A month ago we had a three page discussion terrorism alerts and how I believe them to be ineffective. Now I would like to raise a different point.

How long will we continue to live in fear? When will this "War on Terrorism" end? What the Department of Homeland Security does, what the President does every time he mentions terrorism or the threat to the US in one of his commercials, is raise the state of fear in the United States. We increase surveillance, when spend money where it won't help or--what's worse--where it will actually hurt our security. We talk about the need for vigilance and for staying alert to the point where I am beginning to think we are falling into a state of Paranoia: "Stay Alert. Trust No one. Keep Your Laser Handy."

We cannot continue to live this way or the terrorists have already won.

How will the the terrorists have won? Ashcroft and others would like you to believe that the terrorists are a unified force with a united set of goals against the United States, as we fight them through these tactics they obviously can't be winning. Unfortunately, Ashcroft, the President, and those like them have forgotten something:

The purpose of terrorism is to install fear. Individual terrorists may have separate motives, but the end goal of terrorism is to cause fear in a target audience.

We move, sometimes at a charging pace and sometimes at that of a snail's, into a police state and, should we reach the state, then the terrorists will have truly won the "War on Terrorism." Why?

Because we will be living in a state of perpetual fear.

The time has come to put an end to the "War on Terrorism." The time has come to admit that this is an unwinnable war that is not against a country, or against a political ideology, or even against a religion. It is against a way of being heard used by people who believe they have no voice; it is against an idea that has changed governments in the past and will change governments in the future and that is pervasive in the human condition; it is a play on human emotion. Until we enter into a state of Equilibrium (http://www.evboard.com/showthread.php?t=1029&highlight=Prozium) will continue to persist even when our society is no different than the one in 1984.

We can beat al-Qaeda, but we cannot beat the faceless mask of "the terrorists" and by gazing long into the abyss of the terrorists to save ourselves from terrorism we are becoming terrorists ourselves.

There are ways to increase security and to prepare for terrorism that work. Human Intelligence, emergency response, security analysis, and a thousand other things that don't require the situation we are rapidly approaching in the United States. The longer we persist in this silly "War on Terrorism" which, as far as security goes, is mainly "security theater"--all show, no substance--the closer we come to letting the terrorists win.

I have seen many statements in stickers in people's signatures and on bumper sticks and even posted on billboards that the terrorists want us to vote for John Kerry. I have no evidence that Bush has done anything to counteract "the terrorists" (the most recent report shows an increase, not a decline, in terrorism) and I have seen policies by the Bush administration that play directly to the terrorists. However, even if al-Qaeda wants Kerry more than anything, "terrorism" wants Bush.

http://schneier.com/essay-055.html


How Long Can the Country Stay Scared?

By Bruce Schneier
Minneapolis Star-Tribune
August 27, 2004

Want to learn how to create and sustain psychosis on a national scale? Look carefully at the public statements made by the Department of Homeland Security.

Here are a few random examples: "Weapons of mass destruction, including those containing chemical, biological or radiological agents or materials, cannot be discounted." "At least one of these attacks could be executed by the end of the summer 2003." "These credible sources suggest the possibility of attacks against the homeland around the holiday season and beyond."

The DHS's threat warnings have been vague, indeterminate, and unspecific. The threat index goes from yellow to orange and back again, although no one is entirely sure what either level means. We've been warned that the terrorists might use helicopters, scuba gear, even cheap prescription drugs from Canada. New York and Washington, D.C., were put on high alert one day, and the next day told that the alert was based on information years old. The careful wording of these alerts allows them not to require any sound, confirmed, accurate intelligence information, while at the same time guaranteeing hysterical media coverage. This headline-grabbing stuff might make for good movie plots, but it doesn't make us safer.

This kind of behavior is all that's needed to generate widespread fear and uncertainty. It keeps the public worried about terrorism, while at the same time reminding them that they're helpless without the government to defend them.

It's one thing to issue a hurricane warning, and advise people to board up their windows and remain in the basement. Hurricanes are short-term events, and it's obvious when the danger is imminent and when it's over. People respond to the warning, and there is a discrete period when their lives are markedly different. They feel there was a usefulness to the higher alert mode, even if nothing came of it.

It's quite another to tell people to remain on alert, but not to alter their plans. According to scientists, California is expecting a huge earthquake sometime in the next 200 years. Even though the magnitude of the disaster will be enormous, people just can't stay alert for 200 years. It goes against human nature. Residents of California have the same level of short-term fear and long-term apathy regarding the threat of earthquakes that the rest of the nation has developed regarding the DHS's terrorist threat alert.

A terrorist alert that instills a vague feeling of dread or panic, without giving people anything to do in response, is ineffective. Even worse, it echoes the very tactics of the terrorists. There are two basic ways to terrorize people. The first is to do something spectacularly horrible, like flying airplanes into skyscrapers and killing thousands of people. The second is to keep people living in fear. Decades ago, that was one of the IRA's major aims. Inadvertently, the DHS is achieving the same thing.

European countries that have been dealing with terrorism for decades, like the United Kingdom, Ireland, France, Italy, and Spain, don't have cute color-coded terror alert systems. Even Israel, which has seen more terrorism -- and more suicide bombers -- than anyone else, doesn't issue vague warnings about every possible terrorist threat.

These countries understand that security doesn't come from a scared populace, and that true counter-terrorism occurs behind the scenes and away from public eye. For earthquakes, the long term security solutions include things like building codes. For terrorism, they include intelligence, investigation, and emergency response preparedness.

The DHS's incessant warnings against any and every possible method of terrorist attack has nothing to do with security, and everything to do with politics. In 2002, Republican strategist Karl Rove instructed Republican legislators to make terrorism the mainstay of their campaign. Study after study has shown that Americans worried about terrorism are more likely to vote Republican. Strength in the face of the terrorist threat is the basis of Bush's reelection campaign.

Speaking about terrorist threat warnings, Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge said: "We don't do politics in the Department of Homeland Security." Despite these words, it's increasingly clear that politics is at the heart of Bush's counter-terrorism program.

A month ago we had a three page discussion terrorism alerts and how I believe them to be ineffective. Now I would like to raise a different point.

How long will we continue to live in fear? When will this "War on Terrorism" end? What the Department of Homeland Security does, what the President does every time he mentions terrorism or the threat to the US in one of his commercials, is raise the state of fear in the United States. We increase surveillance, when spend money where it won't help or--what's worse--where it will actually hurt our security. We talk about the need for vigilance and for staying alert to the point where I am beginning to think we are falling into a state of Paranoia: "Stay Alert. Trust No one. Keep Your Laser Handy."

We cannot continue to live this way or the terrorists have already won.

How will the the terrorists have won? Ashcroft and others would like you to believe that the terrorists are a unified force with a united set of goals against the United States, as we fight them through these tactics they obviously can't be winning. Unfortunately, Ashcroft, the President, and those like them have forgotten something:

The purpose of terrorism is to install fear. Individual terrorists may have separate motives, but the end goal of terrorism is to cause fear in a target audience.

We move, sometimes at a charging pace and sometimes at that of a snail's, into a police state and, should we reach the state, then the terrorists will have truly won the "War on Terrorism." Why?

Because we will be living in a state of perpetual fear.

The time has come to put an end to the "War on Terrorism." The time has come to admit that this is an unwinnable war that is not against a country, or against a political ideology, or even against a religion. It is against a way of being heard used by people who believe they have no voice; it is against an idea that has changed governments in the past and will change governments in the future and that is pervasive in the human condition; it is a play on human emotion. Until we enter into a state of Equilibrium (http://www.evboard.com/showthread.php?t=1029&highlight=Prozium) will continue to persist even when our society is no different than the one in 1984.

We can beat al-Qaeda, but we cannot beat the faceless mask of "the terrorists" and by gazing long into the abyss of the terrorists to save ourselves from terrorism we are becoming terrorists ourselves.

There are ways to increase security and to prepare for terrorism that work. Human Intelligence, emergency response, security analysis, and a thousand other things that don't require the situation we are rapidly approaching in the United States. The longer we persist in this silly "War on Terrorism" which, as far as security goes, is mainly "security theater"--all show, no substance--the closer we come to letting the terrorists win.

I have seen many statements in stickers in people's signatures and on bumper sticks and even posted on billboards that the terrorists want us to vote for John Kerry. I have no evidence that Bush has done anything to counteract "the terrorists" (the most recent report shows an increase, not a decline, in terrorism) and I have seen policies by the Bush administration that play directly to the terrorists. However, even if al-Qaeda wants Kerry more than anything, "terrorism" wants Bush.

http://schneier.com/essay-055.html
I've actually been thinking about this a lot, for awhile now. I remember right after the September 11th attacks, Bush said something to the extent of us standing tall and not being afraid, otherwise the terrorists will have carried out their mission.

Apparently it means nothing, when all the time threatening color flags go up and down, with not much explanation of what exactly they are for, confusing everyone in the process. It's like a clearly organized system, but only on the surface. Undearneath, there is no foundation whatsoever.

I don't even know if Bush himself is honestly afraid or not, or if he is just trying to instill fear in our country to give better validation for "pursuing evil".

I wish the war would prpoerly end, coz people are still dieing frequently in Iraq. Terrorism is evil, I wish it would stop, then things like 9/11 and stuff will never happen again

How long will we continue to live in fear? When will this "War on Terrorism" end? What the Department of Homeland Security does, what the President does every time he mentions terrorism or the threat to the US in one of his commercials, is raise the state of fear in the United States.
If the populace is in a constant state of fear, the government has the ability to offer itself as the only solution to remedy that fear. Fear = Control, which is something every government craves. Without laws, there are no criminals, which means the government can't control people. Make enough laws, and you scare people into believing that they are possibly criminals, and they will deliver themselves right over to the government. All the laws passed in the name of the "ideal" of Homeland Security are just another way for them to control the populace.
We cannot continue to live this way or the terrorists have already won.
Agreed.
How will the the terrorists have won? Ashcroft and others would like you to believe that the terrorists are a unified force with a united set of goals against the United States, as we fight them through these tactics they obviously can't be winning.
Unified force? Hell, they can barely agree on what version of Islam to follow. Even if they were unified, how is a color code going to be able to stop a unified, well trained and funded force?
The purpose of terrorism is to install fear.
Fear = Control. Didn't I just talk about the government and this?
We can beat al-Qaeda, but we cannot beat the faceless mask of "the terrorists" and by gazing long into the abyss of the terrorists to save ourselves from terrorism we are becoming terrorists ourselves.
Great minds think alike.;)

http://schneier.com/essay-055.html
One thing I'd like to say about our "intelligence" gathering is that we will never be perfect. There's always a margin of error, and as such, there's always going to be a potential for attack. A lot of people that comment on the failings of the DHS say, "We need more/better intelligence". If only it were that simple. We will just never be able to get every little detail right.

i think if countries don't start to communicate this won't end soon. it's never the fault of one person, one country or whatever. it's always at least 2. but people won't change their opinions, too much has been done wrong. what we need are people who are able to understand each other and see their own mistakes.

i think if countries don't start to communicate this won't end soon. it's never the fault of one person, one country or whatever. it's always at least 2. but people won't change their opinions, too much has been done wrong. what we need are people who are able to understand each other and see their own mistakes.
Difficult to communciate with an entity that has no real face or country (i.e. terrorism).

All right. . so how do you end a conflict with a faceless enemy who can strike at any time, will not talk to you, only wants you dead, and follows the beliefs that even if he dies he wins so he has nothing to lose? You can't bribe such a person, its really hard to reason with them, most have made it very clear that they are not concerned with OUR point of view, and are actively attempting to gather information and the abilities necessary to again strike at us?

Enumerating the many problems is one thing . .being alarmed at the Governments tactics and CYA politics is another. . but how do you solve the problem?

Enumerating the many problems is one thing . .being alarmed at the Governments tactics and CYA politics is another. . but how do you solve the problem?

Here's a partial list.


More HUMINT. COMINT and other forms of SIGINT are all fine and good, but nothing replaces an infiltrator or a double agent.
Use well-trained people who are trained to make security decisions, not guards following a checklist out of a book.
Layered security.
Focus on security and not security theater. Things that work and aren't just for show.
Focus on problems and not things that have never proven to be an issue in the past.
Not play too far in to the diminishing returns game. It is very easy to throw US$1.5 billion into security when you could have bought virtually the same level of security for a significantly lower cost.
Stop obsessing over point failures and a "zero failure" policy--it isn't achievable, and it is very easy to get into a system of diminishing returns. Schneier mentioned regarding the olympics that it is "pretty much impossible to stop a lone operator intent on making mischief."
Talking about costs in terms of what else the money could be put into, potential side effects, and actual costs rather than just upfront capital.


Let's take airlines (for simplicity).

Examples of Good Security:


Sky Marshals.
Reinforced cockpit doors.
One way mirrors with armed guards (see El Al).


Bad Security:


Giving guns to pilots.
Confiscating pocket knives, mechanical pencils, compass points, and calligraphy nibs.
CAPPS
ID-checks at airports.

And what about pre-emptiveness without advertising it, remove the sanction on assassinations, forgetting about coalitions and politics and just going it alone and giving the finger to countries who do nothing to help?

I bet the people in some African countries would benefit greatly from a policy like that.

And what about pre-emptiveness without advertising it, remove the sanction on assassinations, forgetting about coalitions and politics and just going it alone and giving the finger to countries who do nothing to help?

I bet the people in some African countries would benefit greatly from a policy like that.

You done putting words in my mouth?

Actually it was a very serious question.

Ths US has had a ban on assassinations of enemies for a very long time. How serious are we about protecting ourselves? Whom do we have to prove the threat to in order to act?

Right now in Africa genocide is taking place. . using air-dropped chemical weapons. How serious are we about stopping atrocities like this .. A single aircraft carrier battle wing could end it in a day, and decapitate the Government sponsoring it in a minute. . The EU morons are just watching, and debating, and talking, and wringing their hands.

So far, Llywelin, I agree about 90% with your position, I just don't think it goes far enough, fast enough, and is not severe enough in scope. I really don't care if the US is "respected". .respect never fed the hungry, protected your home, or kept those who wish to be martyrs from doing their deeds. We throw money at the AIDS epidemic in Africa, instead of quarantining the infected and ending the problem by stopping the spread. Is this being "Humane"? We make shadowy alliances with thugs, murderers and corrupt regimes, then try to distance ourselves saying WE are the righteous. All in the name of politics. .all in the name of International relations . .which never works when you are tryng to win a war.

You want to really win this thing? Then be prepared for a real bloodbath and people being butchered. . because anything less is gonna leave some of them alive to come after us at a later date. You want to solve the problem? forget about being a nice guy. Yes, it's extreme .. real war always is. Somehow, I doubt the American populace has the stomach for it, and the simpering opponents of what it really takes will be on the talk shows blabbing away . just like they are doing today.

And you START by flattening the Iranian Nuke facility the day after the election is over, and if you are gonna do that, you may as well take out the one in N. Korea at the same time. If you aren't prepared to do that. . then all talk of "Winning" is useless.

Another item to add to your list of stupid things to police on airplanes.
Lice Spray. I had a can in my luggage so I could spray the rental car seats. After being in a hotel room on vacation that was infested beyond belief with the nasty buggers, I was a bit paranoid.

Anyway, 35 minutes before our flight out of LAX back to Vegas, we get paged. They had ransacked our luggage and wanted to know if I intended on using the lice spray as a weapon or making a bomb. Imagine this tired, stressed out mother of 4 discontent children at a crowded airport being questioned extensively about the intent of the lice spray. We had arrived 4 hours early because my husband was just convinced we'd be standing in line forever. Listening to kids whine for 3 out of the 4 hours about how bored they are at the airport had about done me in. I was about ready to freak as it was. Then,they insinuated I had planned on blowing up the plane with it! Yeah sure, Al Qaida is recruiting pretty, white american christian housewives to blow up planes with cans of Lice Spray. :rolleyes:

I understand national security but c'mon. :confused: Never once during their interrogation did they say m'am you can't put aerosol cans in your luggage because they are flammable . That would have been the obvious mistake I'd suspect if I had been in their shoes.

Only after I had convinced them I meant no harm did they mention that aeresol cans were a no-no . We threw away the spray cans and that was it.

All right. . so how do you end a conflict with a faceless enemy who can strike at any time, will not talk to you, only wants you dead, and follows the beliefs that even if he dies he wins so he has nothing to lose? You can't bribe such a person, its really hard to reason with them, most have made it very clear that they are not concerned with OUR point of view, and are actively attempting to gather information and the abilities necessary to again strike at us?

Enumerating the many problems is one thing . .being alarmed at the Governments tactics and CYA politics is another. . but how do you solve the problem? Actually I think that the war on terror is taking the entirely wrong direction, and that we need to deal with it in a different way. The 9/11 commission report cites Pakistan as a hotbed of terrorist group formations and support. The cause of this, however, is directly related to the economic conditions of the people. If people have a good livelyhood and a way to support their families, then theres no purpose in joining the next psycho on the street who offers you a promise of enternity. These economic problems are not necessarily the fault of hte people or the government; its the result of industrializing too quickly(9/11 Comission Report, 52-53)

Therefore, I see the current strategy in the war on terror as slicing off the heads of a Hydra; we're temporarily solving the problem but we're not rooting out the source. THe way to do that is to through massive economic aid to these countries(Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria) through private enterprises. Give the people a reason to like you. They won't like it at first, so it'll probably take a while.

Think about it, how many terrorists come out of highly affluent societies with jobs that pay reasonable salaries and have families? The trick is to attack the problem on its fundamental level, not the highest exponent of the problem.



Just something to think about.

Edit: I realize that I didnt articulate this very well, but im doing three things at once right now, so meh.

Ths US has had a ban on assassinations of enemies for a very long time. How serious are we about protecting ourselves? Whom do we have to prove the threat to in order to act?

Right now in Africa genocide is taking place. . using air-dropped chemical weapons. How serious are we about stopping atrocities like this .. A single aircraft carrier battle wing could end it in a day, and decapitate the Government sponsoring it in a minute. . The EU morons are just watching, and debating, and talking, and wringing their hands.
How does genocide in Africa affect the national security interests of the United States? What difference does it make to us if the African people are being slaughtered? Granted, it's a horrible thing, but stopping it just doesn't affect the security of the US. If you intended for that statement to mean that it would be "setting an example" to other morally repugnant governments, there's plenty of better places to be starting that actually affect us as a nation. I contend that we have no moral or other obligation to be policing the world. We need to protect ourselves and that's it.
I really don't care if the US is "respected". .respect never fed the hungry, protected your home, or kept those who wish to be martyrs from doing their deeds.
Do you envision a world under the thumb of the United States? Should we be ruling the world by fear? Doesn't that make us terrorists?
We throw money at the AIDS epidemic in Africa, instead of quarantining the infected and ending the problem by stopping the spread.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but this statement sounds like an advocation of genocide. Would genocide be more right if we were doing it?
Is this being "Humane"?
At least we are making an effort. That's a lot more than can be said for the rest of the world. We do what we can without upsetting our lifestyles. This seems like something you would advocate, seeing your fervent nationalism.
We make shadowy alliances with thugs, murderers and corrupt regimes, then try to distance ourselves saying WE are the righteous.
Yes, we did create Osama bin Laden. We assisted the muhajadeen when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. At the time, it was the right choice. We could not let communism spread. The people running the government aren't psychics. They do the best they can with the knowledge they have. Future consequences are unknowable until they happen. I'm curious as to what you would have done if you had been calling the shots during that invasion.
All in the name of politics. .all in the name of International relations . .which never works when you are tryng to win a war.
Detente was a good policy during the Cold War. Granted, it's not always going to work, but saying it never does is a bold statement.
You want to really win this thing? Then be prepared for a real bloodbath and people being butchered. . because anything less is gonna leave some of them alive to come after us at a later date.
Again, an insinuation of genocide. Perhaps I'm wrong though. In any case, destroying one's actual enemies is always a good policy, but going about it haphazardly isn't any better than what they're doing.

As long as a world superpower exists, there will be terrorists trying to bring that country down. The more power the US exerts over the rest of the world, the more people there will be wanting to end the US power. So if we decide to take Kris's advice for a blood bath, then the US will have to kill every single person in the world that's not American.

There is no solution to this problem. If the US are no longer world superpowers, another country will be. As long as the human greed for power exists, there will always be at least one superpower in the world, and as a result, terrorism will always exist.

The best we can do is, like Lylwelyn said, tighten security inside the country. The more the US "fights" terrorism openly, the more countries will be directly against the US. It's a vicious cycle. Open war may stop terrorism in the short run, but it brings back the same problem (and increases it dramatically) in the future.

There is no solution to this problem.
That kind of thinking isnt going to get us anywhere.

That kind of thinking isnt going to get us anywhere.
What I meant was, this problem will always exist. There's no way to completely rid the world of terrorism. However, there are ways to protect oneself from terrorists.

Oh all these misconceptions. . geesh. . .

First off, El Cid .. many terrorists come from disadvantaged countries, most of their LEADERS are from affluent positions in governments or well-to-do families. . .Osama Bin LAden is one of these. He is originally from Saudi Arabia. . didn't he only start this war of terror AFTER the Saudi government refused to listen to him about aiding us in Kuwait, because HE wanted to do oust Hussein from Kuwait in the same way he had fought against the Russians in Afghanistan? (that IS how it went. . ) Look at the leaders of the Taliban, of the PLO, of most terrorist organizations. . they use the ignorant and impoverished as their soldiers. . blindly following like Sheep because they do not know any better. It's like certain segments of OUR society, blindly following charismatic people who point at the President or other people and say it's THEIR fault. Same mentality, different location, just as ignorant and easily swayed. You wish to solve the problem at its most basic level. .which is what the Democratization of Afghanistan and Iraq is doing.. . You pretty much just advocated our current policy in those countries. Thank you for your support of the Presidents policies.


Eramnes, my relating what is going on in Africa is to show a point. . the point being that NO ONE is doing anything about it. . . AIDS and Genocide continue to spread unchecked in many parts of Africa. . and soon that continent will reach a level where it's populations implode due to the number of deaths before 30 outrnning the ability to have chldren. It will only end when you remove all HIV infected persons from the population. No, I did not advocate any sort of Genocide against them, but there has to be a way to separate infected persons from those still healthy, so that the epidemic ceases. To do otherwise is not only inhumane, but irresponsible. It is not "progress" when the rate of new infections actually out paces the birth rate in some countries.

Since you care so much about "solutions" perhaps you can convince France and Germany to step in and stop the organized poisoning and genocide of Africans by their government, which is being decried on a worldwide level, but can't even get a resolution passed in the UN. Being the only Superpower means that WE have a responsibility to solve the problem if the non-superpower nations will not. . Notice I said WILL not, . . not CANnot. You don't do that by building coalitions and alliances and then going in and asking. . you do it by totally decapitating the government that is performing the Genocide (Hey. . just like we did to Hitler .. remember him??) then setting down the rules because they never did it for themselves.

You may not like that solution as being too direct and forceful. . how else do you settle a problem with bullies and murderers? (and don't give me that BS about America then being the bully) The other choice is to stand on the side and watch people murdered on an industrial scale by modern weapons. Pick one.

One other point. . OUR "Lifestyles" are a lot of the problem. . .but let's not upset them, it's too politically painful, right?

And then there's THIS tid bit. . : "Detente was a good policy during the Cold War. Granted, it's not always going to work, but saying it never does is a bold statement".. . That is a gross misstatement of the facts. Detente didn't work. . That was the brain child of Ford and Carter because they could not make the hard choices necessary to end the Soviet Unions strangle hold on the world. In the middle of "Detente" the USSR was on a war footing, building up it's arsenal, invading Afghanistan, out producing the rest of the world in Nuclear and conventional weapons systems .. and we did NOTHING. The minute Reagn started our massive confrontation and military buildup against the USSR , the end was assured. How long did it take for the USSR to fold after that? 6-8 years? The Berlin wall fell in 1989, 7 years after our buildup began . .Gorbachov instituted the policy of Perestroika in 1986. . and in 1989-1991 the USSR basically ceased to exist. You will, of course, say we never went to "War" .. War does not have to be armed conflict. . it can be simple crushing them economically. The end is still achieved. And the Russian "experts' from the time all point to our military buildup as the economic stroke that made it impossible for the USSR to keep up, both militarily or economically.

Right now people are complaining about inefficiencies and problems with Airline Safety .. they have grown weary of our presence in Iraq (a lot of this weariness stems from the constant negative portrayal of our policies and emphasis on problems instead of solutions being attained. . all by our wonderful liberal media hate mongers), they kvetch about being kept informed of possible terror threats (please do a News search about all the Terror plots that have been rooted out in merely the last 6 months. . the threat is very real), and they are concerned that their "Lifestyles" have become affected. tsk tsk tsk . .we still have not learned to turn off the commentators and THINK for ourselves, be the independent-minded people that previous generations were, or developed the intestinal fortitude to end problems on a permanent basis .. The other side is winnign this war, simply because we are too lazy to do what we have to do. It's embarassing.


Fweddie. . this "Bloodbath" started on 9-11-01. Our efforts at "diplomacy" sure didn't work before then. . . How many more times must it happen before
we fnally wake up, quit crying, and loose the dogs of war on a wholesale scale? The people attacking only us know two things. . hatred and martyrdom . .if they want to be martyred, I'll be more than willing to help them along that path. That's not a bloodbath . .that's fulfilling THEIR Religious beliefs. :)

It's really a BAD idea to poking a sleeping bear with a short, pointed stick . .when he wakes up you have nowhere to run or hide. Th US was doing a pretty good job of sleeping. . right now we're just yawning and scratching some fleas.

they use the ignorant and impoverished as their soldiers. . blindly following like Sheep because they do not know any better. The reason that they follow them is because they don't have a better means of livelihood. I certainly wouldn't leave a well paying job and a good family for some lunatic. But if I was starving to death and somebody offered me food, I would probably go join him.

You wish to solve the problem at its most basic level. .which is what the Democratization of Afghanistan and Iraq is doing.. . You pretty much just advocated our current policy in those countries. Thank you for your support of the Presidents policies.
Thank you for putting words in my mouth.

I support a nonviolent, economical approach to this problem. As I said, killing scores of people isn't going to necessarily solve the problem; setting up industries and a sound economical base will. If I'm not mistaken, we seem to have killed a lot of people in doing so. Therefore, 'killing people' = 'not what I said'. Read more carefully.

If I was doing this, instead of spending billions of dollars on tanks and bombs, I would have used that to invest in heavy industry in impoverished nations; things that requires lots of workers. Then, using the Henry Ford theory, you pay them ample wages with lots of benefits and make them want to work for you. The profiit and production that you extract from the industries goes back to america, ie oil. So if you start small and seep into the root of the problem, the government might not have even recognized that they were losing support until it was too late.

With more and more people working jobs that paid decent wages(and decent wages in Iraqi currency is worth much less than it would be here. A good job in India, for example, is the equivalent of about $4 an hour here), there would be 1. less poverty 2. less starvation 3. higher levels of oil output and 4. fewer people who would follow a militant psycho because he has food and a promise.

Think about it for a while.

Eramnes, my relating what is going on in Africa is to show a point. . the point being that NO ONE is doing anything about it.
Why the United States then? Is it our responsibility to take care of the rest of the world? A stance like this is one that conflicts with your position of national self-interest. The simple fact is that African AIDS epidemics has nothing to do with US national security, yet you seem to use it as an example of where our policies on self-preservation have failed.
It will only end when you remove all HIV infected persons from the population. No, I did not advocate any sort of Genocide against them, but there has to be a way to separate infected persons from those still healthy, so that the epidemic ceases.
Do you have any ideas? It's much easier to suggest than to do.
To do otherwise is not only inhumane, but irresponsible. It is not "progress" when the rate of new infections actually out paces the birth rate in some countries.
Once again, Africa's so-called "progress" is of no interest to the national security of the United States. It affects nothing over here.
Being the only Superpower means that WE have a responsibility to solve the problem if the non-superpower nations will not. . Notice I said WILL not, . . not CANnot.
Why do we have this responsibility? You talk about respect of other nations and how unimportant it actually is, but the way I see it, there's no other justification for solving everyone else's problems while people at home starve. Solving the world's problems makes us look good. If you truly believed that we don't need world opinion, then why advocate kowtowing to other nations by solving their problems for them, when they haven't asked for intervention and there's no threat to us?
You don't do that by building coalitions and alliances and then going in and asking. . you do it by totally decapitating the government that is performing the Genocide (Hey. . just like we did to Hitler .. remember him??) then setting down the rules because they never did it for themselves.
Every time someone compares something to Hitler, I laugh. Is that the worst thing that ever happened or something? What about the purges under Stalin? He killed ten times the people that Hitler did. And coalition building? The Allies and Axis during World War Two, what were they?
You may not like that solution as being too direct and forceful. . how else do you settle a problem with bullies and murderers? (and don't give me that BS about America then being the bully) The other choice is to stand on the side and watch people murdered on an industrial scale by modern weapons. Pick one.
I have no problem with brutal force, I have a problem with indiscriminate brutal force, applied to people that pose no threat to us. We would be the bully if we went out and picked fights because we were trying to show how tough we are.
One other point. . OUR "Lifestyles" are a lot of the problem. . .but let's not upset them, it's too politically painful, right?
Do you value modern conviniences, such as medical care, computers, cars, etc.? Or would you rather devolve to the level of dumb beasts, cavemen, clubbing each other over the head for some mispercieved threat to you?
That is a gross misstatement of the facts. Detente didn't work. . That was the brain child of Ford and Carter because they could not make the hard choices necessary to end the Soviet Unions strangle hold on the world. In the middle of "Detente" the USSR was on a war footing, building up it's arsenal, invading Afghanistan, out producing the rest of the world in Nuclear and conventional weapons systems .. and we did NOTHING. The minute Reagn started our massive confrontation and military buildup against the USSR , the end was assured. How long did it take for the USSR to fold after that? 6-8 years? The Berlin wall fell in 1989, 7 years after our buildup began . .Gorbachov instituted the policy of Perestroika in 1986. . and in 1989-1991 the USSR basically ceased to exist. You will, of course, say we never went to "War" .. War does not have to be armed conflict. . it can be simple crushing them economically. The end is still achieved. And the Russian "experts' from the time all point to our military buildup as the economic stroke that made it impossible for the USSR to keep up, both militarily or economically.
At one point you said politics and international relations would never work to solve a conflict, now you seem to say that economic conflict ended the Cold War. Economics in the modern world is global, i.e. globalization, therefore, at least a rudimentary understanding of international relations was required. While communism was doomed to fail(ever read von Mises' refutation of socialism?), international cooperation only served to accelerate it. People tend to forget that no nation is an island, there is not a single country on earth that is completely self-sufficient. Goods are being imported and exported every day, and a coalition(God forbid) cutting off a strategic resource or two to a mutual enemy can grind military production to a halt. I'm interested to hear what your opinion of NATO is, also.
Right now people are complaining about inefficiencies and problems with Airline Safety ..
Do you honestly believe that there's no better solution to be found? Maybe not even now, but sometime in the future. Simply because what we have works is no reason to quit progressing in a certain area.
they have grown weary of our presence in Iraq (a lot of this weariness stems from the constant negative portrayal of our policies and emphasis on problems instead of solutions being attained. . all by our wonderful liberal media hate mongers)
The world isn't all about wonderful solutions all the time. People are being killed, Americans, and the public has a right to know what problems these lives are going to fix. Another thing about weariness, that's what the terrorists want. The more weary the public gets, the more they cry out for the troops to come home.
they kvetch about being kept informed of possible terror threats (please do a News search about all the Terror plots that have been rooted out in merely the last 6 months. . the threat is very real)
There's no reason to inform the general public of the possibilty of terror attacks. It defeats the purpose of the warning system, because the terrorists will see it too. Let's say they leave the country, which means that we are short that many people to question about further plots. Also, it only incites panic in the general public, which is something that the terrorists want. Hence terrorists.
and they are concerned that their "Lifestyles" have become affected.
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." Benjamin Franklin

Difficult to communciate with an entity that has no real face or country (i.e. terrorism).

yes, then people have to communicate, not countries. if it is war it's about countries. that's why i wrote people AND countries.

Why the United States then? Is it our responsibility to take care of the rest of the world? A stance like this is one that conflicts with your position of national self-interest. The simple fact is that African AIDS epidemics has nothing to do with US national security, yet you seem to use it as an example of where our policies on self-preservation have failed.

As a matter of fact .. Americans are the most charitable people in this World . .We have always stepped forward to help where no one else would. If we ignore this epidemic, what does it say about US, as a Nation. We can't be the country that leads the world, without also being the country that sets the best examples for helping the oppressed and afflicted. Greatness carries more than just a title, it also carries a responsibility.


Do you have any ideas? It's much easier to suggest than to do.

Yes, I have ideas .. but people would call them Draconian, unfair, desperate, and even a bit inhumane, because it would involve ensuring that even members of the same family would be strictly separated from eachother. . and no one would want to wear the title of "Tyrant" for imposing the necessary measures.

Once again, Africa's so-called "progress" is of no interest to the national security of the United States. It affects nothing over here.

And the "progress" in the Middle East has nothing to do with our National Security either. . any pool of desperate people is fodder for extremists.

Why do we have this responsibility? You talk about respect of other nations and how unimportant it actually is, but the way I see it, there's no other justification for solving everyone else's problems while people at home starve. Solving the world's problems makes us look good. If you truly believed that we don't need world opinion, then why advocate kowtowing to other nations by solving their problems for them, when they haven't asked for intervention and there's no threat to us?

Solving the problems does not involve kowtowing. . it involves doing it and ignoring the self-centered opinions of naysayers and rivals. Who is starving here at home??? And when you answer that question. .answer WHY they are hungry.

Every time someone compares something to Hitler, I laugh. Is that the worst thing that ever happened or something? What about the purges under Stalin? He killed ten times the people that Hitler did. And coalition building? The Allies and Axis during World War Two, what were they?

Stalin is another great example .. but WW2 was not a coalition, since every nation against the Axis nations was attacked by them first. . It was a "Common Enemy" NOT (as evidenced by Stalin) a "Common Cause".

I have no problem with brutal force, I have a problem with indiscriminate brutal force, applied to people that pose no threat to us. We would be the bully if we went out and picked fights because we were trying to show how tough we are.

So, remember where our current focus is. . not against the innocents, who live right alongside the same people who villify and hate us, and who attack us, but against those who have sworn themselves against us, and who attack us.

Do you value modern conviniences, such as medical care, computers, cars, etc.? Or would you rather devolve to the level of dumb beasts, cavemen, clubbing each other over the head for some mispercieved threat to you?

As a matter of fact. . I do not own a TV. . . I live without very much luxury, have simple tastes, and do most of the tasks people assign to machines with my own hands. I tend to KISS in most everything I do .. But I am certainly the exception to the norm in this country.

At one point you said politics and international relations would never work to solve a conflict, now you seem to say that economic conflict ended the Cold War. Economics in the modern world is global, i.e. globalization, therefore, at least a rudimentary understanding of international relations was required. While communism was doomed to fail(ever read von Mises' refutation of socialism?), international cooperation only served to accelerate it. People tend to forget that no nation is an island, there is not a single country on earth that is completely self-sufficient. Goods are being imported and exported every day, and a coalition(God forbid) cutting off a strategic resource or two to a mutual enemy can grind military production to a halt. I'm interested to hear what your opinion of NATO is, also.

Without the US, NATO is a non-entity. .period. During the Cold War, the US bore the brunt of costs, confrontations, and political battles against the USSR. We could point to the NATO alliance as our allies. . but in reality, if it ever came down to it, they were only a temporary buffer and we would probably have had to rescue them if the USSR had ever attacked Europe. This was standard military doctrine for the time. . .and in some places the only reason the USSR did NOT venture into the European theater was because of the assured US response. I'll direct you to the Berlin airlift as a small example. NATO was not in a position to help when the USSR invaded Afghanistan, and did almost nothing while the US gave aid and assistance to the Mujahideen. And where was NATO during the Cuban Missle Crisis, Vietnam, Angola, or other responses to Soviet expansionism? They were basically incapable of acting outside their own borders. I did maneuvers with 7 NATO countries . most of their basic defense was around a "Delay action" style of tactics, to slow down advancing Soviet forces until US armed forces could arrive, and to work with the superior American forces as efficiently as possible. There were instances of outside asistance from NATO countries from time to time, but always as a supporting force, never unilaterally. And the joke going on in Bosnia right now? Most of the participating countries are from NATO. . nuff said.

Do you honestly believe that there's no better solution to be found? Maybe not even now, but sometime in the future. Simply because what we have works is no reason to quit progressing in a certain area.

There is always room for improvement, but damning what we now have is going to accomplish very little. And what we have does NOT work. . a certain college student proved that by hiding knives and other items on several airliners, just to prove it could still be done. Our airport security is a joke.

The world isn't all about wonderful solutions all the time. People are being killed, Americans, and the public has a right to know what problems these lives are going to fix. Another thing about weariness, that's what the terrorists want. The more weary the public gets, the more they cry out for the troops to come home.

So, if that's what the Terrorists want, WHY is OUR News media so belaboring the negative aspect of it every day ad nauseum??? Listen to what they present, such as the story tonight on ABC about "Tainted water" in Baghdad. . like its OUR fault when they didn't even HAVE water a year ago. But, they never tell that side of the story, do they?

There's no reason to inform the general public of the possibilty of terror attacks. It defeats the purpose of the warning system, because the terrorists will see it too. Let's say they leave the country, which means that we are short that many people to question about further plots. Also, it only incites panic in the general public, which is something that the terrorists want. Hence terrorists.

Put yourself in the place of the Government. . they have two choices . . warn us, and hope we stay alert . .play dumb and don't say anything, and watch it all blow up someday. A really tough choice there. . .


"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." Benjamin Franklin

Please define "Essential" liberty. Security is always transient, depending on your level of awareness, the actual threat, and how well you can handle the threat. When you are in a foxhole, and the mortars are raining down, "Freedom of Speech" , and the other sides "Civil Rights" are the LAST things you are thinking about.

The reason that they follow them is because they don't have a better means of livelihood. I certainly wouldn't leave a well paying job and a good family for some lunatic. But if I was starving to death and somebody offered me food, I would probably go join him.

Thank you for putting words in my mouth.

I support a nonviolent, economical approach to this problem. As I said, killing scores of people isn't going to necessarily solve the problem; setting up industries and a sound economical base will. If I'm not mistaken, we seem to have killed a lot of people in doing so. Therefore, 'killing people' = 'not what I said'. Read more carefully.

If I was doing this, instead of spending billions of dollars on tanks and bombs, I would have used that to invest in heavy industry in impoverished nations; things that requires lots of workers. Then, using the Henry Ford theory, you pay them ample wages with lots of benefits and make them want to work for you. The profiit and production that you extract from the industries goes back to america, ie oil. So if you start small and seep into the root of the problem, the government might not have even recognized that they were losing support until it was too late.

With more and more people working jobs that paid decent wages(and decent wages in Iraqi currency is worth much less than it would be here. A good job in India, for example, is the equivalent of about $4 an hour here), there would be 1. less poverty 2. less starvation 3. higher levels of oil output and 4. fewer people who would follow a militant psycho because he has food and a promise.

Think about it for a while.


Okay. .I've thought about it ... lets see. . 25 million people.. . . jobs . . lets build an infrastructure, factories, develop markets, modernize the nation, educate the children all the way through college, AND feed them the entire time . . .Sure. . NO PROBLEM. . got a Trillion dollars laying around you don't need?? And don't forget all the US citizens who are going to be screaming when you ship THEIR jobs over to Afghanistan.

Here's a better way . Get rid of the riff raff, set up a democratic government, give them a few billion in aid each year, encourage them to become trading PARTNERS with us and the rest of the world. let them do it themselves with no interference from US, and see what happens.

GEEE That's exctly what we are doing right now in Afghanistan and Iraq . . .seems to be working (even with set backs) for the time being. . Let's keep an eye on it and watch it grow (no matter WHAT the NEws Media says is going "wrong"). You just GOTTA remember. . poverty exists everywhere. . even here. And its not going to go away just because there is business and opportunites. There will always be a desperate part of any population will willingly sell themselves to an ideal in order to have it better than they currently do (just look at prostitutes. . ) Given that there will always be a pool of starving desperate people willing to join a movement in order to eat. . you have to get rid of the charismatic leaders ( or buy them out) in order to assure security.

Okay. .I've thought about it ... lets see. . 25 million people.. . . jobs . . lets build an infrastructure, factories, develop markets, modernize the nation, educate the children all the way through college, AND feed them the entire time . . .Sure. . NO PROBLEM. . got a Trillion dollars laying around you don't need?? And don't forget all the US citizens who are going to be screaming when you ship THEIR jobs over to Afghanistan.Not everything goes from one extreme to the other, Kris^. The point he was making (atleast as I understood it), was that in order to directly attack the problem, it starts with our economics. Not governments, not war, but the people. No, America can not run over to Afghanistan and built up there nation to something of your own country, but nobody is saying that is what it would take to stop these terrorists at the root. We need to put an end to the hate, not the people Kris^. So long as you're going to war against other countries, there are going to be terrorists, naturally.


Here's a better way . Get rid of the riff raff, set up a democratic government, give them a few billion in aid each year, encourage them to become trading PARTNERS with us and the rest of the world. let them do it themselves with no interference from US, and see what happens.
It's the US that needs to encourage free trade with third world countries, not the other way around.

Nobody is saying you are to hand them an education of a silver platter, the idea is to essentially help them to aid themself. Ways you can do this is by private organizations going in and educating, and other such things. Unicef is a great example of this, and to date has taken in 2,000 if not more children, that were once soldiers in Afghanistan, and are now being supported on a reintegration and rehabilitation programme. This is exactly what taking out the root of evil straight straight from it's source, is really all about.

What would you honestly rather... Bush spending tens of thousands of dollars on securing known terrorist targets, or putting in just a bit more moeny towards financial aid for other world countries, and trying to actually putting an end to this war on terrorism, instead of continually instigating it. I am not talking about humanitarian or development aid either, as those have both proved to be not only be insufficient in the long run, but have actually hurt the existing economy by making all existing farms and such obsolete. I am talking about taking their own economy and helping out with such things as property rights and free markets , through promoting and removing barriers in the free trade market between such countries, and the United States. This is just one binding factor that could have enormous benefits to both countries.

In conclusion, I too believe that the terrorist alert system is a failed system, and is only in place to look as though the government is protecting you. The fact of the matter is, those terrorist alerts have absolutely no protection value whatsoever, and while such things as prompting everyone on high alert with extra security in a few key locations, there are potential terrorists slipping in the back door. Like Lly said, we need to attack the unknown problems, and the entire american population (as well as the rest of the world), does not need to know about it.

The earthquake line in Lly's article really struck me. That is EXACTLY the way I feel about terrorism! In fact, I might be MORE scared about earthquakes!

The earthquake line in Lly's article really struck me. That is EXACTLY the way I feel about terrorism! In fact, I might be MORE scared about earthquakes!That's because you live in California.. ;P

As a matter of fact .. Americans are the most charitable people in this World . .We have always stepped forward to help where no one else would. If we ignore this epidemic, what does it say about US, as a Nation. We can't be the country that leads the world, without also being the country that sets the best examples for helping the oppressed and afflicted. Greatness carries more than just a title, it also carries a responsibility.
If we ignore this epidemic, it says that we care about our own interests more than the interests of a country or continent that doesn't matter to us. As a matter of fact, I hold that it is morally wrong for us to meddle in the affairs of a non-threatening country unless they specifically request aid, and only then if said aid involves no sacrifice on the part of our nation. Force is always evil, unless used in response to force. We should never be the initiator of force. How can you reconcile "not caring" about world opinion while stating here that we need to "set the best examples for helping the oppressed and afflicted"?
Yes, I have ideas .. but people would call them Draconian, unfair, desperate, and even a bit inhumane, because it would involve ensuring that even members of the same family would be strictly separated from eachother. . and no one would want to wear the title of "Tyrant" for imposing the necessary measures.
Practicality is an important part of any plan.
And the "progress" in the Middle East has nothing to do with our National Security either. . any pool of desperate people is fodder for extremists.
What about desperate people within our own borders?
Solving the problems does not involve kowtowing. . it involves doing it and ignoring the self-centered opinions of naysayers and rivals.
Here again you say that we should ignore world opinion, when three paragraphs ago you claimed we needed to set a helpful example. I'm confused as to why we should set an example if we aren't supposed to care what others think.
Stalin is another great example .. but WW2 was not a coalition, since every nation against the Axis nations was attacked by them first. . It was a "Common Enemy" NOT (as evidenced by Stalin) a "Common Cause".
All right, I grabbed the wrong word. It was, however, an alliance. The point is that groups of armies can accomplish much more than a solitary nation can when fighting multiple nations or threats. Do we need alliances? No, but it has the potential to make things much easier. You claimed that they were never going to work.
So, remember where our current focus is. . not against the innocents, who live right alongside the same people who villify and hate us, and who attack us, but against those who have sworn themselves against us, and who attack us.
Anyone can be a terrorist. How can you know who is who? In Vietnam, the Vietcong had the ability to hide among the villagers, where our soldiers couldn't fight them until it was too late. It's the same situation in the Middle East, right now.
And where was NATO during the Cuban Missle Crisis, Vietnam, Angola, or other responses to Soviet expansionism? They were basically incapable of acting outside their own borders
Why was the United States there? Where was the direct threat to the US, except for the Cuban Missile Crisis? Communism was doomed to fail, there was no need to go traipsing around the world to "stop" it.
There is always room for improvement, but damning what we now have is going to accomplish very little. And what we have does NOT work. . a certain college student proved that by hiding knives and other items on several airliners, just to prove it could still be done. Our airport security is a joke.
I agree with Lly's plan. Airport security is a joke. Damning what we have now is an inspiration to improve the plan; as long as people know that we are unsatisified, we have inspired them to improve on what we have.
So, if that's what the Terrorists want, WHY is OUR News media so belaboring the negative aspect of it every day ad nauseum??? Listen to what they present, such as the story tonight on ABC about "Tainted water" in Baghdad. . like its OUR fault when they didn't even HAVE water a year ago. But, they never tell that side of the story, do they?
I don't know why they tell those sort of things. It was just an observation, but my theory is that it makes us feel better about our lives to know other people are suffering.
Put yourself in the place of the Government. . they have two choices . . warn us, and hope we stay alert . .play dumb and don't say anything, and watch it all blow up someday. A really tough choice there. . .
Do you honestly follow the terror alerts and do what they tell you to do for a certain color? I have yet to meet anyone like that.
Please define "Essential" liberty. Security is always transient, depending on your level of awareness, the actual threat, and how well you can handle the threat. When you are in a foxhole, and the mortars are raining down, "Freedom of Speech" , and the other sides "Civil Rights" are the LAST things you are thinking about.(emphasis mine)
I wasn't referring to the other side's civil rights, I was referring to ours. When we give up the Bill of Rights in order to stay safe, I hold that that is too much to pay for freedom. I'd rather be free to fight the terrorists if they came here, than be under the thumb of an oppressive government.

Eramnes, showing the way, and setting the example, does not mean we have to care if our naysayers wish to ridicule and insult us. They do that no matter what we do (Even if we do it for THEM).. We do it because it's the RIGHT thing to do, to be charitable, to send AID, to help, to protect. Why is it that at the middle of EVERY disaster or crisis in the world US Aid workers usually outnumber any other countries contribution. . our financial aid easily dominates any figures tallied, and our food and basic needs charities feed Millions every day? Because. .it's the right thing to do We are slandered by rivals because of even our generosity . . .why should we care what they say. It's just the right thing to do. .and we've always done it. Stepping forward with a military solution to Genocide will only garner the same reactions .. why should we care? I say ignore them, and do what is necessary. Setting the example is not always easy.
And the second we say "it does not matter to us". . we have betrayed the very foundation upon which this Country was founded.

Why was the United States there? Where was the direct threat to the US, except for the Cuban Missile Crisis? Communism was doomed to fail, there was no need to go traipsing around the world to "stop" it.

To answer this question you need to familiarize yourself with what the world was like post WW2. Communism may have been doomed to fail, especially in the Soviet example of it, but China is STILL Communist ( or claims the title) Until it's totally gone, it exists and has not failed. I suppose you would have rather that we did nothing. In fact, we SHOULD have aided Ho Chi Minh ( who asked for our help) against the French in the 50's, and helped him set up a Democratic Viet Nam, instead of allowing him to join with Communist China.. Ike and Kennedy were VERY stupid in this matter, and by the time Johnson came along (who personaly had agricultural interests in Viet Nam) it was too late to reverse the past. The "Direct threat" to the US?? Ask Johnson. .. he's the one that pulled the trigger after the fiasco in the Gulf of Tonkin. And a more foolish President I have never seen.

You claimed that they were never going to work.

The fiasco on Bosnia at the moment only points to the futility of a divisive multi-national coalition. The "Coalition" in Iraq (okay the US and a bunch of helpers if you want to be accurate) has strong leadership and a focus on its purpose .. Personaly I'm very glad France and Germany never supported the effort. . it shows them for what they truly are.
I don't know why they tell those sort of things. It was just an observation, but my theory is that it makes us feel better about our lives to know other people are suffering.

They slant the story to cause controversy, so that they have more reason to exist. . Peace and Love and Success do not make news, nor do they hold a readers attention . .I really do NOT want to see the bad news (which is why I seldom look at a TV). Life is hard enough without all that negativeness and hate mongering. Next time you atch the news. .think about WHY they are saying things in a certain way .. you will see, if you look closely, that it is ALWAYS slanted. . usually to the Left, but sometimes to the right (such as from FOX). The degree of slant reflects the speakers political views usually.

I'd rather be free to live peacefully here, while our armed forces are fighting the terrorists over THERE. . . and I'd REALLY rather see a government that was bout 1/4 it's current size .. . .and did the jobs governments were supposed to do, rather than social engineering.

Fallen Angelia. . I THINK you missed my attempt at sarcasm. . . . . I'm very aware of the limitations of the current situation, and that Force is not always the only answer. . But as long as Terrorists exist ( and they always will) we have to be willing to root them out and destroy them utterly, with no holds barred and no reservations. To do otherwise is a sign of a lack of resolve, and will only encourage them further.

What I would HONESTLY rather have? HONESTLY???

Take off the kid gloves, quit playing politics, yank every soldier we have out of Europe and Asia and send them in and just go ballistic for about 6 months. . then install democratic governments (as we are doing now) that have free rule over their people and total autonomy. . . Then LEAVE. . and let them know we will be back if they ever try it again. We've started with Afghanistan and Iraq .. Next comes Iran, and in N. Korea we just take out their silly reactor and then let North and South Korea settle it between themselves. Then we come home, and get ready for the next one . .. as long as our enemies KNOW we will react and wipe them out. . they will not attack. Simplistic? You ever punch a bully in the nose and watch him run away? Moammar Qadaffi saw what was happening, and changed his ideas pretty quickly. Now he is a partial ally and no longer a threat. . Others will follow that example, but only if we keep up the military responses and pressure. Having been in a war zone one too many times. . I do NOT like advocating such a response, but it is the only EFFECTIVE response, with assured results. Call me a militarist all you want.. Politics has yet to work, and in fact has made us weaker. I refuse to accept that anymore.

Do I honestly follow the terror alerts? HELL NO!!!! I never said they were effective. . but the Government is obligated (if for no other reason than political CYOA) to keep us informed. It's political suicide NOT to.

Okay. .I've thought about it ... lets see. . 25 million people.. . . jobs . . lets build an infrastructure, factories, develop markets, modernize the nation, educate the children all the way through college, AND feed them the entire time . . .Sure. . NO PROBLEM. . got a Trillion dollars laying around you don't need?? And don't forget all the US citizens who are going to be screaming when you ship THEIR jobs over to Afghanistan.

Here's a better way . Get rid of the riff raff, set up a democratic government, give them a few billion in aid each year, encourage them to become trading PARTNERS with us and the rest of the world. let them do it themselves with no interference from US, and see what happens.
How much do you think the war in Iraq costed? The way that I suggested, no one gets killed. Can you compute the value of one human life, let alone thousands of Iraqis and almost 1,000 American GIs? What if one of those soldiers was your brother or your cousin or husband or even your dad? Could you still say that war was the best solution if someone you loved was killed because it?

Take off the kid gloves, quit playing politics, yank every soldier we have out of Europe and Asia and send them in and just go ballistic for about 6 months. . then install democratic governments (as we are doing now) that have free rule over their people and total autonomy. . . Then LEAVE. . and let them know we will be back if they ever try it again. Kill everybody and let god sort it out, right? *ahem* Anyway, the history of this area is not very conducive to democracy. While democractic governments best represent the people who vote, they are not necessarily the prime government for every nation. For an Eastern European country that has a large amount of heavy industry and workers who would otherwise be on the bottom of a capitalistic society, a socialistic government may be best. Just because democracy and capitalism work for us doesn't mean that its best for everyone. By no means am I saying that there should be authoritarian/totalitarian governments. What I AM saying is that there needs to be a free society that works for the people who are living there. Otherwise, we're just wasting our time, effort, and lives.

Next comes Iran, and in N. Korea we just take out their silly reactor and then let North and South Korea settle it between themselves. Do you know what a war with North Korea would mean? first, its not as easy as you put it to 'take out their silly reactor.' An intercontinental ballistic missle can be launched within a few minutes of the fire order, ie as soon as we invade. Los Angeles becomes a glass parking lot.

Also, what would be the human cost of a war between North Korea and South Korea? Do you think that we would just walk away from South Korea and let them duke it out with North Korea on their own? What does that say about our commitment to foreign allies?

Call me a militarist all you want.. Politics has yet to work, and in fact has made us weaker. I refuse to accept that anymore.

So there was this Gandhi guy who something something something freed a something country from a something first world country without a something something person killed.

I'm not fond of the "war on terror" rhetoric from the Bush administration. Why do Presidents keep declaring war on a concept, like the War on Drugs or the War on Poverty? A war declared on a concept, rather than an entity, never ends and quickly becomes inefficient. When Japanese planes bombed Pearl Harbor, FDR didn't declare war on aerial sneak attacks!

When Japanese planes bombed Pearl Harbor, FDR didn't declare war on aerial sneak attacks!

Well not officially but it did inspire us to litter the entire floor of both Atlantic and Pacific with unmanned sonar stations and to improve our radar capabilities... so we kinda did win the war on aerial sneak attacks. I guess unless you count Sept. 11th.

[QUOTE=el_cid]How much do you think the war in Iraq costed? The way that I suggested, no one gets killed. Can you compute the value of one human life, let alone thousands of Iraqis and almost 1,000 American GIs? What if one of those soldiers was your brother or your cousin or husband or even your dad? Could you still say that war was the best solution if someone you loved was killed because it? [QUOTE+el_cid]

El Cid you are so FULL of it. This is a WAR. . Get a grip on ther REALITY of it. People are gonna die. . and be maimed and suffer. . .it goes with the territory. I've been a part of it in the past, you know, I'd do it again, if they'd let me. . right now, today. some things you have to stand up for. Do you ever stand up for anything? Are you willing to fight, and perhaps die, for anything???

Kill everybody and let god sort it out, right?

I'm sorry I didn't say that. . Now who is putting words in whoms mouth??? If you are going to have a military action, you go in full bore. . never half measures. Being you have never participated in one of these parties, I expect you think the LBJ stupidity of "Limitied War" is possible. That's been proven to be patently ignorant of the reality of the situation.

*ahem* Anyway, the history of this area is not very conducive to democracy. While democractic governments best represent the people who vote, they are not necessarily the prime government for every nation. For an Eastern European country that has a large amount of heavy industry and workers who would otherwise be on the bottom of a capitalistic society, a socialistic government may be best. Just because democracy and capitalism work for us doesn't mean that its best for everyone. By no means am I saying that there should be authoritarian/totalitarian governments. What I AM saying is that there needs to be a free society that works for the people who are living there. Otherwise, we're just wasting our time, effort, and lives.

Who are YOU to say that socialism is ever a better alternative? Socialism grants almost no freedoms and usurps individuality for State Authoritarianism. This goes against everything proven over the last century, AND is totally contrary to the political model that the US has proven works. To paraphrase an English PM. . "The democracy in the United States is a very poor form of government, but its the best that's ever been."

"Do you know what a war with North Korea would mean? first, its not as easy as you put it to 'take out their silly reactor.' An intercontinental ballistic missle can be launched within a few minutes of the fire order, ie as soon as we invade. Los Angeles becomes a glass parking lot. "

You REALLY missed this one. . I did not advocate a nuclear attack. . ever heard of cruise missiles and high explosive warheads? 8-10 such weapons could easily shut down any reactor in the world, by simply destroying the cooling towers, damaging the reactors control facility, and rendering it inoperable without damaging the reactor itself. Add in a joint attack on any uranium refining plants and you remove N. Koreas nuclear ability. As for LA. . it needs to be a parking lot, and your bleeding heart emotionalism in even stating that you are worried about LA getting slagged is. . totally ignorant. . . . and we are certainly NOT going to invade N. Korea (Boy, now THAT is a STUPID idea. .where did you come up with that from reading my post???? ). . we'll just leave as we should have done 50 years ago.

"Also, what would be the human cost of a war between North Korea and South Korea? Do you think that we would just walk away from South Korea and let them duke it out with North Korea on their own? What does that say about our commitment to foreign allies? "

We've been "Committed", and propping up S. Korea, for 50 years. . you think MAYBE it's time THEY protected their OWN country???? If they can't do it after 50 years. . they don't deserve to have a country. It costs us 10's of billions each year to ensure S. Korea exists. . as others have noted. . .communism is doomed to fail anyway. . let's permit it do so. S. Korea now has no strategic value to the United States. . It's THEIR country . .we've built up their industrial base for them and given them a decent government. . it's time they got kicked out of the nest.

"So there was this Gandhi guy who something something something freed a something country from a something first world country without a something something person killed."

You REALLY need to review your history, and the reasons for Britain leaving India in the post WW2 era. . and you REALLY need to give proper credit to Prime Minister Nehru, who led India out of that era, and took many wise steps toward making India the leader of the "Non-Aligned" Nations. You really do. I find your grasp and knowledge of geo-politics and the realities of this worlds histories to be almost non existent, and very basic and elementary in the areas you try to bring up as important. Go do some reading. . engage more than a few hundred synapses, and try it again.


Cruithne.. . . unfortunately the fluid reality of Politics necessitates having SOMETHING to name in order to fight against it. I'm sure that informed and intelligent people realize the need to focus a Nations attention in order to be able to react against a threat. If Bush had called it "Counter attacking, infiltrating and destroying, and rendering powerless the terrorist organizations of this world, while at the same time removing their bases of refuge in foreign lands and punishing governments who harbor them". . . well. . that's what we are trying to do. . but its kinda hard to get galvanized behind it. "War" is so much easier.

"War on Drugs" is a total misnomer, as is the knee-jerk liberals tag of "War on poverty". Neither are actual wars .. we certainly have not taken to nuking the cocaine fields in S. America, nor have we been aiming 500 lbs bombs at people who do not hire impoverished individuals and give them work. I think, though, that a "War on Terrorism" is closer to the truth than some may imagine. In a war, you hunt down the enemy and kill them, until they either no longer exist, or sue for Peace and become politically acceptable. We are doing that in this case. .

Another thing declaring it as a "War" does is to allow the full sanction and power of the US military to be brought to bear. Its a lot easier to simply kill terrorists with a 500 lbs bomb, than to try to prove in court that they are actually terrorists. Kind of a nice way to avoid all those nasty legal entanglements, don't you think? Vaporize Ahmed and his band of AK-47 toting religious zealots, label them as a "Terrorist cell" and no one bats an eye. . bring them in front of a court, with legal protections, and the press has a field day, public opiniion swells on both sides of the issue, and a very messy legal situation occurs. . THEN you have to imprison them and feed them for the rest of their lives. .IF they are found guilty . .and if not. . man are YOU embarassed.

"War" is a very nasty . .yet convenient. . situation when you are in the position we find ourselves in at the moment.

Rudy Giuliani said it best in his speech last night (that was not televised on any network television stations):

Terrorism did not start on September 11, 2001. It had been festering for many years.

And the world had created a response to it that allowed it to succeed. The attack on the Israeli team at the Munich Olympics was in 1972. And the pattern had already begun.

The three surviving terrorists were arrested and within two months released by the German government.

Action like this became the rule, not the exception.

Terrorists came to learn they could attack and often not face consequences.

In 1985, terrorists attacked the Achille Lauro and murdered an American citizen who was in a wheelchair, Leon Klinghoffer.

They marked him for murder solely because he was Jewish.

Some of those terrorist were released and some of the remaining terrorists allowed to escape by the Italian government because of fear of reprisals.

So terrorists learned they could intimidate the world community and too often the response, particularly in Europe, was "accommodation, appeasement and compromise."

And worse the terrorists also learned that their cause would be taken more seriously, almost in direct proportion to the barbarity of the attack.

Terrorist acts became a ticket to the international bargaining table.

How else to explain Yasser Arafat winning the Nobel Peace Prize when he was supporting a terrorist plague in the Middle East that undermined any chance of peace?

Before September 11, we were living with an unrealistic view of the world much like our observing

Europe appease Hitler or trying to accommodate ourselves to peaceful co-existence with the Soviet Union through mutually assured destruction.

President Bush decided that we could no longer be just on defense against global terrorism but we must also be on offense.

On September 20, 2001, President Bush stood before a joint session of Congress, a still grieving and shocked nation and a confused world and he did change the direction of our ship of state.

He dedicated America under his leadership to destroying global terrorism.

The President announced the Bush Doctrine when he said: "Our war on terror begins with Al Qaeda, but it does not end there.

It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.

"Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists."


You can find the whole transcript of this speech here (http://www.gopconvention.com/cgi-data/speeches/files/c9amag533wqt110276ixn2s44k2uxpyf.shtml) or you can view it on cspan.com.

El Cid you are so FULL of it. This is a WAR. . Get a grip on ther REALITY of it. People are gonna die. . and be maimed and suffer. . .it goes with the territory
Kris, I think that you misinterpreted my first post. What I was saying didn't involve military action. Take off the kid gloves, quit playing politics, yank every soldier we have out of Europe and Asia and send them in and just go ballistic for about 6 months. . then install democratic governments (as we are doing now) that have free rule over their people and total autonomy. . . Then LEAVE. . and let them know we will be back if they ever try it again. We've started with Afghanistan and Iraq .. Next comes Iran, and in N. Korea we just take out their silly reactor and then let North and South Korea settle it between themselves. Then we come home, and get ready for the next one . .. as long as our enemies KNOW we will react and wipe them out. . they will not attack. Thats what I interpreted as 'kill everybody and let god sort it out.'


I expect you think the LBJ stupidity of "Limitied War" is possible. That's been proven to be patently ignorant of the reality of the situation.
Vietnam is the prime example of that not working(cf. Kosovo). I never suggested war or anything like it. I was proposing an economic solution.


Who are YOU to say that socialism is ever a better alternative? Socialism grants almost no freedoms and usurps individuality for State Authoritarianism. This goes against everything proven over the last century, AND is totally contrary to the political model that the US has proven works. To paraphrase an English PM. . "The democracy in the United States is a very poor form of government, but its the best that's ever been."
If we installed a democracy in Iraq and a civil war erupted, then how successful was that government? What I'm saying is that we should find something that works for the people who live there, not necessarily what works for us. The socialism thing was just an example. Oh, and you misquoted Winston Churchill. Its: It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. (http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/364.html)

You REALLY missed this one. . I did not advocate a nuclear attack. . ever heard of cruise missiles and high explosive warheads? 8-10 such weapons could easily shut down any reactor in the world, by simply destroying the cooling towers, damaging the reactors control facility, and rendering it inoperable without damaging the reactor itself. Add in a joint attack on any uranium refining plants and you remove N. Koreas nuclear ability Neither did I. The problem is getting missles in before they launch. Also, if a cruise missle was off by even a fraction of a calculation, the entire facility would go up in a hazy, green fog. The risk of killing hundreds of thousands of N. Korean citizens is awfully high with that method. BTW, destroying the cooling mechanisms on a nuclear reactor is a really bad idea.

As for LA. . it needs to be a parking lot, and your bleeding heart emotionalism in even stating that you are worried about LA getting slagged is. . totally ignorant. . . .you're kidding, right?

I find your grasp and knowledge of geo-politics and the realities of this worlds histories to be almost non existent, and very basic and elementary in the areas you try to bring up as important. Go do some reading. . engage more than a few hundred synapses, and try it again.
We also have a 'no personal attack' policy here. The idea here is be constructive, not act like a four year old.

So if you're going to bash me for 'realities of history,' I suggest that you read the 9/11 Commission report. The panel points out basically what I've said so far. The root of the problem starts on an economical level. If you don't believe me, go read pages 52-55(btw, the panel is composed of 5 democats and 5 republicans, so don't try that left wing liberal media shit). George W. has so far advocated the majority of its propositions, so make up your mind who you're following: your president or yourself.

There's also a Quote button in the reply message. Its on the far right, bottom row. See it? You just push it, put an = after the first [QUOTE], then the name of the person who said whatever you're replying to. Then you can copy/paste what they said. It makes reading who said what a lot easier. ;)


Edit: Also, I understand that Gandhi did not act alone and that the primary reason that India was able to break away from England had more to do with England than Gandhi. Its the approach, however, that counts.

[QUOTE=el_cid][font=Times New Roman] Oh, and you misquoted Winston Churchill. Its: It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. (http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/364.html)

Please note, I was "Paraphrasing" there are other versions of the same statement, from other people.

Of COURSE I was kidding about LA and making it a parking lot. . other alternatives are more tasteful.. . . and have less radioactive residue.

Before you start quoting from the 9-11 commission. . take a good look at the persons on it. One was an advisor to Janet Reno, and is the same person who penned the memorandum assuring no sharing of information between the FBI and CIA, which was one of the main problems in stopping any terrorist activity in the first place. .. this is a blatant case of conflict of interest. . .she should have been removed. Secondly, the commissions review is heavily slanted. Third, the majority of the members of the panel are Anti-Bush, and against the administratiosn policies in the Middle East. This was hardly a non-partisan review. . .

Your grasp of Geo Politics IS lmited. You wish to portray Ghandi as the principle benefactor/leader in India, when he was in actuality a figurehead, a poor statesman, had a lot less influence in Britain leaving Inda than you would assign him (they were on their way out anyway, directly after ww2) was a mediocre politician, and not able to come to grips with an aggressive Chinese presence on India's borders (which Nehru very skilfully settled) History is there for the reading. Please do not make the assertion of Ghandi's greatness when it is not actually a truism, though his personna and "cult of personality" held many in awe. At the same time you worry about Korea launching an ICBM at the US, which they do not even possess yet. The best they can currently do, even if they had enough material for a bomb, would be to sneak it in by ship, or explode a "dirty bomb" to irradiate a city center with a tactic of using high explosives to spread residual nuclear material over a wide area, thus rendering the area uninhabitable. This is the usage they would have for nuclear materials at this time. . I'm sure that any cruise missiles or bombers we would send against the N. Korea nuclear faciities would have more than enough time to get to their targets before N. Korea could somehow come up with an ICBM and launch it at us. A perusal of Janes Books (On military matters) will give you all the information currently available on N. Koreas offensive capabilities, including how vulnerable they are if we wish to attack them. At the same time, you may wish to study up on China-US relations concerning the Korean Peninsula, as well as Russian interests in that area. Both Russia and China border on N. Korea. No one in that area, especially Japan, wants a nuclear capable N. Korea, and their leader is making NO friends either.

One other fact you seem to be missing. . Nuclear reactors are shielded 3-4 times over from outside penetration, starting with an extremely thick insulating/radiation blocking wall of concrete and other materials (in the 2-5' thick area usually) at least one "Containment wall" built to similar proportions as the first, then the buildings outer walls, again of very heavy duty construction, then an open area with dikes in case of spillage or a breach in the reactor cores inner walls due to nuclear meltdown (see details of the Chernobyl disaster for reference and design limitations) Because of the heavy structures involved, penetration and rupture of the inner reactor walls is highly unlikely except as the result of a close proximity nuclear blast, or of a prolonged and focussed attack using conventional armaments. However, subsystems such as cooling towers and infrastructure or command/control areas are vulnerable, and can easily be destroyed in a limited attack. The Israeli attack of a Nuclear reactor took place as the facility was being built, rendering it useless and requiring totally rebuilding it, which the French would not do because of the costs involved.

No one is attacking you here (yeah. .no negrep points, no name calling, no slanderous words, no swearing. . . . not like SOME of us get. . . ).. but your recitation of semi-facts and limited view of what is going on are certainly frustrating, which is why grabbing some books, doing some internet research, and taking a hard look at how history actually unfolded is a good idea.

*skips over the last 3 messages*

Anybody care to shorten their posts so that I'll actually read them?
How about you guys start to be a little more concise with your points so that I don't completely skip over what you are trying to say? :D

*skips over the last 3 messages*

Anybody care to shorten their posts so that I'll actually read them?
How about you guys start to be a little more concise with your points so that I don't completely skip over what you are trying to say? :D Kill fewer people, send more economic aid; One sentence.

El_Cid's Wrong!!!!

:)

2 words, plus smiley

Edit":
And so I do not double post:

THINKDAMMIT!!

Kill fewer people, send more economic aid; One sentence.

Great, now I can participate. :D

So essentially you mean:

Be a soft nation who doesn't respond to direct attacks on our country and raise taxes while doing so...

Is that what I'm hearing?

Great, now I can participate. :D

So essentially you mean:

Be a soft nation who doesn't respond to direct attacks on our country and raise taxes while doing so...

Is that what I'm hearing?
Let's all hold hands across the world and together proclaim... "I'd like to teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony..." (/sarcasm)

Let's all hold hands across the world and together proclaim... "I'd like to teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony..." (/sarcasm)

Until that guy next to you pulls the trigger on the bomb strapped to his chest, killing 30.

But that's ok because they can do whatever they want, and when we try to stop them...SHAME ON US.

Until that guy next to you pulls the trigger on the bomb strapped to his chest, killing 30.
But but we were being nice to him!?!?! Why would he do that???

But but we were being nice to him!?!?! Why would he do that???

Civil rights means never having to say you're sorry for killing under 50 people.

Civil rights means never having to say you're sorry for killing under 50 people.
Yeah I know it's all our fault. Our "foreign policy" created the issues that led to his "mission." We should be so ashamed of ourselves.

Great, now I can participate. :D

So essentially you mean:

Be a soft nation who doesn't respond to direct attacks on our country and raise taxes while doing so...

Is that what I'm hearing?
No. Cut out the problem at its source.


Unlike the Oil States(or Afghanistan, where real economic development has barely begun), the other Arab nations and Pakistan once had seemed headed toward balanced modernization. The established commerical, financial, and industrial sectors in these states, supported an entrepeneurial spirit and widespread understanding of free enterprise, augured well. But unprofitable heavy industry, state monopolies, and opaque beauracracies slowly slifled growth. More importantly, these state-centered regimes placed their highest priority on preserving the elite's grip on national wealth. Unwilling to foster dynamic economies that could create jobs attractive to young men, the countries became economically stagnant and reliant on the safety valve of worker immigration either to the arab oil states or to the West. [. . . ] By the 1990s, high birthrates and declining rates of infant mortality had produced a common problem throughout the Muslim world: a large, steadily increasing population of young men without any reasonable expectation of suitable or steady employment[. . .] Frustrated in their search for a decent living, unable to benefit from an education often obtained at the cost of great family sacrifice, and blocked from starting families of their own, some of these young men were easy targets for radicalization.
Solving the problem starts at the economic level. Otherwise, we're just killing people, not the source of the people.

And THEY have "rights" too!!

El_Cid your last post is the BEST reason AGAINST Foreign Aid I've ever seen. .if we do not FEED them . .they cannot procreate. . which means fewer people attacking us, less presure on them to get even for use being so nice, AND they will be too weak to think properly or even form a plan and carry it out. .

End Foreign Aid. . its the only solution!!! Let them figure out how to improve themselves. . .

Otherwise, we're just killing people, not the source of the people.
Build a time machine and kill their parents (oh and since I have been told that I am condescending and rude - that was meant as a joke).

No. Cut out the problem at its source.


Solving the problem starts at the economic level. Otherwise, we're just killing people, not the source of the people.

An economic reformation is something that doesn't just happen overnight. What do you suppose we do during the period that we are waiting for these countries to reach an acceptable level of modernization?

Modernization is not the only answer. As you can see by the protestors in NYC this week, no amount of modernization is enough to stop extremists.

I agree with you. Economic stability and modernization is AN answer to the growing problems in the Middle East, however it is certainly not the ONLY answer. The only answer to extremists is to speak their language: FORCE.

Build a time machine and kill their parents (oh and since I have been told that I am condescending and rude - that was meant as a joke).
no offense taken;) i worded that poorly.

Solving the problem starts at the economic level. Otherwise, we're just killing people, not the source of the people.

How about we just blow the dogshit out of anyone that looks at us crosseyed, hope everyone else sees it, pisses their panties, and doesn't screw with us?

How about we just blow the dogshit out of anyone that looks at us crosseyed, hope everyone else sees it, pisses their panties, and doesn't screw with us?

I already suggested that. . . . .

Why is that the BEST course is always the nastiest???

An economic reformation is something that doesn't just happen overnight. What do you suppose we do during the period that we are waiting for these countries to reach an acceptable level of modernization?

Modernization is not the only answer. As you can see by the protestors in NYC this week, no amount of modernization is enough to stop extremists.

I agree with you. Economic stability and modernization is AN answer to the growing problems in the Middle East, however it is certainly not the ONLY answer. The only answer to extremists is to speak their language: FORCE.
Ok I'll agree with you there. There are certainly some people in this world who will never give up their ideals, ie Osama binLaden. He and his associates are the people who need to be killed. What I'm saying is that an answer to global terrorism, however, starts with the people and their economics. While we will never completely eradicate all of the terrorists in the world, we can certainly stop their means of becoming a threat.

Ok I'll agree with you there. There are certainly some people in this world who will never give up their ideals, ie Osama binLaden. He and his associates are the people who need to be killed. What I'm saying is that an answer to global terrorism, however, starts with the people and their economics. While we will never completely eradicate all of the terrorists in the world, we can certainly stop their means of becoming a threat.
That's why I like you... I think we will kill you last. :D

(what movie is that from anyway?)

Ok I'll agree with you there. There are certainly some people in this world who will never give up their ideals, ie Osama binLaden. He and his associates are the people who need to be killed. What I'm saying is that an answer to global terrorism, however, starts with the people and their economics. While we will never completely eradicate all of the terrorists in the world, we can certainly stop their means of becoming a threat.

I agree with you 100% in the matter that a more advanced economic state will usually produce higher quality people; but the people who are out to kill us won't be stopped by feeding money into their governments. They may be hindered, but the real solution to terrorism is exactly what the Bush administration has been doing for the past 2.5 years: cutting off their weapons, financial, and communications networks with the use of FORCE.

It is THE ONLY thing that an extremist militant terrorist will understand. He has been taught to view any sign of "shrinking from the battle", if you will, as a sign of weakness.

Read the segment of Giuliani's speech that I posted before. It puts this whole situation into a much more concise package than I could ever hope to do.

The President announced the Bush Doctrine when he said: "Our war on terror begins with Al Qaeda, but it does not end there.

It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.

"Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists."


I will remember those words for as long as I live.

I still say we shoot first and ask questions later :)

I guess I kind of strayed off my original point and the original point of this thread. And that is this: as long as we are working in the framework of an "offensive" policy against terrorism, we are safer than if we were simply on defense waiting for something to happen. Before 9/11 we were a sitting duck for something like what happened that day to happen. Now, we are more prepared, more vigilant, and best of all, we are taking the fight to the terrorists and not vice versa.

If we sit back and wait for another terrible attack to happen, it inevitably will. If we take a proactive approach to our national defense, the chances of that happening drop significantly.

So the question you have to ask yourself is, "Do I want 9/11 to happen again? Or will I do everything in my power to stop it?"

It's like if you're a kid at school and the bully keeps taking your lunch money. Sooner or later you are going to have to make a choice. Do you stand up to him and keep your lunch money? It might hurt, but you'll keep your money. Or do you just keep letting him have it because you are too afraid to fight?

The choice is ours this November. We can choose to fight (keep George Bush in office) or we can choose to lay down our weapons and let the terrorists win and do whatever they want (elect John Kerry). Which do you prefer?

Tob I agree with that post 100%

I would rather know that, god forbid if another attack happens, that my govt did everything in their power to stop it. I'm glad we are out there trying to fight this thing. Like Tob said... I don't want to be a sitting duck any more. I don't want to sit around a wait for another attack, and have to relive all that pain all over again. The more we fight back, how do we not know that the terrorists will finally get the message. (we can always hope right :P )

Many of you agree that the way to stop terrorism is the fight it directly, and "cut it off at its source." However, what exactly is "the source?" It's not the North Korean nuclear power plant. It's not Saddam. Or even Osama. What the US is doing is removing possible terrorist threats from the present. Perhaps destroying/killing these threats in the present will stop terrorism for the time being, but that does not stop the concept of terrorism. In fact, it brings back terrorism on a bigger scale in the future.

The real reason for terrorism isn't simply to cause terror. Osama didn't wake up one day and decide to risk his and his fellow countrymen's lives to scare people. No one just slaps his forehead and decides to dedicate his life to simply causing terror. The heart of terrorism is hate. Terrorists terrorize a particular country because that country has done something to cause people to hate its actions. And most of them have a damn good reason for their hate towards the US. Good enough for them to dedicate their entire lives to "avenge" whatever caused that hate.

The US have meddled in foreign affairs far too much. Maybe they have put a stop to some terrible events, but at a great cost to innocent lives. I fully sympasize with the innocent Afghani or Iraqi people caught in the middle of the US War on Terror. Contrary to belief, not every Afghani, Iraqi, and North Korean is a terrorist. The US have made their lives a living hell, and I don't doubt many of the people that have lost family memebers will grow up to hate the US, and maybe even become terrorist themselves. Hell, if I lost my family to something that doesn't even involve me, I would forever hate whoever caused that to happen.

Everyone thinks of terrorism on too big of a scale, especially in Kaydee's post: "The more we fight back, how do we not know that the terrorists will finally get the message." Terrorists are not in alliance with each other. It's not US vs. Terrorism, it's more like US vs. 738424 individual people that hate the US of their own unique reasons. There is no such thing as a terrorist country. Terrorists are individuals, with individual reasons for hating and causing terror to a particular country. No one dedicates their entire lives to someone else's cause. Each and every single terrorist has its own reason for causing terror. Terrorist groups are formed because individuals share the same reason for hating a country. And as long as the US gives individuals reason to hate its actions, the US is, in a way, breeding terrorists. (I know, I stressed the word individual too much, but it's a key concept of terrorism that many people do not consider.)

The US War on Terror is almost like the use of antibiotics. It works in the beginning by killing off present threats, but it breeds bigger threats in the future. Antibiotics cured almost any bacterial infection when they were first usedl; but now many organisms have become immune to them. Likewise, as long as the US continues to interfere with foreign affairs, which includes its War on Terror in other countries, the US will continue to breed future terrorists in the countries that they fight in. And just like there will be a day when we run out of resources to make new antibiotics, there will be a day when the US does not have the resources to continue to openly fight terrorism. I don't think I'll need to explain what that day would mean for the US.

Edit: I fully understand how many people would choose an offensive approach to dealing with terrorists, rather than taking preventive measures. but directly attacking terrorism will only worsen the situation in the future. The situation now is a result of the US interfering with foreign affairs in the past. Whatever the US have done in other countries, it was enough reason for people in those countries to dedicate their entire lives to go against the US. There's nothing you can do to change these people's minds. And the more you openly fight these people, the more determined they will be, and the more of them there will be.

It's a pretty fucked up delima. (1) Wait and let the terrorists take out their anger and hate for the US, and try to minimize damage by tightening security and taking defensive measures, or (2) fight terrorists openly, and eventually cause so much hate towards the US that the US cannot possibly win.

But one choice is clearly better than the other.


ps. If you are going to have a military action, you go in full bore. . never half measures.
You're right, never go in half measures. But the full measure of this war is to kill absolutely every single person in each country you fight in, because anyone that lives is someone that will forever hate the US for starting that war. Now, who's prepared to do that?

This is a WAR. . Get a grip on ther REALITY of it. People are gonna die. . and be maimed and suffer. . .it goes with the territory.
This is another example of people thinking of terrorism on too big of a scale. Terrorism is built up on idividual hate, not on a country basis. A terrorist group is built up of such individuals. Like I said before, no one dedicates his life for someone else's cause. Each and every single one of the individuals in a terrorist group has his/her own personal reason for being part of that terrorist group. And these individuals exist because of the "deaths, maiming, and suffering that goes with the territory."

Dude... you totally broke ToB's 3 paragraph reading limit...

I fully believe this world is going to end up having some sort of armageddon eventually. This may be the infancy of it, (the whole world has been really pissed off lately) and I just don't see this whole problem getting solved forever. Fweddie, your post seems to be based on the idea that if we go and hurt them, then they'll just get pissed and hurt us back worse. Psychology doesn't always work like that. Sometimes people do get scared and leave you alone.

The US have ma