a comic book. If it wasn't for the maniacal killing he has carried out, he would be laughable.

This guy and his organization comes nowhere near the threat of Japan, or the Nazis or especially the USSR. Hell, people in our parent's generation kept their cool much better during WWII than we are now.

Maybe it's the media influence. We've been conditioned to be afraid. Every day it's some new threat: Mad cow disease, West Nile Fever, Anthrax, obesity, heart disease, breast cancer, environmental threats, etc. Every day on one of those morning shows there's some new terror to look out for: "Can this kitchen appliance kill you?" "Could your furnace be your worst enemy?" "Teen Suicide: Are Your Children At Risk?" Constant bs.

My point is - we are going to win. OBL and Zawahiri are going to die. The Arab world, at some point, is going to wake up. They're going to look over at India and say, "Look what the hell those people are building! Look at the lives they're creating!" In Iran, it's already happening. Young Iranians are coming back from India with stories to tell, and the young Iranians who hear those stories want that life. And that's where we beat the terrorists.

I'm just sick of the fear. And I'm sick of a government that manipulates that fear. We're going to win. Maybe more of us will die. No doubt. But we will win. And I don't want to sell out the heart of America - our ideal of liberty - to fear in the short-term. Like Ben Franklin said - those who are willing to trade freedom for security, deserve neither.

[TexanBob]

Many of those are very good reasons. But I'll ask you the same question I always ask when this comes up (at the risk of skating off on a tangent).

Why didn't our 'leaders' choose to sell us the war based on those reasons? Why didn't they say "Sacrificing 1000 American lives will give us these 6 things..." and then give us that list? This is something that I've never gotten a satisfactory answer to, and I'm hoping someone can give me one.

In all honesty, I don't think the war could have been sold that way. When you say "one benefit is security for Isreal", all the anti-Semites will howl their opposition. If you say "one benefit is a better oil market", you get the no-blood-for-oil crowd taking to the streets (although they did anyway), etc.

With the Afghan phase of the war a rousing success and the leads that Saddam may have/had WMDs (which had been shouted by Democrats during Clinton's reign), this became the headline reason for going when I don't honestly believe it was the chief reason we went. But even when we were before the UN, this was not the only reason we invaded. I haven't even mentioned the liberation of millions of people and the crimes against humanity caused by Saddam.

I'm just speaking for myself but I think the opportunity was there to sell a war in Iraq and there were justifiable reasons to overthrow him. But, in this day and age, you can't be completely honest with why you want to do certain things because the hatred of the opposition is so shrill that even efforts done with the best intentions are recast as sinister and evil.

Victory in Iraq *does* enhance our ability to fight terror. My goodness, how much intelligence do you think we've gained by infiltrating some of these nests? How many attacks might we have thwarted simply because we now knew more of their targets and techniques?

Remember all the naysayers when we first went to Afghanistan? Why those people are still listened to by a segment of our society eludes me.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Here's OBL's agenda - in order: Get all infidels out of Arab lands, restore the Caliphate in Turkey, win back Andalusa in Spain, destroy Vienna for stopping the Ottoman empire, restore the Arab world of 1100 A.D.

You forgot one other bin Laden goal:

Cash in on old family chum Dubya's "war on terror" via Carlyle Group investments.

[Northman]

Remember all the naysayers when we first went to Afghanistan? Why those people are still listened to by a segment of our society eludes me.


most of the people i talked to ( including myself ) supported the invasion of Afghanistan. why? because Al-Queda was there and they were responsible for 9/11. Iraq is a whole different story and we were sold on the idea that Iraq was a immediate threat with WMD's and nothing you mentioned above was listed as a reason before we invaded Iraq.

[TexanBob]

Maybe it's the media influence. We've been conditioned to be afraid. Every day it's some new threat: Mad cow disease, West Nile Fever, Anthrax, obesity, heart disease, breast cancer, environmental threats, etc. Every day on one of those morning shows there's some new terror to look out for: "Can this kitchen appliance kill you?" "Could your furnace be your worst enemy?" "Teen Suicide: Are Your Children At Risk?" Constant bs.

I fully agree. We are a scaremonger society and we are nannied to death to be afraid of this, that and everything. I can't put something in my mouth anymore without thinking about how much fat or sugar or cholesterol or sodium or carbs or calories are in that mouthful. Past generations may have had more difficult lives but I also think, in many cases, they were also less stressful because we didn't know so many things then to fear that we know now.

I'm just sick of the fear. And I'm sick of a government that manipulates that fear. We're going to win. Maybe more of us will die. No doubt. But we will win. And I don't want to sell out the heart of America - our ideal of liberty - to fear in the short-term. Like Ben Franklin said - those who are willing to trade freedom for security, deserve neither.

I'm sick of fear too but I honestly think our government is in a no-win situation here. We are saying we want the truth but then we can't handle the truth. And are we really getting the truth or is the truth far worse than what we are being told? Once we significantly eliminate Islamic terrorism, I am hopeful that a lot of the security measures will ease up. People forget all the security measures that were done during World War II, including rationing, interment camps, etc. Did they stay in place after the war? For the most part, no, they didn't. And that's my expectation once this war is won.

I'd amend Franklin's famous quote to say those who place temporary limits on freedom to help end a security crisis are entitled to have that freedom returned as soon as the threat has been conquered. That's closer to the reality we've expereinced for two centuries.

[Northman]

Once we significantly eliminate Islamic terrorism, I am hopeful that a lot of the security measures will ease up. People forget all the security measures that were done during World War II, including rationing, interment camps, etc. Did they stay in place after the war? For the most part, no, they didn't. And that's my expectation once this war is won.


and thats the problem. our enemy blends into everyday society over there, not like going into battle in uniform. this war will never be over and will drag on for decades because we can not identify the actual targets. surrounding countries are aiding the enemy and some of the more powerful countries are no longer our allies. we will be sitting ducks day in and day out and they will slowly kill us because they are patient predators.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

most of the people i talked to ( including myself ) supported the invasion of Afghanistan. why? because Al-Queda was there and they were responsible for 9/11. Iraq is a whole different story and we were sold on the idea that Iraq was a immediate threat with WMD's and nothing you mentioned above was listed as a reason before we invaded Iraq.

Bingo!

:thumbsup:

[Rohirrim]

There's a great, in-depth article (purely investigative - not political) in the July New Yorker about how terrorism, and Al Queda works. In fact, many attacks are associated to AQ in name only. Their message has spread like a virus to disaffected Arab youth the world around through chat rooms and message boards. Some groups are indiginous and dream up their own attacks with little connection to any AQ operatives. They read the goals on a website and make up their own, local mission. That might be the biggest danger. Also, the message is spread through many mosques throughout the world - even here. In fact, judging by the info in that article, it is like fighting a virus.

The enemy is bigger than individuals like OBL. The enemy is an ideology that seeps into the brains of those who are subsceptible to its message. IMO, the way to fight this virus, and win, is to inject the antibodies of democratic ideals into the Arab world. To show them the benefits (as India illustrates) of leaving the old world behind, and joining the new one. But, to do that, we'll have to confront the Israelis as well as the Saudis. And personally, I don't believe our military is the best way to do that. I think Iraq is going to prove that - as have many examples in our past.

We support the regimes that create our enemies. It's the Saudi Royals who, on the one hand, tell us how much they support us, and on the other hand, take our oil dollars and fund madrassas that spread the virus around the world. It's the stubbornness of the Israelis and their insistence on new settlements that help spread the virus. IMO, the solution to those problems will be political, and economic - and a big piece of that will be disconnecting ourselves from Middle East oil, and putting the screws to Israel. Bush's policy of disconnect in that area is a failure.

IMO, we have to invest heavily in alternative energies as a national security issue, build a coalition of allies to exert political and economic pressures on the Arab world - and Israel, and at the same time, offer the people who live under those oppresive regimes a hand up. You know, India has many Muslims in its population, but I haven't seen any Indian Muslims joining the jihad. That's because they believe in the possibilities of the future.

We have to stop being the enemy and start being the alternative to fundamentalism. That comes from offering a life of hope, to replace a glorius suicide - no matter how many virgins you get.

[mosca]

4) A military presence in the region. Instead of being based in a tiny land like Qatar or Yemen, we can set up a base that can easily reach Syria, Iran, Jordan, Pakistan, etc. in a matter of minutes. It should make those governments easier to deal with now that they've seen how quickly we can overthrow Saddam. They know now we're serious about rooting out terrorists.

at one point in time i agreed with this notion, but more and more it looks to me like we're gonna get the hell outta there as soon as we can. sure, we will be keeping troops there for years to come to bolster the iraqi security forces and to back up the new government, but i don't think the iraqis have any desire to let us maintain a permanent base there, and the way things are going there now, i don't see us pressing them to allow us one.

So what about the WMDs? We needed to know if Saddam had them or not. He acted like he was hiding them and maybe he did hide them or maybe he dismantled them or shipped them off to Syria or Libya. Nobody knows right now. But if it turned out that the threat was exaggerated, I still support what we've done there for the reasons I've enumerated above.

agreed, but i'd have to say that it was extremely foolish, politically speaking, of the bush admin. to place so much emphasis on the WMD angle when they hadn't even been found yet, and not to emphasize the other reasons for invading, however valid they may be. it's really came back to bite them in the ass.

Call it opportunism or "the end justifies the means", but I think the Middle East is on the road to greater stability with what we've done and we've put the remaining rogue states on notice that if they don't play ball with us, they could be next.
i agree with that as well, except for the fact that we're having to station so many of our troops in iraq just to maintain the peace and security amid all the insurgent attacks that we would be extremely hard pressed to divert sizable military forces any other country if it were needed. it's the negative effect of the powell doctrine or whatever it was... the pottery rule, you break it you own it. it's taking up a lot of effort and resources, more so than we had thought (or were led to believe), to build iraq from the ground up.

[enjolras]

I'm just speaking for myself but I think the opportunity was there to sell a war in Iraq and there were justifiable reasons to overthrow him. But, in this day and age, you can't be completely honest with why you want to do certain things because the hatred of the opposition is so shrill that even efforts done with the best intentions are recast as sinister and evil.

BUT WE LIVE IN A FRICKING REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC.. that's my entire point. Your essentially saying 'it's ok, because the ends justify it'. I'm saying that we as a people have the right and the responsibility to make the decision. It's not the job of the president to manipulate us into war, even if it's the right war (which is very detable in and of itself). The president should make an argument, based on fact, and say 'these are my cards, this is what I think is right'.

Instead they chose a message of fear.. they scared people into submission. If the war is justified in and of itself, then the argument for war should be clear. Either Bush felt like those reasons didn't justify the war, or felt like the American people wouldn't support a war on those reasons alone. EITHER WAY the war should have never been fought in that case. That's the problem I've had since this whole fiasco began.

You'll notice that Afghanistan (as already mentioned on this thread) held and continues to hold widespread support. That was a clearly justified action.. the enemy was there and we knew it. The president could easily make the case for going into Afghanistan.. and the people supported it.

THat's what I'll never understand about this. While the end result may be ok (once again, I'm not debating that right now), the process of how we got there sucked beyond all belief. How W can continue to receive a free pass on that just defies logic. He knowingly manipulated the facts to force this country into war, and did everything he could to keep the people of this country from making their own decisions. He subverted democracy with fear tactics...

It's funny, here in Texas Parcells got rid of his quarterback because he "couldn't trust him". The response to that has been pretty favorable from what I can hear. Yet, this is the same state that rallies behind a president we clearly can't trust.

[mosca]

He knowingly manipulated the facts to force this country into war, and did everything he could to keep the people of this country from making their own decisions. He subverted democracy with fear tactics...

what facts did he manipulate? who in this country has he kept from making their own decisions?

[watermock]

There's a great, in-depth article (purely investigative - not political) in the July New Yorker about how terrorism, and Al Queda works. In fact, many attacks are associated to AQ in name only. Their message has spread like a virus to disaffected Arab youth the world around through chat rooms and message boards. Some groups are indiginous and dream up their own attacks with little connection to any AQ operatives. They read the goals on a website and make up their own, local mission. That might be the biggest danger. Also, the message is spread through many mosques throughout the world - even here. In fact, judging by the info in that article, it is like fighting a virus.

The enemy is bigger than individuals like OBL. The enemy is an ideology that seeps into the brains of those who are subsceptible to its message. IMO, the way to fight this virus, and win, is to inject the antibodies of democratic ideals into the Arab world. To show them the benefits (as India illustrates) of leaving the old world behind, and joining the new one. But, to do that, we'll have to confront the Israelis as well as the Saudis. And personally, I don't believe our military is the best way to do that. I think Iraq is going to prove that - as have many examples in our past.

We support the regimes that create our enemies. It's the Saudi Royals who, on the one hand, tell us how much they support us, and on the other hand, take our oil dollars and fund madrassas that spread the virus around the world. It's the stubbornness of the Israelis and their insistence on new settlements that help spread the virus. IMO, the solution to those problems will be political, and economic - and a big piece of that will be disconnecting ourselves from Middle East oil, and putting the screws to Israel. Bush's policy of disconnect in that area is a failure.

IMO, we have to invest heavily in alternative energies as a national security issue, build a coalition of allies to exert political and economic pressures on the Arab world - and Israel, and at the same time, offer the people who live under those oppresive regimes a hand up. You know, India has many Muslims in its population, but I haven't seen any Indian Muslims joining the jihad. That's because they believe in the possibilities of the future.

We have to stop being the enemy and start being the alternative to fundamentalism. That comes from offering a life of hope, to replace a glorius suicide - no matter how many virgins you get.

Ro, as usual, you make some excellent points, but also some very misguided ones as well. The Idea that it is "Al Quaeda" if finally being put to rest. And the idea that Islamic extremism is fading is an illusion, but there is always a crest before the collapse. We have to be vigilant. No terrorist organization is going to claim they are Al Quaeda at this point, even if they are linked. Al Quaeda isn't some sort of "Washington or London or even Moscow". It's loosely linked in the overall "jihad".

This is a deep subject. The Saudis have our nuts over a barrell of oil, and they created their own monster that we have to protect them from. Go figure. It just again demonstrates the insanity of Islam. I watched Bill tonight and he has this totally moderate Muslim on. He said that even in the USA, he estimates 50% are plotting radical overthrow. It's a mantra that has taken over the Islamic world. Now that the idiot Bedouins (these princes are nothing more than camel jockeys with black gold under their asses and make the Beverly Hillbillies look like mensa candidates), are scared to freaking death.

If you want to know what true Islam is, you have to look no further than the Taliban. And as far as India being peacefull, I don't know what drug your on, but Kashmir is in civil war, the country had to be divided, and both are pointing missles at each other. What are you on anyway? Oh yeah, the Osterich Patrol.

I love the alternative energy jive. Every house in the USA should have some solar infrastructure, the fact is it isn't economically competitive yet, and asthetically attractive. There is some progress being made in degradation of amphorous semiconductors during long exposure, but it's still a ways away. It's wavelenght sensistive. But whatever.

I approve the Bush docrine becuse it isn't preemptive, it's preventive, or both.

Why is it that Christians are broacasting on the air, and can you name a single Mosque that broadcasts in the USA? You have no clue what is taught these "followers" in these places. Hell they run in them and shoot AK 47's out the windows. It's a barbaric religion and a stain on humanity. The religion espouses murder, rape, robbery, deciet, sexism and just plain murder in the name of God. The only mercy is given to the true believer. I find it so amusing that people don't simply get it. It's starting to sink in to people what a threat this is, and it's a threat because of the trillions of dollars pumped out of their greasy sand. If it wasn't for that, they would still be lighting their campfires with camel turds.

One more thing. Before "Mohammed" came along, the Persians were very well educated, and peacefull. They were the brightest light in the world. Mohammed was a freaking virus and continues to be. I have listed plenty of examples of this clowns travesties.

[enjolras]

what facts did he manipulate? who in this country has he kept from making their own decisions?

There was the heavily discredited source who sold intelligence to Italy, and was later quoted by Powell before the U.N. Pretty much everyone in the world (Germany in particular) had already concluded was fabricating evidence. The whole African Uranium fiasco.

There was the confident posturing that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.. piles of them. Rumsfeld at one point gave us specific areas. The entire operation was basically predicated on intelligence that turned out to be many years old and unsubstantiated. It was, according to those in the CIA, shaky evidence at best.. yet it was presented as rock solid by Bush throughout the months leading up to the war.

There was the bruhaha about centrifuges with the Condeeleza Rice telling us the only use for those would be Nuclear weapons, an outright fabrication.

There was the point at which Cheney confidently proclaimed the Iraq had restarted it's nuclear weapons program.. despite the fact that absolutely zero evidence existed to support that.

All of this confident posturing, continuing references to discredited intelligence, and fear mongering was all about pushing Bush's agenda. Not about opening the doors to true and meaningful debate. It's really that simple.

[TexanBob]

Further, the U.S. Senate (members of both parties) received the same intelligence briefings that the White House received. The president received a statement authorizing force against any nation that was perceived as a threat after the 9-11 attacks and, when the White House began beating the drums for a war in Iraq, the Senate Democrats demanded another debate and another vote. He gave them that debate and they, again, gave him the authority to invade Iraq. Then there was the whole UN debate and the multiple attempts to get UN authority to fight through the Security Council. And when the U.S. decided to forge ahead anyway, several other countries joined them, just not the ones participating in the Oil for Food scam with Saddam Hussein.

So you can make the case that Bush deceived everyone and cannot today be trusted because of it but it was clear that the Senate had the same briefings and had their chances to stop him and refused to do so. And many Senate Democrats were already on record back in the 1990s about how Saddam had WMDs and needed to be taken out. If Bush lied about WMDs, so did Clinton and so did many Senate Democrats.

I suppose the case could have been made that there were multiple reasons to invade Iraq but, frankly, the media would have dumbed it down to one reason anyway. Or else they would have picked on the weakest reason and played it up as if it was the only reason.

I can understand your anger at this. I do think it was right to go and it will, in time, be a success that will put us in a much better position to broker lasting peace in the region as well as benefit us financially but it may be 3-5 years before that will be evident.

Look, I thought we had no business going into Kosovo because the U.S. had nothing to gain. In Iraq, I feel that at least we are the beneficiaries of what's going on even though there is a risk that the new Iraqi government will turn on us and be just as difficult to deal with as Saddam. I hope not, but it could happen.

I'm still optimistic about the results of the Iraq war and expect to see some major fruit by the end of the decade. But it will take time before it will be evident, whether they ever find WMDs or not.

[Crushaholic]

I think America in 2004 is about as far removed from fundamental danger as any nation in history has ever been. We may be scared, but we are, in fact, safe. Safe, at least, by any reasonable historic measure.

No other country on earth has military might even close to ours. Has such a global monopoly on armed power ever existed? Has any nation had less to fear from its neighbors and foreign armies?

Given that theory, Bush was justified in continuing to read "My Pet Goat". He could have been thinking the might of the military can handle it and there is no need to alarm little kids.

America has always been in danger, and 9/11 woke us up to that fact. We need to keep these scumbags on the run and not let up on our resolve, no matter what wimpy countries like France and Germany say.

[enjolras]

o you can make the case that Bush deceived everyone and cannot today be trusted because of it but it was clear that the Senate had the same briefings and had their chances to stop him and refused to do so. And many Senate Democrats were already on record back in the 1990s about how Saddam had WMDs and needed to be taken out. If Bush lied about WMDs, so did Clinton and so did many Senate Democrats.

I suppose the case could have been made that there were multiple reasons to invade Iraq but, frankly, the media would have dumbed it down to one reason anyway. Or else they would have picked on the weakest reason and played it up as if it was the only reason.

I hold the democrats (including Kerry) and congressional republicans responsible as well. They showed absolutely zero backbone. The president created a climate of fear, and these worthless politicians didn't have the backbone to risk their "political careers" to stand against that climate of fear.

It's the exact same issue with the Patriot act. Bush pushed through the most draconian assortment of laws in our nations history, and in the climate of fear surrounding 9/11 our worthless respresentatives did nothing to stop it.

You'll find that I'm not voting for many incumbents in this race, and support the re-election of very few.

[enjolras]

no matter what wimpy countries like France and Germany say.

"The better part of valor is discretion"