Bush (merge x4)

[Darthphere]

That's an intelligence "estimate" - not proof. Remember how the CIA thought Iraq had WMDs? Yeah, that was also an "estimate".

By "proof", I'm talking ACTUAL EVENTS around the world that would substantiate the claim. You know, something like 9/11? No attacks on US soil in five years strikes me as MORE safe - not less. But that's just me, I guess.

 

[lazur]

Yes, I know because looking at practical data hardly measures up to wild speculation and guessing .

 

[demento]

That's an intelligence "estimate" - not proof. Remember how the CIA thought Iraq had WMDs? Yeah, that was also an "estimate".

By "proof", I'm talking ACTUAL EVENTS around the world that would substantiate the claim. You know, something like 9/11? No attacks on US soil in five years strikes me as MORE safe - not less. But that's just me, I guess.

It's an intelligence estimate based on the findings of all 16 national intelligence services. That's a bit different than touting a fabricated memo.

 

[DarthRekal]

That's an intelligence "estimate" - not proof. Remember how the CIA thought Iraq had WMDs? Yeah, that was also an "estimate".

By "proof", I'm talking ACTUAL EVENTS around the world that would substantiate the claim. You know, something like 9/11? No attacks on US soil in five years strikes me as MORE safe - not less. But that's just me, I guess.

the embassy was attacked in Syria not too long ago...

last i checked the embassy IS american soil...

 

[Darthphere]

Yes, I know because looking at practical data hardly measures up to wild speculation and guessing .

The first paragraph tells you what exactly the report said:

"A stark assessment of terrorism trends by U.S. intelligence agencies has found that the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks."


Its obvious to anyone with half a brain that the "War" in Iraq has fueled more and more Islamic radicalism. The notion that were safer because we havent been attacked in 5 years is foolish and just goes to further exemplify your bias.

 

[sinewave]

That's an intelligence "estimate" - not proof. Remember how the CIA thought Iraq had WMDs? Yeah, that was also an "estimate".

By "proof", I'm talking ACTUAL EVENTS around the world that would substantiate the claim. You know, something like 9/11? No attacks on US soil in five years strikes me as MORE safe - not less. But that's just me, I guess.

the fact that more terrorists are popping up doesn't strike you as concerning? that all intelligence groups agreed that terrorism is on the rise due to this war doens't concern you? open your eyes man.

 

[Mister Sinister]

HE shouldn't be trusted to run a bake sale, let alone congress.

 

[Armand Z Trip]

What is the Democratic plan for keeping us safe? I'm not being an arse I seriously don't know. Any links would be helpful...

http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/03/real_security_t.php

go to the bottom of the page and click on the icons in the blue box - overview, 21st century military, war on terror, homeland security, Iraq, energy independence

 

[Kent]

the fact that more terrorists are popping up doesn't strike you as concerning?

Just to give this point some potential backup I did something fairly simple.
I went to wikipedias page:List of terrorist incidents.

Then I counted how many incidents there were every year, from 1972 and forward, and put it into Excel. After a minor bit of fiddling I got a graph of the 4 year avarage of the number of incidents (a 4 year avarage makes minor fluctuations go away, so the data is easier to grasp).

It looks like this...

It's kind of funny how the number of incidents just goes through the roof after 2000...

Note: Someone might suggest that the behavior of the graph could be explained by the fact that wikipedia was launched in 2001, and any attacks before that are bound to be more poorly documented in wiki. However... the line just keeps going upwards steadily even after that point. If this trend was just the result of poorer research done into earlier attacks, and the world isn't getting more unsafe, then it shouldn't be going upwards after 2001. Something else is clearly going on beyond the "wiki is new" explanation.

 

[lazur]

What I find to be most amusing about discussions like this is that people sit here and justify the terrorism instead of justifying the actions taken against and in reaction to it. Where's the chart that shows how much more aggressive the U.S. has become since 9/11?

I'm willing to bet, perhaps because it could never be proven either way, that if we had terrorists actually posting on this board, most of you people who are against Bush, for no other reason than just to "oppose" him, would be sympathizing with them.

But whatever. I'm looking into my own back yard, and from my vantage point things look okay.

 

[Cyclops]

30. A little trust goes a long way. The less you use, the further you'll go. - from "The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates"

What a coincidence! I have an air freshener in my car that says "I'm a pirate, and this is my ship"!

 

[Addendum]

What I find to be most amusing about discussions like this is that people sit here and justify the terrorism instead of justifying the actions taken against and in reaction to it. Where's the chart that shows how much more aggressive the U.S. has become since 9/11?

I'm willing to bet, perhaps because it could never be proven either way, that if we had terrorists actually posting on this board, most of you people who are against Bush, for no other reason than just to "oppose" him, would be sympathizing with them.

But whatever. I'm looking into my own back yard, and from my vantage point things look okay.

This is the type of partisan bull**** people have been talking about.

If you oppose Bush, you support the terrorists.

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President." -- President Theodore Roosevelt

 

[lazur]

This is the type of partisan bull**** people have been talking about.

If you oppose Bush, you support the terrorists.

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President." -- President Theodore Roosevelt

Nay, there's a difference between opposing some things Bush does, and just blanketly opposing him because you favor the other party. Notice my qualifier in there which stated as much.

My point all along in ANY discussion about Bush or Clinton or anyone else has been this: I can oppose things the President does. But that does NOT mean I think that President should be booted from office or stoned at the town square.

That's a distinction that very FEW on this board draw ... or in other words, the people who truly ARE the engaging in "partisan bs" as you put it (sinewave, superman, etc.).

 

[Addendum]

If someone thinks that the president should be removed from office, why not? There is no harm in thinking that.

When fans of a sports team think that the failures of their team fall on the coach/manager, they call for him/her to be removed.

The only difference (besides pay, one position not being related to athletics) is that the people actually vote for the president, and as such can want him to be removed from office. There is no harm in that.

Except for those who support whomever is in office

 

[maxwell's demon]

i like pants.

 

[Superman]

What I find to be most amusing about discussions like this is that people sit here and justify the terrorism instead of justifying the actions taken against and in reaction to it. Where's the chart that shows how much more aggressive the U.S. has become since 9/11?

I'm willing to bet, perhaps because it could never be proven either way, that if we had terrorists actually posting on this board, most of you people who are against Bush, for no other reason than just to "oppose" him, would be sympathizing with them.

But whatever. I'm looking into my own back yard, and from my vantage point things look okay.

That's it. When all other arguements fail fall back to the old "If you're not with us then you are with the terrorist" scare tactic. You people need to get a new slogan.

 

[Fred_Fury]

Im still waiting for the chart that shows how much more aggressive the U.S. has become since 9/11. Libs constantly screech "fighting terrorism only makes more terrorists" well guess what? terrorism only creates more counter-terrorist action on our part. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

 

[sinewave]

What I find to be most amusing about discussions like this is that people sit here and justify the terrorism instead of justifying the actions taken against and in reaction to it. Where's the chart that shows how much more aggressive the U.S. has become since 9/11?

I'm willing to bet, perhaps because it could never be proven either way, that if we had terrorists actually posting on this board, most of you people who are against Bush, for no other reason than just to "oppose" him, would be sympathizing with them.

But whatever. I'm looking into my own back yard, and from my vantage point things look okay.

i think you're having trouble understanding what we mean when we say that the world is less safe due to the bush administration's foreign policy. or maybe you don't want to buy into it, i don't know. basically, nobody is trying to justify terrorism or sympathize with them. that sounds like exactly the type of spin that people like rumsfeld and cheney have been spouting to try and justify their war and paint anti-war advocates as cowards and un-american. what we are actually trying to prove is that we people who have been against this administration's foreign policy have been proven right, that bush and his administration have handled this "war on terror" badly and it's backfired by actually spawning more terrorism. we're not pro-terrorism, we're against the bush administration's strategy at handeling it. not because we don't like him or it's "cool" to bash him, as so many people have tried to claim, but because we can see that it's failing and we predicted it all along. not only is the foregin policy not making us safer, as they've insisted it would all along, it's making the entire world less safe and turning the rest of the world against us. this has nothing to do with partisanship or political bias, it's completely objective and rational. we've had to endure too many missteps with the bush administration and every time someone questions their motive or strategy they're labeled as "nazi appeasers", "un-american", "weak" or "terrorist-sympathizers". bush and his administration should be ashamed of themselves for perpetrating those kind of smear tactics on american citizens, especially when it's been proven that those who didn't buy into their paln to fight terrorism were right. i'm all for aggressive anti-terror techniques, but starting a war with a middle-east country that had nothing to do with terrorism and stirring up a hornet's nest in the volatile middle-east is not the way to do it. it's not "bush's way or nothing at all". there should be a large, bi-partisan effort to fight terrorism, not sticking with a failed policy and attacking people who disagree with it. that's not helping anyone. sorry for the rant, but you still don't seem to understand the other side of the debate.

 

[sinewave]

Im still waiting for the chart that shows how much more aggressive the U.S. has become since 9/11. Libs constantly screech "fighting terrorism only makes more terrorists" well guess what? terrorism only creates more counter-terrorist action on our part. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

then find a chart that shows that. nobody here is against aggressively fighting terrorism. we're just trying to find a way to fight them that actually reduces their numbers, not increases them. crazy idea, i know.

 

[War Lord]

don't play naive, it's been karl rove's strategy since day one to polarize this country with wedge issues, religion, gay marriage, etc... just look at how much support bush had from the government and the american citizens after 9/11 and how he and his team squandered it and continued to try and drive a wedge between everyone. it started with the republican-ruled government and they need to end it. almost every other administration in american history embraced bi-partisanship in some way, aside from this one.

It takes two to argue. Yet, you don't hold the Democrats responsible for not cooperating with Republicans, but only the Republicans for not cooperating with Democrats.

Naive indeed.

 

[lazur]

then find a chart that shows that. nobody here is against aggressively fighting terrorism. we're just trying to find a way to fight them that actually reduces their numbers, not increases them. crazy idea, i know.

Maybe you should accept that that's not actually possible in the near term. That sometimes you have to get real dirty before you can get clean.

 

[Addendum]

But then, how do you define cooperation? Blind and unhindered support of what the other side wants, or an actual compromise between the two groups?

 

[sinewave]

It takes two to argue. Yet, you don't hold the Democrats responsible for not cooperating with Republicans, but only the Republicans for not cooperating with Democrats.

Naive indeed.

democrats have been trying to cooperate, but that's not what this administration wants, obviously. they had the ENTIRE country behind them after 9/11 and they pushed everyone away. i don't know how much more clear i can make it. if you can't see it, then i don't know what to tell you. maybe you should concentrate on your own governement and not worry about america's so much.

 

[sinewave]

Maybe you should accept that that's not actually possible in the near term. That sometimes you have to get real dirty before you can get clean.

how long do we have to wait for results, then? we've been told from the beginning that it would be quick and we would make the world safe and erradicate the terrorists and blah, blah, blah. can you blame us for not having much confidence in the gameplan when we find out it's backfiring on us? when is enough enough? when do we look for alternative strategies?

 

[lazur]

how long do we have to wait for results, then? we've been told from the beginning that it would be quick and we would make the world safe and erradicate the terrorists and blah, blah, blah. can you blame us for not having much confidence in the gameplan when we find out it's backfiring on us? when is enough enough? when do we look for alternative strategies?

Umm, Bush never said it would be "quick". I'm not sure where you're getting that from. If anything, he said the opposite - that the war on terror would take a long time, that this was unlike any enemy we've ever faced.

Where did you get the "quick" thing from?

And what are "alternative strategies"? Cut and run?