View of terrorism from conservative from England...

Lucas McCain wrote:

^ I haven't mentioned Iraq in this thread... Keep up..

My apologies if you weren't including Iraq in the "take the fight to the enemy" comment.

gringaloca wrote:

So you think that the British are cowards for carrying on and being more concerned about their liberty than starting wars all over the world just to get revenge?

I didn't say the Brits were, I said the attitude that we should treat terrorist attacks as natural disasters is cowardice. That is not the attitude of the British. I Last I checked, they are in Afghanistan and Iraq with us right now.

Quote :

I'm all for searching the people who actually carried out 9-11 but suspending what this country stands for and invading countries who had nothing to do with obviously wasn't the solution.

How are we suspending what this country stands for? If you mean the knee jerk reactions that produced the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Defense, things that hinder our civil liberties, I agree. Other than that, I don't know what you mean. We've always attacked those that have attacked us.

While I will agree Iraq was not invaded for 9-11 reasons, Afghanistan was, and that invasion HAS hurt Al-Qaeda and their supporters. Also, if we find any country or organization supporting Al-Qeada, or any terrorist organization, I would want us to destroy them as well, not cower in fear hoping we don't get attacked.

Quote :

And your opinion that his comment was ignorant, is just that, your opinion. And I would like to know what exactly you are implying with your first sentence there. It came off as rather arrogant. Isn't that one of the characteristics of Maher that you didn't like?

Of course it was my opinion, as is my feeling about Maher. I didn't present it as fact and it wasn't meant to be arrogant. If arrogance is what you perceive, then so be it. That would be your opinion and I have no problem with that.

Lucas McCain wrote:

So no better ideas??? Just rhetoric... What works better than trying to keep your enemy pinned down?? Lets hear your idea...

How exactly have we kept our enemy "pinned down"? They are up and running and getting bigger by the minute. And who exactly do you think that enemy is?

Ja'far wrote:

Lucas McCain wrote:

^ I haven't mentioned Iraq in this thread... Keep up..

My apologies if you weren't including Iraq in the "take the fight to the enemy" comment.

Good point Ja'far. Where else are we taking the fight to besides the two obvious countries? Anyone would assume that he was talking about Iraq et al in his responses.

gringaloca wrote:

Lucas McCain wrote:

So no better ideas??? Just rhetoric... What works better than trying to keep your enemy pinned down?? Lets hear your idea...

How exactly have we kept our enemy "pinned down"? They are up and running and getting bigger by the minute. And who exactly do you think that enemy is?

So,,,,,,,,,,,,, Just more criticism but no idea what to do..

Let's all keep in mind that approx. a decade ago, we were attached four times within (if I recall correctly) less than 10 years. Our embassy in Kenya (I believe Kenya) was bombed, the USS Cole was attacked, and a car bomb went off in the basement of the World Trade Towers and ultimately 9-11. Each of the first three we heard the government say "Those responsible will be brought to justice" blah, blah, blah and in reality, NOTHING substantional was done in reality. By doing so, all we did was embolden Osama bin Laden which lead to continued attacks and ultimately to 9-11. Why not? Continued no action gave Bin Laden the opinion that the US was weak and he could get away with anything. Which is very similar to what the genius Bill Maher is suggesting we do again.

While I am not a huge Bush fan, I cannot argue that his strong response has forced bin Laden to reconsider how easily he can attack again and has a lot to do with why we haven't been attachked again. To think luck is the reason is sticking your head in the sand. By no means am I saying we won't be attacked again but one has to realize that since we have taken REAL action against our enemy we have seen a dramatic decrease in attacks against us.

Lucas McCain wrote:

gringaloca wrote:

Lucas McCain wrote:

So no better ideas??? Just rhetoric... What works better than trying to keep your enemy pinned down?? Lets hear your idea...

How exactly have we kept our enemy "pinned down"? They are up and running and getting bigger by the minute. And who exactly do you think that enemy is?

So,,,,,,,,,,,,, Just more criticism but no idea what to do..

Let's see. Find Osama Bin Laden? Seems like what should have happened a LONG time ago.

Wyatt Earp wrote:

Let's all keep in mind that approx. a decade ago, we were attached four times within (if I recall correctly) less than 10 years. Our embassy in Kenya (I believe Kenya) was bombed, the USS Cole was attacked, and a car bomb went off in the basement of the World Trade Towers and ultimately 9-11. Each of the first three we heard the government say "Those responsible will be brought to justice" blah, blah, blah and in reality, NOTHING substantional was done in reality. By doing so, all we did was embolden Osama bin Laden which lead to continued attacks and ultimately to 9-11. Why not? Continued no action gave Bin Laden the opinion that the US was weak and he could get away with anything. Which is very similar to what the genius Bill Maher is suggesting we do again.

While I am not a huge Bush fan, I cannot argue that his strong response has forced bin Laden to reconsider how easily he can attack again and has a lot to do with why we haven't been attacked again. To think luck is the reason is sticking your head in the sand. By no means am I saying we won't be attacked again but one has to realize that since we have taken REAL action against our enemy we have seen a dramatic decrease in attacks against us.

How many soldiers have died in Iraq/Afghanistan again to get revenge? Osama Bin Laden was responsible for 9-11, not Iraq. No, we haven't had any planes crash into skyscrapers lately but we've done nothing but turn the middle east into a virtual America hating terrorist machine because of our misguided attacks since 9-11. You think Bush has made us safer by attacking a country that had nothing to do with this mess? He has put us in more danger than we have ever known since the Cuban missile crisis. What is worse than making thousands upon thousands hate us for killing their loved ones? And I do believe that it was sheer luck that we weren't attacked while Bush was in office. There was nothing done here at home to protect us except come up with a stupid color board to tell us how afraid to be. Bush let Osama slide right through his fingers and started a war based on lies instead of beefing up security at our ports and doing things that will actually matter. If I were Osama I would sit back and wait for the perfect time to make the next hit. He saw how much Bush divided this country and didn't lift a finger because he enjoyed watching it happen. He saw what happened to Russia after Afghanistan. He's just been sitting back watching our country implode from within. Giving up our civil rights and fighting amongst ourselves in a lame attempt to feel safe. The attacks on 9-11 were just the tip of the iceberg when it came to what he had planned for this country. He knew the domino effect that would take place and he hasn't had to lift a pinky to keep our country going down the toilet. Bush got up there and gave his big lame speech about how he wouldn't stop until he got Osama. Boy, was he full of crap and I think when we are all long dead history will show that W was the beginning of the end for this country in many ways... That is unless people step up to the plate and fix things before it's too late. Anybody that believes that Bush has made us safe needs to have their heads examined.

PS Wyatt...that wasn't all directed at you hon.

gringaloca wrote:

How many soldiers have died in Iraq/Afghanistan again to get revenge?

About as many who died when the Twin Towers fell. Fortunately another event similar since then. While I certainly feel for our troops in battle, they have the training and weapons to battle Al Queda insurgents that American commoners do not.

gringaloca wrote:

Osama Bin Laden was responsible for 9-11, not Iraq. No, we haven't had any planes crash into skyscrapers lately but we've done nothing but turn the middle east into a virtual America hating terrorist machine because of our misguided attacks since 9-11. You think Bush has made us safer by attacking a country that had nothing to do with this mess? He has put us in more danger than we have ever known since the Cuban missile crisis. What is worse than making thousands upon thousands hate us for killing their loved ones?

It cannot be denied that numerous Al Queda captains were captured in Iraq. Looking back it could be argued forever if Iraq was worth the cost but when you have a nation that had a leader who numerous times snubbed his nose to the US and had a history of using chemical weapons against the Kurds, it was easy to assume he would be an ally to Al Queda and if he had any chemical weapons left, they could be smuggled into the US by Al Queda. Numerous interviews during the Clinton administration show Clinton, Gore and Sec of State Albrieght (sp?) stating they believed Saddam had chemical weapons.

gringaloca wrote:

And I do believe that it was sheer luck that we weren't attacked while Bush was in office. There was nothing done here at home to protect us except come up with a stupid color board to tell us how afraid to be.

I still say assuming we have just been lucky is sticking one's head in the sand and not wanting to give credit to a president due to their dislike of him. I would argue quite a bit has happened at home to make us safer. Airport security is much more stringent and a friend of mine who works for the port authority in New Jersey has commented often on the increased security at his port since 9-11.

gringaloca wrote:

Bush let Osama slide right through his fingers

How? You may be thinking of Clinton who was offered Osama by the leader of Chad (I think) and he let the offer go.

gringaloca wrote:

and started a war based on lies instead of beefing up security at our ports and doing things that will actually matter.

See above about port security.

gringaloca wrote:

He saw how much Bush divided this country and didn't lift a finger because he enjoyed watching it happen. He saw what happened to Russia after Afghanistan. He's just been sitting back watching our country implode from within. Giving up our civil rights and fighting amongst ourselves in a lame attempt to feel safe. The attacks on 9-11 were just the tip of the iceberg when it came to what he had planned for this country. He knew the domino effect that would take place and he hasn't had to lift a pinky to keep our country going down the toilet.

How exactly do you know Osama is thinking all of this or enjoying watching all of this??? I am still trying to figure out what rights I have lost or how our country has gone to the toilet in the last 8 years. I am just not seeing much at all.

gringaloca wrote:

Bush got up there and gave his big lame speech about how he wouldn't stop until he got Osama.

Numerous soldiers are still searching for Osama, it is not like he said the heck with it and gave up.

gringaloca wrote:

Boy, was he full of crap and I think when we are all long dead history will show that W was the beginning of the end for this country in many ways... That is unless people step up to the plate and fix things before it's too late. Anybody that believes that Bush has made us safe needs to have their heads examined.

I guess I better schedule an exame of my noggin. Again, I won't start to say we will never be attacked again but I do like the fact that we are no longer viewed by Osama as the easy target we used to be viewed as when attack after attach was occurring during the embassy bombing, the USS Cole bombing, the first Trade Center car bomb attempt and finally 9-11.

Wyatt....I'm not ignoring you response. I just need some time to read through it and gather information. It's hard being the only one responding to all of this. I'm going to take some good advice and choose my battles....