How the Liberals will win the War on Terror

[tabs]

OK LIberals if ole GW is doing so crummy...how do you guys propose to do better? Going to sleep on the war on Terror is NOT an option....cause your gona get your head handed to you.

[Aurel]

The only way to win the war on terror is to stop feeling terrorized. Period. Terrorism is a reality than one has to learn to live with.
It is totally useless to invade or threaten all the countries that are not democratic or US friendly. All it takes for a carnage is one nutcase willing to blow himself up with a nuclear suitcase. Absolutely no policy can prevent that to happen.

I believe in good intelligence gathering, good collaboration between agencies and between countries, joint special ops operations such as the ones in Afghanistan.
All that is fine, and destroying terrorist networks is the best way to decrease the risk.

BUT, invading and angrying muslim countries will create more jihadist vocations than before, I can gurantee it.

So, Tabs, your question should rather be: How are the liberals going to solve the mess that Bush has created by taking the US into Iraq. And for that, I really don`t know.

Aurel

[island911]

Aurel, you've described the pre-9/11 approach, used by Clinton, and then Bush. That got us . . .?

[Aurel]

It is not proven that the Bush approach is any better. Indeed, what I claim is that it will spwan more terrorism. Maybe considering 9/11 as an accident that will never happen again rather than just the beginning of doom and worst to come might help heal the wounds. But what the Bush administration has been constantly doing is use the fear to implement questionable policies. This is not acceptable.

I beleive that the discussions on terrorism will become the same as the discussion on the economy: politicians tend to cast blame or take credit for situations that they do not really influence in one way or the other. The economy got good with Clinton, then bad with Bush, then better again...it has its own cycle. Similary, no major attack has occured after 9/11, but Bush may be replaced by a democrat, and some major attacks may happen because of the anger caused by the occupation of Iraq. And it would be easy to blame it on the democrats, while in reality the republicans would be responsible, but not totally since it all started when the democrats were in power before, etc...

In the end, what is really sad it to see the two political groups throwing blame at eachother instead of working hand in hand in a constructive way. No one is totally right or wrong, but as always, americans tend to love oversimplifications and black and white judgements.

Aurel

[RoninLB]

This is Overpaid Slacker, I'm at Ron's and forgot my password... so don't flame him.

Aurel -
The US has interdicted on behalf of muslims more than any other entity in history (Bosnia, Somalia, Kuwait, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan) and taken down the man responsible for killing more muslims than any other person in history.

I wouldn't make your guarantee a personal one. The collateral effects of fewer places to hide, fewer places to recruit, the opportunities offered under Democracy and the ripple effects we're already seeing indicate to me that there will be fewer jihadi and terrorists as a result of Iraq, not more. In the short-term, maybe there'll be a spike, but that's part and parcel of the cure for the disease -- the worst of the worst will burn brighter for a while until they're killed, disgraced or overtaken by events.

As for ripple effects -- Syria saw days' worth of protests against Baathist tyranny! This is staggering -- Syria. It's almost unimaginable, given that country's history of oppression. It takes time, sure, but the dam is cracking. Once Syria changes, Lebanon - with which Syria has been mercilessly futzing for decades - will stabilize. With stability comes opportunity and I belive that is fatal to fundamentalist terrorism.

Iran is decidedly moving towards a counter-revolution... but it's not well covered outside of certain intel/mid-east circles. I'm not saying it's a Liberal media conspiracy to keep this info down, but it's really freaking strange to me that the sea change in Iran hasn't been covered better.

Libya giving up its weapons programs, and its sources AND Qaddafi's son actually coming out and extending an olive branch to Israel! OMFG!

There's even hope for Saudi Arabia once the Wahhabists are emasculated by a successful Iraq.

Tactical strikes are great for their purpose, but cannot come close to the beneficial effect that Iraq could have. It's the difference between taking out certain indvidual terrorists and changing the conditions that allow terrorism and fundamentalism to thrive and breed future terrorists.

Your policy seems like a zen approach -- a policy of no policy. Letting the situation be or cauterizing capillaries will not solve the situation. We've learned that. We need to go for the throat. They are.

JP

[Aurel]

Well JP,

You are speaking like Paul Wolfowitz...I agree that the plan looks very nice on the paper. It may not be that pretty in reality, and it may take a bit longer than one or two presidencies. As an example, I would look at how long the Israeli and Palestinians have been fighting against eachother, and wonder if there is a solution in sight. Now, the Bush approach may solve that problem at the same time, who knows...

It all seems a bit theroretical and amitious to me, and it may seem a bit theoretical to the spanish too. I think this is a dangerous gamble that can have worse consequences that the zen approach...But History will tell, and I hope we will still be here to witness the consequences of this policy.


Aurel

[ZAMIRZ]

I think if we start by cutting aid to Israel and refusing to lick their butthole on every request, we'll get somewhere.

EDIT: I'm no lib by the way.

[nostatic]

Perhaps listen to Mr. Kurtz:

"Exterminate the brutes"

Now, to determine *which* brutes...

[Aurel]

Maybe supprting the palestinians would make the US more popular in the arab world (just kidding )

Aurel

[Moneyguy1]

Tabby-Tabby-Tabby

In one thread you speak about getting on with the game, I think relative to the name calling.

Now, about this "Liberal" thing....When did this word change its meaning?

I am neither end of the spectrum, just trying to get a kernel of truth out of two very different spins.

Will someone please tell me where I can find the middle ground, free of labels and accusations/innuendos that cannot be proven?

If you believe something to be true and make a public statement to that effect, only to find out later that what you were told was not true, then make a second public statement that contradicts the first, are y,ou tomorrow with absolute certainty that it is untrue, and y and someone reveals to yve something to be true today

[ZOA NOM]

This is a Holy war, whether we in the civilized world accept it or not. This is about fanatical religious zealotry, and it cannot be "negotiated". They will not stop until they are stopped. The only question is whether the rest of the world is willing to sit by and do nothing, or step up to the plate. We are the big dog on this particular planet, so it falls to us to do much of the dirty work. How much do we like our freedom? Enough to actually defend it? Or only enough to argue about it? GW Bush has made a statement to the world, and the message should be clear. We will come to your house and prevent you from threatening us. (If you've bought into the "Iraq had no connection to terrorism or 9/11", you watch too much Dan Rather) We are willing to die for our freedom. Let's see who'll have the resolve to stay the course. And let's see who else around the world is paying attention.

[Moneyguy1]

Keyboard problem again.....

But if you then make a second statement that appears to contract the first, are you

(a) a liar because the two statements differ

or

(b) admitting an error based upon inaccurate information

Which is it?

Seems as if the answer depends upon which party you work for as a character assassin

[350HP930]

It appears that the clinton administration was a lot better at thwarting attacks by al-qaeda than the bush administration.

How bush can try to spin this into some sort of self promotion is beyond me.

[ZOA NOM]

clinton was better at turning the White House into a trailer, and there's apparently quite a bit that's beyond you

[nostatic]

Originally posted by ZOANAS
clinton was better at turning the White House into a trailer, and there's apparently quite a bit that's beyond you

if its an Airstream, then I'm all for it.

yeah, like dubya is classy and suave

[tabs]

I want SOLUTIONS to CURRENT PROBLEMS...not a rehashing of who did what and when he knew he did it!

One problem Aurel...if the wogs have a Suitcase Nuke and they set it off in the USA....the game is over, WE LOSE. There won't be any economy for jobs to be out sourced to. So a blase attitude towards futher events is not acceptable.

Think of this....Why would a fisically CONSERATIVE Repblican be WILLING to go 500 Billion in the red? Thats the exact oposite of what they believe in....NOw that you've had time to think about the answer...the answer is FEAR. Not just Bush but the Government is affraid that if the Terrorists are able to pull off another BIG event in the USA the economy will COLLAPSE....proof you ask....look at the decline in the Stock Market after Madrid...and that was in Europe and was a minor event when compared to 911.

[ZOA NOM]

There is no way to prevent terrorism in a free society. What we have to decide is how much we value our freedom. The only choice we have is to go after the terrorists before they come to us. It makes no difference which administration is making the decisions.

[Moneyguy1]

Tabs..

Investments, whether they be in Southern Cal, or the stock market were, are, and always will be run by emotion. Hence big runups in times people feel "good" and downturns..you get the picture. Contrarians take advantage of the emotions of the majority of investors.

"Woe is us" will only prolong the downturn and "bad" economy. What can be done? Well, how about the way things were handled in the defeated and destroyed economies after WWII? Did the survivors permanently whine and wail about the situation? Sure, there was help from the "victors", but it took a lot of blood, sweat, and tears on the part of the residents to dig out, rebuild, and move on. The single most important element in the formula for recovery in any situation is a positive attitude, and our leaders should remember that and use their bully pulpit to "spread the word". New York City did precisely that after 9/11/01. That is one way to defeat terrorism; to emphasize the commonalities we all have as Americans, and not the petty differences and the overwhelming desire to make "our" party look good at the expense of truth by attacking individuals and not problems.

[hardflex]

When the WTC was first bombed, the Clinton Adminstration found the perpetrators, tried them and convicted them. That's how you win the War on Terror, and they didn't spend 180 billion dollars to do it either.

[island911]

Originally posted by hardflex
When the WTC was first bombed, the Clinton Adminstration found the perpetrators, tried them and convicted them. That's how you win the War on Terror, and they didn't spend 180 billion dollars to do it either.

That would be great if those convictions were useful in deterring future terrorist bombers.

. . It seems suicide bombers don't much care if their charred ashes are convicted.