Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

US vs Terrorism


SQLserver

Recommended Posts

Hello-

I was just thinking about the 'War on Terror'. Most Republicans actually still want to continue our war in Iraq. I cannot believe how short sighted this is.

Does anyone think that the US still has hope, or have the terrorists already beaten us?

I mean, we loose thousands of troops in Iraq.

Some of our once trusted allies are now reluctant/completely against us.

Americans have been hated throughout the world even more since we invaded Iraq.

The invasion of Iraq has turned Iraq into a chaotic haven for Terrorists.

Americans have lost our civil liberties of privacy, a simple phone conversation, and communications.

America now commits horrendous acts of torture, interrogation, and Republicans STILL want it to continue.

America has retrogressed into a state of anti-Islamic racism.

We are still extremely dependent on oil(If only Gore had won 2000)

The war has stripped our resources pretty thin.

The US is trillions of dollars in debt, almost impossible to pay off.

We are said to soon be going into a depression/ economic decline.

Does anyone think that the Terrorists might have already won? Surely they haven't planned it out, but it sure worked out nicely.

The icing on the cake would be McCain winning '08 and an invasion of Iran.

Also, terrorists have an indirect effect on our Elections. The only thing that drives Republicans to the polls these days is fear. The McCain 'Macho-anti-terrorist-captain American' thing may actually make him win the election vs Hillary(Obama, however, could probably defeat him), because of the fear of Terror in America. Then, Americans would loose more. Forget about the environment, forget about Reproduction rights, and forget about Marriage rights.

Terrorists like to spread terror. Does anyone else think they have?

Cheers,

SQLserver

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 207
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • AROCES

    63

  • Atheist God

    24

  • questionmark

    22

  • graylady2

    16

No. They haven't. We took out over 100 of them. We took out Saddam, his sons, & other important people. I've stopped attacks from happening inside the country.

So we're winning the war no matter what anyone else says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. They haven't. We took out over 100 of them. We took out Saddam, his sons, & other important people. I've stopped attacks from happening inside the country.

So we're winning the war no matter what anyone else says.

100 for the thousands who have died in Iraq?

We may be winning the actual fighting, but there is a greater war going on here, including the one at home.

It doesn't matter if they are dead, either. They've created a series of events that allows us to destroy ourselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. They haven't. We took out over 100 of them. We took out Saddam, his sons, & other important people. I've stopped attacks from happening inside the country.

So we're winning the war no matter what anyone else says.

You've stopped the attacks from happening inside the country? geez thanks. The whole time we have been wasting money on CIA and FBI and POLICE to do all that work and its been you the whole time. I'll be darned.

But it is a response like that which give pause to people; "no matter what anyone says". At a certain point rational people listen to others for input and take it seriously. "staying the course" even when the course may guide you off a cliff in order to prove a point isnt very wise, and at times it seems like that is what we have our leadership doing to us.

100 terrorist? Great.

What cost has that come to us?

4000 US military lives. Many thousand Iraqi lives. British Lives. The image and reputation of the country I love ruined. HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS PER DAY spent and no end in sight for this war.

Divide that by 100...is it worth it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What cost has that come to us?

4000 US military lives. Many thousand Iraqi lives. British Lives. The image and reputation of the country I love ruined. HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS PER DAY spent and no end in sight for this war.

Applause. You've hit the nail on the head. If Bush hadn't stolen the second election as well, I'd still be in the U.S. I despise that man and his egomaniacal narcissism...the "war" president who's the "decider" who "speaks to a higher power"... Well, he decided for the nation - ignoring what the people want - which, in a democracy, is tantamount to reverse insurrection and, as you've stated, destroyed the image of the country. He should be arrested for murder, imo. He's killed off thousands of young people for lies and profit. He's incapable of shame. The person is a disgusting example of humanity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Applause. You've hit the nail on the head. If Bush hadn't stolen the second election as well, I'd still be in the U.S. I despise that man and his egomaniacal narcissism...the "war" president who's the "decider" who "speaks to a higher power"... Well, he decided for the nation - ignoring what the people want - which, in a democracy, is tantamount to reverse insurrection and, as you've stated, destroyed the image of the country. He should be arrested for murder, imo. He's killed off thousands of young people for lies and profit. He's incapable of shame. The person is a disgusting example of humanity.

The Democrats dispatched hudreds of lawyers to watch voting districts, the cry of cheating was all over before the actual election day.

So, what the heck were those lawyers doing then on election day?

He is a 2 term President elected to make decisions and not to follow the polls or thyose who cries and complains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it is a response like that which give pause to people; "no matter what anyone says". At a certain point rational people listen to others for input and take it seriously. "staying the course" even when the course may guide you off a cliff in order to prove a point isnt very wise, and at times it seems like that is what we have our leadership doing to us.

Whoever said it will be a cake walk an not full of cliff that you may fall in?

4000 US military lives. Many thousand Iraqi lives. British Lives. The image and reputation of the country I love ruined. HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS PER DAY spent and no end in sight for this war.

Divide that by 100...is it worth it?

What price will you pay then for freedom in the Middle east?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoever said it will be a cake walk an not full of cliff that you may fall in?

What price will you pay then for freedom in the Middle east?

simply let them be free to do as they choose.... not a penny more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoever said it will be a cake walk an not full of cliff that you may fall in?

No one said it will be a cake walk. Oh wait, Cheney did... :rolleyes:

What price will you pay then for freedom in the Middle east?

I have already paid full price plus some...Who says I am buying more? It isnt my job to "pay" for their freedom. They can earn it themselves. It isnt our job to run around the globe and dole out democracy like welfare checks. We have our own problems to attend to back home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, you don't ask any SIMPLE questions, do you SqlServer ?

I think we ARE winning the "war on terror"... in this context the struggle against Islamic terrorists. But this "war" is one of attrition, and could take another 5 years.

I've heard arguments that the war in Iraq is merely fueling more hatred, and producing more 'terrorists'. The British Muslims who blew up bombs in London, for example, or that dumb attack on Glasgow airport. This is often raised as an example of how we are losing the 'war on terror'. But lets think about that for a minute. The British terrorists where fueled by a hatred of western civilisation, and a pathalogical hatred of non-Muslims. The Iraq was was merely a Causi Belli; a trigger to release underlying tensions. The tensions exist because we - as a nation - are not Muslim (in the eyes of the terrorists). The enemy is inside our gates; the Iraq war provided a trigger, but they would have blown themselves up over some pretext eventually anyway .

I think that Bush and the republicans are effectively victims of circumstances. The real failure was in the decision to liberate Kuwait back in 1991. Let me explain.

Saddam Hussein's rule was a balwark against Islamist expansionism from Iran. It was reasonably predictable that - where Saddam's regime to fall in a chaotic manner, then the countrys oppressed Shia majority would rebel against the Sunni's and Ba'athists. Iran would be a natural supporter of the Shia's, being a predominantly Shia theocracy. I would expect the bulk of Iraq would effectively merge into a greatly enlarged Iran. This would massivly increase the political (and economic) influence of Iran, and the ability of it's Hezbollah parliamentary factions to export mischeif even further afield.

Worse still, the new enlarged Shia theocracy would border their traditional Sunni rivals (rivals is a rather mild term in this context), Saudi Arabia. It would also put Israel within comfortable range of Iranian fighter/bombers. How much longer before the fight enlarged ?

If eiither nation was attacked, the West would be sure to respond in order to secure the Saudi and Kuwaiti oil fields. At THIS point, Iran would declare FATWAH and - guess what - all those British Muslims would start exploding in sympathy. So the "terrorist attacks on our soil" are an inevitable factor of (1) Islamist expansionism and (2) the failure of our societies to recognise the fifth column in our midst.

We could have avoided this by preventing the catastrophic collapse of the Saddam regime. The easiest way to have done this would be to have allowed him to invade Kuwait unhampered, provided only that he gave us assurances of uninteruppted oil flows. After all, we have no other interests in Kuwait. With the massive Kuwaiti oil revenues flowing into Iraq, Saddam might even have been tempted to re-start the Iraq-Iran war, but with the advantage of expensive new weapons on his side. (and, of course, greater port facilities in the Persian Gulf from which to launch marine attacks).

As it happened, the US-led invasion of Iraq had one saving grace: it was a poor decision, but it avoided the worse-case secanario. With all those troops on the ground, Iran was in no position to make a move on invading/integrating Iraq.

Yet.

Just wait until after the pull-out though.

Meow Purr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we ARE winning the "war on terror"... in this context the struggle against Islamic terrorists. But this "war" is one of attrition, and could take another 5 years.

Meow Purr.

We are not winning, because you don't win ideological wars with military means. As long as there is only one person left who thinks that terror is better than us (and I fail to see how to get them all) the seed is there and will pop up again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont think it's possible to 'win' in any traditional sense. We're not dealing with rational human beings, like we have in the past. The reason the cold war didn't turn into WW3 is because both sides had rationality. MAD, while it was a horrible thing which has left a pall of fear over this planet that may never be lifted, worked simply because they knew they couldnt launch a preemptive strike that would totally wipe out the enemy.

Our enemy is not like this, they're fanatics. If the US wants to win and maintain it's moral integrity and highground, the war is going to be an uphill battle. It's possible, you could probably drain the money from that region in a decade if the western world went off oil. This war will not be won just by bloody ground battles and torturing prisoners of war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We could have avoided this by preventing the catastrophic collapse of the Saddam regime. The easiest way to have done this would be to have allowed him to invade Kuwait unhampered, provided only that he gave us assurances of uninteruppted oil flows. After all, we have no other interests in Kuwait. With the massive Kuwaiti oil revenues flowing into Iraq, Saddam might even have been tempted to re-start the Iraq-Iran war, but with the advantage of expensive new weapons on his side. (and, of course, greater port facilities in the Persian Gulf from which to launch marine attacks).

As it happened, the US-led invasion of Iraq had one saving grace: it was a poor decision, but it avoided the worse-case secanario. With all those troops on the ground, Iran was in no position to make a move on invading/integrating Iraq.

Yet.

Just wait until after the pull-out though.

Meow Purr.

Good post. I feel compelled to add that when Iraq invaded Kuwait, the US's initial response was that it was none of our concern. Then about a week after the invasion, the Iraqi army lined up along the Saudi border. Saddam was after the oil wealth, thats why he attemted the military takeover of Iran. Kuwait was an easy target, Saudi was an easy target. I think the house of saud may have had alot to do with our decision to intervene. Which in turn put infidels treading on holy ground, which in turn, which in turn, and so on.

Yeah, bad move indeed. But, Saddam could very well be in control of Mecca and the worlds largest oil reserves today if we didnt intervene.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What price will you pay then for freedom in the Middle east?

0 dollars and 0 cents and 0 lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We took out Saddam

How exactly was Saddam a terrorist after the first Gulf war? to the US? Stop watching USA World Police on MTV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You will never defeat the terrorists and never capture Bin Laden. For one Iraq has nothing to do with terrorists. Terrorism is scattered you cannot combat it like a war besides besides Iraq has nothing to do with Terrorism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the relevant question is:

Will the Iraqi and American people be more or less secure after an American pullout?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You will never defeat the terrorists and never capture Bin Laden. For one Iraq has nothing to do with terrorists. Terrorism is scattered you cannot combat it like a war besides besides Iraq has nothing to do with Terrorism.

ahhh logic.

Saddam and bin laden hated each other. no terrorists came from Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 911. nor had they wmd's. this has been proven over and over again ... yet some keep buying the rhetoric.

and your right , fighting terrorism with military is like trying to kill a swarm of bees with a sledge hammer - you may kill a few , but you only create more angry ones. Policy is the way to go , but that takes brains and look who's been in office for the last 8 years. what do you expect ??

We would have been better off sticking with the hunt for bin laden whom bush forgot and in working in Afghanistan and strengthening our boarders up tighter than a ducks rear. not to mention investing in our own and other countries intelligence , which means not firing people fluent in arabic for stupid reasons. and listening to the translators.

Translator Fired from FBI for Blowing Whistle on Intelligence Failures to Receive 2006 PEN/Newman’s Own First Amendment Award

New York, NY, March 29, 2006—PEN American Center has named Sibel Edmonds, a translator who was fired from her job at the FBI after complaining of intelligence failures and poor performance in her unit, as the recipient of this year’s prestigious PEN/Newman’s Own First Amendment Award. Ms. Edmonds will receive the $20,000 prize at PEN’s annual Gala on April 18, 2006 at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City.

Shortly after 9/11, Edmonds was hired as an FBI Language Specialist for Turkish, Farsi and Azerbaijani. In her work, Edmonds discovered poorly translated documents relevant to the 9-11 attacks and reported these to her supervisors. She also expressed concerns about a co-worker’s relationship with a foreign intelligence officer, and reported being told to work slowly to give the appearance that her department was overworked, despite the large backlog of documents needing translation. Edmonds followed all appropriate procedures for registering her concerns. However, instead of acting on her information, the FBI fired Edmonds in March 2002, claiming she had “committed security violations and had disrupted the translation unit.”

In June 2002, two U.S. Senators wrote the FBI demanding information on Edmond’s case, noting that many of her allegations had been confirmed by the FBI in unclassified briefings to Congress. The following month, Edmonds filed a lawsuit challenging the FBI’s retaliatory actions, but in July of 2004 Edmonds v. Department of Justice was dismissed by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after Attorney General John Ashcroft invoked “State Secrets Privilege” to prevent any materials that supported her case from becoming public. The Supreme Court has refused to hear her appeal.

In early 2004, an unclassified summary of the Justice Department's Inspector General's report on Edmonds confirmed that many of her claims "were supported, that the FBI did not take them seriously enough, and that her allegations were, in fact, the most significant factor in the FBI's decision to terminate her services." In February of that year, Edmonds testified before the 9/11 Commission about problems at the FBI. Three months later, the Justice Department retroactively classified Edmonds’ briefings to Senators and the 9-11 Commission, as well the information the Senators had cited in their letter to the FBI, and forced the Members of Congress who had information about Edmonds’ case posted on their web sites to remove the documents.

In addition to courageously pursuing her case, Edmonds founded the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition in August 2004. The NSWBC organizes current or former government employees who have been punished for exposing official wrongdoing and advocates for legislation to protect the rights of National Security whistleblowers.

http://www.pen.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/633/prmID/1331

not to mention the military and intell is crying for translators , not having enough of them but fire 37 Arabic translators because they are gay. smart !!! talk about insecure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

simply let them be free to do as they choose.... not a penny more.

And when the whole Middle East is in the hands of those who cuts heads on video and is in controll of the Oil Fields, still not a penny more?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the relevant question is:

Will the Iraqi and American people be more or less secure after an American pullout?

Iraq may end up in a civil war. It may fall under the rule of Iran , because like Iran most is shi'ite while most of the middle east is sunni. thank Bush for both.

I say let the middle east handle it. they would be able too better than us to work with both factions . . We would only be throwing gas on the fire. We can return to Afghanistan and home to secure our boarders.

Edited by Lt_Ripley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one said it will be a cake walk. Oh wait, Cheney did... :rolleyes:

I have already paid full price plus some...Who says I am buying more? It isnt my job to "pay" for their freedom. They can earn it themselves. It isnt our job to run around the globe and dole out democracy like welfare checks. We have our own problems to attend to back home.

The stability of the Middle East is vital to the Western Economy.

It's that simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How exactly was Saddam a terrorist after the first Gulf war? to the US? Stop watching USA World Police on MTV.

No fly zone, sanctions, embargoes, UN resolutions, weapons inspectors after the first gulf war.

what more do you need?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iraq may end up in a civil war. It may fall under the rule of Iran , because like Iran most is shi'ite while most of the middle east is sunni. thank Bush for both.

I say let the middle east handle it. they would be able too better than us to work with both factions . . We would only be throwing gas on the fire. We can return to Afghanistan and home to secure our boarders.

You mean like what we did in Somalia?

And guess who is back in Somalia?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Department of Homeland Security

TSA goons

People being tasered to death

waterboarding

ability to ignore habaes corpus

blanket authority to spy on citizens

US president having power to declare anyone an enemy combatant on his word alone

I wouldn't say the terrorists have won quite yet, but they have made a helluva good start

Edited by sam12six
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.