Welcome to PatsFans.com

Bush's Botched War on Terror

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by All_Around_Brown, Jan 9, 2006.

  1. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/engelhardt/engelhardt151.html

    As summarized by Hoffman of RAND, Al Qaeda has evolved into "an amorphous movement tenuously held together by a loosely networked constituency rather than a monolithic, international organization with an identifiable command and control apparatus.... It has become a vast enterprise – an international movement or franchise operation with like-minded local representatives, loosely connected to a central ideological or motivational base but advancing its goals independently." Obviously, defeating this "movement" requires a very different strategy than the one now employed by the United States. Instead of military assaults on rogue states, it requires a capacity to identify and apprehend the often self-appointed "local representatives" of Al Qaeda, to disable the movement's propaganda apparatus, and, most of all, to discredit its prime messages. On a grand scale, this requires positioning the United States with progressive forces in the Middle East, withdrawing from Iraq, and ending U.S. support for repressive, regressive regimes like those in Egypt and Saudi Arabia; on a purely tactical level, it means developing harmonious relations with professional intelligence officials in other countries and developing a communications strategy aimed at delegitimizing the jihadists' violent appeals within the Islamic world – an effort that can only be successful if it enjoys the assistance of moderate Muslims willing to cooperate with the United States.
    The need for a strategy of this sort has been voiced by at least some terrorism experts in the U.S. and by many knowledgeable officials in Europe. But even those American experts who have advocated such an approach have been repeatedly stymied by the President's unswerving commitment to his own, demonstrably failed approach. No divergence from the official White House blueprint has been permitted. To make matters worse, Bush and his top advisers have insisted on micro-managing the war on terror, choosing tactics that amplify the damage caused by their defective strategy.

    [font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The greatest damage has been caused by decisions made by top administration officials, including the President, Vice President, and Secretary of Defense, regarding the methods used to apprehend, confine, and extract information from terrorist suspects and those associated with them. Most significantly, this includes decisions to permit the abduction of suspects on the territory of friendly nations, to use Europe as a stopover point for the transport or "rendition" of suspects to Asian and Middle Eastern countries where torture is routinely employed to extract confessions, to allow U.S. interrogators to use methods that by any reasonable definition constitute torture, and to tolerate the mistreatment of Muslim prisoners in U.S. custody (whether at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, or in secret CIA-run prisons in Afghanistan, Europe, and elsewhere). Separately and together, these decisions have severely alienated the very governments and religious figures whose assistance is desperately needed to mount an effective campaign against Al Qaeda and its offshoots. [/font]


    -----------------------------------

    I guess this should come as no surprise.
  2. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Its a good thing our federal government is so competant (Katrina relief and all). The article suggests that an incompetant and irresponsible government in a war on terror would be a very dangerous thing.
  3. ELOrocks17

    ELOrocks17 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    No,...you friggin whiney liberals are making us lose the war on terror! As long as you demand that we play by the rules and that the terrorists dont, we will lose...Dont you get it???? Do you really think that the terrorists comply with the Geneva convention????
  4. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Yeah, so let's play by their rules and fly buildings into planes...
  5. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    We don't need to. The war is long over, remember? Mission Accomplished.
  6. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,232
    Likes Received:
    130
    Ratings:
    +367 / 1 / -9

    Yeah, but what about health care?
  7. OhExaulted1

    OhExaulted1 On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Messages:
    2,480
    Likes Received:
    102
    Ratings:
    +254 / 13 / -21

    #15 Jersey

    A flying building!?! That'd be AWESOME! I think you might be on to something, or maybe I should just put the bong away.:)
  8. ELOrocks17

    ELOrocks17 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Yeah...and while we are being completely gutless.. er, I mean civilized, they are beheading civillian contractors. Wake up and smell the coffee...Terrorists respond to force...not cookies and milk!
  9. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Well grab a gun and get your bad arse over there before you change your mind.
  10. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,769
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +169 / 4 / -4

    Bush said the war on terror would last for decades. It won't last for decades unless we have a strategy that ensures a steady stream of terrorists. By that measure, Bush's war-by-mistake has been a grand success.
  11. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    It has been said that Bushs policy is creating terrorists faster than we can kill them. Good work George "Whatever" Bush. Looks like ignorance has infected the reich from the top-down.
  12. FreeTedWilliams

    FreeTedWilliams pfadmins PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5,293
    Likes Received:
    40
    Ratings:
    +97 / 31 / -3

    #75 Jersey

    There has been one terrorist attack during Bushs' Presidency, there was three during the Clinton years. Clinton did nothing, Bush attacked them. The terrorists are trying to defeat the US military the only way that is possible, by using the left wing of our country to defeat ourselves. They have been captured with instructions on how to claim that they were tourtured, asks for lawyers, access to our courts. All right out of the Hanoi playbook. Forty years later we all know now that the US war protestors were funded and lead by the communists, how long will it take for us to figure out that the left todays is being lead by the terrorists.

    How else do you explain a section of this country that wakes up each morning hoping that:
    US soilders are killed
    Terrorists are not monitered
    Terrorists have lawyers and access to courts
    Somehow we lose in Iraq
  13. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0


    Are you sure there has been just one attack? How do you know this? How do you explain all those mysterious refinery explosions we hear about, that are quickly explained away as being NOT terrorist acts, but some rare occurence?

    I'm not saying they are, but my point is you can't be sure there haven't been more since the media has been effectively silenced during war. There have also been more and more attacks around the world, which is documented.

    Bottom line: Bush's policy is creating terrorists faster than Bush's policy can kill them. Your kids and your kids kids will deal with the Bush Iraq quagmire fallout for decades.
  14. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    How many attacks were there in the five years previous to WTC attack?
  15. FreeTedWilliams

    FreeTedWilliams pfadmins PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5,293
    Likes Received:
    40
    Ratings:
    +97 / 31 / -3

    #75 Jersey

    You can't be serious can you? Are you telling me that their could be an attack on American soil and somehow the Bush administration can silence every single first reponder? every two-bit media person, every eye-witness? at the site. Their is no one to control a situation like that, too many people from too diverse a culture to ever effectively silence them all, so I am sure that their has been no more attacks, because if there was, we would have heard about it.


    So you are saying that CLinton's policy of letting them get away with killing Americans was better?
  16. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,769
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +169 / 4 / -4

    There have been countless terrorist attacks during Bush's presidency. Just today, 3 American soldiers died in Iraq. I don't see how you can imply we are safer just because they are killing Americans in Iraq rather than here. It's easier for them to attack the United States in Iraq than here, so that's what they are doing.

    That's BS that the anti-war protestors were funded or led by the communists in the 60s and 70s. Most of those claims (such as those directed against the anti-Vietnam vets) have been debunked. The communists may have funded some fringe groups, just as groups like the John Birch Society did at the time. At any rate, very few of the anti-war demonstrators were communist. They were sick and tired of losing tens of thousands of young people in a war that had no end.

    I don't know who supports those things, but there is a class of people who support giving the government carte blanche in fighting the war on terrorism, even if it tramples our Constitution and our values. People like that are unprincipled and cowardly, and are fighting mostly to address their neurotic fear that our nation is overrun with terrorists who can't be stopped except by methods like those used in dictatorships.
  17. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Yup. Good post Patters. Here Free, have some bricks :bricks:


    ;)
  18. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Seriously, FTW...I'm just throwing that out there. As far as silencing the media, I don't know. Theoretically, it would make political sense. It would also make national security sense. Why? Because the terrorists tool is to make headlines that instill fear in large masses of god fearing folk. The media is the purveyor of that tool, so silencing the media would be the first rule in combatting terror. And this GOP has shown its very serious about political strong arming, national security lockdown (even in violation of the constitution), and media bullying. So in this sense, I ask: how would we truly know, unless it was a really big one that noone could ignore?

    As far as Clinton letting them get away with murder, maybe if he wasn't busy trying to defend himself from witch hunts he might have been more successful. So, by your very own standard (cleverly disguised), since we were at war with terrorists since the early 90's and the GOP was busy attacking him for everything under the sun. Gimme a break. You don't like criticism of Bush. Bush suggests that criticism aids the enemy. How easily that argumnent can be turned on its head and be used against Clintons opponents!! That would make Ken Starr and his whole GOP circus responsible for 911. Even those who were openly criticizing his administration in the media at the time.

    Or, are you saying that we weren't fighting terrorism in the 90s?
  19. ELOrocks17

    ELOrocks17 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0


    Thank you!
  20. FreeTedWilliams

    FreeTedWilliams pfadmins PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5,293
    Likes Received:
    40
    Ratings:
    +97 / 31 / -3

    #75 Jersey

    WOW, I thought the guys in Iraq are Freedom Fighters and not terrorists? Don't tell Cindy Sheehan and the rest of the DNC.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>