I will avoid responding to your immature, childish “name calling”. However, your response of working with the United Nations suggests that you are not well read…or much to naive to understand and deal with this problem…Me thinks that you would rather avoid dealing with the problem by letting others fight your wars.
Too late - you already have. But …yeah sorry about the ‘Mad I am’ quip - couldn’t resist.
Mad - I do not understand. Please enlighten me. You do not think having a coordinated international effort against fighting terrorism is a good idea, as opposed to invading a country that presents negligible risk (i.e. Iraq).
Again can you expand on this please. What are my wars?
Wait…so what is a good way to die? What’s a good way to kill someone?
Should we play a video of someone napalmed in Vietnam and then use that as a reason that the USA is nothing but a bunch of savages to be destroyed?
-Joe, agrees with the 13 suggestion
And your knowledge of history is what exactly?
There have been IRA terrorists from Ireland bombing English civilians for most of this century. Some of their funds have come from the USA. Does that make America a terrorist supporting nation?
The English first invaded Ireland about 900 years ago. There have been unpleasant deaths on both sides since then.
Several hundred years ago a bunch of colonists rebelled against their lawful Monarch, over taxation representation in Parliament. Were they freedom fighters or terrorists?
Why do you think the UN was set up?
What is its purpose?
What authority does the US have to be in Iraq?
If an Iraqi attacks a foreign soldier occupying his country, is he a freedom fighter or a terrorist?
Please elaborate on the bridges between these thooughts. What is the relationship between the controversy surrounding the Iraq invasion, the near ubiquitousness of terrorists, and the desctruction of Israel.
It’s clear that you’re implying that terrorism’s not predicated on the existence of the state of Israel. But how is that related to the controversy surrounding the invasion of Iraq.
I’m not so sure that there’re “hundreds of thousands of troops” available. Most of our armed forces are already engaged in vital duties. I’m sure that a sizable force, perhaps even in the tens of thousands could be brought to bear upon any particular point in Iraq. But hundreds of thousands seems out of the ball park, prob’ly by a factor of ten.
It’s not clear who you’re talking about. Would you please elaborate?
Depends on what exactly you mean by “it”?
If you mean the Iraqi insugency, then I’d say that catching UbL would have no perceptable impact on the Iraqi insurgency other than to cause a brief spike in attention and sympathy given to UbL by various patricipants in the insurgency. Many Iraqis active in the insurgency believe that they are defending their homeland from foreign invaders who are occupying their country. This rationale for fighting exists independently of UbL’s life and freedom.
If you mean something else, then would you please go into greater detail?
We can stop some terrorists and prevent some terrorism. But the nature of free society is that it always remain vulnerable to the actions of it’s free citizens. The pressure release valve of free societies is that members have an effective non-violent means of effecting change. Violence ensues more readily where people are more readily convinced that they lack any effective non-violent means of efecting change. But even in free societies there’re bound to be born some outliers who’re prone to such violence regardless of their environment (Unabomber, Eric Rudolph, McVeigh, etc.)
Terrorism from international sources is another matter. It just doesn’t seem worth it to completely secure ourselves from terrorist attacks from international sources. There’s an optimal level of security measures. There is a point of diminishing returns. For example, we could immediately decide to inspect every cargo of every ship that enters US waters. However, not enough people think that the added expense of manpower and wealth lost due to the delays is worth the benefit of completely securing our waters.
A nuclear device in a shipping container on an inbound freighter could do some damage even if it were not all the way in port.
The author did not imply pacifism.
Given the “enduring camps” and the very large US embassy planned for Iraq, I’d say that this was included in someone thinking.
We could’ve allocated the same funds that we have allocated to Iraq to funding alternative energy research. Think about it. With just $100bil we could’ve given 1000 universities grants of $100mil. As it is the Budget office expects we won’t get out of Iraq for less than $500bil. That’d be even more universities or even more money in grants for alternative energy research.
This argument’s been being made for a while. The idea is that these types of operations (“street level”) mean less “collateral damage.” The less collateral damage the fewer non-insurgents will decide it’s worth it to become insurgents.
But the political price is obvious. If Team Bush was unsure whether we would be willing to bear this sort of burden at the outset, they’re by now certain that the electorate won’t be willing to do so now.
Same place posters find these questionable questions to questions the SDMBer’s.
No, I checked up my ass this morning, there were only a few hundred US troops in there. That’s a far cry from hundreds of thousands.
This “questionable question” certainly seems like a legitimate concern. Could you please explain why it is not?
Bingo. I was among those who trusted people I felt ought to know the truth, even if it couldn’t be made public for security reasons, in saying that that connection existed.
Where in Hell is it? If it actually did exist, why is there no credible evidence that it did? Politically, it would de-fuse about half the opposition to Mr. Bush if it were revealed – so why hasn’t he ordered it done? Militarily and diplomatically, it would bring an overwhelming chunk of the world to our side – so why hasn’t he ordered it done? Ethically, it’s the right thing to do, to demonstrate that this hot-button war was indeed morally justified – so why hasn’t he ordered it done?
Very likely, because there was no such evidence – or intelligence indications that were misread in the direction he wanted them misread – and therefore he flat-out lied to get us into a war that would benefit some of his corporate political supporters, at the cost of American lives.
For that, he’ll have to find forgiveness somewhere else.
My initial question expressed in a different way will be preceded by the following:
Based on the initial intelligence provided to Bush that there were WMD, I approve of Bush’s actions. At that time there is NO evidence that I am aware that Bush knew otherwise. I , personally, would be strongly against the invasion of Iraq
Because we aren’t actively funding the sudanese slaughters with billions of our tax dollars every year.
hit the wrong button by accident, sorry…Bush should have stated he would not have declared war on Iraq at that time if HE KNEW that there were no weapons of mass destruction.
MY point in the OP was that 99% of our discussions have been should we have invaded Iraq or not? I felt and still do that we should concentrate on what to do about world terrorism. The Iraq situation is a done deal, like it or not…I believe both Bush and Kerry agree that we must remain there.
Again, my point is what is the best way of dealing with the fundamentalist Islamic individuals who are involved actively in the terror conducted in the WTC, Israel,
Sudan, and elsewhere. Should we put our head in the sand?
I maintain that the UN will not support critical thinking on this question. They haven’t to date.
I personally “do not have a plan” as Kerry does for just about everything.
That is why I asked the SDMB members for their suggestions
I pushed the wrong button on my last comment and that took away my concerns which apparently I did not make clear.
My point was to say that we ARE in Iraq. Both Kerry and Bush both agree that we have to stay there and finish that which we started.
If Bush believed at the time the US invaded Iraq that there WERE WMD in Iraq I can understand why he did what he did. I see no reason to invade Iraq if intelligence thought there WERE NO weapons of mass destruction.
What I was saying is that we ARE there whether we think the invasion was justified or not. Terrorism exists more than ever worldwide in my opinion. The United Nations thus far has proved to be emasculated as to action in Sudan and there is no question in mind that more countries than not in the United Nations are anti Israel to start with.
With the above in mind, what would YOU do if you were President of the US to handle the terrorist problem if anything?
Kerry has " A PLAN" for just about everthing from foreign policy to internal problems…It appears that most of you are pro Kerry. If so, what would you do or what is it that you think Kerry should do to deal with terrorism that Bush is not doing?
In the world’s largest nutshell, thats what I was trying to say in the original thread. Comments please.