Moore sued for falsifying newspaper headline for movie - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-03-2004, 07:56 AM   #61
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen
I would've at least waited until the job in Afghanistan was done and Bin Laden was captured.
I am stuck in the wonderful place where I felt that Saddam was contained, but that we had to do something about him eventually. I thought eventually was more pressing than it turns out to have been. In hindsight, I agree with you, that maybe we should have stayed focused until the job was done.

I also wonder, if because capturing Al-Qaeda leaders is such a difficult thing to do, if there were members of the administration that wanted something more tangible to show the public.

Actually implimenting seccurity measures that would help protect us, is not as exciting to the public.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-03-2004, 08:15 AM   #62
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 07:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


I also wonder, if because capturing Al-Qaeda leaders is such a difficult thing to do, if there were members of the administration that wanted something more tangible to show the public.

Actually implimenting seccurity measures that would help protect us, is not as exciting to the public.

This could very well be true. I agree with you that something should have been done eventually. I agree 100% that Afghanistan should have been completed first. I think Bush had an itchy trigger finger for Saddam and that it was somewhat personal with him. Going into Iraq would serve this administration in several ways and it's scary to think that public perception or even diversion would ever be a reason for war.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 08-03-2004, 08:50 AM   #63
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:52 AM
I disagree here, there have been plenty of successes in capturing Islamist terror leaders and operatives. By attacking Afghanistan directly a lot of good has been done but it has moved the base of operations for the Islamist terror groups and they have dispersed back into their respective regions, there is no one base to bomb and I doubt that those coordinating the organizations are hiding in caves on the Afghan/Pakistan border. Today is more dangerous because we have no idea who leads the operations, the old guard has been oblitterated and new operatives have taken their place, they have the money, will and strength to strike the west and they will bide their time and deliver on of truly shocking proportions. You also have to remember that the troop numbers and force type is entirely different between Afghanistan and Pakistan, you simply dont need massive numbers of regular army personell in a hunt for a few men in vast areas of rugged mountain. It is an intelligence operation in a theatre of operations that is harsh and inhospitable, keeping a lean mean fighting machine that can operate anywhere anythime is what needs to be done, it isnt the same as nation building but it certainly gets results.

We cannot loose sight of the failures pre-9/11. Terrorism was underestimated and the focus was too heavily on Rogue States, that was a folly that we can see clearly but we cannot make the opposite mistake, if we were to only focus on terrorism and ignore rogue states then that policy would no doubt come back to haunt us in a big way, the idea is to create a balanced approach that can show the Rogue States that the US means business and will deal with any threat, the Bush doctrine of targeting states that harbor and support terrorists is the way to prevent a truly massive attack.
In regards to the failure to catch Al Qaeda operatives you must bear in mind that isnt always stuff that hits newstands, often they are captured and detained for long periods while nobody knows where they are, it is a war fought in the shadows, somewhat an invisible war. Some really major victories though would be Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Hambali in 2002 are very big catches as well as those captured in Afghanistan and Pakistan, then you have the female operative nabbed just recently travelling to the East Coast. Problem is that nobody cares, most people have no understanding of the power structure within Islamist Terror groups (I say this because Al Qaeda is the tip of the iceberg, know your enemy and I can tell you that focusing exclusively on Al Qaeda will just leave you open for attacks from other groups). News reports barely mention them. This most recent terror warning was hot on the heels of 3 major arrests, I have little doubt that this may be the reason that the terror warnings were lifted, 3 new independent sources operating up until a week ago may have mentioned an attack, then again it could be a ploy - when you look too hard at a problem threats appear everywhere and you can be led around by your enemy.

Lastly you cannot argue with results, through his policies of striking the terrorists first GWB and a hell of a lot of luck there has not been any terrorist attacks on US since 9/11, I will not say that this guarantees there will never be another attack ever but keep in mind almost 3 years and no massive attacks, thats a record to be proud of, but will not mean a thing when the next attack occurs. I am pessimistic because I have a bit of an understanding of what is being faced and I guarantee you it will not matter how many leaders we capture or how many regimes are toppled, it only takes a small number of operatives with the expertise and support to pull off mass murder and no matter how much we try we will never be 100% effective in preventing them, not a defeatist attitude just the unfortunate reality.

It wont matter who wins the US election, generally speaking there is no major differences between Kerry and Bush in terms of foreign policy. They each know what is out there and they will look out for the national interest, wherever it may be and for better or worse life will go on.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 08-03-2004, 10:29 AM   #64
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:52 PM
I can argue with the results...LOL

There was no major terrorist attack on the US before 9/11. The fact that it has only been three years tips the scale in the other direction.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-03-2004, 04:14 PM   #65
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 07:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
I also wonder, if because capturing Al-Qaeda leaders is such a difficult thing to do, if there were members of the administration that wanted something more tangible to show the public.

Actually implimenting seccurity measures that would help protect us, is not as exciting to the public.
Excellent point, dread - I agree.

Though if they had captured Bin Laden I'm sure Bush's popularity would've skyrocketed.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 08-03-2004, 05:02 PM   #66
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 07:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer


Lastly you cannot argue with results, through his policies of striking the terrorists first GWB and a hell of a lot of luck there has not been any terrorist attacks on US since 9/11, I will not say that this guarantees there will never be another attack ever but keep in mind almost 3 years and no massive attacks, thats a record to be proud of, but will not mean a thing when the next attack occurs.
How can one prove this is a result of anything? One attack occurs on US soil and now we're measuring results? This is like saying that bigfoot exists because no one has shown any evidence otherwise. The only way to prove this statement is if you somehow had a magic wand and played those three years both ways one with a pre-imptive strike on Iraq and one without, unfortunately we can't.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 08-03-2004, 05:24 PM   #67
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 02:52 AM
Quote:
his policies of striking the terrorists first
Well only some of the terrorists, i'm still curious what you think about GWB harbouring Terrorists who stage attacks against Iran.

http://forum.interference.com/t94531.html
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 08-03-2004, 06:05 PM   #68
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
I can argue with the results...LOL

There was no major terrorist attack on the US before 9/11. The fact that it has only been three years tips the scale in the other direction.
You wouldn't call the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 a "Major Terrorist Attack"? Ok, the results of the attack were not the same, but if the terrorist had used more explosives, they could very well have killed more people on that day than were killed on 9/11.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-03-2004, 06:14 PM   #69
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
ILuvLarryMullen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: in the sunshine
Posts: 6,904
Local Time: 05:52 PM
well if we want to use a similar kind of logic as with the "bush has kept it from happening for three year" thing, then Clinton did a great job preventing it from happening again during his admin (7 years) . I'm not saying either of those views is right, I'm just comparing with the same logic.
__________________
ILuvLarryMullen is offline  
Old 08-03-2004, 06:18 PM   #70
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen
I would've at least waited until the job in Afghanistan was done and Bin Laden was captured.
The majority of the military units involved in the invasion of Iraq would never be used in Afghanistan because they are heavy Armor. So It does not make sense for them to sit on the fence then and wait for an objective to be achieved that those Units will not take part in, when there is a serious national security risk that they can be working to solve.

In addition, the job in Afghanistan is primarily one of nation building now. This could take decades. If your suggesting that the world should wait until Afghanistan has been completed to act in Iraq, it sounds like to me you do not want any military action in Iraq?

The United States just like any other country has multiple security risks that they have to deal with, and I do not know where one gets the idea that one has the luxury to deal with them one at a time. There was a push at the start of World War II by some to focus only on Japan, thank God that idea was stopped.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-03-2004, 06:28 PM   #71
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 07:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


The majority of the military units involved in the invasion of Iraq would never be used in Afghanistan because they are heavy Armor. So It does not make sense for them to sit on the fence then and wait for an objective to be achieved that those Units will not take part in, when there is a serious national security risk that they can be working to solve.

That may be true the majority may not be needed for both, but it's the same tax dollars being spread over both, same administration fighting two wars, and yes there are some troops being stretched over both.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 08-03-2004, 06:54 PM   #72
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


That may be true the majority may not be needed for both, but it's the same tax dollars being spread over both, same administration fighting two wars, and yes there are some troops being stretched over both.
It would be irresponsible for any administration to ignore multiple other national security risk to focus on only one. That logic makes no sense.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-03-2004, 07:00 PM   #73
Refugee
 
ThatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vertigo
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 05:52 PM
That's right. We couldn't ignore the imminent threat of Saddam Hussien's WMDs.
__________________
ThatGuy is offline  
Old 08-03-2004, 07:12 PM   #74
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by ThatGuy
That's right. We couldn't ignore the imminent threat of Saddam Hussien's WMDs.
One can never ignore a man that has murdered 1.7 million people, attacked and invaded 4 different countries unprovoked, threaten the global economy with total ruin through sabotage or siezure of vital energy reserves, used WMD more times than any leader in history, and has failed to account for over 1,000 Liters of Anthrax, 500 pounds of mustard gas, hundreds of pounds of sarin gas, over 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-03-2004, 07:18 PM   #75
Refugee
 
ThatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vertigo
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 05:52 PM
That's true. Same way you shouldn't ignore someone who said he has nuclear weapons that could take out Seattle. But you're making it sound that to put off attacking Saddam for one more minute until we caught the guy who ran the group that actually attacked our country would have been irresponsible. Couldn't we have waited and focused our resources on bin Laden rather than jumping into a new fight?
__________________

__________________
ThatGuy is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com