What Can We Do about Terrorism?

[ted]

The confusion stems from the need to go to war with the ruling parties of a group such as the Taliban. It's not hard to argue that they were giving free reign to Osama to train in Afghanistan. That's an example of why we has to escalate a "criminal search" to a war in which we invaded that country. They were given a fair chance to help in the matter, but failed. They decided to stand their ground and put their support with a madman that just killed 3,000 of our citizens.

To me, it was more than justified going in there.

$200 million would be just as worthless as one million, for the most part, based on the fact that most of them can't comprehend that much or won't let any amount sway their belief in their cause. But, if it works, I'm willing to try it. It might keep me home for next years holidays.

t.

[Guest shiloh357]

You miss the point Steff. Israel has shown that overwhelming military muscle is effective at reducing terrorism. It may not the exact same scenario as Iraq, but the terrorists are terrorists. They are using the same tactics on our soldiers as they did on the Israelis, and the Israelis have proven that when you strike back and strike hard, you will gain more ground than sitting around like bunch of sissies and afraid to do anything because of what France might think.

It's not even close to the same thing Shiloh and you know it. Iraq had nothing to do with our security, nothing to do with terrorism against the US. We have become what our founding fathers hated most, an occupying overbearing force on a people that don't want us there.

Israel had to thumb their nose at world opinion which I might add said the same things about Israel's war on terror as you say about ours. The world has been just opposed to American self defense against terror, as they have been about Israel's. That says alot to me.

That's rich "Self Defense"? Attacking Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 or any other terrorist attack on the US? Sorry but that just doesn't fly.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Again, Steff you miss the point. The scenarios are different, but terrorists are the same. You are saying that military might won't reduce terrorism, and Israel has proven that it does.

Furthermore, you are working from the assumption that you possess all the information you need to make an accurate assessment of the threat that Iraq posed to the US. New Flash!! You dont know everything!! You do not have access to all US intelligence, and therefore are not in a position to judge the President's decision. You assume that we went to war for this or that reason, but you really don't know. Stop pretending that you have all the information.

[ted]

t.

[oliveoil]

Sorry Ted I was not my self when I wrote that. Thanks for cheering me up

[Steff]

Again, Steff you miss the point. The scenarios are different, but terrorists are the same. You are saying that military might won't reduce terrorism, and Israel has proven that it does.

No Israel hasn't proven it does. They used their military might all throughout the intafada and it did nothing to stem the flow of terrorist attacks. What changed was the political climate and now with Arafat gone there is a real possibility of some type of peaceful agreement. I would say their military action was ineffective at best.

Furthermore, you are working from the assumption that you possess all the information you need to make an accurate assessment of the threat that Iraq posed to the US. New Flash!! You dont know everything!! You do not have access to all US intelligence, and therefore are not in a position to judge the President's decision. You assume that we went to war for this or that reason, but you really don't know. Stop pretending that you have all the information.

I don't have to know everything to know that invading Iraq had nothing to do with our security Shiloh. If there were good reasons they would have released them by now. Sorry, but the simple fact that the Bush Administation keeps changing the reasons we invaded shows me that there isn't a reason behind invading that can be defended.

I see people on this board use this excuse all the time and that's just what it is, an excuse. If the American people are asked to go to war, we have a right to know why.

[Guest shiloh357]

Again, Steff you miss the point. The scenarios are different, but terrorists are the same. You are saying that military might won't reduce terrorism, and Israel has proven that it does.

No Israel hasn't proven it does. They used their military might all throughout the intafada and it did nothing to stem the flow of terrorist attacks. What changed was the political climate and now with Arafat gone there is a real possibility of some type of peaceful agreement. I would say their military action was ineffective at best.

Furthermore, you are working from the assumption that you possess all the information you need to make an accurate assessment of the threat that Iraq posed to the US. New Flash!! You dont know everything!! You do not have access to all US intelligence, and therefore are not in a position to judge the President's decision. You assume that we went to war for this or that reason, but you really don't know. Stop pretending that you have all the information.

I don't have to know everything to know that invading Iraq had nothing to do with our security Shiloh. If there were good reasons they would have released them by now. Sorry, but the simple fact that the Bush Administation keeps changing the reasons we invaded shows me that there isn't a reason behind invading that can be defended.

I see people on this board use this excuse all the time and that's just what it is, an excuse. If the American people are asked to go to war, we have a right to know why.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. First of all Israel HAS proven that military muscle works. That is WHY there is no intifada. The reason the political climate changed was because Israel started assissinating the political and military leaders of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. The intifada is over because it finally dawned on the Paletsinians that it wasn't working and they were worse off fighting Israel than they were before. You really do not understand the nature or history of the conflict. The intifada would still be going on if Israel had chose the "Steff" doctrine.

2. The American people do have a right to know why we went to war, but they do not have a right to all classified documents, and sensitive intelligence. There is more going on, I surmise, than you or I are aware of. There is more intelligence, that if known, would change how we understand the conflict.

[Steff]

1. First of all Israel HAS proven that military muscle works. That is WHY there is no intifada. The reason the political climate changed was because Israel started assissinating the political and military leaders of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. The intifada is over because it finally dawned on the Paletsinians that it wasn't working and they were worse off fighting Israel than they were before. You really do not understand the nature or history of the conflict. The intifada would still be going on if Israel had chose the "Steff" doctrine.

First of all in part 3 It is recommended the use of bounties and I have repeatedly said using miliraty surgical strikes or special forces is a good idea. I said invading and occupying a country is not. Israel does not apply in the occupation case because they were there first. They have a right to defend themselves by killing terrorists with surgical strikes.

2. The American people do have a right to know why we went to war, but they do not have a right to all classified documents, and sensitive intelligence. There is more going on, I surmise, than you or I are aware of. There is more intelligence, that if known, would change how we understand the conflict.

I never said they deserved access to classified documents but a good solid reason for going to war and why it contributes to national defense IS required. The Bush administration has given NONE, ZIP, ZERO and in fact they keep changing their story. Sorry Shiloh but this is simply an indefensible position to take. The Bush administration is morally wrong and constituionally wrong in this case.

[ted]

Straw-Shilo?

t.

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE

1. First of all Israel HAS proven that military muscle works. That is WHY there is no intifada. The reason the political climate changed was because Israel started assissinating the political and military leaders of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. The intifada is over because it finally dawned on the Paletsinians that it wasn't working and they were worse off fighting Israel than they were before. You really do not understand the nature or history of the conflict. The intifada would still be going on if Israel had chose the "Steff" doctrine.

First of all in part 3 It is recommended the use of bounties and I have repeatedly said using miliraty surgical strikes or special forces is a good idea. I said invading and occupying a country is not. Israel does not apply in the occupation case because they were there first. They have a right to defend themselves by killing terrorists with surgical strikes.

Yes but Israel has not merely used surgical strikes. Israel used the same tactics in Jenin, and in other cities that we used in Fallujah. They sent in troops going house to house clearing and securing the area by infantry. This puts troops at greater risk. They could just drop some MOAB's on the cities, but to keep civilians deaths to a minium, they took the approach that put our troops in the greatest danger.

The fact remains Steff, is that Israel has used planes tanks and overwhelming military force to reduce terrorism, and it works. Israel has used the same tactics are employing and have reduced the terrorist threat. Sure, Israel took a few bloody noses in the process, but they are winning hands down, and they are winning usin the tactics YOU say cannot defeat terrrorism. They are not treating it as criminal manhunt. Israel treats it like a war, and they are winning the war.

Different scenarios yes, but that is irrelavent.

[Steff]

Different scenarios yes, but that is irrelavent.

Military commanders thought the same thing in Vietnam, and we ended up losing the war because we did not understand the nature of the enemy. Different scenarios need to be treated differently. To say otherwise shows a lack of foresight and a lack of knowledge of the people you are fighting.

And Israel has no won their "war" yet either. They are still fighting. 20 years later and they are still fighting.