text: The Success Of The War On Terror | Debate Politics
  The Success Of The War On Terror
  When President Bush landed on that aircraft carrier under the banner reading, "Mission Accomplished," he was congratulating the troops on toppling Saddam. Staying true to form, Democrats tote this around as some trophy of Bush embarrassment, knowing full well that he was not claiming the work in Iraq was done.
  With all the spin going on by the ever-unreasonable, oblivious tantrum-throwing left, it is a wonder anyone has any clue how well things are going.
  Now that we have a president who won't let Al Queda attack us with impunity, something IS being done about Al Queda. They exist now largely in symbolism. Their infrastructure and capabilities are a shadow of what they were.
  We have taken out a known terror sponsor and his entire regime-Saddam.
  Now, the terrorists are attacking our SOLDIERS over there, instead of our CIVILIANS over here. Soldiers volunteer for that crap and are much better equipped for it.
  We stopped Bill Clinton's appeasement policy towards North Korea.
  Anyone who could look at all that is going on and deduce that we need to stop standing up to terror or that the overall mission has failed needs to stop getting their news from Michael Moore.
  Both the attacks in Spain and London were successful after Al Qaeda was dislodged from thier base of power. So how are they merely symbolic now?
  The main reason North Korea pulled out of the 1994 treaty and restarted thier nuclear reactors was that the US never fulfilled thier part of the treaty. There likely never would have been recent problems with North Korea if the treaty had been followed.
  Now, the terrorists are attacking our SOLDIERS over there, instead of our CIVILIANS over here.
  Sure, and 2030 have already died for a lie. In case you don't know it, they were all civilians over here at one time.
  It may suprise you to hear...but what the hell. Many people actually have no problem with the "War on Terror", but instead take issue with the way it is handled. I for one....do not like to be mislead:
  mis·lead Audio pronunciation of "mislead" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ms-ld)
  tr.v. mis··led, (-ld) mis·lead·ing, mis·leads
  2. To lead into error of thought or action, especially by intentionally deceiving. See Synonyms at deceive.
  In this case...we need to decide if the end, justifies the means. Thus far I would say no, there were many ways to deal with the issue of extremism without destroying the intergrity of the white house, and the presidency. In short, I have no problem removing Saddam from power, and no issue with stopping terrorism.....the needs are obvious to me. But please do not insult my intellegence by trying to decieve me, and then denying you ever did so.
  If anything, the "War on Terror" as they like to call it, has been a total and complete failure. We have suceeded in creating more terrorists than before 9/11.
  Al-Queda actually achieved their objectives in Spain with their terror attacks and that was to influence their election in such a way as to bring to power a leader who would withdraw Spanish troops.
  Bush claimed that "major combat operations in Iraq are over." I don't know how he could've been any more clear.
  Now that we have a president who won't let Al Queda attack us with impunity, something IS being done about Al Queda.
  Yes, Bill Clinton secretly had a desire to have al-Qaeda take over the world, establish a caliphate, and force you to read the Qu'ran. Wait, no he didn't.
  Saddam Hussein never harbored terrorists. Why do you persist with these proven lies?
  So that implies that they WOULD be attacking us over here if we weren't in Iraq? What are you basing this on? How many years have elapsed since 9/11? How many years elapsed between OKC and 9/11?
  This proves you don't know what you're talking about. Bush's policy toward North Korea is almost exactly the same as Clinton's.
  Maybe you just need to turn off Rush Limbaugh and open a book. Not a Michael Moore book, a REAL book where you might actually learn something about the world.
  The War on Terror doesn't have a chance. Your beloved President has shown great efficiency at killing men, but he has done nothing to kill their hatred. He has invigorated the hatred of any who once held it, and alienated countless more than never held it.
  Nonviolence is the answer, and we're running out of time.
  And he was correct. There is no more Saddamite army to threaten us or Iraq's neighbors, and we are left only with terrorists to contend with.
  Bill Clinton was quite successful in postponing the problem until someone else had to deal with it.
  They are not proven lies. Where do you think Zarqawi went to get his leg fixed after he was wounded in Afghanistan?
  So that implies that they WOULD be attacking us over here if we weren't in Iraq? What are you basing this on?
  Of course they would. What makes you think they would not repeat a success if they could?
  Hardly. Bush demands verification. Clinton, like Kofi Annan, is satisfied with rhetoric.
  Most of our soldiers, though, have died after his speech ont he USS Lincoln.
  Do you think success in the eyes of our enemy is seen as merely killing people or changing the way things work in America?
  If you take them at their word, success is measured by 'a world without Zionism and the United States', as recently stated by the President of Iran.
  A world without another country.
  A world where Islamic law rules.
  Success for them is changing the way things work in the world, not just the U.S. Check out their actions against Christians, Buddhists and even their own people who do not practise Islamic Law properly, in the Far East, in the Middle East, anywhere that an ideology that refuses to be subjugated to Islam exists.
  I wish with everything that's in me that your mantra of peace could overtake the world. The sad fact is that there are far too many variables and perspectives for this to be attainable.
  We haven't evolved past getting worked up over the color of someone's skin, how in Gods name can we accept anothers view point of religious law? Of an ingrained ideological psychology?
  Humanity has come this far, evolving violently and will continue in this manner. Earth isn't the place for Utopia.
  If this is truly how our enemy measures success, then they have had none. We must keep it that way. Do not submit. Simple.
  Have you gotten past the color of a man's skin in your own life? If it is possible in one, it is possible in all.
  Have you gotten past the color of a man's religious beliefs in your own life? If it is possible in one, it is possible in all.
  Humanity cannot continue in this manner. Not in the Nuclear Age. To continue the path of violence is to ensure the destruction of our race and our world. Nonviolence is not just an option, it's an imperative if you're interested in survival.
  Variables of the above mentioned kind; an intolerant attitude toward others' beliefs and system of values. On the face of things, plenty of Muslim countries co-exist fine with the rest of the world, but even within their own borders they allow the intolerance to exist and grow. In our own country, people are allowed to expound their views of hatred, protected by freedom of speech.
  Variables of complete indifference. In our country alone, a number probably frighteningly large, wouldn't forego the next episode of American Idol, in favor of learning what exactly is happening in the world around them.
  A sundry glance at CNN or Fox, suits them fine and is good enough to inform their political decisions.
  I don't think I've ever had to get past anyone else's race or belief. It's of no consequence to me, but I will say, I can't get past most of the worlds behaviour. Locally and abroad.
  And while I am certainly not outstanding in that, and in fact worse than some of the truly good people in the world, unfortunately the voice without glamour and dilemma gets no air time.
  It's not my will or want, just the hard fact those who want it have to deal with. We can't control the loons that are in charge, we can just 'keep our heads while those around us are losing theirs...'
  You can not remove hatred from the world by demonizing it and throwing it in a hole where none are allowed to speak of it. Free speech is the first step toward ending hatred of all kinds.
  Most people feel as if they are powerless. People need to be enthralled and engaged. They have to believe that they are the good guy. It's easy to convince somebody of that when you're talking about a nonviolent life style. I've read that 80 percent of all people are merely waiting to be lead. It all depends how you lead them. Light a fire underneath them. Get them thinking critically and then give them the choice. In my experience you always get good results from a person just by asking them to think.
  isn't terrorism where our major combat lies?
  alrite lets assume Clinton was postponing the problem of Islamic extremism. What has Bush really done. He attacked one of the most secular of the Muslim countries (yes Iraq was a secular dictatorship), while we appease to some of the most Islamic fundementalist countries in the region, e.g. Saudi Arabia. We appease to Pakistan which probably has one of the largest fundementalist populations. The only thing that I find good was that we got rid of the taliban.. but I think that our reconstruction efforts there are screwing up too.
  where do you think every single f-in terrorist in the last attacks have come from... Suadi Arabia and Pakistan... the countries we are "strategic allies" with. And, instead we go on about the trivial ties Sadaam had with terrorists. Our dealing with the muhajideen in Afghanistan during the 80s was much more supportive of terror than Sadaam's vague dealings.
  and how does Iraq keep them from doin so? They can still easily send a few guys here and bomb another bunch of civilians. How do you know we have stopped it. In the end it is our national security, our domestic security, that helps fight terrorist attacks. Iraq just brings more fodder to the terrorists.
  and how has Bush not succumbed to mere rhetoric.
  Errrr no.... 9/11 was an inside job!
  Stop pushing this into the other threads...There is already a thread dedicated to this...Discuss it there...
  Bringing this theory into threads where it is not the topic is disruptive and takes away from the original debate...
  Don't be weird. You're not a moderator and everybody knows it. If you need a moderator service or wish to submit a complaint, private message one of us or email us.
  Read the bottom Gandhi...."Last edited by cnredd : Today at 08:46 AM."
  Ohh, that's pretty funny. My bad.
  I edited it again to include my name...:2wave:
  Major combat is the battle between large organized military forces. The battle against terrorists, guerillas, and common criminals is not major combat.
  Lack of resolve in facing an aggressor only encourages the aggressor. Clinton made the same mistake in the 90's that Neville Chamberlain & Co. made in the 30's.
  Saddam's ties with the terrorists were not trivial, and he ran a terrorist state. The fighters we supported in Afghanistan were proxies in the Cold War, and their problem is that they came to overestimate their abilities.
  The terrorists are on the defensive in Iraq, and much too busy to carry on offensive operations. You seem to think that the increased probability of dying uselessly for a losing cause promotes recruitment; I disagree.
  Bush is responding properly to a real attack; it is the Bush-bashers who have succumbed to mere rhetoric.
  Here's an link, which outlines the link between Saddam and terrorist.
  you find me every reason in the book, factual, that the reason for the war in Iraq makes it worth while, and I won't dismiss it, thats not the problem I have here.
  The problem I find is, that Saddam, in the spectrum of this problem, isn't even near close the problem
  Pakistan has triend and probably has had some success in giving nuclear secrets to...none other than terrorists!
  Many Saudi Royal family members are under the question of weither they're donating millions of dollars to terrorists and weither or not they're giving them weapons.
  But the golden boy John Edwards said the Iraq was the number one threat in 2002 before the war so it must be true.
  "I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country"
  Here's the link, look at the other Democrats quotes too. http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html
  Bush was warned not to go into Iraq
  Now once again just like in the other bogus war for profits Viet nam
  You create more terrorists each day in Iraq than you kill
  the war is unwinable
  rummy dummy rumsfield said it would be over in 2 weeks
  that guy should of been fired 10 years ago
  the scene of bush on the uss Lincoln touting the war is over
  as if it was a feat of some sort
  Iraq was taken down by the un it striped of all its weapons prior to the Us preemptive strike
  yet more Americans are dying each day now then at anytime prior to the USS Lincoln address
  worse they are using the munitions that they stole from saddams stock pile that was looted after the fall of bagdad
  if the americans would of secured that stockpile of munitions there would be no road bombings certainly not the high explosive blasts that we are seeing these days