Is the London attack........

[rep]

Why do you not want to be better than the bombers Rep?
Iraq is hardly more peaceful since we flattened their house like a pancake is it?

Rick

Blair said,


"If it is the plight of the Palestinians that drives them, why, every time it looks as if Israel and Palestine are making progress, does the same ideology perpetrate an outrage that turns hope back into despair?

"If it is Afghanistan that motivates them, why blow up innocent Afghans on their way to their first-ever election?

"If it is Iraq that motivates them, why is the same ideology killing Iraqis by terror in defiance of an elected Iraqi government?

"What was 11 September 2001 the reprisal for?"

I would add Spain to that list. They found more bombs planted AFTER Spain withdrew from Iraq. So withdrawal did them little good with the terrorist.

This isn't an ethics class regarding who has superior morals. This is war against an enemy that wants nothing less than our total destruction or submission to them. They think all of Europe is their domain.

Our combined military "flattened" very few houses in the Iraqi invasion. Unusual care was taken not to disturbe civillian life, more than any previous war, from any other country. Make no mistake in thinking, taking those precautions cost American and British soldiers additional killed and wounded.

I am sorry for the loss of life in Britian, but I am also sorry for the three thousand Americans murdered in New York, Washington and PA.

I am afraid that many Americans have already forgotton our loss.

Rep

[shanbaum]

How about answering a few of my questions?

• What do you think the Islamic terrorist want from us?
• If screening for Islamic terrorist is "only common sense". How do you propose to accomplish this task since your previous post state that you are opposed to pre-emptive strikes and effective screening?
• Explain your specific tactics using stealth and guile in defeating terrorism - your -------better way of protecting America.

Calling those who differ with your political position; lunatics, deeply disturbed, warped and twisted, borderline skinheads, extremist and my personal favorite Nazi-like, suggest that you, not I, are angry and frustrated and I will add emotional to boot.



Rep

Short as I can make ‘em:



1. Al-Qaeda wants different things from us in the short and long terms. In the short term, they wanted us to engage them as a specific adversary. After 9/11, they obtained that; we made them a global player. That’s what they were trying to do right along, with the relatively minor attacks of the 1990’s – to goad us into taking them on as an adversary, because this elevates their stature amongst the people they are trying to influence. As our adversary, they become a more credible alternative to the existing Arab governments. The experience in Iran in the 1980’s demonstrated the power of hate to them – that it’s a lot easier to provoke animosity towards the West and towards the U.S. as the leader of the West, than it is to provoke animosity towards their current leaders, whatever they’re like. They want to fan those fires, and eventually turn them on the current Arab leadership – which is their long-term goal: to establish a pan-Arab theocracy, with them at the helm.


So, in the short run, they want us there, both to generate hatred and opposition to the existing orders, and eventually to “conquer” us, by one way or another, getting us to leave, thus making themselves the heroes in a recapitulation of Muhammad’s struggle.



That’s why Clarke referred to Bush’s obsession with invading Iraq at “channeling bin Laden”, and why, at this point, they’re still tickled to have us occupying an Arab country. Lots of people are getting killed, and even though the vast majority of those killed are Iraqis, the bad guys know that a lot of the survivors will blame us. If they didn’t want us there, well, surely it has occurred to the bad guys that all they have to do to get the U.S. out of Iraq at this point is take a six-month vacation.



2. First of all, I didn’t say I was opposed to “effective screening”; nor is there any direct relationship between the preemption doctrine and immigration. I said that I thought that closing our borders, along with a number of other Draconian steps, was impractical. I’m all in favor of effective screening, which I think is going to involve two things, primarily: one, spending a whole lot more money on it, and two, establishing, through cooperation with the countries from which visitors are coming, more robust processes to actually, uh, screen. Because I’m not an expert in managing immigration, I can only really respond at that relatively high, conceptual level. I certainly reject the notion that we must protect our “culture” from “contamination by lesser peoples”, which I sense is a part of your worldview.



3. I don’t have specific tactics to offer; I’m not an anti-terror tactician. However, it seems to me that the kinds of actions most likely to be effective in actually preventing terror include intelligence and police work. I think it’s perfectly clear that no army could have prevented any of the terror attacks that have occurred so far. Intelligence, however, could have. The entire 9/11 plot might have been unraveled had George Tenant paid attention to “that guy in Minnesota” (or wherever it was) who, he knew, had sought to learn to how to fly, but not land, an aircraft. It’s also clear that armies will not directly defeat the pernicious ideology that the radical Islamists spread – that’s another categorical mismatch: army v. ideology. I think that a reasonable strategy – by which I mean, one that could actually work – would be to support alternative ideologies, and undermine the bad ones. Again, this is hardly my area of expertise, but I’m thinking of things like countering the radical madrasas by paying for the educations of lots of young Muslims in non-radical Islamic schools. Hamas apparently gets a lot of support amongst Palestinians because they provide social services – why aren’t we competing for those hearts and minds in that arena? Is it sensible to let Hamas win because they out-care us?



Maybe you start by simply affording these people a little respect. A couple of days ago, Europe came to a standstill for two minutes to honor the victims of the London bombings. Yesterday, a nut-case killed almost 100 innocent Iraqis by blowing himself up in a tanker truck. Where is their "two minutes"?



With regard to your last comment, I am content to let people read your posts, and read mine, and decide for themselves.

[chm2023]

Shouldn't someone remind the terrorists and (appearentlly the Chinese after yesterday) that no one builds a better bomb than the United States?

You are missing the point--bombs don't help you when the enemy is diffused--the terrorists who bombed London, lived in London. We bombed the hell out of Iraq and and where are the terrorists thriving today, per W? Right, Iraq. We need a new game plan.

[Spexvet]

Since you seem to like definitions so much
ap·pease·ment (-pzmnt)
n. 1. a. An act of appeasing.
b. The condition of being appeased.

2. The policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace.

Once you start down the slippery slope of appeasement to potential enemies there is no end. Any time you conceed to threats of violence you lose and someone else is in control.

I'll grant you: According to the definition it would be appeasement.

A question back to you.
Would you advocate abandoning the defense and foreign aid to Israel if the Islamic terrorist threatend to blow up New York subways if we do not comply?

There's a huge difference between abandoning an ally and moving our bases from holy soil. Had I known that it would have prevented 9/11, I would not abandon Israel, but I would have moved our bases.

Where have I said, any where, any time, any place, that Americans are blameless?
You are making things up again and you are better than that, most of the time.

Rep

So when you say:

... Winning the war means giving up something - what a wonderful blame us position - really glad you are not negotiating for the U.S. Typical hogwash about 9/11 being our fault and WE are to blame for hungry Muslums? Wow what a pantload. ...
Rep

you mean that you agree that the US bears some of the blame?

[Spexvet]

From Frontline's website:

Bush Doctrine : The 33-page document presents a bold and comprehensive reformulation of U.S. foreign policy. It outlines a new and muscular American posture in the world -- a posture that will rely on preemption to deal with rogue states and terrorists harboring weapons of mass destruction. It states that America will exploit its military and economic power to encourage "free and open societies." It states for the first time that the U.S. will never allow its military supremacy to be challenged as it was during the Cold War. And the NSS insists that when America's vital interests are at stake, it will act alone, if necessary.

Doesn't sound very Christian to me.:hammer:

[chip anderson]

Sounds like the best policy for our political leaders though. We didn't elect Bush and other officials to be Christian Leaders with love in thier hearts. Thier job is to protect the Constitution and Citizens of the United States. We had nearly 15,000,000 Christians under arms to kill the enemies of the United States in WWII. It wasn't Christian and it wasn't nice, but it was what needed to be done at the time. The president is "Commander and Chief" of the armed forces which means when there is killin to be done, he has to act like a military leader not Lay Leader of the Methodist Church.

Chip

[Spexvet]

...
We didn't elect Bush and other officials to be Christian Leaders with love in thier hearts.
...
Chip

I agree. So keep the ten commandments out of the courthouses, and stop trying to legislate who can marry whom, and stop trying to force a person to live when they're brain dead, and stop trying to take away a woman's right to choose!

Thanks for your agreement and support, Chip.

[rsandr]

Sounds like the best policy for our political leaders though. We didn't elect Bush and other officials to be Christian Leaders with love in thier hearts. Thier job is to protect the Constitution and Citizens of the United States. We had nearly 15,000,000 Christians under arms to kill the enemies of the United States in WWII. It wasn't Christian and it wasn't nice, but it was what needed to be done at the time. The president is "Commander and Chief" of the armed forces which means when there is killin to be done, he has to act like a military leader not Lay Leader of the Methodist Church.

Chip

In WWII was it not necessary because anther country was on the attack?
I dont see that at the minute, maybe you could enlighten me.

PS re an earlier post of yours what is going in in China?

Rick

[Spexvet]

You can't have it both ways. Some posters want a "Christian Nation". A true Christian, after 9/11 would have turned the other cheek! These same posters want to kill, kill, kill. How can you reconcile these two opposing points of view without being hypocritical!

[chip anderson]

Even Jesus Christ once said: "It is time to sell your cloaks and buy swords."

[Spexvet]

Even Jesus Christ once said: "It is time to sell your cloaks and buy swords."

and

Matthew 26:52
"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."


Quote where he said "and kill people with those swords".

[rinselberg]

There's a huge difference between abandoning an ally and moving our bases from holy soil. Had I known that it would have prevented 9/11, I would not abandon Israel, but I would have moved our bases.

I suppose that by "holy soil", Spexvet is referring to the robust military presence that the U.S. maintained in Saudi Arabia for over a decade after the first Gulf War: A military presence that has now been drawn down for the most part, and relocated to other Gulf states like Kuwait and Bahrain.

I think it is grasping at straws to suggest that had the U.S. drawn down its forces in Saudi Arabia prior to 09/11/2001, then there would not have been any Nine-Eleven attack. Al-Qaeda has a whole raft of "grievances" touching on the U.S., Israel, Western Europe, the Middle East and on and on. Their only M.O. is terror and they have no shortage of excuses for recruiting terrorists and attempting to rationalize their attacks. The drawdown and relocation of U.S. forces from Saudi Arabia to other Gulf States has no doubt been a major expense and inconvenience to the U.S. and could not have been undertaken without very careful deliberation.

[chip anderson]

You lookin in the wrong place quote is correct.

[shanbaum]

You lookin in the wrong place quote is correct.

http://www.ecapc.org/newspage_detail.asp?control=703

[Spexvet]

You lookin in the wrong place quote is correct.

I didn't say it was incorrect. I asked you to cite the passage where He said to kill people with the sword that they were supposed to buy.

[rinselberg]

I don’t have specific tactics to offer; I’m not an anti-terror tactician. However, it seems to me that the kinds of actions most likely to be effective in actually preventing terror include intelligence and police work. I think it’s perfectly clear that no army could have prevented any of the terror attacks that have occurred so far. Intelligence, however, could have. The entire 9/11 plot might have been unraveled had George Tenant paid attention to “that guy in Minnesota” (or wherever it was) who, he knew, had sought to learn to how to fly, but not land, an aircraft. It’s also clear that armies will not directly defeat the pernicious ideology that the radical Islamists spread – that’s another categorical mismatch: army v. ideology. I think that a reasonable strategy – by which I mean, one that could actually work – would be to support alternative ideologies, and undermine the bad ones. Again, this is hardly my area of expertise, but I’m thinking of things like countering the radical madrasas by paying for the educations of lots of young Muslims in non-radical Islamic schools. Hamas apparently gets a lot of support amongst Palestinians because they provide social services – why aren’t we competing for those hearts and minds in that arena? Is it sensible to let Hamas win because they out-care us?

Hello Shanbaum,

I don't think that your ideas or suggestions, as you describe them (above), are all that different from the way that the Bush administration has pursued and continues to pursue the GWOT (Global War On Terror). Of course you have your differences with the Bush administration over our recent and current involvement in Iraq. You talk about "competing for hearts and minds" and bring up the social services provided by Hamas. I would like to comment very briefly on the economic development and humanitarian assistance that the U.S. has traditionally provided and continues to provide to countries with large Islamic populations all over the world.

As a percentage of our GNP, the federal allocation for foreign aid probably does not remark the U.S. as the single most generous country in the world in terms of its foreign aid. But in absolute money, the cumulative and continuing U.S. assistance to Islamic countries worldwide comes to many, many billions of dollars. There is USAID. The various U.N. economic and humanitarian programs that the U.S. contributes to. The World Bank. The International Monetary Fund. U.S.-based private charities and relief organizations. DoD civil affairs and reconstruction projects in Iraq, and DoD and NATO civil affairs and reconstruction programs in Afghanistan. The CIA World Factbook has a country by country breakdown that includes a separate line for the economic aid recieved from the international community, which almost invariably includes the U.S. as a donor country. The list of recipient countries with large Islamic populations includes Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Kosovo, Lebanon, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines and the transitional Palestine.

As an aside about George Tenet, I have heard different versions of what happened when Nine-Eleven suspect Zacarias Moussaoui enrolled for commercial air training just prior to the Nine-Eleven attack. One version is that Moussaoui said that he was not interested in landing the airplane; another, that he was not interested in takeoffs -- and another version in which Moussaoui said and did nothing to set himself apart from the legitimate students. Perhaps the truth is buried in the classified section of the Nine-Eleven commission's report. But your point is well taken: There should have been better intelligence, and the Nine-Eleven attack should have been prevented.

[Spexvet]

Does anybody wonder why Iraq was chosen to be invaded? If we're fighting radical fundamental Muslim extremists, wasn't Pakistan a much more appropriate choice? Or Saudi Arabia, home of most of the 9/11 hijackers? Saddam was very secular compared to the nations that surrounded him. Why not invade Iran or Syria, both much more extreme and radical than Iraq. No intelligence would need to be "misinterpreted" - I think Americans would have supported war on Pakistan, Iran, or Syria to a greater degree than war on Iraq. We all agree Saddam was a nasty guy, but he was killing his own radical fundamentalist Muslim extremist on his own soil while Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were exporting theirs.

Any thoughts?

[chm2023]

Does anybody wonder why Iraq was chosen to be invaded? If we're fighting radical fundamental Muslim extremists, wasn't Pakistan a much more appropriate choice? Or Saudi Arabia, home of most of the 9/11 hijackers? Saddam was very secular compared to the nations that surrounded him. Why not invade Iran or Syria, both much more extreme and radical than Iraq. No intelligence would need to be "misinterpreted" - I think Americans would have supported war on Pakistan, Iran, or Syria to a greater degree than war on Iraq. We all agree Saddam was a nasty guy, but he was killing his own radical fundamentalist Muslim extremist on his own soil while Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were exporting theirs.

Any thoughts?

Because it was easy compared to your other options.
1) Americans knew Saddam was a baddie.
2) Iraq was a renegade nation, who's gonna defend them?
3) Saudia Arabia? Yeah right.
4) Pakistan and Iran actually have WMD, Pakistan has had nukes for a while.
5) Bush wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11; after 9/11 he wanted to respond militarily. A marriage of convenience.

When you actually write it down, it scarcely seems possible that the country fell for this.

[chm2023]

Warning! Warning! Warning! Only read the below if you are not offended by a conservative:

Rush Limbaugh doctrine (and I paraphrase): Regrettably, history has shown that peace rarely comes with negotiations and treaties, but rather from one side militarily enforcing it's will on another's.

I fear that is true, and that that will never change. We must be realistic.

If what Limbaugh says is true, would not war be the rule, and peace the exception? The US has been at war maybe 20 years out of almost 220 years. We are constantly negotiating and have scores of treaties. By Limbaugh's "doctrine" (shudder) these are contra-indicators. So I guess we need to consider the possibility that Limbaugh is not a great historian. I'll be damned.

[rsandr]

Even Jesus Christ once said: "It is time to sell your cloaks and buy swords."

I dont want to be inflammatory here but......
Outside of the US people seem to think that the US is rather trigger happy. If we are being honest a lot of the posts in this thread seem to add foundation to that.
How do Americans feel about this generally?

I am not talking about feelings after 9/11, indeed on that day I would have excused the US for bombing Afghanistan back into the stone age.

Rick

[chm2023]

I dont want to be inflammatory here but......
Outside of the US people seem to think that the US is rather trigger happy. If we are being honest a lot of the posts in this thread seem to add foundation to that.
How do Americans feel about this generally?

I am not talking about feelings after 9/11, indeed on that day I would have excused the US for bombing Afghanistan back into the stone age.

Rick

I don't think it's a question of Americans being trigger happy necessarily. It's a question of being arrogant--we assumed (well not all of us;) ) that we could impose our will on Iraq. Comes from a straight assessment of fact--we are the only remaining super power--combined with self-righteousness and not a little naivete. Voila. Bush I believe could be described as trigger happy. I sometimes think the only thing keeping him out of Iran and North Korea is lack of troops. It's an ill wind as they say.

[drk]

Even Jesus Christ once said: "It is time to sell your cloaks and buy swords."

Couldn't find that one in the online Bible. Source?

[shanbaum]

Couldn't find that one in the online Bible. Source?

See link in post #114 above.

[drk]

Because it was easy compared to your other options.
1) Americans knew Saddam was a baddie.
2) Iraq was a renegade nation, who's gonna defend them?
3) Saudia Arabia? Yeah right.
4) Pakistan and Iran actually have WMD, Pakistan has had nukes for a while.
5) Bush wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11; after 9/11 he wanted to respond militarily. A marriage of convenience.

When you actually write it down, it scarcely seems possible that the country fell for this.

Bush's motivation for invading Iraq was?
Bloodlust? Family vendetta? Support Halliburton?

[drk]

See link in post #114 above.

Thanks, Shanbaum. My interpretation is sort of what the author of the post said. Needless to say, Jesus was not advocating violence, He was just expressing the changes that were about to occur.

As to GW being a pacifist Christian and his role protecting the US:

1.) GW was not elected to run this country as a Christian nation. Any Christian (and there ARE many) that aspire to make this a Christian nation are misled. A nation OF Christians is one thing, a Christian nation is another, if you can follow that...

2.) GW is a Christian in a secular job. He has a job to do. I think he has to stay true to his beliefs, but if they would disqualify him for C-I-C, he would step down.