enbar:

Aha. There it is again. The conservative's solution to terrorism:
everybody shut up, because debate gives "aid and comfort" to the enemy.

Based on the comments from the enemy - it does, enbar. And if so - it means more of our boys (and girls) die. Is the debate worth it? I say 'NO!'. And the conservative solution to terrorism is to take active steps against it, condemn it and eradicate it, like you'd eradicate a pest that's destroying your house or a virus that's destroying your body.

What is your liberal solution to terrorism? Everyone's dying to know, some literally... and yet we've yet to see it. Debating isn't a solution. If you haven't figured out yet that...

enbar:

Aha. There it is again. The conservative's solution to terrorism:
everybody shut up, because debate gives "aid and comfort" to the enemy.

Based on the comments from the enemy - it does, enbar. And if so - it means more of our boys (and girls) die. Is the debate worth it? I say 'NO!'. And the conservative solution to terrorism is to take active steps against it, condemn it and eradicate it, like you'd eradicate a pest that's destroying your house or a virus that's destroying your body.

What is your liberal solution to terrorism? Everyone's dying to know, some literally... and yet we've yet to see it. Debating isn't a solution. If you haven't figured out yet that terrorism is a bad thing - that's too bad. What's there to 'debate'?

You know, it would really be great if these idiots were actually winning the war on terrorism, or had a plan, or were not increasing the ranks of the terrorists, or had some part of the world on our side, or knew how to negotiate, or knew how to fight the battle in an intelligent way, or had not wasted lives and money in some kind of "bring-em-on", "dead-or-alive", "with-us-or-against-us", "Good-or-evil", "black-or-white"......stupid mentality!
What are we supposed to do. Keep quiet, and let them take us into Iran, and who knows where else, because to say anything about the conduct of the charade might help the enemy that they have so mindlessly helped themselves. Us liberals (what a ter...

You know, it would really be great if these idiots were actually winning the war on terrorism, or had a plan, or were not increasing the ranks of the terrorists, or had some part of the world on our side, or knew how to negotiate, or knew how to fight the battle in an intelligent way, or had not wasted lives and money in some kind of "bring-em-on", "dead-or-alive", "with-us-or-against-us", "Good-or-evil", "black-or-white"......stupid mentality!
What are we supposed to do. Keep quiet, and let them take us into Iran, and who knows where else, because to say anything about the conduct of the charade might help the enemy that they have so mindlessly helped themselves. Us liberals (what a terrible word!) have not been the engineers of this failure, and should not sit back and keep quiet. There are and have been options other than what they insist on doing.....but, as usual.....Bushco won't listen! He is willing to do more harm in the name of his legacy....no matter what it takes....I guess he is looking forward to the his Presidential Library.

schreibe, you keep pushing your agenda without trying to just look at the situation. For whatever reason, you're forgetting that 'those idiots' are your fellow citizens... I haven't heard you call the terrorist with the same colorful embelishments. As for the way these people are conducting a war isn't for you to say, cause you're playing soccer with the grandkid in the backyard and then posting in on YouTube, while those 'idiots'', as you call them, lay their necks on the line daily. It's hard to understand how you can be so blind as to not remember all of the trips to UN and all of the resolutions and on and on and on... yet you somehow keep pitching the moronic theory of people wanting...

schreibe, you keep pushing your agenda without trying to just look at the situation. For whatever reason, you're forgetting that 'those idiots' are your fellow citizens... I haven't heard you call the terrorist with the same colorful embelishments. As for the way these people are conducting a war isn't for you to say, cause you're playing soccer with the grandkid in the backyard and then posting in on YouTube, while those 'idiots'', as you call them, lay their necks on the line daily. It's hard to understand how you can be so blind as to not remember all of the trips to UN and all of the resolutions and on and on and on... yet you somehow keep pitching the moronic theory of people wanting this war and planning it way back and dead set on doing it. Logically - it makes no sense. But as you said, you're a liberal, so logic seems to elude you.

Your liberals (in Congress), overwhelmingly voted for this war. It's in history books now, regardless of how much you want to deny it and use the 'if-I-knew-then-what-I-know-now' defense, which in reality means 'it's-politically-correct-to-do-180-now-so-screw-everyone-and-everything-as-long-as-we're-back-in-power-in-2008"

You keep mentioning 'options' - what are those exactly? Bush won't listen? Listen to what? I'll listen - what are the options? Getting a bunch of hollywood screwballs and yelling on the streets as a bunch of loonies? That's your answer? That approach worked great after Vietnam, I'm sure it'll have as much 'success' this time...

Clinton wanted legacy - it was blatantly clear. And he's got it, hanging somewhere in the closet waiting for drycleaning. How is what's going on, in your logicless opinion, helps Bush with his legacy? If he cared about that - he'd have the troops out of there yesterday and not have to put up with all this nonsense... from soccer-playing grandfathers, who of course know best... after all if you know how to kick a ball to a boy - you certainly are an expert at world wars.

RSage,

Thanks, but no thanks. I think the Soccer summit in Seattle would end in the battle of all battles. It would rival Armageddon. It would be the end of life on earth as we know it.

The trouble with us political / war experts (notice you are included) is that we both keep pushing our agendas. The Bush administration has managed to divide this country to the extreme of the spectrum on both sides. It would have been a whole lot better it Karl Rove had not "discovered" Bush, and pushed his agenda to get the guy "selected" as president of these United States. It has been a disaster!

You and I will never be able to communicate properly because of this "great divide". You make co...

RSage,

Thanks, but no thanks. I think the Soccer summit in Seattle would end in the battle of all battles. It would rival Armageddon. It would be the end of life on earth as we know it.

The trouble with us political / war experts (notice you are included) is that we both keep pushing our agendas. The Bush administration has managed to divide this country to the extreme of the spectrum on both sides. It would have been a whole lot better it Karl Rove had not "discovered" Bush, and pushed his agenda to get the guy "selected" as president of these United States. It has been a disaster!

You and I will never be able to communicate properly because of this "great divide". You make comments and assumptions about me and how I'm thinking, and I make comments and assumptions about you, and how you are thinking. We both got each other figured out! So why prolong the agony of trying to even talk to each other.

One thing I know for sure is that in 12 years or so, I most likely won't be around, but that 6 year old soccer player will be the ripe age of 18 years. I think you may have a couple of toddlers running around, and , if so, I'm sure you want the best in life for them. We both have an entirely different feel for action that needs to be taken to ensure their future is not miserable. I happen to think that the road we are taking right now is not in the interest of our young people, and that unless we get it right, they will be paying out the nose for huge mistakes.

On the agendas - I agree and disagree. Your agenda is anti-Bush, my agenda is pro-US. As for the Seattle trip - of course that's up to you, but I'd act as a gracious host, no hostilities, although I'd definitely kick your butt in soccer

Another point of disagreement - 'us political experts'. I'm NOT, never claimed to be, just have opinions on the subject. I don't have enough info and access to be such. And neither do you, btw. Ask me something about computers or music (particularly the Beatles, drums) and I can hold my own there, but everything else - just opinions.

And even though I disagree with the President on a number of issues - you're not being intellectually honest here. ...

On the agendas - I agree and disagree. Your agenda is anti-Bush, my agenda is pro-US. As for the Seattle trip - of course that's up to you, but I'd act as a gracious host, no hostilities, although I'd definitely kick your butt in soccer

Another point of disagreement - 'us political experts'. I'm NOT, never claimed to be, just have opinions on the subject. I don't have enough info and access to be such. And neither do you, btw. Ask me something about computers or music (particularly the Beatles, drums) and I can hold my own there, but everything else - just opinions.

And even though I disagree with the President on a number of issues - you're not being intellectually honest here. The economy is much better than anyone would've expected, especially considering that he inherited a recession and then 9/11, the stock market isn't doing so bad, interest rates low, housing doing well... a number of very positive things. Not all of them, but a number. Of course you're basing your entire comment on Iraq, I'm sure, which certainly hasn't gone as well as we had hoped. There are more things to consider than just Iraq. And let's not forget that your golden boy had zillion scandals and we were being attacked left and right and he didn't do squat... at least under Bush we haven't been attacked in the US.

Anyway, I'm not in 'agony', but sounds like you are... so quit knocking US and I'll quit knocking you. Is that a deal?

And you're absolutely right about one thing - I most definitely want my little ones running around, becoming friends with your boy, doing business together and living a full, healthy and happy lives. There's absolutely no question there. I want that for every child in this great country!

We need another Jack Kennedy, another Abe Lincoln to run the country... unfortunately I'm not seeing them from either side of the isle...

RSage,
My agenda is both anti-Bush, and pro-US. I guess we see the world and the politics totally differently. I can't see where the economy or national debt is a plus for the average guy. I would like us to have a Joe Smoe, or John Doe index, rather than the Wall Street Dow Jones index. In my view most people are struggling to make ends meet. It takes two people working to maintain some kind of middle class life style. After 28 years with AT&T, I'm now working part time at a state park, and making about $8.00 per hr. Most of the employees there are barely making it. I'm living in a rural community, and most people here are what I consider the working poor. From what I've heard and r...

RSage,
My agenda is both anti-Bush, and pro-US. I guess we see the world and the politics totally differently. I can't see where the economy or national debt is a plus for the average guy. I would like us to have a Joe Smoe, or John Doe index, rather than the Wall Street Dow Jones index. In my view most people are struggling to make ends meet. It takes two people working to maintain some kind of middle class life style. After 28 years with AT&T, I'm now working part time at a state park, and making about $8.00 per hr. Most of the employees there are barely making it. I'm living in a rural community, and most people here are what I consider the working poor. From what I've heard and read the U.S. economy has been and is very productive....in other words we have a "productivity" increase, but for the first time in history this increase in productivity has not produced an increase in standard of living for the middle class. I have two sons, one in South Florida and one in Washington D.C. They are both making a good living, but can't afford to buy a house, and are renting at a cost $1000 per month in S. Fla., and $1500 per month in Washington. The great American middle class is shrinking. To paraphrase a political commentator and columnists who just recently died (Molly Ivins)...."It's not so much left and right....it's more like top and bottom......them that's getting screwed, and them that's doing the screwing!

Anyone saying the war in Iraq is the battle of our lifetime and is under the age of 43 needs to go enlist, otherwise your rhetoric is hollow. If you aren't willing to enlist you are undermining the troops using your logic.

America wasn't attacked while Bush was in office? What the hell do you call 9/11 when Bush was reading "My Pet Goat" at grade school?

Bush inherited a recession? Bush inherited an economy that had grown for every single year of the Clinton presidency. Anybody paying attention at that time knows that the very first thing Bush-Cheney did when they got into office was to get on every Sunday morning show and talk up how bad the economy was so they could push their tax cut ...

Anyone saying the war in Iraq is the battle of our lifetime and is under the age of 43 needs to go enlist, otherwise your rhetoric is hollow. If you aren't willing to enlist you are undermining the troops using your logic.

America wasn't attacked while Bush was in office? What the hell do you call 9/11 when Bush was reading "My Pet Goat" at grade school?

Bush inherited a recession? Bush inherited an economy that had grown for every single year of the Clinton presidency. Anybody paying attention at that time knows that the very first thing Bush-Cheney did when they got into office was to get on every Sunday morning show and talk up how bad the economy was so they could push their tax cut package for their millionaire donors. Made me sick to my stomach to see those jacka***es on there grinning from ear to ear destroying consumer confidence and leading the nation into recession when all that might have taken place in the economy was a correction. It galls me to hear them say how well they have done on the economy when it has taken them 6 years to get the markets back to the level they inherited while they have destroyed the budget surplus we had. That sucks! I hope everybody's children have time to play soccer while they are paying off our governmental debts.

And just because you knock Bush-Cheney sure as hell doesn't mean your knocking the US. If you support that logic then every single drop of effort you conservatives spent to smear Clinton was an act of treason.

Teddy Roosevelt said it best -

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that ...

Teddy Roosevelt said it best -

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

Pretty nice at the lists there... although you need to check your facts prior to barking the stuff you do. US was attacked in 1993, way before Bush Jr. came to power. Same buildings as I recall, perhaps you were occupied otherwise at the time and didn't see it, check your history books. America was also attacked in Africa as well as USS Cole. In case your education fails you - all of those attacks occurred prior to Bush.

Bush did inherit a crappy economy and you have no clue what you're talking about if you think US economy can be changed on a dime. Clinton inherited it riding up. He had little to nothing to do with the fact that economy was good during most (not all) of his years in ...

Pretty nice at the lists there... although you need to check your facts prior to barking the stuff you do. US was attacked in 1993, way before Bush Jr. came to power. Same buildings as I recall, perhaps you were occupied otherwise at the time and didn't see it, check your history books. America was also attacked in Africa as well as USS Cole. In case your education fails you - all of those attacks occurred prior to Bush.

Bush did inherit a crappy economy and you have no clue what you're talking about if you think US economy can be changed on a dime. Clinton inherited it riding up. He had little to nothing to do with the fact that economy was good during most (not all) of his years in the office. If you want to know who's much more responsible - that would be Mr. Greenspan. Again, you need to do some reading on the subject prior to making wild statements without substance.

The tax cuts that everyone got, not just the rich, are the reason the economy is doing as well as it does. Even though the tax cuts in theory diminish the collection by the treasury - the effect they have on economy, in terms of growth of companies and public spending is what's causing the treasury to receive much more tax receipts than they did before the cuts. Tax cuts spur economic growth, which winds up generating more tax revenue. It's the tax cuts, stupid... if you pardon the expression.

@schreibe - I sympathize with your situation. No question that even though the economy is doing pretty well according to the official numbers, unemployment etc. - there is a need for 2-people income to have reasonably decent lifestyle. It's been that way ever since I can remember being here. Of course a lot depends on someone's spending habits, as well as investments along the way (i.e. we bought a new house for $40k after 9 months in the states, thanks to an American who was gracious and generous enough to loan my father money for the down payment)...

This house would now go for at least 8, maybe 9 times the original price. So you figure if you bought 3-4 of those back then - you could easily retire now. Obviously not all of us were that savvy, but the opportunities were there and people even find opportunities now.

And even though you don't make much money, you're still able to afford an internet connection, shoot a video of your (now famous) soccer encounter with your grandson using some sort of video camera, so it's not exactly total poverty either.

No question that senior citizens that didn't plan for retirement have a tough time, considering costs of today etc. My Mom, after working here for about 20 years is getting $618/mo in ...

This house would now go for at least 8, maybe 9 times the original price. So you figure if you bought 3-4 of those back then - you could easily retire now. Obviously not all of us were that savvy, but the opportunities were there and people even find opportunities now.

And even though you don't make much money, you're still able to afford an internet connection, shoot a video of your (now famous) soccer encounter with your grandson using some sort of video camera, so it's not exactly total poverty either.

No question that senior citizens that didn't plan for retirement have a tough time, considering costs of today etc. My Mom, after working here for about 20 years is getting $618/mo in Social Security. Considering that rents go for $700+ (not even mentioning food here) - it's clear that one can't live on that money alone. That's where the kids come in and that's where people should do whatever they can to save up for retirement. The tools are there - 401k etc. Unfortunately, many count on the government to solve their personal problems and unless someone's ill and incapable - that shouldn't be the case.

When the economy is doing badly - it's clearly visible, regardless of reports on TV. That's not the case now.

I've been a little out of touch here the last few days, but let me respond to RS's remarks earlier with regard to my comments.

I said that the conservative response to terrorism (part of it, anyhow) is to silence debate. RS, you actually agreed with me, though you pointed out that another part of the conservative response is also to "take active steps against it, condemn it and eradicate it." In theory, that sounds great. The problem is that all indicators (i.e., objective research, reports from the CIA, etc.) suggest that those "active steps" are actually increasing both the actual incidence and the future likelihood of terrorist attacks. When anyone mentions this, you accus...

I've been a little out of touch here the last few days, but let me respond to RS's remarks earlier with regard to my comments.

I said that the conservative response to terrorism (part of it, anyhow) is to silence debate. RS, you actually agreed with me, though you pointed out that another part of the conservative response is also to "take active steps against it, condemn it and eradicate it." In theory, that sounds great. The problem is that all indicators (i.e., objective research, reports from the CIA, etc.) suggest that those "active steps" are actually increasing both the actual incidence and the future likelihood of terrorist attacks. When anyone mentions this, you accuse them of "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy (citing some unnamed "comments from the enemy") and conclude from that that they simply ought to be quiet.

Do you not see the contradiction there? You say people are "dying" to hear the liberal solution to terrorism. Well, I'd say, right now people are dying because of the conservative solution. You can't, and I don't think anyone can, show me one concrete piece of evidence that says that terrorism is decreasing as a result of US policies since 2001. A whole raft of sociological research, both pre- and post-9/11, shows that the Bush administration's military response to terrorism is basically playing into their hands, propagandistically and ideologically speaking, and is likely to escalate the conflict and produce more attacks. This isn't a "liberal" perspective -- it's just a fact. Read Juergensmeyer, Stern, Richardson, Pape, Cole, or Benjamin on terrorism. These aren't politicians or ideologues. They're scholars who've been studying all sorts of terror in various parts of the world, some since before you were born. I'll be happy to give you references if you like.

It's not a "liberal" position to say that we need a smarter approach to terror than what we've got. We can't get that without debate, though.

There has never been a debate about the effect of tax cuts. Both democrats and republicans offered tax cuts. The democrat plan targeted the middle class and the poor. The republicans targeted the wealthiest 1% of our citizens (with some crumbs for the rest).

Then the debate would be which tax cut would have provided the strongest boost, the quickest, and that would have been the democrat tax cut because it would have gone to those with low disposable income who would have spent it immediately. Bush's tax cuts have taken us 6 years to get back to what he inherited.

I don't know how you get past your statement "at least under Bush we haven't been attacked in the US." Regardless of what even...

There has never been a debate about the effect of tax cuts. Both democrats and republicans offered tax cuts. The democrat plan targeted the middle class and the poor. The republicans targeted the wealthiest 1% of our citizens (with some crumbs for the rest).

Then the debate would be which tax cut would have provided the strongest boost, the quickest, and that would have been the democrat tax cut because it would have gone to those with low disposable income who would have spent it immediately. Bush's tax cuts have taken us 6 years to get back to what he inherited.

I don't know how you get past your statement "at least under Bush we haven't been attacked in the US." Regardless of what events transpired in the past we were still attacked on 9/11 in the US while W and his gang had their guard down, right here on American soil.

No one said the economy could be turned on a dime. I said that W and Cheney got on every political talk show every week relentlessly with their talking points about how bad the economy was so they could pass tax cuts (which predominantly go to the wealthiest 1% of our nation). They did that week after week slowly eroding consumer confidence, exacerbating the effects of 9/11 when it happened. It was totally inappropriate. It always amazed me how they could give their economic information with big grinning smiles and then W would turn to Cheney for that look of approval "did I say my lines right, Big Dick?".

Most wouldn't be so gleeful at the thought of having to pass bad information to the US.

@enbar - you're not exactly quoting me correctly. I didn't say that fighting terrorism won't fuel it, which is why I'm for the completely eradication approach. You don't need to be a professor to know that if you have an army, regardless of its size, and it's being attacked - of course your reaction would be to increase the size and vigor of it to try and take the upper hand. So, there's nothign unknown or surprising about the fact that when we went to fight the war - the terrorists wanted to redouble their efforts. Does that mean that we should abandon the concept of defeating them? Of course not. Same thing was happening in WW2 and any other war. Folding just because hitler threw a ...

@enbar - you're not exactly quoting me correctly. I didn't say that fighting terrorism won't fuel it, which is why I'm for the completely eradication approach. You don't need to be a professor to know that if you have an army, regardless of its size, and it's being attacked - of course your reaction would be to increase the size and vigor of it to try and take the upper hand. So, there's nothign unknown or surprising about the fact that when we went to fight the war - the terrorists wanted to redouble their efforts. Does that mean that we should abandon the concept of defeating them? Of course not. Same thing was happening in WW2 and any other war. Folding just because hitler threw a few more men in the fire and worked on new weapons would've proved disastrous. Luckily (for you and me) nobody looked at it with your perspective and we got the result. But the war was actually fought - currently I don't think that's being done to an extent that it should be and that's our problem, not the fact that islamofascists are getting more aggressive due to our semi-actions. And it wasn't 'unnamed' sources that indicated that your position on the situation is helpful to them - they are very well known.

I don't know what you consider 'the conservative' approach, I know what mine is and what we're doing now isn't it, even though I certainly consider myself a conservative. The liberal approach, that's assuming that the rally in DC the other weekend showed what that's all about, is the same as we had in Vietnam. Millions died after our pullout, the politics and diplomacy killed our efforts there, as well as all those people as an aftermath of the pullout. The same screamers of yesteryear (some anyway) were pushing the same approach, which I'm sure would result in as many if not more deaths.

What's happening in Iraq isn't due to Bush failings, it's due to their own failings. The 76+ killed yesterday is a perfect example of this.

@bobyrutan - you should talk to someone who knows the history and economy, to see who actually pays most of the taxes in this country (it ain't you - it's the very people you piss on in every message) and look at the economy where it was at different points in time, during whose reign and find out from some real economist (not some left wing demagog) how the economic cycles work. Also, your 9/11 comment is totall illegitimate if you completely discount all of th other attacks before Bush came to power. If you want to throw all of them in the same box - fine, 9/11 more than deserves to be there, but to look at all of the attacks of the 90's, including the WTC attack of '93, look at how Clin...

@bobyrutan - you should talk to someone who knows the history and economy, to see who actually pays most of the taxes in this country (it ain't you - it's the very people you piss on in every message) and look at the economy where it was at different points in time, during whose reign and find out from some real economist (not some left wing demagog) how the economic cycles work. Also, your 9/11 comment is totall illegitimate if you completely discount all of th other attacks before Bush came to power. If you want to throw all of them in the same box - fine, 9/11 more than deserves to be there, but to look at all of the attacks of the 90's, including the WTC attack of '93, look at how Clinton totally botched the capture of bin laden, although it's no news that he had a number of chances, and to throw everything on Bush - totally political and inappropriate. No question that Bush should take the heat for his failings, but it wasn't strictly his policies or deeds that got us to 9/11.

And considering 9/11 and its impact on economy - it's pretty incredible how quickly and how well the economy recovered and I do believe its due to tax cuts and I don't mind that the big business got their cuts, because as much as you hate and condemn them - they're the ones who employ you and yours. They're the ones who bring a ton of jobs to this country and make a ton of products. Economy can't function out of thin air - someone needs to make something and as much, if not more importantly - someone needs to be doing the buying. If the economy was as sucky as you and some claim - the numbers wouldn't be there. you can't make money on your products/services unless someone buys and they can't buy if they don't have the money. That's first grade math.

n2sooners:

So, are we better off with fewer terrorists that are coming over here killing our civilians and wreaking havoc on our economy, or with more terrorists staying at home targeting our military who are trained to deal with them and killing each other instead of us?

Well, that makes a great slogan, kind of like "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here," but that's not the way terrorism works. It's not a football team, a temp agency, or an army where you've got a bunch of guys signed up and you just need to keep them busy in one place to make sure they don't mess with you in another place. Can you cite one piece of evidence that shows that the t...

n2sooners:

So, are we better off with fewer terrorists that are coming over here killing our civilians and wreaking havoc on our economy, or with more terrorists staying at home targeting our military who are trained to deal with them and killing each other instead of us?

Well, that makes a great slogan, kind of like "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here," but that's not the way terrorism works. It's not a football team, a temp agency, or an army where you've got a bunch of guys signed up and you just need to keep them busy in one place to make sure they don't mess with you in another place. Can you cite one piece of evidence that shows that the two alternatives you suggest are in any way mutually exclusive? All the studies I've seen suggest the opposite: the more guys we have fighting over there, the more likely some of them will make their way over here. That's how it's worked in most places historically, anyhow.

@RS -- first, for the "unnamed sources": I used that expression because, well, you didn't name them. Now you say they're "well known." Well, they're certainly not well known to me, but since they're so well known to you and everyone else, maybe you wouldn't mind sharing them with me? My understanding has been precisely the opposite: that presenting a monolithic front and silencing debate has done a great deal to help terrorist anti-US propaganda, which uses the Iraq war as an excuse to argue that the US wants to wipe out Islam.
... continued in next comment ...

... continued from previous comment ...

More to the point: as the weeks go on, RS, I've noticed that your arguments, which used to be reasoned and careful, are getting shriller and more desperate. This time around, you're simply changing the subject and not responding to my point. My beef with what you said was with your as-yet-unsupported claim that debate in the US about the best way to handle terrorism is a bad thing, because having policy debates somehow, magically perhaps, "strengthens our enemies" and causes the deaths of American soldiers. So, you say, let's silence debate. When I challenge you on this, you start talking about Viet Nam and "the liberal solution." I have no idea what ...

... continued from previous comment ...

More to the point: as the weeks go on, RS, I've noticed that your arguments, which used to be reasoned and careful, are getting shriller and more desperate. This time around, you're simply changing the subject and not responding to my point. My beef with what you said was with your as-yet-unsupported claim that debate in the US about the best way to handle terrorism is a bad thing, because having policy debates somehow, magically perhaps, "strengthens our enemies" and causes the deaths of American soldiers. So, you say, let's silence debate. When I challenge you on this, you start talking about Viet Nam and "the liberal solution." I have no idea what the liberal solution is, just as you claim to have no idea what the conservative solution is (except that it involves not talking too much or raising critical or uncomfortable questions about our leaders). I'm not advocating any particular solution. I'm advocating taking a hard and honest look at the fact that our current policies seem to be making things worse. Comparisons to WWII, while rhetorically handy, are totally beside the point, mainly because we are fighting against neither a state nor an army. You say you want "total eradication." Again, rhetorically, as a soundbite, that sounds dandy. But what does it mean? Kill every terrorist? Before or after they commit a terrorist act? Presumably before, right? Well, how do you identify them? Do you know how suicide-bombing missions are planned or executed? Would you have executed Baruch Goldstein before he started shooting at the Tomb of the Patriarchs? Because that would have involved mind-reading, since no one knew he was going to do it. What about the would-be terrorists you lock up, torture, or kill before anyone else knows they're going to do anything -- what do you do about their brothers and cousins, who now have a great reason to take the anti-US claims of the jihadis seriously?

...continued in next comment ...

... continued from previous comment ...

Guess you better kill them, too. This "total eradication" idea is meaningless, and while you're right that you don't need to be a professor to understand this stuff, it does help to have a rudimentary historical grasp of the realities of terrorist movements, which I see no evidence that you possess. Get this straight: terrorist groups don't function like armies, not in any way. Everyone who's studied this stuff can confirm that. Trying to wipe them out by force has always -- always -- ended up making them stronger.

I have a feeling I know what you're going to say next. You're going to say, "Okay, so what's your solution, then?" Well, ...

... continued from previous comment ...

Guess you better kill them, too. This "total eradication" idea is meaningless, and while you're right that you don't need to be a professor to understand this stuff, it does help to have a rudimentary historical grasp of the realities of terrorist movements, which I see no evidence that you possess. Get this straight: terrorist groups don't function like armies, not in any way. Everyone who's studied this stuff can confirm that. Trying to wipe them out by force has always -- always -- ended up making them stronger.

I have a feeling I know what you're going to say next. You're going to say, "Okay, so what's your solution, then?" Well, I don't have one. I don't think any intelligent person can claim at this point that we are not in a colossal mess, and that neocon Iraq policies helped to get us there, and that there's no obvious or simple way out. Pulling out may be the best option, but it is certainly not a good option. I don't know. But I do know that we get nowhere by silencing debate and continuing with the present catastrophe because we're scared of what might happen if people start asking questions.

Sorry for the long-windedness, but your position, RS, especially the part about how we shouldn't be debating things and about how actually studying the on-the-ground realities of the situation is unnecessary, always gets me going.

@enbar - this article itself gives you one source, the PM in Australia. There have been announcements from others, terrorists themselves. I'm sure you can locate other references yourself, it's not that difficult to find.

As for us not fighting a government, an army - I disagree to a point. We are fighting an army, it may not be exactly the same in training, tactics etc. but even the article that I linked to above says that this particular crowd has 10-12k people ready and willing. So, it is an army.

In terms of terrorists being killed - of course my preference would be to do so before they st...

@enbar - this article itself gives you one source, the PM in Australia. There have been announcements from others, terrorists themselves. I'm sure you can locate other references yourself, it's not that difficult to find.

As for us not fighting a government, an army - I disagree to a point. We are fighting an army, it may not be exactly the same in training, tactics etc. but even the article that I linked to above says that this particular crowd has 10-12k people ready and willing. So, it is an army.

In terms of terrorists being killed - of course my preference would be to do so before they strike... but as you said, that's not always possible, although I certainly give Bush and his people credit for averting attacks here in the US. But most certainly get rid of them after the fact. I'd advocate no less for people who abuse children or rape women. They don't deserve to live on this planet once they committed those kinds of acts. More specifically about your question in regard to Mr. Goldstein (the other one, of course) - would I have executed him have I known before his attack? Absolutely! Just because he shares the last name with Eric G. - doesn't mean he gets a pass on terrorism.

I'm not opposed to debate at all. I'm just opposed to the way it's conducted with this war. It doesn't help the country, it doesn't help our troops one bit. What it does do in its current context is encourage the enemy, because you and people on your side of the debate are fighting the same 'enemy' as the terrorists. That's why it's helpful to them. It undermines the President and the troops, it weakens their stand and resolve and thus helps the enemy of the state. I don't think it's a difficult concept to understand. In my view Americans should be pro-America. You don't like the currently elected government - you have a chance to change it in the next election, but you as an

And the reference to WW2 wasn't rhetorical - there were plenty of Chamberlains that thought there was a better approach, history taught us otherwise and the nazis were beaten to the ground by sheer will and determination on the part of the Russians (with some assistance with US & England). That's what wins wars, especially when dealing with the kind of enemies we're dealing.

And let's not mix the random acts of violence with the kind of terrorism we're fighting (ie hezbollah, al qaeda etc.). We just had a muslim shoot up some people in Utah, we don't have the details of whether he was a part of some terrorist network or a sole perp... and we don't know that the fact that he was muslim ha...

And the reference to WW2 wasn't rhetorical - there were plenty of Chamberlains that thought there was a better approach, history taught us otherwise and the nazis were beaten to the ground by sheer will and determination on the part of the Russians (with some assistance with US & England). That's what wins wars, especially when dealing with the kind of enemies we're dealing.

And let's not mix the random acts of violence with the kind of terrorism we're fighting (ie hezbollah, al qaeda etc.). We just had a muslim shoot up some people in Utah, we don't have the details of whether he was a part of some terrorist network or a sole perp... and we don't know that the fact that he was muslim had anything to do with his deed at this point, but we do know that he killed a bunch of people and he won't kill anymore - that's the point of my approach.

I realize that you don't have a solution and I certainly don't fault you for that. I would just say - let's debate among ourselves who the next leader of our country will be and who'll best serve us, the American people who will elect this person. But once we elect him/her - let's stand behind that person and let them do their job and support them, our troops and their missions... mostly because we don't have all of the details, because we don't want to assist any enemies (and we have a number, for all the wrong reasons and some right ones) or maybe assist was a wrong word - encourage them (passively) in their efforts to undermine us and move forward... as one of my favorite talk show host always says "in the greatest country on G*d's green earth".

Heh. Point taken.

Well, to me, there are a lot of errors in what you posted, but the fundamental problem is that despite the fact that there may be ten or twelve thousand "recruits" ready to die for al-Qaeda, it is still not a military confrontation and can't effectively be prosecuted by military means alone. You completely sidestepped the point I made that everyone who's ever studied the phenomenon of terrorism concurs on this. The example of Baruch Goldstein, and the examples of countless suicide bombers around the Middle East and elsewhere, show that most terrorists haven't signed up in some recruiting office somewhere and don't live in a barracks drilling and taking orders. They live s...

Heh. Point taken.

Well, to me, there are a lot of errors in what you posted, but the fundamental problem is that despite the fact that there may be ten or twelve thousand "recruits" ready to die for al-Qaeda, it is still not a military confrontation and can't effectively be prosecuted by military means alone. You completely sidestepped the point I made that everyone who's ever studied the phenomenon of terrorism concurs on this. The example of Baruch Goldstein, and the examples of countless suicide bombers around the Middle East and elsewhere, show that most terrorists haven't signed up in some recruiting office somewhere and don't live in a barracks drilling and taking orders. They live seemingly normal lives until some extraordinary event spurs them into taking violent action. This can and sometimes does happen almost completely independently of any formal chain of command. In other words: in a large number of cases, there is no reliable way of identifying a "terrorist" until it's too late. The legal quandary that's developed in the US is evidence of this -- not a single conviction, as far as I know, on terrorism-related charges since 9-11. All the terror-connected prosecutions have been for things like visa fraud, tax evasion, and various misdemeanors. "Aspirational terrorism," as they say, is a tricky thing to pin down and eradicate. You can't really kill or jail everyone who's ever said "I wanna go fight some jihad," much as Alberto GOnzales might like to try.

Your reference to Chamberlain misses the point here. No one is taking a Chamberlain-like approach. No one is saying terrorists are harmless annoyances and should be appeased. The point is that the methods we've adopted, by all historical and contemporary measures, are calculated precisely to fail and to make our own situation worse.

The point is: we need a smarter approach. We need leadership who will actually listen to people who know what they're talking about. ... (continued)

(continued) And we can't get that without allowing free and honest debate.

Finally, your link to Wizbang for the al-Qaeda quotes -- again, that misses the point completely. I am starting to think you've never read a serious, scholarly book on terrorism. Groups like al-Qaeda are, at their cores, public-relations operations. They don't have a hope of winning militarily. They have to fight things out on the ideological and propagandistic front, and their horrifying acts of terror are simply a part of that strategy. This is pretty basic stuff if you know the history of terrorism in the modern period. Given that, can you imagine an al-Qaeda spokesperson coming out in public and saying anything ...

(continued) And we can't get that without allowing free and honest debate.

Finally, your link to Wizbang for the al-Qaeda quotes -- again, that misses the point completely. I am starting to think you've never read a serious, scholarly book on terrorism. Groups like al-Qaeda are, at their cores, public-relations operations. They don't have a hope of winning militarily. They have to fight things out on the ideological and propagandistic front, and their horrifying acts of terror are simply a part of that strategy. This is pretty basic stuff if you know the history of terrorism in the modern period. Given that, can you imagine an al-Qaeda spokesperson coming out in public and saying anything different than what he said? Making public, propagandistic statements is one thing. Actually carrying out policy is another. Internal al-Qaeda documents have suggested that they hope for a continued neocon push towards military confrontation, as it helps them in their recruiting and propagandizing efforts. This is widely documented. Let me know if you want references.

enbar, I don't mean to 'sidestep' anything. I think I did say something about the relevancy (or irrelevancy in this case) of the fact that attacking terrorism fuels it more. I also said that I don't think this fact alone should be a deterrent to not fight it.

Yes, there are individuals that commit terrorist acts, as the guy you mentioned, as well as the guy in Seattle at the Jewish Federation that shot up a bunch of women, the teen (as described by AP), who just happens to be a bosnian muslim refugee, McVeigh and many others. I agree that it's difficult to get ahead of them and stop them before they commit their acts.

However, this isn't what were talking about here. You can't tell me ...

enbar, I don't mean to 'sidestep' anything. I think I did say something about the relevancy (or irrelevancy in this case) of the fact that attacking terrorism fuels it more. I also said that I don't think this fact alone should be a deterrent to not fight it.

Yes, there are individuals that commit terrorist acts, as the guy you mentioned, as well as the guy in Seattle at the Jewish Federation that shot up a bunch of women, the teen (as described by AP), who just happens to be a bosnian muslim refugee, McVeigh and many others. I agree that it's difficult to get ahead of them and stop them before they commit their acts.

However, this isn't what were talking about here. You can't tell me that 9/11 was done without any planning and some serious training, organization and multiple people. Those are the ones I was talking about - the hezbollah, hamas, al qaeda. Those may not be governments or armies of countries, but there's certainly organization, leadership, planning, training, executions. If we were to eradicate those groups - then it's back to dealing with people like any other criminals.

The legal quandry, as you call it - is a whole other matter. I don't believe these thugs deserve to have the protection of US legal system. They should be dealt with just as Stalin dealt with the nazis in WW2 - labor camps (he also marched them through the Red Square, but we don't need theatrics in this). Ok, perhaps that's too USSR of me, but seriously - I see no good reason why they should get legal umbrella over them, unless they're US citizens. As for convictions - moussaui is one that certainly got convicted. I know there were some arrested in Seattle mosque a year or so ago... don't know what the final outcome was, but apparently they had enough evidence of the planning to arrest them. Then there's this guy that came across the border from Canada in 2000 to bomb LAX. Remember that guy? I'm sure he'll be convicted, considering what he had in the car.

No, I don't need references, I've heard these points. And you're right - I haven't read books on terrorism... to be totally frank - Jeffery Deaver is a lot more interesting for me to read than something like that.

I do agree that our leaders should listen, but not to 'people', like you and me, because as you stated earlier - you don't have a solution. What good would it make to listen to you if you don't have one. You're doing a great job of yelling (ok, in your case you're talking, others from your perspective are yelling) that the current approach doesn't work and to a degree I agree with you. But that needs to be followed with a recommendation of what will work, if you want people ...

No, I don't need references, I've heard these points. And you're right - I haven't read books on terrorism... to be totally frank - Jeffery Deaver is a lot more interesting for me to read than something like that.

I do agree that our leaders should listen, but not to 'people', like you and me, because as you stated earlier - you don't have a solution. What good would it make to listen to you if you don't have one. You're doing a great job of yelling (ok, in your case you're talking, others from your perspective are yelling) that the current approach doesn't work and to a degree I agree with you. But that needs to be followed with a recommendation of what will work, if you want people in charge to listen to you. Just knocking something doesn't fix it.

There are experts in these fields and I'm sure they've read plenty of books, probably wrote a number of those. That's who the people in charge should be listening to... not Kathy Sheehan, Susan Sarandon or Sean Penn and not you nor I.

Right now Bush is trying something different with a different guy, different troop level etc. and even before trying it - he's already getting the heat, because he hasn't done well in the past... so kick the dog while he's down approach being applied.

Even though I haven't read 'scholarly books' on terrorism - I can tell you from scholarly people I've talked to from those regions - the people we're fighting only understand one thing - superior force. Anything else is a sign of weakness in their eyes and thus more opportunity for them to try and try again... And no matter how many books you read - these people hate you... and you try to be civil to them - and they hate you... and you try to speak diplomatically to them - and they hate you and want to kill you and yours. You're from the wrong country, my friend, practicing the wrong religion and even if you were practicing the right one - there's an excellent chance they'd hate you still because it wouldn't be their sect.