Peanut Prez Strikes Again....

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by jdavionic

Never underestimate your enemy! And just remember, a small percentage of the muslim population that are "radicals" or "jihadists" is still a number that should not be taken lightly. It didn't take many people to strike Spain, London, WTC, etc.

Well, did they get the Spanish or the British to submit to their will when they attacked there?

[jdavionic]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

Well, did they get the Spanish or the British to submit to their will when they attacked there?

It's certainly arguable that they got the Spanish to do so.

[Judge]

Well, the people that died certainly didn't get a choice did they?

In addition, if they weren't so occupied in Iraq and on the run, they would be continuing such attacks.

Originally Posted by Etta Place

Well, did they get the Spanish or the British to submit to their will when they attacked there?

[invssgt]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

As has been said here several times before, the "jihadists" can want to make us submit to their will - and this is a minority of Muslims that we're talking about here - but they don't have the capability to do it. It's like me saying I want to rob Fort Knox.

Mostly, their 'will' is that we die; it gets more media attention than conversion. All it takes is the one whackjob who shoots you driving down the highway, sets his cordite skivvies on fire aboard your flight, or simply slashes you walking down the sidewalk, on the wrong day.

Bless your heart Etta, most of us had to check our idealism at the door on 091101. We need those 'rough men' (who happen to all be volunteers) doing what they're doing- drawing in and killing the jihadist who might otherwise find his way to your sidewalk.

[Etta Place]

Although I'm sure I will get ridiculed, I agree with John Kerry here.

But when you listen carefully to what Bush and Kerry say, it becomes clear that the differences between them are more profound than the matter of who can be more effective in achieving the same ends. Bush casts the war on terror as a vast struggle that is likely to go on indefinitely, or at least as long as radical Islam commands fealty in regions of the world. In a rare moment of either candor or carelessness, or perhaps both, Bush told Matt Lauer on the ''Today'' show in August that he didn't think the United States could actually triumph in the war on terror in the foreseeable future. ''I don't think you can win it,'' he said -- a statement that he and his aides tried to disown but that had the ring of sincerity to it. He and other members of his administration have said that Americans should expect to be attacked again, and that the constant shadow of danger that hangs over major cities like New York and Washington is the cost of freedom. In his rhetoric, Bush suggests that terrorism for this generation of Americans is and should be an overwhelming and frightening reality.

When I asked Kerry what it would take for Americans to feel safe again, he displayed a much less apocalyptic worldview. ''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance,'' Kerry said. ''As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.''

This analogy struck me as remarkable, if only because it seemed to throw down a big orange marker between Kerry's philosophy and the president's. Kerry, a former prosecutor, was suggesting that the war, if one could call it that, was, if not winnable, then at least controllable. If mobsters could be chased into the back rooms of seedy clubs, then so, too, could terrorists be sent scurrying for their lives into remote caves where they wouldn't harm us. Bush had continually cast himself as the optimist in the race, asserting that he alone saw the liberating potential of American might, and yet his dark vision of unending war suddenly seemed far less hopeful than Kerry's notion that all of this horror -- planes flying into buildings, anxiety about suicide bombers and chemicals in the subway -- could somehow be made to recede until it was barely in our thoughts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/10/ma...pagewanted=all

[mgeoffriau]

I'm sorry, did I miss the part when Kerry explained how this would happen? Or is everyone just supposed to let 9/11 "recede" until we don't think about it (until the next attack).

[Frenchy]

Should the US wage war on all Muslim countries?...Yes or no.

Do we have the moral authority to do so?

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by mgeoffriau

I'm sorry, did I miss the part when Kerry explained how this would happen? Or is everyone just supposed to let 9/11 "recede" until we don't think about it (until the next attack).

Okay, this was written in 2004. I'm not sure he feels the same way. But he would treat terrorism as a law enforcement matter. Do you realize how much cheaper that would be?

Of course, I still contend that if the U.S. just stopped 1) bombing people, 2) invading countries, 3) installing despots, 4) acting oblivious to the horrific acts of Israel against the Palestianians, 5) treating foreign countries as markets to be exploited, including arranging it so American multinationals confiscated the natural resources of such countries, and 6) generally behaving like an arrogant bully, they would have very few, if any, problems with terrorists.

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by Judge

In addition, if they weren't so occupied in Iraq and on the run, they would be continuing such attacks.

You don't know that. And, I'm sure the Iraqis really appreciate al Qaeda now having this presence in their country that they never had before we got there, and the U.S. treating their country as a battlefield.

[XDConvert9mm]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

Okay, this was written in 2004. I'm not sure he feels the same way. But he would treat terrorism as a law enforcement matter. Do you realize how much cheaper that would be?

Of course, I still contend that if the U.S. just stopped 1) bombing people, 2) invading countries, 3) installing despots, 4) acting oblivious to the horrific acts of Israel against the Palestianians, 5) treating foreign countries as markets to be exploited, including arranging it so American multinationals confiscated the natural resources of such countries, and 6) generally behaving like an arrogant bully, they would have very few, if any, problems with terrorists.

So, the attacks we have experienced are because of the above?