It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
posted by Valhall
Iraq didn't have anything to do with the last attack. Seriously, let's think about this. Does some one implying we have no business in Iraq mean they also buy into we ought to bear our soft bellies to terrorists? See this is where this whole thing gets messy...one is not the other. Further to that, since the reasoning behind the attacks were we had U.S. troops in the middle east, why would having more U.S. troops in the middle east in some way "make things better"?
Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
I keep hearing this, but the fact is, we haven't had an attack on US soil by these Hordes of newly created Terrorists! So where are They?
posted by xmotex
Pure propaganda.
posted by regenmacher
2004 was the single largest increase in terrorist activity ever recorded, since the CIA started keeping records in 1968.
by Regenmacher
Considering Bush's policies has created more terrorists and strengthened their resolve, if he was smart he would say vote Republican.
Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
WOW, you figured out there's a War going on! My statement stands, The War remains THERE and NOT HERE!
Originally posted by Vitchilo
Anyway, who believe there's a real paradigm between democrats and republicans when you see how they voted to the Patriot Act 1&2 and the Martial law act?
Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
So what do you suggest? Withdraw and wait for the Hordes of new Terrorist to come to a shopping mall near you?
Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
Talk about scare tactics.
Faced with a choice of appeasing hostage-taking Middle Eastern despots or overturning the international order, the United States hems and haws as its prestige wanes—until finally an outraged American public demands action. The European powers watch carefully, and maneuver to gain their own advantage. After marginal pinprick strikes, American forces mount a major campaign, receive rapid capitulation, and predictably fail to press their advantage.
The year was 1804.
the perennial issue remains the same. Two centuries ago, as a diplomat in Tunis, Eaton wrote:
…there is [no] …friendship with these states, without paving the way with gold or cannon balls; and the proper question is, which method is preferable.
The first American Crisis in the Middle East
Decades from now, historians will discover that the United States, the West and the international community were being targeted by a global ideological movement which emerged in the 1920s, survived World War II and the Cold War, and carefully chose the timing of its onslaught against democracy.
Undoubtedly, the issue that policy planners and government leaders need to address with greatest urgency, is the future shape of the terrorist threat facing the United States and its allies.
Future Terrorism Mutant Jihads (PDF)
posted by regenmacher
The war is here and it doesn't take a bomb to destroy America either. Bush is doing more damage to the economy than Osama could ever have hoped for
Valhall,
Your point is well taken, that this is a messy situation. However, just criticizing a thing doesn't fix it. What would you have us to do?
posted by Jahumn
Do you mind if I rebut your statement with one of your own previous statements?
posted by valhall
Well, we need to pull our troops out of Iraq.
Don't you understand that the Terrorists will take it over and use it as a base to forward deploy cells onto our soil? I'm sorry, these Colors dont run.
"Terrorists"? How do they know that this "Jaara" character is a Terrorist?
image source: img.photobucket.com...
Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
WOW, you figured out there's a War going on! My statement stands, The War remains THERE and NOT HERE!
Israel kicked him out of the Middle East. And that's good enough for me. Because they have to deal with terrorists the way we'll have to if we pull back from Iraq.