Do you think G.W. Bush will get credit

[7960]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

They also might be focusing on the 180,000 americans that we sent to live in Iraq for the past 5 years. Why come over here to kill a few when they can walk across the street and kill americans in Iraq?

so what you're saying is his policies have kept terrorists from coming to the US homeland.



it took a few kicks in the ass but you finally got there!

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

They also might be focusing on the 180,000 americans that we sent to live in Iraq for the past 5 years. Why come over here to kill a few when they can walk across the street and kill americans in Iraq?

oh the honey pot theory

Who would you rather have them attack:
1. Civilians at work
2. US military on patrol, armed to the teeth

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

oh the honey pot theory

Who would you rather have them attack:
1. Civilians at work
2. US military on patrol, armed to the teeth

Neither actually. False choice.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Neither actually. False choice.

so you are saying that they don't attack the US homeland because they lack the means of getting here?

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

so you are saying that they don't attack the US homeland because they lack the means of getting here?

I'm saying I would rather that there not be any attacks. Simply displacing them and moving them around isn't any sort of soltution to be commended for. It's taking pollution from our back yard and dumping it in someone elses. Hey look the pollution is gone! Yeah but the guy next door hates your guts and has cancer.

[7960]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I'm saying I would rather that there not be any attacks.

But you not wanting attacks doesn't mean nobody is going to attack.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by 7960

But you not wanting attacks doesn't mean nobody is going to attack.

Right... but I would rather we implement a policy to reduce the likelyhood of attacks. full stop. Not just move them from one place to another.

[Charles Martel]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

we implement a policy to.....

For example?

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Right... but I would rather we implement a policy to reduce the likelyhood of attacks. full stop. Not just move them from one place to another.

of course that is what everyone wants, but what policy would that be?

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

of course that is what everyone wants, but what policy would that be?

if I had the answer I would be president now wouldn't I.

[Charles Martel]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

if I had the answer I would be president now wouldn't I.

Then..if I may. The policy we KNOW doesn't work is appeasement, isn't it? Our NYC towers were attacked once before, we did nothing. As Reagan had done nothing following his foray into Lebanon. Embassies were attacked, OBL declared war on us...twice. Bin killed Americans and actually attacked a United States warship.....and we slept like babies.

He engages in the mother of all terror attacks and everyone is suddenly wide awake and ready to assign blame. These terrorists in our country...filled with hate...ready to kill...since 1996. We ALL got caught with our pants down.

The policy of appeasement...from Reagan and Clinton, for example, are surely not the answer.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Charles Martel

Then..if I may. The policy we KNOW doesn't work is appeasement, isn't it? Our NYC towers were attacked once before, we did nothing. As Reagan had done nothing following his foray into Lebanon. Embassies were attacked, OBL declared war on us...twice. Bin killed Americans and actually attacked a United States warship.....and we slept like babies.

He engages in the mother of all terror attacks and everyone is suddenly wide awake and ready to assign blame. These terrorists in our country...filled with hate...ready to kill...since 1996. We ALL got caught with our pants down.

The policy of appeasement...from Reagan and Clinton, for example, are surely not the answer.

England has done quite well dealing with terrorism by treating it as a police/secret service issue and essentially refusing to acknlowledge them publically but still working covertly against them.

[Charles Martel]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

England has done quite well dealing with terrorism by treating it as a police/secret service issue and essentially refusing to acknlowledge them publically but still working covertly against them.

England is fighting a different monster, the IRA not willing to sacrifice their own lives. Their own populations not laid out for slaughter. Kill squads and monies from oil rich nations like Iran in support.

The analogy you need to example success is Israel. Her very existence relying on her absolute ability and willingness to unfurl sheer violence. Her take no prisoners and pre-emptive strike capability such as missiles up terrorist wazoos in the streets of Beirut or her pre-emtive strike on Iraq's nuclear facility in 1982.

Israel hasn't treated terror like a police issue, they've handled it militarily. Attacked as soon as they were founded, they've a long history of dictating policy and shelving the carrot and using the stick.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Charles Martel

England is fighting a different monster, the IRA not willing to sacrifice their own lives. Their own populations not laid out for slaughter. Kill squads and monies from oil rich nations like Iran in support.

The analogy you need to example success is Israel. Her very existence relying on her absolute ability and willingness to unfurl sheer violence. Her take no prisoners and pre-emptive strike capability such as missiles up terrorist wazoos in the streets of Beirut or her pre-emtive strike on Iraq's nuclear facility in 1982.

Israel hasn't treated terror like a police issue, they've handled it militarily. Attacked as soon as they were founded, they've a long history of dictating policy and shelving the carrot and using the stick.

And my how well that has worked for them. They are no better off today than they were when this started. IN fact they are giving the arabs back some of the land that Isreal won in the 6 days war. They have made no progress. none what so ever.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

England has done quite well dealing with terrorism by treating it as a police/secret service issue and essentially refusing to acknlowledge them publically but still working covertly against them.

The British used their military when dealing with the IRA. I was trained by the British Royal Marines in the tactics they used dealing with the IRA.

They have sent troops to Iraq/Afghanistan as well.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

oh the honey pot theory

Who would you rather have them attack:
1. Civilians at work
2. US military on patrol, armed to the teeth

Great! So all we have to do is keep our troops there indefinitely and we will never get attacked again! Our military doesn't need to win a war, they just need to be targets, oh and the rest of the world too....of course not of that will blow back to our shores, we have a vast ocean to protect us!

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Great! So all we have to do is keep our troops there indefinitely and we will never get attacked again! Our military doesn't need to win a war, they just need to be targets, oh and the rest of the world too....of course not of that will blow back to our shores, we have a vast ocean to protect us!

I wasn't the one that floated it, it was WickedLou

[Charles Martel]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

And my how well that has worked for them. They are no better off today than they were when this started. IN fact they are giving the arabs back some of the land that Isreal won in the 6 days war. They have made no progress. none what so ever.

Made no progress?

They're only the most prosperous and free nation in the arena. They continue to ELECT their Representatives. They've won several large scale wars. The major nations in the arena...Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon no longer call for their destruction and recognize their right to exist. In fact, it is only militant Islam today(Syria, Iran, AQ) and Palestine proper that doesn't recognize Israel.

No progress?

Sir......can I point out no real progress.....the mass of humanity who flocked to see Arafat's helo land and take back off. Yassar's body coming from France.....as Palestine is too busy hating Jews to build a hospital that ranks their leadership. The helo taking off over rubble strewn streets, Palestine itself a virtual refugee camp.

Progress?

Israel is thriving, have you checked reality lately. They are the ones with the military detering attack. They are the ones that took our Iraq's nuclear facitility in 1982 and Syria's just a few months ago.

Pay attention! For the love of God....Israel defines progress in that region! They're hated BECAUSE of their success. They can open or close borders at will! IF Israel has had progress in the "none what so ever" as you put it, what does that say of militant Islam and their day after Israel was created hate...where does militant Islam find itself today?

Lou...I can offer some great reads id you'd like.

[7960]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

The British used their military when dealing with the IRA. I was trained by the British Royal Marines in the tactics they used dealing with the IRA.

They have sent troops to Iraq/Afghanistan as well.

ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh fuck

and this is the problem with making shit up on a web forum....inevitably someone has been there and done that and will post the truth.

ouch.

[DosEquis]