www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/eu...index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/05/25/alqaeda.ap/index.html)

www.guardian.co.uk/alqaid...21,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,1224821,00.html)

Al Queda seized documents set the casualty goal for Islamic victory at 4 million.

Our enemies ranks swell, they have access to weapony they didnt have before and we find ourselves bogged down in Iraq.

I think our biggest problem is that the liberals have no solution for our problems, merely chanting over and over again, "There has got to be a better way!" while the conservative's only idea is "Kill 'em all, let god sort 'em out."

It's obvious we can't just sit around with our thumbs up our asses. I doubt Osama and co. are going to agree to attending anger management courses.

No matter what we do now we're going to come out looking like assholes. Even if we say "Shit, we fucked up, sorry everyone!" the French are still not going to let little Timmy play with Francois.

My only hope is that future generations aren't held accountable for the actions that we take today. Unless every terrorist around the world gives up and turns themself in, we're pretty much up shit creek without a paddle.

Well part of the problem is right there.
The world isnt made up Liberals and Conservatives. I allow people who have a need for labels to color me a liberal because it really doesnt matter to me. The truth is im probably split about 50/50 with the defining issues of each ideology. Im pro choice, in favor of free trade, in favor of the death penalty, an ardent advocate for civil rights, against affirmative action, Im in favor of tight enviromental regulations and also in favor of a smaller, less powerful central government.
Id venture to say that the majority of people in this country are like that. Maybe 20% total actively subscribe to the hardcore base of either party. Everyone else picks and chooses from either side. Elections are won by who successfully picks the right side of a number of issues.

However it happened the people running this country became convinced of one path and took no outside viewpoints for any value. This domestic political unilateralism became apparent with foriegn policy. You are with us or against us. Accept our plan and join our coalition or sit out and dont expect to be allowed to "profit from the rebuilding." No mistakes are ever admitted to, and no change of course is ever considered.
And what fruits has all this brought forth?
An Iraq that is in very real danger of collapsing into Civil War and turning into a Shiite Theocracy forming a Islamic superpower with Iran.
A Al-Queda threat that is reconstituted and able to strike again not only in Spain, but now dire warnings of the unleashing of WMDs in the USA. A group whose ranks increase every day. swelling beyond what they were one year ago.
A lose of credibilty in the world. Not only have we failed to win the hearts and minds of the Islamic world, we have caused the our allies to fear supporting us for risk of losing support at home.
A situation in Israel that is as bad as it has ever been.

People have been SCREAMING to look at other options, but we keep going foward deeper and deeper into the woods, getting more and more lost.
Are we at the point were we are so entrenched and so lost that we have robbed ourselves of choice? That there are no alternatives.
Are we, the United States of America, now at the mercy of events rather than using our power and strength to control them? Are we spinning out of control heading for the kind of Death Spiral we see in Israel with the Palestinians?

We're all gonna die in the end anyway. Live happy and don't worry about when, where, why, how and who?

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>People have been SCREAMING to look at other options, but we keep going foward deeper and deeper into the woods, getting more and more lost.<hr></blockquote>

So start presenting options. You can scream "There must be a better way!" until you're blue in the face, but unless someone starts actually thinking up these magical 'better ways' I'll continue to nod my head towards the "Kill 'em all" philosophy simply because either way they're giong to start blowing shit up in America so we might as well get our body counts worth.

Even if we had all sat around singing Kum-bah-yah with our thumbs up our ass after 9/11, stayed out of Afghanistan/Iraq, you really think we'd have been left alone? If we had simply done nothing, you think Osama would have come out and said, "Y'know what...that was a really shitty thing for me to do. I'm sorry America. I guess you guys aren't that bad afterall. We blow up one of the symbols of your economic might and you have a 3 hour Dr. Phil special...you can't be all that bad."

'the French are still not going to let little Timmy play with Francois.'

- :rollin

Ive given alternative answers Zehn,

+Should have brought more troops,
+Should not have dismissed the entire iraqi army and dismantled the entire governmental appartus overnight
+Should have launched a massive "New Deal" type program to keep young unemployed Iraqis off the streets and working, sending home money.
+Should have played one more round of patty cake with UN, not for the achievement of any result, but to gain international support in a more meaningful way, now we have to practically beg the UN to do things we told them they werent wanted to do before. "Would you like a side of freedom fries with that Crow?"
+should have had better intelligence. This is a tough criticism, I know, and a bit monday morning quarterbackish, but ultimatly who is responisble if you trust lies? Garbage In, Garbage Out. If you are going to commit American lives and American troops, you better be damn sure you are going on not just good information, but rock solid information. God forgive you if you are wrong. Bad intell seems to be the root cause of almost ALL our problems here in Iraq.

The question is can we move on from here with the current leadership? There is so much animosity and hatred for Bush and we have suffered such a loss of credibility that it may be impossible for him to effectuate change. He no longer is able to mediate the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Sheron played him like a fiddle. Leaders in democratic European nations now find that opposing Bush is a great way to either keep your job or get elected.
I think alot of the distrust and dislike of America in moderate Islam and Europe can be traced to a dislike of the man.
A change of President and administration would wipe the slate clean in a lot of places and give us a chance to start over in new directions, with more international help and support.

Should have brought more troops,

Did you ever think of the reason we didn't keep more troops there? The first mention of all this talk of needing more troops was when the Iraqis started rampaging in the streets, looting and stealing "priceless artifacts" from their most precious of all museums in the world or some shit. More troops wouldn't have stopped that, because the shit was stolen before we even invaded... and just about all of it has been found and returned.

As for the Shias and Kurds and Sunnis... we had our reasons for no more troops, but they still perceived us as occupiers... so I guess we should have gone ahead and done it. More dead soldiers on the news every day would elect Kerry, so not bad afterall.

Should not have dismissed the entire iraqi army and dismantled the entire governmental appartus overnight

Other than the fact that they disbanded themselves like smoke in the wind, I don't think the Iraqi public would have liked having the same old mob of rapists and thieves still patrolling their streets. Call me a pessimist.

Should have launched a massive "New Deal" type program to keep young unemployed Iraqis off the streets and working, sending home money.

I saw this some where, can't find it now. Was on cpa.org I think.. before the invasion, 60% unemployment... last Feb it was at 45% or something. But the money is still tied up in red tape, but mostly due to the security problems. You know that $87 billion? Of that $19 billion was for reconstruction, last Feb I think only like 10% of it had been spent.
See, I can be critical .. that money needs to get into their economy.

+Should have played one more round of patty cake with UN, not for the achievement of any result, but to gain international support in a more meaningful way, now we have to practically beg the UN to do things we told them they werent wanted to do before. "Would you like a side of freedom fries with that Crow?"

One bomb and they fled. Fuck the UN. Doesn't fucking matter that they were ONLY there for humanitarian reasons. That was their fucking job and they failed miserably. Do you honestly think they could have occupied and transfered power to the Iraqi people better? The place would be anarchy now if they had that responsibility. Theres only two good things the UN does, make dictators and its admin's friends wealthy, and fucking little 13 years old girls in Africa.

BTW, WHERE THE FUCK is the outrage on that? Where's the UN's moral authority now? Can they ever recover from this most humiliating of all acts? Let me wring my hands some more and pray to my idol of Kofi to find out.

...

blah blah blah

A change of President and administration would wipe the slate clean in a lot of places and give us a chance to start over in new directions, with more international help and support.

And put us right back to doing things the pre-9/11 way. Go ahead and evacuate DC and NYC while you have time.

Did you ever think of the reason we didn't keep more troops there? The first mention of all this talk of needing more troops was when the Iraqis started rampaging in the streets, looting and stealing "priceless artifacts" from their most precious of all museums in the world or some shit. More troops wouldn't have stopped that, because the shit was stolen before we even invaded... and just about all of it has been found and returned.

You do not keep more troops there because it already hard to finance this war. More troops means more costs. I think this was the only reason. Noone cares Iraqies pillaging their own museums but cares about the suicide bombings, easy-to-pass borders, militist groups, and spreading violance.
and yeah. with double force you would have double chance to find unfoundable wmods :)

'As for the Shias and Kurds and Sunnis... we had our reasons for no more troops, but they still perceived us as occupiers... so I guess we should have gone ahead and done it. More dead soldiers on the news every day would elect Kerry, so not bad afterall.'

So the more troops you deploy somewhere the more will be dead? Strange...

'Other than the fact that they disbanded themselves like smoke in the wind, I don't think the Iraqi public would have liked having the same old mob of rapists and thieves still patrolling their streets. Call me a pessimist.'

Your government knew they will need local forces to help them, they trained police and interpreters in Hungarian and Jordanian bases (and donno if anywhere else). The problem is, you have trained less then like 10K which were enough for nothing. You should have dismiss the the upper part of their army and controll the rest. Instead you let collapse their whole army, said the war is over, brough apc-back and send marines to bases, leaving streets empty and civilians being afraid of militias. (See a newseek article from some month ago, was a very nice briefing where the mistake happened).
When recognised the mistake, you have sent your troops out again and started to take losses against the militias and other resistance fighters.

'One bomb and they fled. Fuck the UN. Doesn't fucking matter that they were ONLY there for humanitarian reasons. '

It was the US who is to guarantee peace in the country and is unable to do that. You could not protect a shit there by that time. UN soldiers were not inside. Then why and how to stay?

That was their fucking job and they failed miserably.

It is the coalition who failed miserably many times. Remember? U went in without any UN support.

Do you honestly think they could have occupied and transfered power to the Iraqi people better?

Yes. They are surely better at this than Rumsfeld. The guy who donated millions for fucking corrupt fled-iraq, who brough false intelligence informations

The place would be anarchy now if they had that responsibility.

There is anarchy in Iraq anyway. People killed, kidnapped, leaders blown up dayly.

Theres only two good things the UN does, make dictators and its admin's friends wealthy, and fucking little 13 years old girls in Africa.

And? America is good only at torturing prisoners and killing women and children.

The 2 statements has the same content of justice.

Did you ever think of the reason we didn't keep more troops there? The first mention of all this talk of needing more troops was when the Iraqis started rampaging in the streets, looting and stealing "priceless artifacts" from their most precious of all museums in the world or some shit. More troops wouldn't have stopped that, because the shit was stolen before we even invaded... and just about all of it has been found and returned.
I dont give 2 shits about museum pieces. I care about securing the Eastern and western borders.
www.newyorker.com/fact/co...07fa_fact1 (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030407fa_fact1)
some highlights
On at least six occasions, the planner told me, when Rumsfeld and his deputies were presented with operational plans—the Iraqi assault was designated Plan 1003—he insisted that the number of ground troops be sharply reduced. Rumsfeld’s faith in precision bombing and his insistence on streamlined military operations has had profound consequences for the ability of the armed forces to fight effectively overseas.

The TPFDL for the war in Iraq ran to forty or more computer-generated spreadsheets, dealing with everything from weapons to toilet paper. When it was initially presented to Rumsfeld last year for his approval, it called for the involvement of a wide range of forces from the different armed services, including four or more Army divisions. Rumsfeld rejected the package, because it was “too big,” the Pentagon planner said. He insisted that a smaller, faster-moving attack force, combined with overwhelming air power, would suffice. Rumsfeld further stunned the Joint Staff by insisting that he would control the timing and flow of Army and Marine troops to the combat zone. Such decisions are known in the military as R.F.F.s—requests for forces. He, and not the generals, would decide which unit would go when and where.

Plan 1003 was repeatedly updated and presented to Rumsfeld, and each time, according to the planner, Rumsfeld said, “‘You’ve got too much ground force—go back and do it again.’” In the planner’s view, Rumsfeld had two goals: to demonstrate the efficacy of precision bombing and to “do the war on the cheap.” Rumsfeld and his two main deputies for war planning, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, “were so enamored of ‘shock and awe’ that victory seemed assured,” the planner said. “They believed that the weather would always be clear, that the enemy would expose itself, and so precision bombings would always work.”

In the months leading up to the war, a split developed inside the military, with the planners and their immediate superiors warning that the war plan was dangerously thin on troops and matériel, and the top generals—including General Tommy Franks, the head of the U.S. Central Command, and Air Force General Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—supporting Rumsfeld. After Turkey’s parliament astonished the war planners in early March by denying the United States permission to land the 4th Infantry Division in Turkey, Franks initially argued that the war ought to be delayed until the troops could be brought in by another route, a former intelligence official said. “Rummy overruled him.”

Many of the present and former officials I spoke to were critical of Franks for his perceived failure to stand up to his civilian superiors. A former senator told me that Franks was widely seen as a commander who “will do what he’s told.” A former intelligence official asked, “Why didn’t he go to the President?” A Pentagon official recalled that one senior general used to prepare his deputies for meetings with Rumsfeld by saying, “When you go in to talk to him, you’ve got to be prepared to lay your stars on the table and walk out. Otherwise, he’ll walk over you.”

Scott Ritter, the former marine and United Nations weapons inspector, who has warned for months that the American “shock and awe” strategy would not work, noted that much of the bombing has had little effect or has been counterproductive. For example, the bombing of Saddam’s palaces has freed up a brigade of special guards who had been assigned to protect them, and who have now been sent home to await further deployment. “Every one of their homes—and they are scattered throughout Baghdad—is stacked with ammunition and supplies,” Ritter told me.

There were reports last week that Iraqi exiles, including fervent Shiites, were crossing into Iraq by car and bus from Jordan and Syria to get into the fight on the side of the Iraqi government. Robert Baer, a former C.I.A. Middle East operative, told me in a telephone call from Jordan, “Everybody wants to fight. The whole nation of Iraq is fighting to defend Iraq. Not Saddam. They’ve been given the high sign, and we are courting disaster. If we take fifty or sixty casualties a day and they die by the thousands, they’re still winning. It’s a jihad, and it’s a good thing to die. This is no longer a secular war.” There were press reports of mujahideen arriving from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Algeria for “martyrdom operations.”

More dead soldiers on the news every day would elect Kerry, so not bad afterall.
I was thinking it might have been better to just deal with Iraq, and not allow it to become a free-for-all with foriegn fighters and terrorists seeing it as a "target rich environment"
Maybe we would have alot less dead if we could have secured the country, provided peace and developed a relationship with the Iraqis. Rather than have us in constant defensive mode, hunting foreign elements and normal Iraqis afraid to walk the streets.

Other than the fact that they disbanded themselves like smoke in the wind, I don't think the Iraqi public would have liked having the same old mob of rapists and thieves still patrolling their streets. Call me a pessimist.
www.washingtonpost.com/ac...ge=printer (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A63423-2003Nov19?language=printer)
Before the war, President Bush approved a plan that would have put several hundred thousand Iraqi soldiers on the U.S. payroll and kept them available to provide security, repair roads and prepare for unforeseen postwar tasks. But that project was stopped abruptly in late May by L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator in Iraq, who ordered the demobilization of Iraq's entire army, including largely apolitical conscripts.

Bremer reversed himself a month later, but by then the occupation had lost not merely time and momentum but also credibility among former soldiers and their families, an important segment of Iraq's population.

Now, the Americans are trying to recover -- including rehiring some of the same soldiers they demobilized -- at what one top Defense Department official called "warp speed." And while the administration's handling of the Iraqi army has been widely viewed as a fundamental decision of the occupation, a number of U.S. officials and analysts are saying it was fundamentally wrong.

"This was a mistake, to dissolve the army and the police," said Ayad Alawi, head of the security committee of the Iraqi Governing Council. "We absolutely not only lost time. The vacuum allowed our enemies to regroup and to infiltrate the country."

Retired Marine Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, a vocal opponent of the war, calls the move the Bush administration's "worst mistake" in postwar Iraq.

The question of what to do with the Iraqi army arose before the war. In January, two months before the battle in Iraq began, Bush assigned planning for the war and its aftermath to the Pentagon. Rumsfeld recruited Jay M. Garner, a retired Army lieutenant general, to pull together competing administration plans and to govern Baghdad after the presumed overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

Garner and his top aides, including retired Gens. Jared Bates and Ron Adams, proposed paying 300,000 to 400,000 members of the Iraqi regular army at war's end. Also, Iraqi soldiers who surrendered to advancing U.S. forces would be formed into work units. Private contractors were recruited to help make that happen.

The first idea was paying them just to get them to stand by, with more to follow. Just to keep everything calm in the first days and weeks of the occupation. It was not 'Okay, we're going to organize 10 or 15 battalions,' " Bates recalled. "The decision on standing up the new Iraqi army had not been made."

As Garner was developing the policy amid the unexpected lawlessness in Baghdad, the White House replaced him with Bremer, a terrorism specialist with high-level State Department experience. He arrived May 12 with a mandate from Bush to take firm control of the U.S. occupation.

By that time, the prewar intelligence had proved inaccurate. No Iraqi units changed sides, and the number of surrendering forces was small. Iraqis had sacked Army garrisons, and entire divisions had melted away.

Bremer soon declared in internal meetings that no Iraqi units would be reconstituted and that soldiers would not be paid. On May 23, he issued a formal order that dismissed the army and canceled pensions. The order covered many categories of Iraqis, among them war widows and disabled veterans who were senior party members, defined as any officers at the rank of colonel or above.

U.S. officials in Baghdad, including Garner and Bates, were startled.

"It came with formidable force and decisiveness, as the president's policy. Nobody was supposed to challenge it and that was that," said one U.S. official in Baghdad at the time. Another said: "There was never a discussion that I was involved in where we would disband the military. It caught me completely by surprise."

The second official, recalling violent crime in the Iraqi capital, said Iraqi commanders had offered to gather soldiers, who would be paid for their work. The Americans could easily have pulled together "a couple of thousand military police in the Baghdad region," he said. "Many of the soldiers had taken their weapons home. Some had armored vehicles."

Senior U.S. military officers in the Persian Gulf region said they had advised Slocombe that the dissolution of the army -- recognized as an institution more loyal to Iraq than to Hussein -- would harm U.S. strategy. Demobilization was "a very basic mistake," said W. Patrick Lang, a retired chief analyst for Middle Eastern affairs for the Defense Intelligence Agency.

"In fact, most of the Iraqi army officers were nationalists, and they don't want to see the country break up," Lang said. He said carefully screened Iraqi units under U.S. control "would do much better against this enemy than we can."

On June 25, five weeks after Bremer's order, U.S. authorities reversed course again. Bremer ordered payments to about 370,000 conscripts and more than 250,000 officers, said a Pentagon official, who put the bill at $250 million for one year. The U.S. administration hopes to phase out the payments by mid-2004.

I saw this some where, can't find it now. Was on cpa.org I think.. before the invasion, 60% unemployment... last Feb it was at 45% or something. But the money is still tied up in red tape, but mostly due to the security problems. You know that $87 billion? Of that $19 billion was for reconstruction, last Feb I think only like 10% of it had been spent.
See, I can be critical .. that money needs to get into their economy.
its a good thing that unemployment is lower. But Saddam had a way of keeping those unemployed in line that we dont employ. Our threshold for problems related to that is MUCH lower. One of the prime reasons FDR initiated things like the CCC was to keep young men busy, to keep them from becoming disillusioned and listening to Communist Party lackys seeking to capitalize on misery. So he got em and sent em away from the city. The New Deal was as much a social control program as it was economic recovery.
Ya.. way to much is being spent on security.. I go back to earlier points.

One bomb and they fled. Fuck the UN. Doesn't fucking matter that they were ONLY there for humanitarian reasons. That was their fucking job and they failed miserably. Do you honestly think they could have occupied and transfered power to the Iraqi people better? The place would be anarchy now if they had that responsibility. Theres only two good things the UN does, make dictators and its admin's friends wealthy, and fucking little 13 years old girls in Africa.

BTW, WHERE THE FUCK is the outrage on that? Where's the UN's moral authority now? Can they ever recover from this most humiliating of all acts? Let me wring my hands some more and pray to my idol of Kofi to find out.
Do I think the UN is worth 2 shits? No, Its like a olympic sized swimming pool thats 2 inches deep. Really wide, but no depth.
But part of winning hearts and minds is this impression that US is not acting on US intrerests alone, but on the will of the world. It gives our allies more room to move and less excuses when we ask for help. Like it or not people have this illusion about the UN. We have to deal with that and instead of turning it into a handicap as we have, we should have used it as a strength. The US can control the UN effectively, but its not easy and requires SOME giving in to certain points.
Oil for Food? yea.. we knew about it. We arent going to fix the UN, its by its nature a corrupt institution, and by neccessity as weak as it can realisitically be allowed to be.
(globalization = teh suck). But its a political reality. The correct political move would have been a deal to replace the income from oil for food with contracts in Iraq post war. Shady? Something Tony Soprano would have thought up? Yea.. welcome to the fucking UN. A nice room with a bunch fuckheads with their hands out.


And put us right back to doing things the pre-9/11 way. Go ahead and evacuate DC and NYC while you have time.
Nobody is saying that.. I just want to be smarter and STOP making so many bad decisions..

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>And put us right back to doing things the pre-9/11 way. Go ahead and evacuate DC and NYC while you have time.- Akipt<hr></blockquote>

Don't fall for the fear bullshit man. That is a tactic to scare you into believing there is only one way out of this mess.

I'm sorry L2, but I really don't think another round with the UN would have changed things at all.

3 of the 5 security council members have/had a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Nothing was going to change. Just as it hadn't in 10 years.

Someone said it best earlier on. We shouldv'e dismantled the upper echelons of the Iraqi military regime, installed known good commanders and kept idle hands busy with make work if needed.

I do believe there is a sizable cash pool just waiting to be released into the Iraqi economy once power is turned over to the Iraqi government. Once that happens, and hopefully they ask for help rebuilding still, I think you'll see a massive turnaround.

Fandros

I do believe there is a sizable cash pool just waiting to be released into the Iraqi economy once power is turned over to the Iraqi government. Once that happens, and hopefully they ask for help rebuilding still, I think you'll see a massive turnaround.
This is the kicker of that whole idea isnt it. Im still not sure how we expect 2 warring factions of religious zealots to participate in a government that makes them all equal. They dont believe all men were created equal. They just dont think like we do and arent going to act like it.

'The place would be anarchy now'

- :rollin

'Theres only two good things the UN does, make dictators and its admin's friends wealthy, and fucking little 13 years old girls in Africa.'

- There's only two good things the US does. Support dictators and pit them against eachother, selling weapons and so forth to make themselves wealthy, and fucking vietnamese girls or sexually abusing Iraqi prisoners.

See how stupid you are becoming mate?
You're trying to paint everyone who opposses the war as bad. Keep going :p

At least he was smart enough to only list two things when he said "There's only two good things".

He's also a bit more on target than statements like "selling weapons and so forth to make themselves wealthy".

To answer the original question, we're better off.

Ask yourself this: Do you think terrorists would have an easier time now or 4 years ago?

They not only have fewer countries that are willing to give them haven, they are actively hunted in several countries they used to be safe in. Their topmost leaders are dead, in jail, or hiding under a rock. The countries they would like to target have become much harder to attack than they used to be.

The articles you linked support this conclusion: 18,000 is after the 2000 dead or captured(meaning 20000+ potential terrorists at large before), half of their senior leaders are dead or in custody, they lost a major recruiting magnet and training/command/operations base. They are forced to disperse and depend on locals who are more easily infiltrated by our security and intelligence agencies.

Lleauaric, try not to post articles over a year old and pass them off as relevant(such as the march 2003 new yorker one you linked talking about how hard the war was going to be with people coming in over the borders).


I was thinking it might have been better to just deal with Iraq, and not allow it to become a free-for-all with foriegn fighters and terrorists seeing it as a "target rich environment"
Maybe we would have alot less dead if we could have secured the country, provided peace and developed a relationship with the Iraqis.


The country was taken at a breakneck pace with an incredibly low amount of casualties(and could have been lower still if the Coalition were to care as little about civilian deaths as they've been accused). Since March of 2003 there have been 910 Coalition soldiers(800 US, 59 UK, 51 from other countries) killed, just using a quick comparison there were 7040 killed in the Tet offensive alone during the Vietnam War..for the UK, compare to 236 lost during the Faulkland War(March-June 1982).

Maybe looking back there are ways it could have been reduced further(hindsight is 20/20 after all), but to suggest as you seem to that it was done so poorly and we should condem the people responsible for the planning is ludicrous.

I agree, the invasion of AFGANISTAN was a great success in fighting terrorism, but has the War in Iraq helped us at all? If it has, and was a Battle in the War on Terror, then what have we succeeded in doing? If it wasnt, then did we take our eye off the ball?
Was Afganistan 2 steps foward and Iraq 1 step back?
It seems so.

But Crist0.. NONE of that matters, if it means their numbers are swelling and there are, what, 10, 20 times the amount of terrorist attacks that there were before all this?

It doesn't matter if they have less countries to go too, if they recieve less support, if they have a harder time.
The facts speak for themselves. Incredible increase in numbers, let alone a larger pool of recruiters, and how many terrorist attacks since the invasion, god knows.


Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. But now it has everything to do with it. Bin Laden is rubbing his hands, and you fucking know it.

Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism.

Excuse me Halo, but wouldn't the cash rewards that Saddam was dooling out to the homicide bombers surviving family an incentive?

Wasn't the training camps found in Iraq SOMETHING?

Take the blinders off son, and stop munching at Saddam and Bin Laden's cottens.

Help fight the good fight.

Fandros

The facts speak for themselves. Incredible increase in numbers, let alone a larger pool of recruiters, and how many terrorist attacks since the invasion, god knows.

Uhh...where exactly are these "facts"? I believe what you're paraphrasing (badly, I might add, but that's par for the course for you) is thisthink tank (http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E11676%257E2171943,00.html). Hardly an "incredible increase in numbers".
Excerpts:
The London institute said its estimate of 18,000 al-Qaeda fighters was based on intelligence estimates that the group trained at least 20,000 fighters in its camps in Afghanistan before the United States and its allies ousted the Taliban regime.

Seems to me to be a decrease in numbers, but ya might wanna check the math on that.

--Cen

It doesn't matter if they have less countries to go too, if they recieve less support, if they have a harder time.


Those things don't matter?

Over here in what we like to call the "real world" those things matter a great deal.


Bin Laden is rubbing his hands, and you fucking know it.


Bin Laden is stuck under a rock somewhere with his tail between his legs hiding so he doesn't join the half of his senior leaders that are dead or in prison.

Help fight the good fight.
Yes there must be some people somewhere who are in prison for nothing that havent been tortured and humiliated yet.

You just posted a ton of reasons why Rumsfeld single handedly kicked all kinds of whoop ass. That article, as Crist0 pointed out already, was during the first month of the war. "Faltering" LMAO. Never in history has any army kicked so much ass and done so much as our Iraq invasion.

We should have killed more. The enemy vanished before we even got into the Sunni triangle. Perhaps if Turkey had let our 2nd Armored (I think) invade from the north from Turkey, Iraq would be quite different today. Who knows, it's all armchair quarterbacking. We're adapting, the new Iraqi army is adapting, and we're winning.

But I suppose your argument finally comes to light when Bremer disbanded the old Iraq army. I don't like Bremer, but he had his reasons. How many Iraqi people loathed the Baathists? How many people could ignore what they had to endure while under Saddam's rule? Oh shit, we just turned 300,000 people lose with weapons. Well fuck, doesn't EVERYONE have a weapon in Iraq already? Nothing new.

I've looked hard for pleas from any on the governing council to reinstate it at the time. I can't find any. Glaringly, I see Chalibi called for its disbandment. That alone almost makes me think it was a bad decision. Anyway, we were already re-enlisting them by the time the council was really formed. So another damned if you do and damned if you don't situation... only good for more arm chair quarterbacking.

The US can control the UN effectively, but its not easy and requires SOME giving in to certain points.
Oil for Food? yea.. we knew about it. We arent going to fix the UN, its by its nature a corrupt institution, and by neccessity as weak as it can realisitically be allowed to be.
(globalization = teh suck). But its a political reality. The correct political move would have been a deal to replace the income from oil for food with contracts in Iraq post war. Shady? Something Tony Soprano would have thought up? Yea.. welcome to the fucking UN. A nice room with a bunch fuckheads with their hands out.

How many times have you posted the pic with Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand? Yet you actually want us to do the exact same foreign policy with the UN. Worse yet, you wish to have the UN dictate to us what we can and cannot do. It's worse than hipocracy, and certainly not the "same difference."

Nobody is saying that.. I just want to be smarter and STOP making so many bad decisions..

Kerry is SAYING THAT:

Repeal the Patriot Act -> Pre 9/11.

Fight the War on Terror as a police and law enforcement policy, just like Clinton -> Pre 9/11.

Yes there must be some people somewhere who are in prison for nothing that havent been tortured and humiliated yet.


Who was tortured? Who was in prison for nothing?

If you were referring to Abu Ghraib in your own "special" way, you might want to take note that the prisoners involved were the worst of the worst not some Joe off the street, and they were abused not tortured.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>+Should have brought more troops, +Should not have dismissed the entire iraqi army and dismantled the entire governmental appartus overnight +Should have launched a massive "New Deal" type program to keep young unemployed Iraqis off the streets and working, sending home money. +Should have played one more round of patty cake with UN, not for the achievement of any result, but to gain international support in a more meaningful way, now we have to practically beg the UN to do things we told them they werent wanted to do before. "Would you like a side of freedom fries with that Crow?" +should have had better intelligence. This is a tough criticism, I know, and a bit monday morning quarterbackish, but ultimatly who is responisble if you trust lies? Garbage In, Garbage Out. If you are going to commit American lives and American troops, you better be damn sure you are going on not just good information, but rock solid information. God forgive you if you are wrong. Bad intell seems to be the root cause of almost ALL our problems here in Iraq.<hr></blockquote>

L2, read again slowly. Those aren't solutions to our current problems. What you posted sir, was hindsight.

Zehn,
You said nobody has been offering different solutions.
So start presenting options. You can scream "There must be a better way!" until you're blue in the face, but unless someone starts actually thinking up these magical 'better ways' I'll continue to nod my head towards the "Kill 'em all" philosophy simply because either way they're giong to start blowing shit up in America so we might as well get our body counts worth.

"someone" has magically thought up better ways, they are just being ignored or not taken at every step.
People have been offering different paths ALL ALONG. Its not like nobody was saying these things.. They were, they were just ignored.
The only hindsight is the adminstration should be saying "Oh, maybe we should have listened to them"
If people tell you "dont eat the yellow snow" "dont eat the yellow snow, try the white snow instead" and you go ahead and eat the yellow snow, you cant claim nobody had a better plan than eating the yellow snow.

You just posted a ton of reasons why Rumsfeld single handedly kicked all kinds of whoop ass. That article, as Crist0 pointed out already, was during the first month of the war. "Faltering" LMAO. Never in history has any army kicked so much ass and done so much as our Iraq invasion.
There was once a place called Sparta. They had a mighty army and it kicked all kinds of ass. They one day went to war against another city, called Athens. Sparta kicked the shit out of Athens and claimed the City and pre-dominance over the Greek Penisula.
However, in the mismanagement of the peace, Sparta lost a city it took them 30 years to defeat in war in less than 2 years. Athens rose in rebellion, and led the rest of the Greek Peninsula and destroyed Sparta.
The historical lesson here is that winning the peace is as crucial as winning the battlefield.
Another example are the Huns. They were as dominate a fighting force that ever assembled. They could defeat any army in the field. When they lost, when they were defeated was in the peace, in the holding of Terroritory.
It serves no purpose to take ground you cannot hold.
In the case of Iraq, "holding ground" takes a much deeper definition. Holding ground is defined as the taking root of a positive Iraqi government that will be a force for change and weakening of Terrorism in the region.
Great, our tanks and technology can outmanuver and and outgun any army on the face of this planet.
We can destroy. But what good is that if we cannot build? We merely create a vacuum in which forces maybe worse than what we removed can find space to exist.

Yet you actually want us to do the exact same foreign policy with the UN. Worse yet, you wish to have the UN dictate to us what we can and cannot do. It's worse than hipocracy, and certainly not the "same difference."
No. The art of politics is to make a person do something you want him to do and believe that its what he wants to do. Chirac and the German premier (name escapes me at the moment) are certainly assholes, but it is innaccurate to compare them to Saddam.
And why shouldnt we play that game with France, Germany and Russia? We have no problem doing it with North Korea, we bribe China to Bribe North Korea to engage in talks about disarming. Is Kim Il Jong and The Heathen Chinese COmmunists more appropriate to pay off than Putin? Like it, dont like it, its the way things are done have always been done and will always continue to be done. Its a cesspool.
How many of our "coalition" partners had their hand out for something in return for joining us.. besides Britain, you better believe all of em.

Kerry is SAYING THAT:

Repeal the Patriot Act -> Pre 9/11.

Fight the War on Terror as a police and law enforcement policy, just like Clinton -> Pre 9/11.
Thats inaccurate
&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp
We are a nation of laws and liberties, not of a knock in the night. So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft.

That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time. I’ve been a District Attorney and I know that what law enforcement needs are real tools not restrictions on American’s basic rights.

Much of what is in Patriot Act are good ideas. The Act increased penalties for terrorists, limited the statute of limitations for terrorist crimes, and allowed for greater prosecution of overseas acts against America. I fought to include important money laundering restrictions to clamp down on the cash flowing to terrorist enterprises. I had been pushing for these ideas since the late nineties – and after September 11th they were more important than ever.

I voted for the Patriot Act right after September 11th – convinced that – with a sunset clause – it was the right decision to make. It clearly wasn’t a perfect bill – and it had a number of flaws – but this wasn’t the time to haggle. It was the time to act.

But George Bush and John Ashcroft abused the spirit of national action after the terrorist attacks. They have used the Patriot Act in ways that were never intended and for reasons that have nothing to do with terrorism. That’s why, as President, I will propose new anti-terrorism laws that advance the War on Terror while ending the assault on our basic rights.
Agree, dont agree, he isnt advocating a return to pre 9/11 systems.

www.washtimes.com/national/20040418-113744-5087r.htm (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040418-113744-5087r.htm)
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry said yesterday that he will treat the war on terror "primarily" as law-enforcement action even as he pledged to remain committed to Iraq and to personally plead for international help in policing and rebuilding that nation.Law enforcement. We don't serve people who declare war on us with arrest warrants. The President isn't a policeman, as you're always comparing him. He wages war to defend the nation, and that doesn't leave nice and pretty little corpses for the press to take pictures of when justice is metted out.

Germany has the only conviction of any of the plotters of 9/11. You know, they barely sentenced him to 10 years I think. He stayed in prison for less than 2 years and was released. You know why? Because his lawyers and the German government played the court system just like OJ Simpson did, and now the mother fucker is free.

Kerry also has a foreign relations problem. He supports the death penalty (until he waffles on that) for all terrorists. It's a rare country that will extradite a terrorist to our country because of our death penalty. Where's that put the known terrorists if Kerry happens to catch one? In another court just like Germany.

Go ahead, vote for Kerry. All the terrorists would.

He isn't advocating much of anything except the repeal of the anti-terrorism legislation since 9/11.

What new terrorism laws are being proposed by Kerry to replace the ones he wants repealed?

Excuse me Halo, but wouldn't the cash rewards that Saddam was dooling out to the homicide bombers surviving family an incentive?

Almost all arabian country supports suicide bombers of palestines, their families, children. Many Jews send money to Israel to support their war. and? If this is such a huge problem then go and invade half of the world. And yeah, recognise, this support money went to the Hamas not to Al-Q, which organization known against Saddam and Vica Versa. And if you invaded Iraq for paying 10k USD for like fourty families who is terrorizing Israel, it a lol. Unbelievable how such a small and relatively unimportant country 'controlls' the leading nation of the world.

Wasn't the training camps found in Iraq SOMETHING?

what [training camps], sir?

Help fight the good fight.

You seemed to be more realistic than this. All helped the good fight [afghanistan] Iraq is a different story. You [US] are almost alone who think this is a 'good' fight. Other thinks its a deep shit, and Mr. Dubya eating it for false reasons.

We should have killed more

akipt, you fucking astound me. Human life really means close to nothing to you? If this is your mentality, go kill yourself. After all, its just one insignificant civilian life.

After all, its just one insignificant civilian life.

Don't be a tard Grumblin. No nation on the planet takes more initiative and care to NOT kill civilians. Saddam's army and now terrorists (who were my targets in that post) are the ones who completely disregarded any sanctity of life.

And now we're paying for it against an enemy that just plain doesn't give a fuck whether they gather a crowd of elderly and school children to shoot from behind, store caches of weapons in "holy" places, or cut off the head of one of the people trying to rebuild their country.

'Don't be a tard Grumblin. No nation on the planet takes more initiative and care to NOT kill civilians'

- Wait a sec. How is that true? The civilian death toll in this war, as with Afghanistan, is hurrendous.
Let me quote General Tommy Franks, "We don't do body counts." Allow me.

www.iraqbodycount.net/ (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/)

'Min - 9153
Max - 11010'

hawaii.ms11.net//civilian.htm (http://hawaii.ms11.net//civilian.htm)

'"Thousands are dead, thousands are missing, thousands are captured," says Haidar Taie, head of the tracing department for the Iraqi Red Crescent in Baghdad. "It is a big disaster."'

'Evidence is mounting to suggest that between 5,000 and 10,000 Iraqi civilians may have died during the recent war, according to researchers involved in independent surveys of the country'

www.melbourne.indymedia.o.../58992.php (http://www.melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2003/12/58992.php)

'On November 11, 2003, IPPNW’s UK affiliate, Medact, issued a report estimating that the death toll from the war ranged between 21,700 and 55,000 combatants and civilians, with civilian casualties accounting for 7,757 to 9,565 of that number'

'According to independent research data published on the website iraqbodycount.org, there have been more than 1,500 violent civilian deaths in occupied Baghdad alone since the declared end of the war, and at least 20,000 Iraqi civilians were injured during the war. '

www.mediainfo.com/eandp/n...id=1920081 (http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1920081)

'covering the period from March 20, the war's beginning, to April 20, when the fighting abated. The tally: 3,240 civilians died throughout the country, with 1,896 of those in Baghdad alone'

'www.cursor.org/stories/ci...eaths.htm' (http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm')

'What causes the documented high level of civilian casualties -
3,000 - 3,400 [October 7, 2001 thru March 2002] civilian deaths -- in the U.S. air war upon Afghanistan? The explanation is the apparent willingness of U.S. military strategists to fire missiles into and drop bombs upon, heavily populated areas of Afghanistan'

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...740538.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1740538.stm)

'Nearly 3,800 Afghans died between 7 October and 7 December, University of New Hampshire Professor Marc Herold said in a research report...His report, which places the death toll at 3,767, lists the number of casualties, location, type of weapon and source of information.'

"But Halo, death in war is unavoidable, wahh wahh wahh"
Fuck you, bitch. Careful? The mere overwhelming tolls, coupled with the unwillingness to even count the death, and the sickening fact that hardly *any* investigations are taken under way - shows the world how fucking careful YOU are, mother fucker.

I was actually getting sick and tired of debating the same old shit with you Akipt (and you're talking to a guy who's done it to some of the biggest wankers around, for 3 years). But fuck it. Come on. I'll spank you in to next week mate. And your little bitch Crist0, and your cocksucking buddy Osgiliath.

Let's get freaky, gentlemen.

Hmm blame Clinton for "lack" of effort against Terror? Try blaming Republicans.
www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/cl...terrorism/ (http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/)

Also in 1996, President Clinton signed Airport Security measures into law (www.cnn.com/US/9610/09/faa/) (http://www.cnn.com/US/9610/09/faa/)) based upon wide-ranging security measures recommended by Vice President Al Gore's aviation security commission (www.washingtonpost.com/ac...=printer). (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17818-2001Dec9?language=printer).) Interestingly, key senators on the Senate Aviation Subcommittee shot down mandated changes recommended by Gore and the White House and instead urged "further study." (Eight of the nine Republicans on the subcommittee had received contributions from the major airlines.)

"Among those attacking the Gore Commission recommendations, incidentally, was the New Republic, which noted that "two billion dollars a year to guard against terrorism and sabotage" would amount to "a cost per life saved of well over $300 million." The cost of such libertarian dogma must now be measured in thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars." (salon.com)


www.washingtonpost.com/wp...082398.htm (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/eafricabombing/stories/strikes082398.htm)

Heres a list of all the other things that happened in Clintons term of Office.
- sent legislation to Congress to TIGHTEN AIRPORT SECURITY. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.

-- sent legislation to Congress to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF TERRORIST FUNDING. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.

-- sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF EXPLOSIVES USED BY TERRORISTS. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.

-- Developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator.

-- FBI Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.

-- CIA Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.

-- FBI Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.

-- CIA Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.

-- FBI Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Boston airport.

-- FBI and NYPD Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY.

-- FBI and NYPD Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.

-- CIA Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania.

-- CIA and Pentagon Tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).

-- FBI Brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.

-- Did not blame Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after they had left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively -- and successfully -- to stop future terrorist attacks.

-- Named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.

-- Tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism.

-- Detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries

-- Created a national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.

-- Robert Oakley, Reagan Counterterrorism Czar says of Clinton's efforts "Overall, I give them very high marks" and "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama"

-- Paul Bremer, Bush's Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley saying he believed the Clinton Administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden. "

-- Barton Gellman of the Washington Post put it best, "By any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him" and was the "first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort."

And besides... I dont see how you can denounce treating terrorism prevention as anything other than a Law Enforcement matter. You can CALL it anything you want, CALL it a WAR if it makes you feel better, but the bottom line is there are essential things you have to do.
-Identify and search for suspected Terrorists.
-Track the flow of Money, freeze it before it reaches terrorist hands.
-Detain and question individuals with information
-Wire Taps
-Informants
-Sting Operations.

Our BEST defense against a Terrorist attack isnt a Bradley Fighting Vehicle, its an FBI Agent, Or a CIA operative. You know, Law Enforcement and Intelligence.

I think that had alot less to do with Clinton and alot more to the escalation of terrorist attacks on our interests. His ideas were to put a lot of bandaids on everything, treat the symptoms instead of the disease.

It is very humorous to see you state things like "defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines"..aren't you the guy that bitched up a storm when others posted things like this about Kerry? There wasn't even the jumping to conclusions when it was done to him.

It is ok to broadly say "Republicans did this and they did it because they got cash from the airlines"? but not say "Kerry voted against almost every modern military vehicle in use today, and even body armor for the troops"?

Why is it so horrible to list Kerry's actual voting record but just peachy to not only list "Republican" voting records but tell us why they did it(with your l337 hartmut infoz)? Fuck's sake, you have a nice double standard going on there LLeauaric.

Also, I'm wondering why you give credit for law enforcement's busts to Clinton? Was he there, hands on? Is it ok then for us to take every terrorist plot that has been stopped under Bush and credit him for it? Is it ok to look at the budgets for counterterrorism now and praise Bush because he doubled or tripled or more what Clinton spent?

By your Clinton standards, Bush is the best president ever in regards to terrorism.

I remember Clinton's war on terror..launch a couple cruise missiles and call it good!


I dont see how you can denounce treating terrorism prevention as anything other than a Law Enforcement matter.


I don't see how you can classify counterterrorism as anything other than a war.


Our BEST defense against a Terrorist attack isnt a Bradley Fighting Vehicle, its an FBI Agent, Or a CIA operative. You know, Law Enforcement and Intelligence.


You are stupid.

I mean that. You think we should scale back everything to just reaction to what they do instead of actively going after the threat?

If you had your way we'd leave them alone to shack up in safe country x and train and research and buy with impunity, until one day instead of trying to stop a guy with a boxcutter we'd be trying to stop a guy with a nuclear weapon or a biological agent.

You want to call it a "war". Great, jerk yourself off with empty meaningless rhetoric.
Afganistan was a War
Iraq was a War

YOU CANT DECLARE WAR ON A CONCEPT. K? Who knows, maybe if we win vs Terror we can declare "War on Ennui"

Like the war on Drugs, like the war on Illiteracy. Its jargon and words, used to achieve domestic politcal objectives.
The bottom line is the people who are going to protect us from Terrorism are FBI agents, CIA Agents, State and Local Police agencies. The US Coast Guard, Border Patrol and FAA.

His ideas were to put a lot of bandaids on everything, treat the symptoms instead of the disease
Check the links I posted again, he did a lot more than that.

It is ok to broadly say "Republicans did this and they did it because they got cash from the airlines"? but not say "Kerry voted against almost every modern military vehicle in use today, and even body armor for the troops"?
Yes, when his votes mirrored Dick Cheneys suggested cuts.
www.boston.com/news/natio...ed?mode=PF (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/04/29/cheneys_past_defense_cuts_questioned?mode=PF)

The bottom line is that republicans so intent on fucking with Clinton at every possible turn, rejected or voted down several key issues that Bush later adopted in his Patriot Act.
Once again.
www.rememberjohn.com/clintongore.html (http://www.rememberjohn.com/clintongore.html)
it shows SEVERAL things that Clinton did, some of them voted down by Partisan Republicans or Special Intrests.
From the Sept 20th, 2001 New York Times article by Tim Weiner and David Cay Johnston
But present and former government officials say that since the mid- 1990's, they did not fully use the legal tools they had to wage this difficult fight. "We could have starved the organization if we put our minds to it," said Richard Palmer, who gained experience in money laundering as the Central Intelligence Agency's station chief in Moscow during the 1990's.

"The government has had the ability to track these accounts for some time." Congress is now reviving a proposal killed last year by Senator Phil Gramm, the Texas Republican who was then chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.

The bill, introduced by the Clinton administration, would give the Treasury Secretary broad power to bar foreign countries and banks from access to the American financial market unless they cooperated with money-laundering investigations. It was strongly opposed by the banking industry and Mr. Gramm.

"I was right then and I am right now" in opposing the bill, Mr. Gramm said yesterday. He called the bill "totalitarian" and added, "The way to deal with terrorists is to hunt them down and kill them."

But the bill is gathering support from both parties. "I would be amazed if there is not a sea change," said Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat, who is sponsoring the bill with Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa. He said the opposition was based on "ridiculously phony" arguments.
How about
www.airportnet.org/depts/...hr3909.htm (http://www.airportnet.org/depts/federal/legislat/hr3909.htm)
www.epic.org/privacy/terr...10_96.html (http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/WH_fact_sheet_10_96.html)
www.epic.org/privacy/terr...uly96.html (http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fact_sheet_july96.html)
The Gun Lobby Weighs In (http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/goa_statement.txt)

Why is it so horrible to list Kerry's actual voting record but just peachy to not only list "Republican" voting records but tell us why they did it(with your l337 hartmut infoz)? Fuck's sake, you have a nice double standard going on there LLeauaric.
The reason is simple, you cant say Clinton didnt DO anything, when he did. Certain things he tried to do were voted down because they didnt not have the political will behind them. Bush adopted many of these SAME ideas, only difference is he had the political tsunami of 9/11 to ram them home. Did these people have valid reasons for voting down those bills, im sure they did, Im also sure that special interest lobbiests played a role, as they always do, on both sides of the aisle

Also, I'm wondering why you give credit for law enforcement's busts to Clinton? Was he there, hands on? Is it ok then for us to take every terrorist plot that has been stopped under Bush and credit him for it? Is it ok to look at the budgets for counterterrorism now and praise Bush because he doubled or tripled or more what Clinton spent?
I think you need to read that again. Each and every time I listed the agency that prevented the attack.
They all were, however, during the administration of Clinton. How broken could his approach of Law Enforcement have been if Law Enforcement stopped all these attacks?
If you want to give Bush and his leadership credit for not allowing any breakdowns since 9/11, yes, thats fair.

By your Clinton standards, Bush is the best president ever in regards to terrorism.

I remember Clinton's war on terror..launch a couple cruise missiles and call it good!
I dont know if he was the best, but he wasnt idle and he considered it a top priority. he was active in many ways to go after terrorists.
And the Cruise missles?
Jesus, yes, he went after Bin Laden, and republicans FUCKING CRUCIFIED him for it, called it "wagging the dog", accused him of creating this huge distraction.
Do you understand the concept of Political Will?
It allows a President to do certain things. Like invade a country.
Bush had a metric fuck ton of it after 9/11. He no longer has it. Even if he REALLY wanted to, he couldnt launch an invasion vs Iran or Syria without some event to raise polticial will to the appropriate level. This is why the Administration wants to keep calling it "The War on Terror". Not because its an actual war, but the calling it a war creates Political Will for him and allows for more freedom of action.
A President really is a slave in a lot of respects to this force, its what they do when they have it that counts.

Saying all Clinton did was lob a few missles is a GROSS mistatement. I know you probably werent aware of all the facts, now you are. To repeat it now is a lie.


I don't see how you can classify counterterrorism as anything other than a war.
because it isnt. Its that simple.


You are stupid.
/rolls eyes.

I mean that. You think we should scale back everything to just reaction to what they do instead of actively going after the threat?

If you had your way we'd leave them alone to shack up in safe country x and train and research and buy with impunity, until one day instead of trying to stop a guy with a boxcutter we'd be trying to stop a guy with a nuclear weapon or a biological agent.
Again, blatent mistatement. Can you at least TRY to pay attention to reality?
The fact is, WMDs are going to be out there. North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, where-ever. You cannot keep the Genie in the bottle, its out, and they are only going to become more, and more common and more and more readily availble and more and more easy to produce.
What you CAN do is keep our detection, our intelligence, our LAW ENFORCEMENT ahead of the curve. Homeland Security isnt in the Pentagon. Its a LAW ENFORCEMENT apparatus.
You want to declare war on terrorists? Great, but you are fighting the battles with law enforcement weapons.

*Ring, ring. Ring, ring.*
"Hello, this is the Whitehouse, who's calling please? OK, one moment."
*Ring, ring. Ring, ring.*
"Hello?"
"Hello Mr.President, Terrorism is on line one for you, says he wants to negotiate."
"Exxcccellllent. Smithers, release the hounds!"

Arguing with an avid anti-war freak who produces "facts" from an anti-war site about the war in which we're arguing.... hahaha, pointless.

So anyway, since you can't do any better, I'll make do.
Reading ahead, you bounced around all over the fucking place and produced so many different body counts, I cant stop laughing long enough to finish the post. You start out talking about Afghanistan and then give us the site with Iraq's body count.

I'll just stick with the first ones in Iraq .. afterall it's all just...

SPECULATION. SPECULATION. SPECULATION... anyway right?

- Wait a sec. How is that true? The civilian death toll in this war, as with Afghanistan, is hurrendous.
Let me quote General Tommy Franks, "We don't do body counts." Allow me.
www.iraqbodycount.net/
'Min - 9153
Max - 11010'

We'll go with 10,000.

Using UNICEF's statistics- 36,000 Iraqis were dying each year due to the UN Sanctions. There's no count for the number of civilians killed due to Saddam's security apparatus, intelligence networks, and all around rapists and thugs who put people feet first into meat grinders as their family watched. We'll go with an additional 13,000 to keep it safe, since we know he killed AT LEAST 400,000 in his 30 year reign. So Saddam was averaging about 49,000 murders per year during his last years in power.

Now for your 10,000. How many of those deaths are due to Saddam loyalists holding civilians at gun point while they spray bullets at our troops?

So anyway, 49,000 versus 10,000 -which is probably inflated to sell their anti-war view anyway. Pretty damned good.

So let's look where you're getting your "facts" shall we.

They get their numbers from... drum roll please... al-Jazeera and two other anti-war groups. Highly suspect Halo, highly suspect. tsk tsk tsk

"But Halo, death in war is unavoidable, wahh wahh wahh"
Fuck you, bitch. Careful? The mere overwhelming tolls, coupled with the unwillingness to even count the death, and the sickening fact that hardly *any* investigations are taken under way - shows the world how fucking careful YOU are, mother fucker.

Oooo I get excited seeing you get all embellished. Imbedded reporters, complete access to all International aid oranizations ... nah, we're hiding it all from you Halo.

Your hands look chaffed from all that wringing, get some aloe.

But fuck it. Come on. I'll spank you in to next week mate. And your little bitch Crist0, and your cocksucking buddy Osgiliath.

YEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGHHHH moment?

Dean would be impressed.

YOU CANT DECLARE WAR ON A CONCEPT


I didn't say declare war on terror, I said counterterrorism IS a war. Your denial of the fact doesn't change it.

Oh, and as for Kerry's brilliance on the terrorism issue, I discovered an interesting fact tonight...2 years after the first attack on the WTC(1995) he was the sole sponsor of a bill to cut intelligence by $1.5 billion.

That's the man you want in the White House deciding our policy about this?

I'll say it again because the hat fits you so well on this one..You are stupid.

Hmm blame Clinton for "lack" of effort against Terror? Try blaming Republicans.

You even read the article? Hatch called it a phony issue, because Clinton didn't the Senate's approval to "study bomb taggents." All politics while he was getting head in the Oval.

"Among those attacking the Gore Commission recommendations, incidentally, was the New Republic, which noted that "two billion dollars a year to guard against terrorism and sabotage" would amount to "a cost per life saved of well over $300 million."

... The New Republic is a moderate to liberal magazine. You should read it some time.

Heres a list of all the other things that happened in Clintons term of Office.

.... yup all good law enforcement things. We'll ignore all the bull shit about the Gorelick memo strengthing the wall between intelligence agencies even more... but Clinton lacked offense, becuase he was o damned worried about the legal ramifications of it all.

Our BEST defense against a Terrorist attack isnt a Bradley Fighting Vehicle, its an FBI Agent, Or a CIA operative. You know, Law Enforcement and Intelligence.
... All good defense. With the Patriot Act, an administration that knows an enemy combatant when he sees one, and all the best our country has to offer makes a damned good formidle wall that terrorists are going to be hard pressed to get through I hope.

But you're cutting yourself off at the knees by not recognizing it as a war. bin Laden declared war on us FIVE times publically during Clinton's administration. After ignoring Sudan's offer to hand bin Laden over to us ... All he did was lob some missiles into empty tents using intelligence from double agents from Pakistan. At a very highly charged politically inopportune moment mind you with little results.

YOU CANT DECLARE WAR ON A CONCEPT. K?

Damn, I actually think you get it sometimes L2. We can't no more declare war on terror than declare war on tanks. Terror is the means in which they war on us. Thus the reason from the outset that Bush has told us that it's probably going to last decades.

Like the war on Drugs, like the war on Illiteracy. Its jargon and words, used to achieve domestic politcal objectives.

Except you want it to be something else, not a war. It was a good time when drugs or illiteracy were the greatest threats to our civilization. But since you think we can stay on the defense with no offense, might as pack it up and go home while you still have one to go to.

Yes, when his votes mirrored Dick Cheneys suggested cuts.

Cut backs after the Cold War... and then Kerry wanted to cut back even more. That's not a mirror.
"I was right then and I am right now" in opposing the bill, Mr. Gramm said yesterday. He called the bill "totalitarian" and added, "The way to deal with terrorists is to hunt them down and kill them."Clinton and Gramm are both right, they just didn't meet in the middle.

Which brings me back to your last statement..

Saying all Clinton did was lob a few missles is a GROSS mistatement. I know you probably werent aware of all the facts, now you are. To repeat it now is a lie.

And saying he did everything he could is a GROSS mistatement. Not that you are, I don't know what the fuck you're saying because you posted too damned much for me to catch up on in one hour at midnight. Fuck you for posting so much.

The fact is, WMDs are going to be out there. North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, where-ever. You cannot keep the Genie in the bottle, its out, and they are only going to become more, and more common and more and more readily availble and more and more easy to produce.

And you refuse to look at history when it comes to Clinton. Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan all became nuclear under Clinton's reign. North Korea is a fucking catastrophe of massive proportions. Thank you noble Peace Prize Winner Carter. Gah.

Anyway, stop restricting yourself to just law enforcement L2, it will take everything we've got to win.

Oh well, IF womd went to terrorists or any other badass, they will most likely use em on america.
Look on the bright side: The EP rotation would be solved :)

'So anyway, since you can't do any better, I'll make do.
Reading ahead, you bounced around all over the fucking place and produced so many different body counts, I cant stop laughing long enough to finish the post.'

- Lesson One: Comprehsion..
That's what war body counts are like. When the killers don't keep a toll (because they don't seem to give a shit, you know, the people who are the most careful in the world "We don't do body counts"). No accurate tolls can be kept, and thus approximates and estimates are calculated.

'You start out talking about Afghanistan and then give us the site with Iraq's body count.'

- Lesson Two: Reading..
Are you sure? Look at this..
'The civilian death toll in this war, as with Afghanistan, is hurrendous. '
Red face?

'afterall it's all just...
SPECULATION. SPECULATION. SPECULATION... anyway right?'

- Lesson Three: Concepts..
Wrong. Every approximation is based upon reports, evidence, witnesses, records, research and organizational support. As you have yet to grasp Lesson Two, let me quote it for you..
'...head of the tracing department...in Baghdad...'
'...according to researchers involved in independent surveys of the country...'
'University of New Hampshire Professor Marc Herold said in a research report...His report...lists the number of casualties, location, type of weapon and source of information'
Ya see? Not some Liberal sitting at home going "Yaargghh matey, look like there be a lot of killin in that there war. I reckon about 7500 ppl are dead! Yeargh!"

'So Saddam was averaging about 49,000 murders per year during his last years in power.'

- Lesson Four: Topic..
Wow, that's great. But we're talking about the carefulness, or carelesness, of US forces. But thanks for telling me what I already know.
However, if, in the hurrendously stupid case, you are trying to prove that US forces are in the "good" with their 10, 000 dead civilians, because a brutal tyrant killed thousands more.. then.. I won't bother with a come back. I'll just let the forum cringe at your argument, along with me. "Hey we're the good guys! We've killed less than Saddam has!" Oh brother.

'Now for your 10,000. How many of those deaths are due to Saddam loyalists holding civilians at gun point while they spray bullets at our troops? '

- Lesson Five: Morals..
While I'm pretty sure that the number of "human shields" are eclipsed by US bombs falling on residential areas, I'm finding it hard to feel that it's any better for the US if you're shooting civilian human shields, rather than just civilians on their own. Unless.. you think it's better?
Mate, that argument ain't gonna hold up very well when you have 10, 000 dead civilians in this war alone. Does that sound careful to you? Seriously?

'So anyway, 49,000 versus 10,000 -which is probably inflated to sell their anti-war view anyway. Pretty damned good.'

- Lesson Six: Sickening ignorance..
This comes with Lesson Four, pretty much. But comparing yourself with a brutal dictator who has mass-graves a plenty.. spewing about anti-war propoganda. and then saying 10, 000 DEAD PEOPLE, women, children.. is "pretty damned good" anyway?
Ten Thousand people, Akipt. Three, four times the amount of the World Trade Centre bombings.
I'm somewhat certain those you went to liberate, wouldn't agree.

Six Lessons.
Reply to me. Explain those away with "Anti-war, so it's not true!!11" .. "Ten thousand dead peeps is cool anyway.. Shuld b more hahahrhahahdhndnahaha"
Got more lessons to teach. When I run out, we can always get down to the spanking.

'Look on the bright side: The EP rotation would be solved'

:rollin

I so wish you could see past the end of your nose and the biased media Halo.

Wish you could see the mail/email of friends/family stating just how the Iraqi populace is treating us, cheering us and thanking us ( us being the entire forces over there).

But you're far too wrapped up in your cloak of loathing for your country, America and any form of conforming that it's not even worth the time to try and shed light on it.

Enjoy it bud, when you get to be a big boy and stand on your own two feet you'll see the light....

Or end up like so many other constant discontents and wind up on the dole...

Fandros

*hands Fandros a tissue*

Let me translate what Fandros just said: "I'm going to completely ignore the actual argument at hand, and the overwhelming evidence presented suggesting that the US may not actually be the most careful force in the world when invading countries, as is the case in Iraq and subsequently Afghganistan. Instead, I'll just prattle on about how the people love that we liberated them!!11"

About right? Good boy.
Now go and get me a fucking cup of tea.

Ignore what fucking evidence you media blind twit?

I have first hand accounts of what's actually going on over there. Fuck I've been there and seen the huge bullshit that the media portrays for spoonfed sheep like yourself.

Get yer own damn tea

Fandros

Let me translate what Fandros just said: "I'm going to completely ignore the actual argument at hand, and the overwhelming evidence presented suggesting that the US may not actually be the most careful force in the world when invading countries, as is the case in Iraq and subsequently Afghganistan.

What's the baseline Halo? Are you basing it from historical relevance to other wars? What threshold of civilian deaths are you willing to accept, if any?

'I have first hand accounts of what's actually going on over there. Fuck I've been there and seen the huge bullshit that the media portrays for spoonfed sheep like yourself.'

- What are you talking about? Just.. what the FUCK are you jabbering on about? Because we were discussing Akipt's failing argument of innocent deaths in Iraq. So unless you wanna shut the fuck up about your anti-war complaining, keep on the sidelines, roger?

'What's the baseline Halo? Are you basing it from historical relevance to other wars? What threshold of civilian deaths are you willing to accept, if any? '

- Could you please read the entire post I laid out for you? Answer those questions posed to you, and reply. Then we'll move on to the next part. OK twinky? I guess we shall call this Lesson Seven: Patience..

http://img68.photobucket.com/albums/v207/funwithpoop/12.jpg

We live in a fucked up world with no easy solutions.

But we got a leader with a Plan!
"As I predicted in my State Of The Union address, a free and democratic Iraq will have tremendous effect on the entire Middle East. Let's take a look at my AccuFreedom 5 Day Forecast for the region. An overwhelming front of freedom should be flowing out of Iraq any time now..."
http://www.spazoutny.com/gop-10.jpg

unfortunatly he is beset on all sides by violent protestors and LIBERALS, bent on subverting the will of freedom on the evil doers
http://img48.photobucket.com/albums/v148/kaeskiba/8e93bb2c.jpg

hopefully they get the message!
http://home.att.net/~slugbutter/evil/pureevil.jpg

Thank Goodness we have "real" republicans around to save us
http://images.quizilla.com/J/jackee/1037956393_--lancelot.jpg

While some "traitorous" Americans may not be supporting the War on Terror. They have nobody to blame but themselves, the administration gave them all the information up front!
http://img33.photobucket.com/albums/v98/sumatrahead/Funnyness/Fine_print_is_our_friend.jpg

Are we at elevated risk for a Terrorist attack? Sure we are, but have NO fear, John Ascroft is on the Job to PERSONALLY stop any attempted attacks, like the one last week!
http://halfrules.net/pers/kuentatonta/batmanbomb.gif

And the thought of our steadfast and competent Allies should lay ALL remaining fears to rest...
http://www.wuzzle.com/thekilt.jpg

that those WMDs will certainly turn up once we figure out what we are doing wrong in the search
http://www.integridesign.com/LJ/Iraq404.gif

But if all goes wrong, we can just start from scratch and get another post war plan from Donald Rumsfeld!
http://www.wakefield.org/pleasureisland/performers/bang.jpg


Ok.... im done

Halo, kindly present an example of a large, successful war of offense with intent to hold land that did NOT result in massive civilian casualties, intended or otherwise, in the past ninety-odd years (after the Russo-Japanese war).

L2, it's people like the current you who make the anti-war movement look bad. Actually, that's a pretty big chunk of the anti-war movement. You ought to take the lesson from Dean - one scream in a speech and he instantly lost a lot of credibility. A huge number of you guys scream incessantly, obstruct traffic to wave absurd slogans in the faces of pissed commuters who do not care, and constantly present rabid arguments full of nonsense. Is it any wonder that the only people who take the movement seriously are those who are in it already?

To be fair, the other side has more than its share of rabies going around, but you're on my side of the argument; moreso, I consider you a friend. You're embarassing me and countless others. So please do yourself and our side a favor and remove your head from your ass.

Lol relax..

Im just fucking around with those.. laugh a little... post something with Kerry or whatever..

unless you have a lump of coal between your butt cheeks. then keep being so uptight, shit, you might get a diamond.

See L2? I'm not the only one.

Yeah, it might be "haha lolz funneh" in the right context, but just pulling pictures like that right out of the blue and sticking them into a pretty heated debate thread isn't the way to get the response you're looking for. :)

--Cen

Ehhhh..
Cmon.. the batman one was funny.
Bleh. Im in a bit of a silly mood this morning. Its Friday, lighten up.

Oh and Will..
Im not involved with any "movement", pro or anti. Nor would I be.

its probably the fact that you are being really blatant with the pictures, giving little to no explanation

although the batman clip was funny

edit: also theres an edit button you could use too *hint, hint!* next time you need to add something

Bleh. Im in a bit of a silly mood this morning. Its Friday, lighten up.

I hear ya. I'm going through a kinda rough past couple of days and week, so that probably colored my response to the pictures...but hell yes, not only is it Friday, but it's Memorial Day Weekend. :P

--Cen

Well then, have a beer on me brother (http://rawge.bravepages.com/beer.jpg)

hey L2 its my birthday you know, so you can go ahead and send that tub of beer over to my house

Dude, what the fuck do you eat? :P

Freedom fries?

common food with beer is chips, pizza and pretzels

Beer is just liquid bread.

In Egypt back in the day it was about half of their slaves' diet.

I tend not to eat when I drink. Makes it way too hard to actually get drunk.

That mess was mostly for my roommate's Dad anyway. I stick with vodka, vodka, jager, and vodka.

You'd be right at home during the Gin epidemic.

Could always try a wine enima, Sanchek!

That sounds like things we did to guys in the frat, when they passed out without locking their doors.