Posted on 04/24/2006 4:54:59 AM PDT by SuzyQ2
The vitriol leveled against Clinton during his administration was tasteless, to be sure. But the attacks against Bush (a commander-in-chief in time of war) and his chief lieutenants, have not only soiled the grounds of common decency; they may well have crossed over from general dissent into the realm of sedition.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Sorry. I excuse you from the indictment. Only the administration has been trying to suggest, without much traction, that Iraq aided Ben Laden. Now that every other lying excuse for going into Iraq has been shot down.
If you're going to trot out your verbal acumen, it's always helpful if the Latin phrase is spelled correctly: it's mentis, not mentos. Oh, and no dashes.
Thanks ever so much for the help.
No one can tell, because it's hard to tell an al-queda terrorist from an Afgani child whose just been blown up in a house raid, after the fact.
How many have we captured, which captures have led to almost total disruption of al-Qaeda planning through the information supplied?
And you know there's been an "almost total disruption" how?
Plus, it let these cretins know that we're serious about stopping them where they live. No more playing around, as Clinton did.
yea, yea, it sure must scare the pants off al queda that we can rattle our hyper-expensive sword for years in Afganistan, at their raghead patsies, but we can't stop the heroin, and we can't capture Ben Laden, despite having him totally cornered and dead to rights at one point, and we couldn't blow up his chief general because some mid-level military lawyer thought it would be wrong. Oh, and lets not forget the latest news out of our ever-so-competent warmakers: that the reason we haven't captured Ben Laden since the 93 bombing, when we first put a price on his head--is that we have TOO MANY federal agencies charged with the task. This administration ought to be hung out to dry just on the basis of sheer incompetence. You have a lot of nerve claiming that police action would have been incompetent, in the face of the current results. At least police action wouldn't have been as expensively incompetent.
You characterize that the attack on Afghanistan as "ham-fisted incompetence" and propose that the situation could have been handled by calling "the cops."
Please explain who these cops might have been, and how they should have operated against Al Qaeda.
Given our track record, perhaps the best bet would have been to ask the israeli's to do it. They managed with the october cells, and any number of ex-nazi's hidden away in remote parts of the world. Let me ask you this: do you think it increases our sleuthing capacity to bomb the crap out of random afgani government records depots before hitting the ground with sleuths. That must account for the enviable record our war plans for Afganistan produced in terms of capturing Ben Laden. How about first you tell me how wiping out the government structure of Afganistan, along with who knows what private records and organizational facilities with bombs, aided in the hunt for Ben Laden. Please feature in your response details on the capture of Ben Laden in Afganistan.
In other words, you do not know what you are talking about.
Let me deal with this asinine statement first. First nobody used this as justification for this war I have no idea how you read that into it. If take your head out of your talking point BS and READ WHAT HE HAD TO SAY you might be able to understand why he said it. It was because he noticed and rightly so even though It might offend your delicate liberal sensibilities that Muslims did not accept compromise with western values of liberty. Europe at the time felt they could compromise with Islam but the turks kept coming up through the Balkans uncompromising along the way. When the Greeks tried to rebel against them he was horrified that Europe did nothing to help. My point was only a historical reference to Islams claim of universal jurisdictional and that such a history can not be ignored. John Q Adams may have had some of the same flaws that yes even your beloved Muslims had. Yes Muslims had white slaves and from their conquered land. Human nature is not exclusive to any one group but its good and bad resides in all.But tell me Just why do all you liberals have to play the race card and only in one direction. And why do Liberals ignore historical reality? I know its not always pleasant but ignoring it won't make it go away.
And this is still a bunch of cowardly prattle designed to overcome the obvious fact that unilateral open warfare with another country whose capacity for war is barely above the stone age is heinous criminal behavior.
Well I guess that may be a legitimate argument if in fact we annihilated the place and just left but we are in fact attempting to do what you so simply dismiss as prattle. How would I feel? If lived under true oppression like the Kurds and Shiites you damn well better believe I would fighting against my oppressors. I have the most sincere hope that there is a moderate Islam that will compromise with and live with the West. The only chance for that to happen IMO is to allow the oppressed people to have a voice. I'm sorry but harsh truth to that equation is you must eradicate the tyrants if that is to happen. If there is no moderate Islam then the clash will happen regardless. Make an honest read of your history and listen to what "radical" Islam has to say.I unlike liberals take what someone says dead serious if it is a threat.It is an unpleasing truth to be sure but ignoring it is dangerous.
Do you think the war in Iraq has made more, or fewer terrorists willing to smuggle an abomb into a US port?
Good grief, are you kidding?
What's your plan--wipe out all 2 1/2 billion of them?
No Ill try the prattle first, but make no mistake if its my family or yours, its mine, if its me or you its me. Are we there yet? No, but are we going there????
Lastly I want to say again how repulsed I am about you using the race card, without knowing anything about why Adams wrote what he did you automatically fell back on the Liberal catch all. That may play in some theaters but not in mine. Oh by the way you are very correct, it is treason and should be dealt with as such.
Oh, did the choice we did make to calling the cops in fact, capture Ben Laden, and I just haven't been informed? I'll tell you what, you explain how the military option captured Ben Laden, and then I'll feel obligated to detail how it might have been done without becoming a military aggessor against an order of magnetude weaker country that didn't want a fight.
Why is the capture of Bin Laden so important? It wont change a damn thing
Than I suggest you read what you quoted with your high beams turned on.
If take your head out of your talking point BS and READ WHAT HE HAD TO SAY you might be able to understand why he said it. It was because he noticed and rightly so even though It might offend your delicate liberal sensibilities that Muslims did not accept compromise with western values of liberty.
Uh huh. And I'm NOT supposed to take this for a racist sentiment because???
all you liberals have to play the race card and only in one direction
Few people on this planet are less liberal than I, and I am not the person in this discussion who just played a race card care of John Q. Adams.
I would fighting against my oppressors. I have the most sincere hope that there is a moderate Islam that will compromise with and live with the West. The only chance for that to happen IMO is to allow the oppressed people to have a voice
ie. minus the candy coating, invade and overthrow the recognized governments of various coutries, killing huge numbers of innocents in the process, and replace their leaders with one's more to our liking. Often with strong ties to international oil companies, as with a current curious case. I think the kill all 2 1/2 billion idea stands a better chance of achieving goodness and light. George Washington had it right, and you guys have it dangerously and stupidly wrong.
Do you think the war in Iraq has made more, or fewer terrorists willing to smuggle an abomb into a US port?
Good grief, are you kidding?
Well, no. Do you think shows of military strength that produce large numbers of civilian casualties reduce the number of suicide bombers in the world? By what mechanism, pray tell? Are we again falling back on the kill all 2 1/2 billion theory?
So...are we now dropping the cops vs. military solution argument, and going on to something else? Is this another variation of the kill all 2 1/2 billion muslims argument? I take you are not a subscriber to Bush's "few rotten apples" characterization of the problem?
Lastly I want to say again how repulsed I am about you using the race card
Uh huh. I doubt that it matches my revulsion over the thinly restrained expressions of willingness to entertain notions of eradicating all Muslims, if things don't start going our way, such as you just expressed with your "my family or yours" rhetoric. I am probably more inherently bloodthirsty and militaristic than most of the people who post here, but I am not willing to wipe out all Muslims, even if some of them were to unleash a-weapons or deadly diseases on our soil that wiped out my family. That's not manly self-defence, or even manly revenge. That's just thrashing out in blind rage, not caring who gets hurt.
No, that is not quite right: you did offer a plan of sorts. You suggested that maybe the Israelis could lend us some ex-Nazis that they have hidden away who could do the job of capturing Bin Laden for us.
Laying aside the fact that any ex-Nazis who are still alive would be old men in their seventies and eighties, you did not bother to explain why these mythical ex-Nazis would want to help us. After all, they were not the ones who were attacked on 11 September 2001—why would anyone else risk their necks if the United States were unwilling to do anything in its own defense?
Nor did you explain how these old Nazis would have managed to capture Bin Laden. Would they simply waltz up to him and begin reading him his rights? Would he have meekly allowed himself to be led away in handcuffs? For that matter, would the Taliban have permitted any of this to occur in their country?
Finally, you have not considered the effects of having the Israelis do our dirty work for us in Afghanistan. Would the rest of the Muslim world have simply accepted the idea that the hated Jews had gone after a fellow Muslim in a Muslim country? Would that have improved our image in the Middle East?
You keep talking about "capturing" Bin Laden. I am not sure that has been or should be our objective. The idea is to destroy al Qaeda's ability to make war against us. If Bin Laden is killed or captured in the process, fine. But even if he were in U.S. custody now, we would still have ample reason to go after the rest of his organization.
No it is not racist to make a truthful observation negative or positive about a culture,religious group, or any other group. "Racist" has a distinctly negative connotation and is generally only used against someone who has said something critical of a group and turned on them to further empower the group. In the real world any statement about race is in fact racist but not necessarily negative or bad. The liberal implication is strictly used to attack someone who you don't agree with. By the way Islam is not a race so it really wasn't a racist statement unless you have fallen for our social justice definition of racist which is very liberal. See you are more liberal than you knew. Is Islam "racist"?
ie. minus the candy coating, invade and overthrow the recognized governments of various countries, killing huge numbers of innocents in the process, and replace their leaders with one's more to our liking.
Geez when did I miss the vote, I wasn't aware that we were able to vote for Iraq's leaders, Oh thats right the Iraqi's didn't either we installed them.
I think the kill all 2 1/2 billion idea stands a better chance of achieving goodness and light. George Washington had it right, and you guys have it dangerously and stupidly wrong. Are (we)? again falling back on the kill all 2 1/2 billion theory?
Ill still try the prattle first we can always do the 2 and half billion later.
Well, no. Do you think shows of military strength that produce large numbers of civilian casualties reduce the number of suicide bombers in the world? By what mechanism, pray tell? Are we again falling back on the kill all 2 1/2 billion theory?
Good grief of course it increases the risk of encouraging people who already had a propensity for homicide bombings and will attract new people to their cause. Who the hell would argue that.Do you think the bombings would stop if we didn't invade do you see any real resolution to the problem? Oh thats right there is no problem we are all just racist's, we should ignore the death threats to all of us and our Civilization. Even George Washington knew as did many of our founders that the day may come when we would need to leave our shores to protect ourselves. Has that day come? I don't really know? Is this about economics? economic stability? Hegemony, I don't know. What I do know is that economic stability does in the long run produce more peaceful countries. What I do know is that apparently many people throughout history have made the same "racist" observation that Western Civilzation and islam are not compatable. Can we live side by side? You tell me. Times are much different today than 200 years ago, the world is smaller we are not isolated, we are not always right, but we are Americans. We have a right to speak our minds, sedition included but it doesn't make it right.
I am not so sure. People tend to join a winning cause: as Bin Laden said, Arabs want to back a strong horse. Conversely, most people will not join a losing cause—especially if it means throwing away their lives. Even a suicide bomber does not want to die for an utterly hopeless cause.
If we are perceived as strong and likely to defeat the terrorists, they will lose support among the populace. But if we are perceived as weak and likely to lose, more people will rush to support our enemies.
Logical Fallacy Number 1: Shows of military strength "that produce large numbers of civilian casualties" assumes facts not in evidence, at least in Iraq...the insurgents and terrorists planting IED's, exploding car bombs, and blindly lobbing mortars and grenades in Iraq are responsible for more civilian casualties than the US military. In fact, the US military and the coalition have gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid not just civilian casualties, but to avoid damaging "holy" sites and structures.
Logical Fallacy Number 2: Your seem to have a forgone conclusion that fighting terrorism CAUSES terrorism. If so, then certainly fighting crime causes crime, and we should disband all law enforcement and police agencies in our own country for our own protection from criminals.
Logical Fallacy Number 3: Alluding to killing "2 and half billion Muslims" is presenting a false dilemma. We aren't fighting 2 and half billion Muslims. We're not even fighting 2 and a half million Muslims...for all the talk and bluster from certain arab leaders and clerics, the fact remains that the vast, VAST majority of Muslims simply aren't interested in waging Bin Laden's or Zarqawi's war...or if they are, they are certainly unable to organize into any sort of genuine fighting force, as attested to by the stunningly low coalition casualties in Iraq after 3 years. DJF
There is no logical connection between these two facts. It isn't my job, and never has been, to capture Ben Laden, and I haven't spend billions of US taxpayer dollers to attempt it and fail.
No, that is not quite right: you did offer a plan of sorts. You suggested that maybe the Israelis could lend us some ex-Nazis that they have hidden away who could do the job of capturing Bin Laden for us.
I made no such ludicrous suggestion. Perhaps if you read posts you intend to respond to, you could respond to them more precisely.
Finally, you have not considered the effects of having the Israelis do our dirty work for us in Afghanistan. Would the rest of the Muslim world have simply accepted the idea that the hated Jews had gone after a fellow Muslim in a Muslim country? Would that have improved our image in the Middle East?
As opposed to the high esteem in which we are held in the Muslim world due to our invading Afganistan and Iraq?
You keep talking about "capturing" Bin Laden. I am not sure that has been or should be our objective.
Huh. I guess the considerable troops and air and intelligence resources that were committed to capturing Ben Laden were mis-informed as to their mission. I guess there we didn't place a 50 million price on his head, and I guess our official reason for starting the war wasn't that the Taliban refused to hand him over.
The idea is to destroy al Qaeda's ability to make war against us.
The mujadeem schools, the training camps they fed into, and the bulk of his support base was mostly set up in Pakistan, quite naturally, as it was out of reach of the soviets--paid for, in large measure, by the CIA. Destroying Al Qaeda, in any meaningful sense, would have had to include action in Pakistan, whose intelligence, incidently, provided a huge chunk of funds for the 19 terrorists. So what's the plan here. Grab up all the thousands of 8 year old kids in that pipeline and torture them at Al Gahrab?
If Bin Laden is killed or captured in the process, fine. But even if he were in U.S. custody now, we would still have ample reason to go after the rest of his organization.
The "rest of his organization" is a whole region of Pakistan. & the muslim children from all over the far east that might have ended up in mujadeem schools. Are we going to scour the middle east like Herod looking for kids with the wrong ideas to lock up?
I see. A denigrating characterization of a distinct religeous group whose population is overwhelmingly brown-skinned semites isn't racist because, gosh darn it, it's just so obviously true. What could I have been thinking.
Do you think the bombings would stop if we didn't invade do you see any real resolution to the problem?
We invaded. Have the suicide bombings stopped?
we should ignore the death threats to all of us and our Civilization. Even George Washington knew as did many of our founders that the day may come when we would need to leave our shores to protect ourselves. Has that day come? I don't really know? Is this about economics? economic stability? Hegemony, I don't know.
The suicide bombers tend to be dirt poor, on average, and there's big dangerous ocean or two between us and them. How about if we show a little more courage and restraint until they make it over here in vast enough numbers to oppose the 82nd in open combat. Maybe they are going to tear down western civilization, but they haven't managed that in the last 1400 years or so, in spite of some periods of pretty intense effort along those lines.
So...that must account for the suicide bombers hitting israel--because Israel appears so much weaker than than the palestinians.
Pollyanne on steroids.
I'm sure that thrills a guy who just lost his woman and children to stray US air strike. The smallest estimate I can find of civilian losses in the invasion is 4,000 people, and we have left behind gobs of depleted uranium and unexploded shells, just as we have done before, to maim children into the foreseeable future. And anyone looking at Al Gahrab and thinking our invasion left a good taste in the minds of Iraq's people has been taking too many bad drugs. Lopsided aggressor invasions of someone's country, no matter how surgically you claim to have done it, isn't an act that is ever going to win you gobs of enthusiastic admirers--that just isn't how the human heart works.
Logical Fallacy Number 2: Your seem to have a forgone conclusion that fighting terrorism CAUSES terrorism.
It IS a foregone conclusion that invading foreign countries is going to create more terrorists. It's braindead ignorance of history to imagine otherwise. Would the french resistence have been murdering nazi solders as far away as Algeria if the Germans had all stayed home and concentrated on making volkswagons?
If so, then certainly fighting crime causes crime, and we should disband all law enforcement and police agencies in our own country for our own protection from criminals.
Unpersuasive analogy. Criminals do wrong, and they know it, and it does not incite a sense of injustice in any large segment of the citizenry when criminals are dealt with. Incidental innocent casualties of war, and infants deformed by depleted uranium are not in the same boat.
Is it your theory that the invasion of Chechnia reduced the incidences of Chechnian rebels murdering Russian children in schoolyards?; that the occupation of Ireland reduced the number of London Bombings? Just how sophisticated is this math? Murder a man's children with cluster bombs, incidental to a military target, and he will not be singing your praises in the streets, even if you can legitimately claim to have been as careful as possible. A claim that can't but ring a bit hollow when he's picking up depleted uranium and unexploded munitions for the next decade.
Logical Fallacy Number 3: Alluding to killing "2 and half billion Muslims" is presenting a false dilemma.
yea, well, I'm not on the side of the argument that's been suggesting that that's our backup plan. And the longer we stay there, and the bigger and more expensive the embassy's and airbases we buld there, and the more we rattle our atomic sabers at Iran, the more it looks to the Muslim world like that is, in fact, our backup plan.
We aren't fighting 2 and half billion Muslims. We're not even fighting 2 and a half million Muslims...for all the talk and bluster from certain arab leaders and clerics, the fact remains that the vast, VAST majority of Muslims simply aren't interested in waging Bin Laden's or Zarqawi's war...
In which case, invading their countries, and occupying them for prolonged periods is not going to sit very will with them, is it?
or if they are, they are certainly unable to organize into any sort of genuine fighting force, as attested to by the stunningly low coalition casualties in Iraq after 3 years.
So...in other words, there can't be much to justify the continuing occupation of Iraq, since the vast majority of them bear us no ill will, and the forces opposing them are pretty toothless and scattered.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.