How long to sing this song?

[theSoulfulMofo]

Needless to say, however imperative it was, I wasn't too thrill with what's been going on abroad...

But I've been wondering.

Whether Bush wins or not next election, whatever happens... I believe a lot more problems are going to arise for the U.S. for AT LEAST the next 30 years, give or take a generation or two.

For one, I don't think America's gonna stop being paranoid with HL Sec/urity and Pat. Act. and all. In fact, what's happened probaby will go on for half a century, and our children will believe that's the way it has always been... They'll never know a world without the fear of terror.

Even if someone other than Bush Jr., who was against Bush's war policies, wins the Prez. seat.... that next President-elect will have to deal with whatever fires Bush has started. Which means, with reluctance, the next president HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO UPHOLD HL-sec AND something like the Pat/Act.... and so will the next prez and every prez. thereafter... I mean, when will it end?

From the turn of the millennium and on, U.S. will always be in a passive-aggressive state of pre-emptive deterrence and paranoia... Probably even after all apparent signs of Al-Queda are gone.

But that's just me, after watching tonight's "24" on FOX... I hope that if you read this, I wasn't trying to be anti-American or anything... just thinking the issues through out loud.

 

[STING2]

theSoulfulMofo,

Bush did not event terrorism. Bush did not murder 3,000 people on 9/11. Bush did not create Al Quada or the Taliban government that sheltered Al Quada in Afghanistan. Bush was not responsible for Saddam's refusal to comply with 17 UN resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations. Bush Jr. did not set up the Ceacefire agreement that Saddam signed that among other resolutions authorizes member states of the UN to "use all means necessary" to bring about compliance with the Ceacefire an any subsequent resolutions.

The President from Texas did not start any fires but rather, he has put several out! Saddam Hussien is no longer the ruler of Iraq, in control of a 400,000 man military with both capable and potential WMD capability. The Taliban no longer rule Afghanistan. Al Quada is on the run, and there have been no attacks on US soil since 9/11 over 2 years ago.

The Presidents #1 responsibility is to insure the security of the United States and its Allies, and that is precisely what this President has done, in ways not seen in many years.

Without the Presidents actions, Saddam would still be in power, the Taliban in Control of Afghanistan, and Al Quada would have had the opportunity for even more attacks.

30 years from now, Iraq will be a strong democracy in the Middle East and model that others in Iran and Syria and elsewhere will be trying to copy.

Could there still be terrorist fanatics, of course. They were there long before Bush became president and there will still be some of them 30 years from now. But the ability to manage in stopping and disrupting their activities will be greatly improved. In 30 years from now, this planet will be a safer, richer, more prosperous place.

 

[Scarletwine]

But he addressed the problem in the wrong way.
1. not following up on Al-Queda
2. infringing on American civil liberties
3. alienating our allies to continue in the fight against terrorism - it's not a war, we need individuals not states
4. substituting Iraq for a hopeful quick victory to minimize his inability to find Bin Lauden and to draw attention away from 9-11 inquiries

my 2 cents

ps STING2 is dreaming IMO

 

[verte76]

Well, I think *someone* is going to have to find bin Laden, or make Al-Qaeda a heck of alot weaker than it is. Who did the suicide bombs in Istanbul? Most likely people acting in cahoots with Al-Qaeda. Someone has to stop these inhuman jerks. We need to buckle down and stop terrorism where it starts. Even Colin Powell has said it will take more than military force to stop terrorism. It will take people all over the globe, and that includes Europe. The British consul was killed in Istanbul. I just hope other Europeans are not killed anywhere by any terrorists. This stuff is scaring the out of me. As long as terrorists are striking innocent and decent people all over the globe, of all religions and nationalities, are in danger of losing their lives to idiots who think martyrdom will get them an undetermined number of virgins in the afterlife.

 

[theSoulfulMofo]

On my mind, there's two concerns:

1.) If U.S. govt or military mistreats or abuses a group of "Third World" people, we'll be asking for it in the coming decades.

2.) IMO, U.S. cannot afford to be the world's policeman. It's gotta share with the global community rather than dictate it.

I might not be as informed as most people, but it's just a feeling I got.

 

[STING2]

Yep, dreaming things that will come true, because the policies and plans of today are the ones that will lead to a bright future for the planet

1. There are thousands of intelligence officials currently involved in trying to find and arrest members of Al Quada. Dozens of countries services have been involved in capturing large numbers of Al Quada personal over the past 2 years.

2. Not according to most Americans

3. The Bush administration has never stopped going after individuals, organizations, or States that threaten the safety and Security of the USA.

4. The Classic Liberal Fantasy. But before we have another Oliver Stone "JFK" Movie lets look at some facts:

Saddam was overthrown by the Army's 3rd Mechanized Infantry Division, the 1st Marine Division, and the 1st British Armored Division, with some elements of the 101st and 82 Airborne divisions playing supporting roles.

NONE of these units that overthrew Saddam were engaged in hunting down Bin Ladin or Al Quada, with the possible exception of some of the elements of the Airborne Divisions, which played mainly a supporting role in the war.

These units were heavy with Tanks and Armored Personal Carriers and mobile-Self Propelled Howizters and Rocket Launchers. These units would never be tasked with chasing Al Quada individuals through the high Mountains of Afghanistan or through South East Asia or any place else that Al Quada individuals would run to.

The problem of Iraq and Saddam is one that has been ongoing over the past 12 years. The removal of Saddam was required independent of 9/11 or Al Quada. All attempts to get Saddam to comply with the resolutions and to verifiably disarm had failed. Inspections, Sanctions, diplomacy, and other options had been tried. Full Scale Military invasion had not been tried yet, and the result was that it succeeded where all the other policy options that had been tried had failed.

Bill Clinton had 8 years to find Bin Ladin and he failed. Bush has done more to destroy and disrupt Al Quada over the past 2 years than Clinton did in 8 years.

For anyone that dreams of W occupied with worse problems in Iraq and a failing economy, the reality is going to be very different.

 

[Scarletwine]

OK, I'm really tired of the bs attempts that conservatives think their sources are more accurate. All are biased but the facts are still in the bills Bush promotes. They harm our environment, our civil rights, and our money.

Sting2

1. not sucessful
2. bullshit look at the polls
3. the UN can be "with us" or "ineffective"
4. Fact as 1/2 of voting US citizens see it.

I'm tired of the Bush defenders constantly decrying our statistics. Your freakin sources are much more likely to be propagandized as the are official DOD. I'd prefer independant sights. ie overseas not military.

 

[STING2]

"OK, I'm really tired of the bs attempts that conservatives think their sources are more accurate. All are biased but the facts are still in the bills Bush promotes. They harm our environment, our civil rights, and our money."

Fact, US revenue is increasing with 8.2% growth in the third quarter and more on the way. Saddam is out of power, the Taliban no longer rule Afghanistan, and more has been done to destroy Al Quada in the past 2 years than was done in the prior 8.

Few moderate Democrats would dispute these facts.

1. How do you define success? The capture of one man, or the disruption of a major organization, or the prevention of any further attacks on US soil?

2. Do you look at the polls? Do you know what W's approval rating is? Do you know how he does in one on one match ups with the Democratic Candidates?

3. After 12 years of failure by multiple leaders around the world, W finally brought about compliance with 17 UN resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules. I'm happy that there is one leader in the world that takes UN resolutions and Ceacefire Agreements authorizing the use of force seriously.

4. FACT- 63% of the American public currently thinks overthrowing Saddam was the right thing to do!



"I'm tired of the Bush defenders constantly decrying our statistics. Your freakin sources are much more likely to be propagandized as the are official DOD. I'd prefer independant sights. ie overseas not military."

Thats just $&@*^#$ $#@#@ s*&^!

The Military and the DOD are far more reliable than most civilian sources when it comes to reporting technical military details. Its these independent overseas liberal hotshots that get the facts wrong time an again. Think Not? Take a look at the so called "Jenin Massacre" on the West Bank. The Israely Defense Force was proven right by UN forensics teams.

A Million people did not die in the Iraq war and there was not hundreds of thousands of refugee's fleeing Iraq. In fact there were almost none!

the information I've posted in this thread could have been learned from hundreds of different media outlets around the world. Its not a secret which US Divisions participated in the war and what their normaly tasked to do.

 

[Dreadsox]

On my mind, there's two concerns:

1.) If U.S. govt or military mistreats or abuses a group of "Third World" people, we'll be asking for it in the coming decades.

2.) IMO, U.S. cannot afford to be the world's policeman. It's gotta share with the global community rather than dictate it.

I might not be as informed as most people, but it's just a feeling I got.

Two good points.....

I think a case could be made that the US has attempted to do #2. There is an international coalition, however, I would have liked a much broader one.

I think a case could be made that with a different President, #2 could have been accomplished much better than it was.

That is my 2 cents.

 

[verte76]

Two good points.....

I think a case could be made that the US has attempted to do #2. There is an international coalition, however, I would have liked a much broader one.

I think a case could be made that with a different President, #2 could have been accomplished much better than it was.

That is my 2 cents.

I agree with this.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

NECTAR!

Oh, sorry about that, go on with the debate.