Check out some similar questions!

ordinaryguy · Jan 17, 2008, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

Another failure was in government propaganda; it was and is still not being done. We demonized the Japanese and have failed to do so with the Al- Qaeda.

Any such "failure" is certainly not for lack of trying. The failure I see is that using the "war" metaphor gave Al Qaeda the status of a nation, when actually all they are is a bunch of self-righteous fundamentalist thugs. That's the relevant difference between Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Pearl Harbor was perpetrated by a nation. 9/11 was perpetrated by a gang.

Dark_crow · Jan 17, 2008, 10:15 AM

You apparently did not read the link I provided or you wouldn't call them just a gang.

ordinaryguy · Jan 17, 2008, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

You apparently did not read the link I provided or you wouldn’t call them just a gang.

I read it. Sure, they're smart and tech-savvy, but they're still a gang of thugs, not a nation.

Dark_crow · Jan 17, 2008, 11:23 AM

So, giving AL-Qaeda the status of a nation and attacking them was our failure and that is why the world was on our side after 9/11, but many of those that were, now aren't.

tomder55 · Jan 17, 2008, 11:59 AM

Interesting read on DC's point is found this week at American Thinker

American Thinker: Saving Major Coughlin

Al Qaeda may or may not be a gang ;but they desire an ummah.

ordinaryguy · Jan 17, 2008, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

So, giving AL-Qaeda the status of a nation and attacking them was our failure and that is why the world was on our side after 9/11, but many of those that were, now aren't.

Rhetorically elevating them to the status of a nation instead of treating them as the gang that they are was a tactical error that gave them more status and recognition than they deserved in the part of the world that already sympathized with them and mistrusted us.

Our strategic failure was abandoning our own ideals (adherence to the rule of law, respect for human rights, repudiation of torture). That's why many of those that supported us in the beginning no longer do.

Dark_crow · Jan 17, 2008, 01:16 PM

Wait a minute, if we elevated them to the status of a Nation it would be to that of a Terrorist Nation wouldn't it? And offending those who sympathized with them ought to be of little concern to us.

I would say it was the Terrorist who abandoned the rule of law and respect for human rights. Or do you disagree?

ordinaryguy · Jan 17, 2008, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

I would say it was the Terrorist who abandoned the rule of law and respect for human rights. Or do you disagree?

Not at all. But terrorists have never made any pretense of holding these ideals, whereas our nation was founded on them, and they are the source and foundation of our strength and influence in the world.

Dark_crow · Jan 17, 2008, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by tomder55

Interesting read on DC's point is found this week at American Thinker

American Thinker: Saving Major Coughlin

Al Qaeda may or may not be a gang ;but they desire an ummah.

Tom, that is right on; the failure of the government to make known to the citizens of America the jihad doctrine of world conquest, and the re-creation of a supranational Islamic Caliphate remain a potent force among the Muslim masses:

... it would be a gross mistake to imagine that the idea of universal conquest may be considered as obliterated... the canonists and the vulgar still live in the illusion of the days of Islam's greatness. The legists continue to ground their appreciation of every actual political condition on the law of the holy war, which war ought never be allowed to cease entirely until all mankind is reduced to the authority of Islam-the heathen by conversion, the adherents of acknowledged Scripture [i.e. Jews and Christians] by submission.

American Thinker: The Muslim Mainstream and the New Caliphate

chuff · Jul 14, 2008, 10:50 AM

I am ashamed that when we are tortured the outrage is not the same.

Cue right wing, talk radio fantic talk.

purplewings · Jul 15, 2008, 07:51 PM

I grew up believing my country was wonderful and safe. I'm happy that I am an American. We elect our leaders and can't guarantee they'll lead exactly as we'd like them to. Being human and in such a high position is extremely stressful. Everyone seems to be a Monday morning quarterback. Without having all the information, everyone still knows how wrong we are and what we 'should have' done. Amazing! So far, even with some bad decisions, we are still safe. I'm grateful to be right where I am.

purplewings · Jul 16, 2008, 06:33 PM

That will never happen. I once asked someone who demanded the US provide for their country's problems while calling our government such awful names, why they felt it was our duty to take care of them and they said 'because we could and therefore it was our duty'. Hmmmph! Complain and criticize and demand but don't learn from us.

I had to spread it too. :)

Originally Posted by Allheart

Sorry Chuff, had to spread it...grrrr

With you 100%. Sure would be nice if those so filled with hatred for us, would be kind enough to express that and decline taking our aid. Seems only right. Either you hate us or you don't. Make up your mind. Sure boils my blood. Would have much rather seen that same aid go to those Americans in New Orleans. Now that would have been money well spent !

NeedKarma · Jul 17, 2008, 02:36 AM

Originally Posted by purplewings

I once asked someone who demanded the US provide for their country's problems while calling our government such awful names, why they felt it was our duty to take care of them and they said 'because we could and therefore it was our duty'.

Of course we could make up stories like that too.

Galveston1 · Jul 17, 2008, 02:22 PM

"Bush lied and people died". I'm so sick of hearing that I could just spit! If there is any one man responsible for the Iraq war, it is NOT G.W. Bush. It is Saddam. Regardless of what we found when we got to Iraq, Saddam DID have wmd because he used poison gas on the Kurds. Saddam could have prevented the war by simply letting the UN inspectors do their job. He was warned repeatedly. It was Saddam's hard head that cost him his posiltion and his life.

NeedKarma · Jul 17, 2008, 05:49 PM

Originally Posted by Galveston1

If there is any one man responsible for the Iraq war, it is NOT G.W. Bush. It is Saddam.

Did he declare war on the U.S.

BABRAM · Jul 17, 2008, 07:01 PM

Originally Posted by Galveston1

"Bush lied and people died". I'm so sick of hearing that I could just spit! If there is any one man responsible for the Iraq war, it is NOT G.W. Bush. It is Saddam. Regardless of what we found when we got to Iraq, Saddam DID have wmd because he used poison gas on the Kurds. Saddam could have prevented the war by simply letting the UN inspectors do their job. He was warned repeatedly. It was Saddam's hard head that cost him his posiltion and his life.

You have some valids points. Technically poisonous gas is classified as a WMD. However as for the WMD's, or the lack of after we showed up, our government is well aware of other countries that are in the same category as Iraq and actually further advanced. John McCain thinks the war, at least in part, is about oil: YouTube - John McCain admits Iraq War was over oil. Personally I think Dubya just needed any excuse after being blindsided by OBL so he took his frustration out on Saddam Hussein and Iraq.

I don't think many would disagree with the war in Afghanistan. I do support Dubya's decision on Afghanistan and always have. I would had been sorely disappointed with our drugstore cowboy president had he sat on his hands. Going after OBL was justifiable to not only Americans, but the world. Iraq is a whole other ball game though. The idea that constant defiance is a trigger mechanism in many cases is valid. Unfortunately though that was nothing new for Saddam. Hell we were in Iraq just a decade earlier. We all know that Hussein was a tyrant and a murderer. He committed crimes against humanity and earned the death penalty he so deserved. Dubya's big mistake was troop deployment. If he would had just bombed the hillsides, government buildings, and military installations, most would had been satisfied to let the Iraqis figure out what to do with their tyrant government. Iraq is not going to become the 51st state of the United States, one year from now or a hundred: National/Iraq War Debt Clock.

Galveston1 · Jul 18, 2008, 03:14 PM

I suspect the reason for choosing Iraq above other similar countries with similar weapons has to do with establishing a wedge in the center of those countries. We are not told all the information that goes into such a decision, not even all the senators are privy to all of it. If the war was about oil, as believed by some, then where is that oil? We could use some more, right?
The above is conjecture on my part.

chuff · Jul 18, 2008, 09:30 PM

Bush is also responsible for the price of gas, global warming, the JFK assignation and cover up, World War I, slavery, that speeding ticket I got last March, the decline of Vanilla Ice's rap career, Jesus dying on the cross, the common cold, three legged dogs, the decline of the elephant in Africa, everybody in the history of earth who has ever died, the increase in temperature on the sun, the Chinese government limiting only one child per couple, kids wearing baggy pants, overweight people in Western countries, that guy that jumped into a lake full of alligators and got ate, in my former hometown of Lakeland, Florida, sinus headaches, my computer being slow, and of course the lack of syrup in the coke machine at the place I ate lunch at today.

High Max · Sep 14, 2008, 10:23 AM

What really needed to happen, was that we should have been more diplomatic with Iraq. It's common knowledge that there was order and stability under Hussein's rule, than now. Hussein did not like terrorists, it is also fact that he executed them. The only war I can begin to agree with is the one in Afghanistan, because that's where the Taliban was operating.

Ron Paul is right. If you think that these terrorists are attacking us just because we are free, you are mistaken. It's because we are policing the world and telling them what to do, sticking our nose in the arab's business. They don't like that, that's why 9/11 happened.

If anyone thinks a bunch of people still living in tribes in the stone age in some middle eastern country is a real threat to us, then you are a sheep. I hope the Republicans lose, and lose hard this election. I'm not a democrat, and frankly I doubt it could get much worse with Obama, at least foreign nations have taken a liking to him. I just don't want McBush to be elected so I get drafted for yet another stupid conflict with no real justification.

Call me up for service when the Russians are on the Mexican border or the Chinese are flying over the Pacific Ocean, until then step off Republicans.

purplewings · Sep 14, 2008, 11:35 AM

We were diplomatic with Hussein for many years and he became worse and worse. You know the saying: Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I would never suggest that it was better over there then - than now. People were being raped, robbed, murdered whenever the fancy struck Saddam and his 'boys'. It was a terror filled life even then - and even before that.

I think we need an ally in the mideast and we were attempting to build our own. We have no one that we can trust other than Israel. We need to connect positively with an Arab population. It's easy to say Bush was wrong and this is a failure but we won't know that until more time passes. It could be the beginning of erasing hatred in the middle east and I don't think that would be considered a failure.

It doesn't matter if we like the personalities of our candidates or not. What matters is that we get someone who will try to keep us safe from terrorist (Islamic) attack. Do you really believe Obama is going to do that?? With his Muslim background... Muslim family members. Arabic buddies.

I just read one rule of Islam is there is no leaving it except in death. I don't understand how Obama was and then isn't any longer while that is a rule. I don't trust it. I will vote for someone who loves their country, has military knowledge, and doesn't need taxpayers money to keep their personal lives going...

Originally Posted by High Max

What really needed to happen, was that we should have been more diplomatic with Iraq. It's common knowledge that there was order and stability under Hussein's rule, than now. Hussein did not like terrorists, it is also fact that he executed them. The only war I can begin to agree with is the one in Afghanistan, because thats where the Taliban was operating.

Ron Paul is right. If you think that these terrorists are attacking us just because we are free, you are mistaken. It's because we are policing the world and telling them what to do, sticking our nose in the arab's business. They dont like that, that's why 9/11 happened.

If anyone thinks a bunch of people still living in tribes in the stone age in some middle eastern country is a real threat to us, then you are a sheep. I hope the Republicans lose, and lose hard this election. I'm not a democrat, and frankly I doubt it could get much worse with Obama, atleast foreign nations have taken a liking to him. I just dont want McBush to be elected so I get drafted for yet another stupid conflict with no real justification.

Call me up for service when the Russians are on the Mexican border or the Chinese are flying over the Pacific Ocean, until then step off Republicans.