LOL....we've stopped every other attack aimed at our soil in despite of the war!
Printable View
LOL....we've stopped every other attack aimed at our soil in despite of the war!
Clinton WAS a terrorist attack but Bush still managed to outdo him. The biggest loss of life was on his watch correct?
While 9/11 cost more lives than the terrorism under Clinton, 9/11 was planned during his administration. The CIA had info about potential terrorists entering the US, but was forbidden by 'the wall of separation' erected by the Clinton Administration, to tell the FBI so they could investigate. This policy was quickly abandoned by the Bush Administration.
I also dare say the terrorists grew emboldened by Clinton's 'do nothing' approach. Thus they kept launching successful attacks on US soil. Those have stopped under Bush.
Apparently not quickly enough since 9/11 occured 8 months into Bush's term.
It doesn't matter though. I haven't known a single conservative politicain who has ever accepted responsibility for anything. Why should 9/11 be any different?
Maybe McCain can use this during the general election....Yeah! Don't you elect that Obama because of Bill Clinton........:D
9/11 and Iraq are unrelated. We didn't invade for the purpose of finding terrorists.
Outsourcing is inevitable due to it's attractiveness both in time (24 hour ops) and money (other people willing to do more for less, and happily). Read Friedman's "The World is Flat".
9/11 had little to do with who was President, and more due to inefficiency and complacency within government agencies managed by other, less sensational individuals. That and the fact that nobody really seriously thought they'd try something like this. It was mentioned, but never approached seriously.
God no they don't. Almost all of them here cut and run when asked a direct question.Quote:
And the liberals do?!?!
Congrats.....you sound retarded. Would you like some cake with that mouth drool and voice modulation issue?Quote:
LOL....we've stopped every other attack aimed at our soil in despite of the war!
This notion that the war is what has halted terrorism in this country is laughable.
That small terrorist cells can't get over here because they are too busy with Iraq.
Lord thats funny. :rolleyes: There is no front line here people. This isn't WW1.
I'm sure they can spare a few guys to wreak some havoc if they could.
Be it ever so humble there no place like homeland security. Even with budget cuts.
If we were to spent a tenth of the war budget on furthering our sovereign security we would indeed be fortress America.
The US GOV has been playing 'Where's Waldo" in this effort.
This "victory" is an illusion. I would like BJII to actually DEFINE victory. One that isn't a moving goalpost. How many "mission accomplished" banners do we need to wave?
BTW, "as many as it takes" is not an answer, its a platitude.
Pardon me, it was a Fox news interview.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYNI5...eature=related
Stick to the facts.
But it has. So I guess the joke is on you....AGAIN!
When was the last Al-Quaida attack on our soil?
Good. I'd rather them be fighting our trained troops who are armed with the best weapons than the terrorists fighting American civilians. That is the Armed Forces job after all. And they are doing a fine job, despite the naysayers like you.
No, it was Clinton who CUT the military and intelligence budgets. Bush raised them. Of course the liberals are now upset about spending all of the sudden. :rolleyes:
No it is not. When was the last attack on our soil??Quote:
This notion that the war is what has halted terrorism in this country is laughable.
Proof often is in the pudding.
I guess not, again, when was the last attack on our soil after 9/11?Quote:
That small terrorist cells can't get over here because they are too busy with Iraq.
Lord thats funny. There is no front line here people. This isn't WW1.
I'm sure they can spare a few guys to wreak some havoc if they could.
But again, I have to remeber who I am talking to, this is the guy who thinks our own government murdered thousands of its own with robot controlled planes or whatever, talk about getting some character Abel....:rolleyes:
Nothing wrong with a Homeland Security agency. It's not a bad idea of used in the proper context.Quote:
Be it ever so humble there no place like homeland security. Even with budget cuts.
Not a bad point here. I personally think Bush has buttf@cked border controll issues in a very big way.Quote:
If we were to spent a tenth of the war budget on furthering our sovereign security we would indeed be fortress America.
How do you measure success in a counter-terror war is a hard thing, some may use the empircal proof that we have not been attacked in our own backyard since we began preemptive measures, others may use another factor as the unit of measurement.Quote:
This "victory" is an illusion. I would like BJII to actually DEFINE victory. One that isn't a moving goalpost. How many "mission accomplished" banners do we need to wave?
Preemption seems to be the most-effective solution, just as it often is in street self defense, since passive measures alone cannot possibly protect against terrorist attacks, taking the fight to the terrorist homeland before they can carry out their plans have become acceptable and it seems to be working.
But your right, even preemption can have its limits, as it takes considerable military and economic resources to maintain and is often politically divisive both inside and outside of our own borders. Even when the right conditions are met, not every terrorist cell and state sponsor can be pursued, as murphy's law and chaos math starts to fall into play, even the massive USA with its resources at some point will have to take a look at other options.
So what is the answer?
Ideology and the cult of Islamic fundamentalism. It will depend on whether we can help to establish a competing ideology — of democratic capitalism with Islamic characteristics — in the Middle East. No one wants to ice each other when they are making money and thriving as a culture.
Terrorism itself is just a method of warfare, though a cowards method, even if we kill every terrorist alive today, which would still be a sweet deal, as long as the original motivation that led to terrorism persists, there will be more terrorist violence.
If we are able to help Iraqis — situated in the heart of the Middle East and bordering six major Islamic societies — to establish a synthesis of Western democratic capitalism and Islamic traditions, such an ideology will prove to be even more irresistible than religious purism-turned-extremist.
On the other hand, if we are unsuccessful in this endeavor or recoil from it, we will have to live with a continuing cycle of homeland-security measures and costly preemptive conflicts — a war without an end.