Ok..this is more like it..we're disagreeing again! :)

"make all the difference 10 or 15 years from now."
Wow..even from you, that's a big admission that it's going to take a LOT of time before Iraq even begins to resemble a stable country without U.S. troops in it.

So, in the meantime, American troops keep dying, we keep killing innocent Iraqis (not the ones attacking the troops, but those killed in "collateral damage"), while we pour BILLIONS of dollars into that rat hole (while we can't even afford a good health plan for our own citizens), so that 15 years down the line, Iraq will be stable and the oil supply will start paying off.

Uh huh...yeah..that does make it all worthwhile. What was I thinking about this war being a bad idea?

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Yes you are a crétin.

hmm, exactly as I thought, you're an idiot like the rest of them. I'm still waiting for a single Bush supporter with an IQ over 50 or ONE valid point about something he's done that has or will have any kind of positive effect on his country or our world as a whole. It's amazing yet hilarious that America is braindead enough to vote this guy in for a second term because he's going to spend a ton of money on TV commercials. :1orglaugh

Well...I am not a fan of President Bush...but to provide you with "ONE valid point about something he's done that has or will have any kind of positive effect on his country or our world as a whole." President Bush with the overwhelming backing of Congress and the American people...declared global war on "terrorists"...a war that is expected to last between 10-30 years. If you approve of this declaration...or not...if you approve of the tactics...or not...is of no consequence. Any President and Congress would have made the same declaration...and use similar tactics. If CONUS is hit again to any significant degree...while this President is in office or another President is in office...you will learn that up to this point or tactics have been mild compared to what will be done.

Oh I admitted from day one, this wouldn't be an easy mission converting a whole country to a true democracy. Iraq and other middle eastern countries are a mess to say the least. This will take years and years to show any signs of stability, profit and positive outcome out of this.

This may hurt in the present and we mayhave to sacrifice because of it, but it's an investment in the future of the US. You know what they saying about having to spend money to make money.

The loss of our soldiers lives is horrible and not worth any amount of oil or money... but casualties are a part of war. There's nothing we can do about it, except try to prevent it as much as possible. Unfortunately, the killing of our soldiers is after the actual combat and has turned into a guerilla war. It's going to take time and money. I expect it for years and years to come... not looking forward to it, but I've accepted it's long duration.

I can't imagine that this war against terror will ever be over. All out war against it? Sure, they *may* slowly weed out terrorism to the point where it can be kept in check by individual gov'ts, but what about the gov'ts that allowed it to happen in the first place?

Regardless of the outcome of the war on terror, I think the US has been too damaged already. Civil rights have gone to shit, and if that is let up, you will end up in the same situation you are in now given enough time. There will *always* be terrorists looking to hit the US where it hurts.

If I were an American I think I'd be more worried about another large 9/11 scale attack. Should that happen, you guys are f'd as far as rights go... hello, martial law.

Terrorism is an action... an idea... a reaction. You can't STOP that.

Terrorism: "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

I'm sorry, but you can't stop that any more than you achieve world peace. Maybe in a sci-fi movie of the future, but not here and now.

And any psychiatrist or psychologist or what ever will tell you that you're setting yourself up for failure and let down by trying to fight something so undefined and abstract... it lacks focus.

a war on terrorism? Good luck... the ONLY result for a war on terrorism is failure.

"the ONLY result for a war on terrorism is failure."...you may be right...or not...but the alternatives to a "war on terrorism" are unacceptable...for it is to do nothing and take the hits or give into the demands of "terrorists".

The war on "terrorists" will be fought by winning hearts and minds...or by terminating hearts and minds...and minds (maybe not hearts) can also be won by terminating hearts and minds.

No, the alternative is to come straight out and say "we're going to take out Osama" and then doing it.

That hasn't been done. Not to most people's satisfaction anyway.

But they can't come out and name names as freely as they want because... well, they have yet to get the people they name. At least the big ones.

Taking out Osama...is not an"alternative"...as it is a part of the war on "terrorists"...terminating hearts and minds. FYI terminating Osama will not be the end of "terrorists"...as he is but one man among thousands...if not millions.

I didn't say actually taking him out is an alternative... I said "say we're going to take him out" , declare war one one person... one country. On one person who has commited an act of terrorism.

That's an achievable goal (or at least, it should be).

But declaring war on something as abstract as all of terrorism itself is a losing cause. And thus... Bush is losing.

not if he wanted the people to think they needed him in office cause the bad men are still out there waiting to pounce.

there is 50 million possibilities and only one true answer, the fact is we do not know the answer.

Global war was declared on "terrorists...and on those countries that sponsor...or "harbor terrorists". "Terrorists" and countries are not "abstract"...and are...and will be...delt with on an idividual bases...as the opportunity or need arises...with real measures.

The war on "terrorists" is not being lost...as the war has just basically begun. Finances have been sized...orgs supplying finances have been taken down...communications have been disrupted...operations have been disrupted...cells have been taken down...and leaders have been killed or captured...two countries have had their governments taken down. I repeat the war has basically just begun.

People didn't joke for months about the "war on terra" because he was declaring it on terrorists.

He declared war on TERROR and that's that. Live with it.

I suppose you understand your post?

yes, terror is an abstract idea... what part isn't sinking in here?

I terrorize you... you don't declare war on the terror, you declare war on me.

They are 2 very separate and different things. And declare war on one will result in failure unless you can present to the world an ever lasting peace. And that... can not be done.

What part do you not understand..."terror" may be abstract as you say...but "terrorists" and countries that "sponsor" or "harbor" "terrorists" are not abstract and can be delt with using real measures. Global war was declared or "terrorists" and on those countries that "sponsor" or "harbor" "terrorists"...not an abstraction.

So what's this "war on terror" thing? Oh, right... getting Bin Laden. How's that going for ya?

Right... it's not. Too bad huh? Guess the US military isn't all it's cracked up to be? Perhaps a fault of its leaders?

Then again, maybe it's the fault of its followers... you know, the ones that argue with "it is how you say... but" or "you may be right but" and still continue to argue your own little point that is only proving my point more.

YOU ARE FAILING. The entire United Sates is failing. Can't get Osama. Can't get Sadam. Can't maintain your own economy. Can't even protect your own people.

The United States can't do anything it says it'll do in the real world, so it has to declare war on an ideal... an abstract realism that is a reaction to what it is doing in the first place.

End result?

The US moves into some place it doesn't belong.... they hate that. They revolt and rebel and you call it terrorism. You fail at stopping it, because you're the cause. And continuing it just causes more. You can't really stop now so you change the parameters. You can't seem to catch one single person... so instead of trying to stop that person, you try to stop his reaction. And the reaction of others who feel the same way, or may feel that way some day. But you can't.

But there's those of you who like you, refuse to see it and day in and day out believe you're fighting the good fight and accomplishing so much... that you routinely turn a blind eye to the failures around you.

The US will continue on, and endure and continue to be one of the, if not the greatest nation in the world. But it'll still always be a failure in what it is doing right now. And Bush might be at fault but so are those that give him their support.

Here are some " todays or future terrorists" :

They were not terrorist when the USA " declared war" on terror... ( BTW" the USA NEVER declares war: they just go in conflicts...), but now they are.

So as Maskedman said, terror and terrorists are an intangible component, and evolve as the situation does the same.

The USA will never win this war with this administration.

We have not killed or captured Osama...and we have not killed or captured Saddam...but both are neutralized to a great degree and that is an understament. Both will either be killed...captured...or die in exile. Both are not important as individuals in the big picture...other than as "trophies"...and their death or capture will not end "terrorists". Several top leaders in al Qaeda have been killed or captured as well as "members" within al Qaeda. Out of 52 of Saddams henchmen that the US most wanted...40 plus have been killed or captured.

I repeat..."terror"..."terrorism" may be abstractions...but individual "terrorists" are not...they are real people and their orgs are real orgs...and the countries that "sponsor" or "harbor" them are real...and all can be delt with...by one means or another.

Their hearts and minds will be won...or their hearts and minds will be terminated...and the countries that "sponsor" or "harbor" them will rid themselves of these actions...or the US will rid them of their governing power.

I repeat the "war" has just begun...and the end is no where in sight.

100

and:

Today, in Iraq, there is NO terrorism; There is resistance.

This is not a new phenomena, During WWII , in France, German soldiers and officiers were attacked and killed daily ; miltirary installations and civilians installations used for military purposes ( trains, airports, roads) were attaked and damaged if not destroyed. Collaborators ( french police ) of the Germans were also a target and killed.

Were these French patriotics terrorists??? To Germans, YES but not to the " liberation troops" : they were resistance.

And their main goal? To win the war by killing a German here and there? No, they knew that was not ppossible. But they also knew that their actions were preventing the Germans of reallocating troops and ressources to other part of the front...

So this war on " terror" and " evildoers" is pretty much a hoax of your government.

I am sick of this world! Seriously, man! We don't have peace anymore! I am tired of war! I am tired of violence!
I think we need to accept more God in our hearts.
How do you thing it will be in 5, 10, 50 years? How it gonna be the future of our kids?
Questions that we've to start to ask ourselves and ask for REAL solutions to Mr. Bush...

Again, I am tired of war, I am tired of violence and I am F... tired of BS!!!!!

"Terrorists" are not intangible...they are real people..."terroist" orgs are real orgs...countries are real countries...not "abstractions" not "intangible".

The world is a world in flux...always has been...always will be...until the world ceases to exist. Alignments are made...adjustments are made...allies are made...and all of these things change...nothing new here. Human beings are still evolving and will continue to do so...but at this point humans have not been out of the caves long enough to overcome "survival of the fittest" so that is still the rule of the day.

Question...who do you really think... is the fittest and will survive...a bunch of rag tag "terrorists" and their orgs or the richest most powerful country the history of the world has ever known?

I reapeat the war on "terrorists" has just begun...this administration may possibly end in a year...certainly in five years...and the war will continue with other administrations...as long as American assets...or allies...are targets. The war will escalate if the CONUS is ever hit again in any significant way.

At first sight, logic would dictate to answer the US will " prevail" ( I hate that word...)... But history has shown that super-powers have crumbled to mere shadows of themselves: Greek, Romans, Egyptians, even China...

On the animal perspective, big cities have more rats as population than humans...even if we rarely see them ( A few are located in the Acacia offices...lol)...

As you said, human race is barely out of the cave... and some went back...



To FIREFELINA; I agree with you, but get the GOD thinhg out. This religion bs is causing most of the conflicts worldwide...
Even Michael Jacksoin finishes his plea of innocence on his site with " God Bless You"... WTF ???

I always try to remember to put "terrorists" in quotes for this very reason...but the terminology is not important. One can call them whatever they want to call them...but they are not "abstractions" or "intganibles" they are real people...and either their "hearts and minds" will be won...or their "hearts and minds" will be terminated.

you obviously don't understand.. to declare war on people means to kill people. That's all well and good.

to delcare war on terror leaves you with nothing to kill... only something to add to.

You can't stop terror. No matter how many people you can kill or "turn their hearts" there will ALWAYS be more. You can't galavant around the world stepping on toes to try to stop this great big "terror" and not piss people off.

You know the phrase "you can't please all of the people all of the time"? It's true.

A big chunk of the world hated the US before this.... now.... almost the entire planet doesn't like the US... or at least, what it's doing. Most disagree.

Are your intentions to stop terrorism or to create it?

You can't stop a reaction no matter how much you want to kill the person who might have it.

To DIRECTFIESTA

I agree with you too! I am catholic but, to be honest I don't believe in religion anymore: Religion is causing pain now. BUT I STILL BELIEVE IN GOD. In He's energy. It's not he's faul, it's our fault! God doesn't organize religions, churchs... we do it! So, it's our fault. But believes are very personal, of course... and I respect all...

Thanx :-)

You are the one that does not seem to understand. "Terror" is not a person..."terrorists" are people...and if people continue to attack US assets...or allies the US will be killing people in perpetuity. If the CONUS is hit again...in any significant way...we will be killing people on a massive scale...or may just get tired of dicking around after a period of time and use that measure anyhow.

The US declared "TOTAL" war on Japan...and demanded an "UNCONDITIONAL" surrender. After the virtual destruction of Japan the Japanese surrendered and were meek because they had tasted the effects of winning "hearts and minds" via the termination of "hearts and minds". The Japanese did not snipe at our people...on any scale that I am aware of. Minor use of force sometimes works...but major use of force...always works.

The intentions are simple...to kill those that engage in killing Americans...or our allies...with what ever label you or anyone else cares to label them as.

down with Bush.

And you win the prize:thumbsup

I believe the above was said about the Viet Cong in January of 1968.

Just send over 500,000 men to Viet Nam and there is NO WAY the United States would lose that war.

Yet...they did.

THats why its important to vote next year not just talk.

If you are referring to the Tet Offensive...it was a major military defeat for the VC and NVA...out of an estimated force of 70,000...45,000 were killed by the US military and its allies. The VC after Tet was never a viable force after Tet...the burden fell to the NVA.

American, Korean, and Australian forces...1536 killed.
South Vietnamese forces...2,788 killed.

And then Walter Cronkite, America's most respected journalist at that time, suggested that America wasn't winning the war. It was inaccurate, based on a 30 second TV grab and was not much better than stupid as the figures show.

It was the media coverage then...much as the media coverage now...that paints the darkest picture possible...and gives a false impression...to the American people...as well as the world.

The US did not succeed in attaining its ultimate goal in Vietnam...but it did not militarily lose in Vietnam...it simply withdrew in 1973. The South Vietnamese Army collasped in 1975.

why there were no jewish people at work in WTC on 9/11 ?
I assume there should be a lot of them working there. I heard that on CNN BTW

:1orglaugh