WAR against Terrorism: Is it working?

[Sled Puller]

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030501-4235328.htm



According to the article, yes, it is working.



I don't feel it will ever be gone, but hopefully we can keep them on the run, and mess up their funding.

 

[illflem]

Excellent choices on your poll Gene.

I have a hard time believing there are less attacks now than in '69 especially when you figure there seems to one a day in Israel.

 

[RustyJC]

This is a toughie. I don't know that any of us really have enough firsthand knowledge of what's happening "under the sheets" to respond meaningfully. Obviously we haven't had another September 11th, but is this due to the covert efforts of our government or ????? I'm sure a lot of things are going on that we won't hear about for a long time, if ever.



Rusty

 

[lpearson]

Watching

I believe we are in the calm, before the storm. This war on terrorism has just begun. Israel is the Key.



Lowell

 

[merryman]

Prior to our military action in Afganistan our responses to attacks on embassys, military bases and ships, must surely have led those who commited the acts, those who encouraged them and those who supported them with material and funding, to believe we were a toothless tiger whom they could inflict damage on at will with no real worry about consequences. That conclusion seems to me would embolden and indeed incite them to continue and to escalate; they can no longer have that belief. While there will continue to be terrorist who act without fear of death, those, expecially countries, who supported them will, I believe, be deterred to a substantial degree from continuing that support.



Removing the Iraqi leadership, has certainly dried up a significant base of support, encouragement and refuge. As we continue to discourage others such as Irian (no I do not men to rush right in militarily----there are many other ways we can induce cooperation) from offering support, the terrorist base should shrink, and we should enjoy increasing safety. At least so long as we continue to make it clear that we will no longer respond to such attacks by talking only.



Vaughn

 

[Sled Puller]

Here is a thought:



What if we bombed Israel, and gave the crator to the Palestinians, would that make all the Arab terrorists love us?





Interesting concept.

 

[JConley]

We just freed Iraq, and some of the Iraqi's still hate us, so I dont the Arabs are ever going to love us (at least in public) regardless of what we do. The Kuwaiti's are different. They really love Americans, and we have 110% of there support.

 

[illflem]

Gene, rather than bomb them give them Texas, then they can fight Mexicans, kill two birds with one stone.



Kuwaitis may love us but last I heard their government was asking that our troops leave as soon as possible.





Everyone seems to be wondering why Muslim terrorists are so quick to commit suicide. Let's see now... No beer, No bars, No television, No cheerleaders, No baseball, No football, No basketball, No hockey, and No tailgate parties, No pork BBQ, No hot-dogs, No burgers, No lobster, No shellfish, or even frozen fish sticks.



Rags for clothes, towels for hats. Constant wailing from the guy next door because he is sick and there are no doctors. 24 hour wailing from a guy in the tower. You can't shave. Your wife can't shave. You can't shower to wash off the smell of donkey cooked over burning camel dung. The women have to wear baggy dresses, and veils at all times. Your bride is picked by someone else. She smells just like your donkey, but your donkey has a better disposition. Then they tell you it all gets better when you die.

NO MYSTERY HERE.



Or as Sgt Sammy Sprague from White Sulfur Springs, West Virginia taking time off Baghdad guard duty momentarily to reflect upon the noble campaign he was part of said, "These people ain't got nothing, we've been all the way from Basra to here and I ain't seen one shopping mall or fast food restaurant. Even in a little town like ours, you got a McDonald's at one end and a Hardee's at the other. "

 

[NETim]

OK

And this is exactly where I believe President Bush is right on the money. At the very core of the Bush Doctrine is the introduction of freedom in the Middle East.



This plan won't win us any friends because so many governments around the world want no part of personal freedom for their citizens. Especially the adherents of that total failure known as socialism.



If enough people in that region can gain enough hope for the future, maybe they'll quit listening to the hate mongers and go about the business of making their lives better.



Worth a shot.



Oh and did I forget to mention France sucks?



Tim

 

[PLaFrombois]

Interesting poll. Here are a couple of my thoughts. We have to start on the home front against terrorism, get the liberal democrates and hollywood crowd to change their thinking. We have to increase our security on our borders. Don't let everybody into our country because they don't like what's happening in their home country. Kick the U. N. out. Let them go to Europe, or someplace that wants them like the South Pole. Make Saudia Arabia our 51st state. Give the people some of the money that only the royalty gets for selling the oil.



Sled Puller; I'd change that statement around to say lets bomb the Palestinians and give it to the Isaeli people. We know that the "murder bombers" are not coming from Israel, but from the other side of the border. Israel is doing a very good job of fighting terrorism and the U. S. should take note of what their doing about terrorism and tracking these people down. I think Israel has some of the best intelligence gathering in the world. They communicate between intelligence agencies about the information that has been gathered. The U. S. I don't think has gotten to the point yet of sharing information between agencies. It's better than pre 9/11, but not to where it should be. I think it's still to political. Each agency wants the credit, but don't want to take responsibility if there's a mistake.

Paul

 

[Mike Ellis]

I think we will see positive results from the introduction of freedom in the Middle East, but NOPE - the war against terrorism isn't working.



Why?



1. USA has not secured its borders.

2. USA continues to focus intelligence and security apparatus on all American citizens rather than the known threat (fear of profiling)

3. USA is not removing the radical Muslim religious leaders who stimulate terrorism. The problem source is still there.



For example, in Iraq the bullets hadn't even quit flying before the Muslim leadership began agitating for a religious government and inciting the people for immediate American withdrawal.



Unless we stick around and force them to follow democracy, they will promptly screw themselves and vote in a version of Sharia religious law that dooms their country to a future of blood and misery. Only way out is to thin out the ranks of the radicals NOW, IMHO.

 

[Sled Puller]

Originally posted by PLaFrombois



Sled Puller; I'd change that statement around to say lets bomb the Palestinians and give it to the Isaeli people.

Paul

What I was trying to do, was take a major complaint away from the Arabs.



We flatten Israel, what would they complain about next?



I would bet my truck, if we hauled every last one of the Israelis out of that country, and turned it over to Palestinans, some other Arab country would come take it from them!!!

 

[The patriot]

I think youre right. No matter what is done, the arabs will make trouble.

I believe the best thing we can do is, when were done with Iraq (whatever your definition is of "done" ) we should call ALL of our troops home to protect THIS country and it's borders!!

JM. 02

Eric

 

[Champane Flight]

Working?

Freedom in Iraq, this is going to take awhile. The people in Iraq have no idea of what freedom is about. 90% of the people are very poor and only see another occupation, this time by America. And as Illflem put it, death by martyr is much more attractive than real life. Our foreign policy has been a joke for years, first we are their friends and then we are not, then we want allies, then we don't. If we can't do better than this we better get out of all country's and leave them to their own devices. I can just about promise Iraq will be a Muslim run country within the next twenty years, just like Iran. Sorry folks but, this is the majority and in Democracy, majority rules.



Is the war on terror working? Yes, but we cannot win by taking whole country's or pure military might. It will be a long battle and at times look as if we are urinating in the wind. If we continue to use military might, we will be bankrupt within ten years and have no protection left on the home front. Terror is a underground effort, we cannot fight it with above ground methods. More terrorists have been caught with good ole police work, than with 500,000 men taking Iraq. Some say that if even one is caught it is worth it. Not so in my book, it is like killing mosquitoes with a baseball bat. Some say that we have let the people of the world know that we will not tolerate terror by flexing our military might. Not so, they already knew what we were capable of, and they could care less. All this did is tick more people off and give Osama more recruits.



Change gears and get a president who isn't afraid of what the right wing says. A President who knows how to fight terror and is not afraid to do it the right way, with solid foreign policy and diplomacy, despite critics. Go after terror the right way, by going underground and digging them out!

 

[RMcCulloch]

Re: Working?

Originally posted by Champane Flight

Some say that we have let the people of the world know that we will not tolerate terror by flexing our military might. Not so, they already knew what we were capable of, and they could care less.

The "Other Countries" had become accustomed to the posturing of the prior administration: a lot of talk but no meaningful action.



That's one big difference between having a Draft Dodger in the Oval Office and having a Fighter Pilot for President.



The Draft Dodger wants to avoid conflict at all costs.



The Fighter Pilot doesn't run from it.



The "Other Countries" had become accustomed to the "First Rule Of Diplomacy: Keep Talking".



As President Theodore Roosevelt said, "Walk Softly But Carry A <b>BIG</b> Stick. "

 

[Champane Flight]

Fighter pilot?

The NG in those days was not that involved as it is today.





What Bush did in the National Guard besides avoiding going to Vietnam.

In his words, "I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to learn how to fly airplanes. "

In Bush's campaign autobiography, A Charge To Keep, he wrote that he completed pilot training in 1970 and "continued flying with my unit for the next several years. " Copies of Bush's military records reveal that he had stopped flying during his final 18 months of service in 1971 and 1973. More curious, the records showed Bush had not reported for Guard duty during a long stretch of that period in which he had failed to submit to an annual physical and lost his flight status. His annual performance report, dated May 2, 1973, noted he had "not been observed at this unit" for the past year. Had the future commander-in-chief been AWOL? All he really did was "learn how to fly airplanes" on the taxpayers dime to avoid the draft.



Does this sound like your usual commander in chief? His war record speaks for itself... ... .

 

[NETim]

CF,



Bush's war record is slightly better than some of the recent Presidents we've had.



Tim

 

[Champane Flight]

He has

He has the hang of sending other men to war.

 

[lpearson]

Re: He has

Originally posted by Champane Flight

He has the hang of sending other men to war.

CF;



Is there another way to do it?



Lowell

 

[illflem]

Re: Re: He has

Originally posted by lpearson





Is there another way to do it?

Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan in Oct said "Bush wants to attack the whole Iraq, the army and the infrastructure, if such a call is genuine, then let the American president and a selected group with him face a selected group of us and we choose a neutral land and let [U. N. Secretary-General] Kofi Annan be a supervisor and both groups use the same weapon. A president against a president and vice president against a vice president, and a duel takes place, if they are serious," the Iraqi vice president said. "And in this way we are saving the American and Iraqi people. "

Bush rejected the offer of a duel saying it was"irresponsible statement" that did not justify a "serious response. "

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/10/03/iraq.bush.duel/

Such courage is not unusual in the history of our great leaders. A U. S. president, Vice President as well as other statesmen in the days of the cowboys and founding fathers would not suffer indignity by refusing or dismissing a challenge to a man-to-man duel and accepted.







In my opinion he's just a draft dodging chicken who would rather send others to their deaths.



Heck, GW wouldn't even have a one on one debate when Saddam requested it.