"War on terror" no more.
-
John M. Drescher wrote: We did not hunt them down at all. That is one problem with having a Left Wing President. As I've already stated, the current administration doesn't seem to be improving on this much, and it's a much more reliable standard of progress - if the people who want to kill you are all locked up or disorganized, you're going to have less terrorism. I think you missed his point (and mine). The point is that using an arbitrary measure of "victories" like "number of attacks that haven't happened" is completely frigging useless because what you're measuring it against is a speculative value of "attacks that might have happened" which you're effectively making up out of thin air! How many attacks might have happened without intervention after 9/11? Fifty? A hundred? Zero, as ingc suggests? It's a ridiculous thing to say, not in the least because you're now picking and choosing what attacks matter: do the British and Spanish attacks not signify on your arbitrary scale because they weren't American victims? To suggest that because "nobody American has died" that the global war on terror is succeeding on those merits is a slap in the face to your British and Spanish allies who are paying with their own lives. - F
Fisticuffs wrote: As I've already stated, the current administration doesn't seem to be improving on this much They do not have to do a lot of work to hunt the terrorists down as in Iraq the terrorists come to us. How many terrorists have been killed or captured in Iraq and Afghanistan by US forces? I'd bet more than the total killed or captured in all administrations before the current one. So this is not an improvement? John
-
Fisticuffs wrote: As I've already stated, the current administration doesn't seem to be improving on this much They do not have to do a lot of work to hunt the terrorists down as in Iraq the terrorists come to us. How many terrorists have been killed or captured in Iraq and Afghanistan by US forces? I'd bet more than the total killed or captured in all administrations before the current one. So this is not an improvement? John
John M. Drescher wrote: They do not have to do a lot of work to hunt the terrorists down as in Iraq the terrorists come to us. Yeah, that seemed to work out REALLY fucking well for Britian and Spain, as I pointed out earlier (and you conveniently ignored). John M. Drescher wrote: I'd bet more than the total killed or captured in all administrations before the current one So you don't know? You are, in essence, pulling facts and figures out of your ass? Thanks for playing: you lose forever. - F
-
We have not taken military action in Pakistan (yet). John
-
Doug Goulden wrote: Weren't you one of the people who complained about the term "War on Terror", not sure if i ever complained or not. but i do think it's a silly term. the new one is better. Doug Goulden wrote: for that matter how do you feel about the term of "War on Drugs" it's silly, too. such use dilutes the word "war", IMO. Doug Goulden wrote: I would have sworn that the US sent military units to try to help after the tsunami.... and what about that whole Bosnia\Serbian thing I seem to recall we were trying to stop the murder of Muslims there, and there isn't even any oil under those folks of course. but now it sounds like it's official policy to link those kinds of things with the rest of tWoT. to me, that's a much better solution to the problem; it's not a strictly military problem, and it's not a strictly diplomatic one either - there are a lot of different things we need to do, and this wraps them all up under the same banner. so, i reluctantly tip my hat to BushCo for finally getting around to a more mature and reasoned approach. wish it didn't take them four years. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote: so, i reluctantly tip my hat to BushCo for finally getting around to a more mature and reasoned approach Don't be reluctant Chris, just be thankful that he was able to recognize a better way. That has been your complaint all along. By saying you are reluctant, I get the impression that you think Bush is incapable of do anything right, even if he does everything the way you would do it. Don't be so partisan.
-
I don't think this was an option because we don't have that good of a relationship with pakastan and to turn them against us would not help at all... John
-
John M. Drescher wrote: They do not have to do a lot of work to hunt the terrorists down as in Iraq the terrorists come to us. Yeah, that seemed to work out REALLY fucking well for Britian and Spain, as I pointed out earlier (and you conveniently ignored). John M. Drescher wrote: I'd bet more than the total killed or captured in all administrations before the current one So you don't know? You are, in essence, pulling facts and figures out of your ass? Thanks for playing: you lose forever. - F
Fisticuffs wrote: as I pointed out earlier (and you conveniently ignored). What about the terror attacks in Russia and other countries that are in no way involved in Iraq? You conveninetly ignored that. Fisticuffs wrote: So you don't know? You are, in essence, pulling facts and figures out of your ass? Show me any fact that does not support this. John
-
Fisticuffs wrote: as I pointed out earlier (and you conveniently ignored). What about the terror attacks in Russia and other countries that are in no way involved in Iraq? You conveninetly ignored that. Fisticuffs wrote: So you don't know? You are, in essence, pulling facts and figures out of your ass? Show me any fact that does not support this. John
John M. Drescher wrote: conveninetly ignored that. How could I ignore what you didn't bring up? Are you stoned or something? :omg::omg: John M. Drescher wrote: Show me any fact that does not support this. You make the claim, you do the legwork to prove it, sunny jim. [EDIT]Bah, you know what? Screw this. You're not interested in any sort of discussion, you're interested in protecting your ideology and having the last word.[/EDIT] - F
-
Chris Losinger wrote: so, i reluctantly tip my hat to BushCo for finally getting around to a more mature and reasoned approach Don't be reluctant Chris, just be thankful that he was able to recognize a better way. That has been your complaint all along. By saying you are reluctant, I get the impression that you think Bush is incapable of do anything right, even if he does everything the way you would do it. Don't be so partisan.
Bob Flynn wrote: I get the impression that you think Bush is incapable of do anything right your impression is correct. probably 95% of everything i've seen Bush do has been wrong (as i see it). and not just stupidly wrong, but actively wrong - i've come to expect that, given a situation, he'll choose the worst possible way to handle it, often choosing the path at least partially because it will annoy his political enemies (talk about partisan... ahem) - and then his supporters will find a way to love the decision. it's as if he and his supporters exist in another world[^] entirely:
It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can't get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile.
but really, Bush has done a mere handful of things that i agree with, over the past five years. at this point, i can attribute those things to a simple 'broken clock' analogy. there's a reason his approval rating is in the very very low 40's right now - and it isn't because people don't appreciate his genius. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Bob Flynn wrote: I get the impression that you think Bush is incapable of do anything right your impression is correct. probably 95% of everything i've seen Bush do has been wrong (as i see it). and not just stupidly wrong, but actively wrong - i've come to expect that, given a situation, he'll choose the worst possible way to handle it, often choosing the path at least partially because it will annoy his political enemies (talk about partisan... ahem) - and then his supporters will find a way to love the decision. it's as if he and his supporters exist in another world[^] entirely:
It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can't get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile.
but really, Bush has done a mere handful of things that i agree with, over the past five years. at this point, i can attribute those things to a simple 'broken clock' analogy. there's a reason his approval rating is in the very very low 40's right now - and it isn't because people don't appreciate his genius. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
But it say something about you when Bush does something that you agree with and you still can't say "that was good" without "reluntantly hating to say it". It goes from a political difference in opinions to a personal issue. This was the reason I changed my mind about voting for Kerry. It seems that Kerry had the right sales pitch for you: Vote for Kerry because I am not Bush.
-
But it say something about you when Bush does something that you agree with and you still can't say "that was good" without "reluntantly hating to say it". It goes from a political difference in opinions to a personal issue. This was the reason I changed my mind about voting for Kerry. It seems that Kerry had the right sales pitch for you: Vote for Kerry because I am not Bush.
maybe i should've said this earlier... this decision and policy doesn't sound like Bush. it goes against all of the rhetoric we've been hearing for the past four years. just 10 months ago, we all witnessed Bush supporters deriding Kerry for having the temerity to suggest that the solution to terrorism is going to involve more than marines and invasions. now, we see BushCo officially endorsing something that sounds a lot like what Kerry and others have suggested. that makes me think two things: either BushCo just now caught onto what other people have been suggesting for years, or BushCo chose to emphasize a military-only approach as a way to differntiate themselves from what the Dems were saying, giving them a way to attack others as "soft" on terrorism. if the former's true, they are (wilfully?) ignorant; if the latter's true, they are simply playing politics with national security. based on my opinions of 99% of all their other decisions, i think they are ignorant, and based on the way they sold the war (including Plame, the "16 words", Condi's "smoking gun", the marketing of the invasion timed for the 02 elections and now the pullout timed for the 06 elections, etc.) they do play politics with national security. in a nutshell: they did something i agree with, but i have significant doubts, based on past performance, about the path they took to get there. Bob Flynn wrote: It seems that Kerry had the right sales pitch for you: Vote for Kerry because I am not Bush. i disagree with 99% of what Bush does. not being 99% disagreeable is a big plus to whoever the opposition is. Kerry was pretty lame, but he was still better than 99% wrong. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
maybe i should've said this earlier... this decision and policy doesn't sound like Bush. it goes against all of the rhetoric we've been hearing for the past four years. just 10 months ago, we all witnessed Bush supporters deriding Kerry for having the temerity to suggest that the solution to terrorism is going to involve more than marines and invasions. now, we see BushCo officially endorsing something that sounds a lot like what Kerry and others have suggested. that makes me think two things: either BushCo just now caught onto what other people have been suggesting for years, or BushCo chose to emphasize a military-only approach as a way to differntiate themselves from what the Dems were saying, giving them a way to attack others as "soft" on terrorism. if the former's true, they are (wilfully?) ignorant; if the latter's true, they are simply playing politics with national security. based on my opinions of 99% of all their other decisions, i think they are ignorant, and based on the way they sold the war (including Plame, the "16 words", Condi's "smoking gun", the marketing of the invasion timed for the 02 elections and now the pullout timed for the 06 elections, etc.) they do play politics with national security. in a nutshell: they did something i agree with, but i have significant doubts, based on past performance, about the path they took to get there. Bob Flynn wrote: It seems that Kerry had the right sales pitch for you: Vote for Kerry because I am not Bush. i disagree with 99% of what Bush does. not being 99% disagreeable is a big plus to whoever the opposition is. Kerry was pretty lame, but he was still better than 99% wrong. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote: i disagree with 99% of what Bush does. not being 99% disagreeable is a big plus to whoever the opposition is. Kerry was pretty lame, but he was still better than 99% wrong. I reluctantly hate have to say that I can agree with your line of thinking on that one. Chris Losinger wrote: i disagree with 99% of what Bush does Doesn't it bother you that Kerry chose to critize Bush's actions but then in several cases said that "knowing what we know now" he would do the same thing (such as attack Iraq to get rid of Saddam even though he KNOWS there are no WMD)
-
Chris Losinger wrote: i disagree with 99% of what Bush does. not being 99% disagreeable is a big plus to whoever the opposition is. Kerry was pretty lame, but he was still better than 99% wrong. I reluctantly hate have to say that I can agree with your line of thinking on that one. Chris Losinger wrote: i disagree with 99% of what Bush does Doesn't it bother you that Kerry chose to critize Bush's actions but then in several cases said that "knowing what we know now" he would do the same thing (such as attack Iraq to get rid of Saddam even though he KNOWS there are no WMD)
Bob Flynn wrote: Doesn't it bother you that Kerry chose to critize Bush's actions but then in several cases said that "knowing what we know now" he would do the same thing it sure did. i wish NCs primaries were earlier so i could've voted for someone i actually liked, just once in that election cycle. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Opps, sorry, I posted from the liberry. Chris Losinger wrote: i wonder, did you actually take the time to go back and read what i've written on this over the past four years Nah, just thought I would state the obvious... "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Stan Shannon wrote: I posted from the liberry :-D I'm assuming that "typo" was on purpose. BW
All the chickens get it.
And them singing canaries get it.
Even strawberries get it.[
Discovering BPI