Looks like Putin understands terrorism

[SilverNRed]

Just in general terms. This is totally non-partisan.

 

stevestojan moves so slow in Government that it takes probably two years to even get something started. Any new administration is dealing with the programs and policies of the old because it takes time to get things staffed and implemented.

 

I personally acknowledge that Bush was in office 9/11. I further acknowledge that his gang, as well as the gang who actually does things no matter who is president were flat on their ass. 9/11 has promulgated a complete revision of the Defense Department, and other agencies. It's building on things started under the Former Bush and Clinton administrations and interjecting many new concepts of their own.

 

Whether it sounds partisan or not, I'm really being objective here, is that current policies and strategies-as well as organizational efforts and changes in how we do almost EVERYTHING are generally sound, and effective. Nothing is perfect. There will always be something wrong. Is the situation in Iraq screwed up? Sure it is. But the decision to be there taken in context with the overall was the right one. It's been echoed by many that even the best of plans go out the window once the first bullet is fired. Oddly enough, in terms of fighting "The War on Terror", the Iraq situation is working out to our advantage. Doesn't do a lot for the Iraqis though.

 

I have no way of convincing you, or anyone else on a message board that things are actually a lot better than they appear to be. My problem is since it takes literally years to make changes, and we are going the right way in terms of the overall "war", this is a piss poor time to start over.  Most of you opine on the stuff. I do it for a living. What I mean by that is I'd love to sit around the fire and Kumbaya, but that's not the reality. Do I think we should have done things different? Of course I do. Me and about 30,000 other people who understand hindsight. We're going to be in Iraq until Iraq is stable and an ally. Period. Anything else is stupidity, and a waste of billions of dollars and thousands of lives.

If it takes a year, fine. If it takes 20, that's fine too. Not preferred, but fine, as long as it gets done.

 

That said, we really ain't doing bad. Senator Kerry-I hope-is aware of the realities and is just pandering soundbites to the electorate. Since 99% of the electorate doesn't have a clue as to what is really going on it doesn't matter. He's going to have to play some of the same games should he get elected. What's bad for him is they will be in direct contradiction to his promises. Maybe he hopes no one will notice, I would suspect more of a "blame Bush" type of approach. But, whatever.

 

Within the DoD, Kerry's "ideas" are probably much more known than what one gets from the mainstream media. Fortunately, some of his ideas will take a Congressional vote to change. But you never know.

 

There's no changing how people in their own hearts view things. An example is bringing in "Our Allies" (euphanism for the UN) to settle up the problems. Believe me, they are drooling at the thought. Bush basically says "if they agree, they agree, if they don't they don't". Some of you prefer the former, some the latter.

 

One has to decide what is in the best interest of the United States of America. We are the only remaining Superpower. The rules are different for us. Many, many questions. how about this one? Does Al Qaida, North Korea or Iran prefer an America that plays resolution time at the UN? Or do they prefer an America that will just go out and do?

 

I don't know that voting for Kerry will result in another attack anymore than I know if voting for Bush will. Welcome to the chess game. Great arguments for both. I'm frankly surprised in some ways we haven't had another yet. I could say that we have crippled Al Qaida enough that they are probably not capable right now, but those on the left would call that partisan. This also doesn't mean that they can't come up with something for later. I do know that statedpolicies will, 10 years from now, as far as Americas best interests are concerned give advantage Bush.

 

Why are some folks so concerned with whether the guy on the street in France or Jordan likes us? News Flash! They have NEVER liked us. We've given them something real visible to B word about. And the happy media pollers are only too happy to oblige. The key thing is that the governments are working with us, and us with them. That's what's important. France doesn't want to send Troops to Iraq? If it were in their own interest to do so, they would. The French, under Bush's Proliferation Security Initiative have also intercepted and interdicted WMD technology being proliferated by their own people.

 

Whatever, just trying to put some kind of perspective on things that isn't a spin.

76508[/snapback]

 

Good thoughts. I appreciate the insight and, maybe more, all the time it took to type all that.

[spidey]

Just in general terms. This is totally non-partisan.

 

stevestojan moves so slow in Government that it takes probably two years to

76508[/snapback]

BiB this was a fantastic essay. You have provided a detailed argument for your view.

 

Hopefully another non partisan view.

 

On 9/11 I wanted to have let some nukes fly. The gut wrenching outrage I had seeing planes plowing into buildings and knowing that war has arrived on American soil was one thing. But seeing the reaction in certain middle east countries of people and children celebrating in the streets was another. I must give our president credit for not going off the handle and just sending weapons flying until we new for sure who attacked us, if I was president I am not sure I could have had restrain. I supported the administration when they went after the Taliban since they provided the safe haven for al-Qaida. The world community also supported this effort since it was al-Qaida that attacked America.

 

Iraq is a totally different issue. Yes the intelligence community thought that Iraq had a WMD program. Yes we know that Saddam was a brutal dictator and should have been dealt with properly after his invasion of Kuwait. If inspectors would have been allowed to continue and not found WMDs what ground would the US have for the invasion of Iraq? What proof did we have that Iraq and al-Qaida were linked in any way?

 

This is why the most respected country in the world, the United States of America, has lost some of that respect of some of our allies by going into Iraq without proven justification. As the only super power left I believe we have an obligation to lead the world in a behaviour that sets the examples for others.

[_BiB_]

Good thoughts.  I appreciate the insight and, maybe more, all the time it took to type all that.

76607[/snapback]

 

I appreciate the read. Thank you. I'm also pretty sure this is another dead thread. What's always much more important is that Bush mispronounced something or Kerry has three purple hearts. Teresa speaks with an accent and Cheney loves Halliburton.

 

That's why one should vote, if one can find their way to the proper voting station without being led. Forget what is reality. Make it all a reality show.

 

Costa Rica is looking real good.

[spidey]

Costa Rica is looking real good.

76657[/snapback]

Well the literacy rate is higher than in the US, they have no military, have relatively nice weather and have some lovely beaches. Plus the Costa Rican coffee is the best in the world.

[VABills]

I appreciate the read. Than you. I'm also pretty sure this is another dead thread. What's always much more important is that Bush mispronounced something or Kerry has thre purple hearts. Teresa speaks with an accent and Cheney loves Halliburton.

 

That's why one should vote, if one can find their way to the proper voting station without being led. Forget what is reality. Make it all a reality show.

 

Costa Rica is looking real good.

76657[/snapback]

Costa Rica has dinosaur that were illegally grown on their islands. Didn't you see the documentary "Jurassic Park"?

[Alaska Darin]

Iraq is a totally different issue.  Yes the intelligence community thought that Iraq had a WMD program.  Yes we know that Saddam was a brutal dictator and should have been dealt with properly after his invasion of Kuwait.  If inspectors would have been allowed to continue and not found WMDs what ground would the US have for the invasion of Iraq?  What proof did we have that Iraq and al-Qaida were linked in any way? 

76654[/snapback]

We are not fighting a war against only Al Qaeda. We are fighting a war against TERRORISM. Note the distinct difference between the two.

 

Iraq was very much at the forefront of global terrorism. I posted a litany of examples today on that very fact.

 

The fact that the rest of the world's "leaders" were making billions of dollars through graft and corruption in that country is the ONLY reason they didn't jump on board - not for any ideological opposition as you've been led to believe.

[_BiB_]

Costa Rica has dinosaur that were illegally grown on their islands.  Didn't you see the documentary "Jurassic Park"?

76671[/snapback]

 

That, and I like pure Kona or Jamaican Blue Mountain. Pretty well a coffee tossup. OK. I lean towards Kona.

 

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm getting tired. I have to deal daily with "your" choice, whether it be Bush, Kerry or Mickey Mouse. Since I don't care about anyone else at this point in my life, I know what choice will make my job harder. Kerry. Call me a know it all self important prick (hard to do because I don't know much besides this) but I do know this. I'm also not an E-4 in the radar room. I work at the national policy level. You either believe me, or you don't. I either have credibility with you or I don't. I've tried to give some insights that are not political over the last several months. Non-partisan, non-political. I'm pretty sure they are not viewed that way because they favor Bush. So be it. That's the way it is. Once again, if you want to vote Kerry, on the basis of economy. health care, whatever-please do. I have no comment. I sincerely, from the standpoint of someone who does this everyday-ask that you at least do some internet searches before you vote for him based on National Security.

[Paco]

The fact that the rest of the world's "leaders" were making billions of dollars through graft and corruption in that country is the ONLY reason they didn't jump on board - not for any ideological opposition as you've been led to believe.

76682[/snapback]

This is virtually IMPOSSIBLE for people to understand. WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?????

[BuffaloBorn1960]

Wouldn't that be "we we French"?

 

Do they actaully draw up papers or just drop their weapons and run.

75270[/snapback]

Did you see the one about the French Assault weapons on ebay???

 

Never used....

 

Dropped Once!

 

[Alaska Darin]

Did you see the one about the French Assault weapons on ebay???

 

Never used....

 

Dropped Once!

 

76719[/snapback]

The problem is the height it was dropped from (over head).

[SilverNRed]

Iraq was very much at the forefront of global terrorism.  I posted a litany of examples today on that very fact.

76682[/snapback]

 

Did anyone even dispute that list? Or did they just pretend you didn't do that? Or change the subject?

 

The corrupt 'leaders' is another good point that no one ever bothers to dispute either. I hate when people say "We've lost the respect of our allies!!!!" Which ones? The really, really corrupt ones??

[_BiB_]

Well the literacy rate is higher than in the US, they have no military, have relatively nice weather and have some lovely beaches.  Plus the Costa Rican coffee is the best in the world.

76669[/snapback]

 

I'm maybe not as dumb as I sound.

[DC Tom]

I'm maybe not as dumb as I sound.

76835[/snapback]

 

With grammatical structure like that?

[Chef Jim]

Why are some folks so concerned with whether the guy on the street in France or Jordan likes us? News Flash! They have NEVER liked us. We've given them something real visible to B word about.

76508[/snapback]

 

 

That is so true. We were in France in the spring of 2001. Spent some time with a guy who we were importing some things from. Took us out to lunch and in typical French fashion we proceeded to down three bottles of wine......at LUNCH! Well needless to say tongues loosened up. Yes BiB, they didn't like us before 9/11, they liked us for about 24 minutes after 9/11 and went back to not liking us thereafter. Has NOTHING to do with who is President. They don't understand us, and don't care to. This Iraq war just gives them a tangible reason not to like us.

[_BiB_]

That is so true.  We were in France in the spring of 2001.  Spent some time with a guy who we were importing some things from.  Took us out to lunch and in typical French fashion we proceeded to down three bottles of wine......at LUNCH!  Well needless to say tongues loosened up.  Yes BiB, they didn't like us before 9/11, they liked us for about 24 minutes after 9/11 and went back to not liking us thereafter.  Has NOTHING to do with who is President.  They don't understand us, and don't care to.  This Iraq war just gives them a tangible reason not to like us.

76878[/snapback]

 

I'm tired. And I'm going to bed. Maybe I will sleep. Maybe not.

[Chef Jim]

I'm tired. And I'm going to bed. Maybe I will sleep. Maybe not.

76895[/snapback]

 

 

Sleep well my friend.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

So keep believing that if Bush loses the election that the terrorists have won.  Damn we might need to start drawing up the surrender papers. :I starred in Brokeback Mountain:

75240[/snapback]

 

I do believe that. Kerry is an unabashed defense dove.

 

Despite what he's said in this election, he has consistently voted against the defense establishment in favor of social programs.

 

Period. Terrorists would love Kerry as pres.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Putin's tactics started way before the children were attacked.  And it is simplistic to lump in the Chechan seperatists or Basque seperatists in Spain or Palestinians with Al-Quada terrorists.  Most of those groups have grievances within their countries and do not target the United States, and each requires different political solutions to resolve their grievances, as was the case in Northern Ireland. Putin seeks political and international cover by lumping in the Chechen conflict with world terrorism. What about the heavy handed tactics the Russians use on Chechens?  It doesn't excuse the Chechen response, but the Russians have also have blood on their hands.

76156[/snapback]

 

The Chechens employ the SAME tactics as other Muslim fundamentalists.

 

That's why.

 

That and there have been documented links between Al Quaeda and Chechen rebels, but hey, let's forget that.

[checkmate]

I think Putin is wrong. I think that in general terrorists want Bush in power because he is someone they can rally against.

 

While I don't support Bush, I don't oppose him because he is hated by terrorists and would never let a terrorist's position on our elected leaders dictate my vote.

[DC Tom]

I think Putin is wrong.  I think that in general terrorists want Bush in power because he is someone they can rally against.

78006[/snapback]

 

 

Doubt it. Islamic terrorists we're fighting tend to be for their fundamentalist vision, and only against the US as it stands in the way of that vision. Whoever's the current American president is irrelevent to that particular philosophy. They may be for or against a particular candidate on other, practical grounds (e.g. who are they more likely to survive and thrive under)...but it doesn't change their fundamental motivation.