fadedsteve wrote:
Bertster7 your entitled to your opinions albeit your liberal ones. . .
But your wrong. . .you watch your British Skynews that continue to portray the doom and gloom of the world!! And portray the USA as a bunch of cowboy idiots that dont know what the fuck were doing!
Sky News is crap. You do realise Sky News is essentially FOX don't you?
fadedsteve wrote:
Your idea of combating terrorism is the same as ours was before 9/11!! Bill Clinton shared your same philosophy on handling terrorists! And we were a day late and a dollar short!! Bush too continued Clintons lack of inaction when he was in his first 8 months of office!!
I am not suggesting no action be taken. I am suggesting that the action taken should not be so widely publicised, nor should the terrorist attacks. Terrorism is about fear, that's what terror means. I have heard many people saying that they are afraid to fly after 9/11, which is as a result of media attention and is exactly what the terrorists want to happen. I am not suggesting the media cover up these terrorist attacks, major ones should be reported, but not nearly to the same extent and the high profile war on terror is an awful idea. Carefully planned strikes based on quality inteligence is what the US should be doing to combat terrorism, not waging war in Iraq. Afghanistan is another matter - terrorist activity in Afghanistan is under more control now than it was prior to the US invasion, so the invasion has worked quite well.
fadedsteve wrote:
Iraq will prove a success in years, not months! Afghanistan will be the same way, ONLY if we stay the course and continue to stand up to the terrorists and fight them toe to toe!!
Iraq will not prove a success, ever. Not for a very, very long time at least. Afghanistan might. It has certainly improved since the invasion, which I was very much in favour of. The US cannot influence Iraqi elections very much and the US backed candidates have done very badly. The majority of successfull Iraqi candidates are Islamic extreme types, who will not be good for long term stability in Iraq. But that is who te nation want to lead them and the US promoting democracy can do nothing about that. They cannot control who the people of Iraq vote for.
fadedsteve wrote:
All you guys do is bitch and moan! WHATS YOUR FUCKING PLAN THEN GUY?? What do you fucking propose we do to effectively end terrorism??
You can't 'end terrorism'. It can't be done. War against an idea doesn't work. What can be done is to reduce the amount of terrorism by addressing the causes and by taking out existing terrorist targets and attacking terrorists cells in such a way as not to create more terrorists (in general covert strikes and arrests, infiltration of cells would also be good). As well as reducing the amount of terrorism governments should be promoting confidence in anti terrorism measures, stressing public safety and terrorist attacks should be downplayed. Publicity is what the terrorists want, give them as little as possible. That will reduce the climate of fear.
fadedsteve wrote:
You liberal rants grow seriously tiresome! There is no constructive arguing with you, because whatever facts I could dig up to refute yours, you'll say I'm full of it etc. . . . .its flat out not worth the effort!
I dont have the time to waste arguing on the internet, I said my piece and thats it!
Rwanda?? yes it was terrible, and unexcusable. . .But saying that was a worse way to die than those of the 9/11 attacks is irresponsible on your part and offensive!
I will only say you're full of shit if your sources are unreliable. I can't recall you ever posting any sources in previous threads I have been involved in. Certainly not any credible ones. I could be mistaken though. I am always interested to see solid sources opposing my views as they can make me reassess my opinions, usually my opinion will remain unchanged, but not always - that is the point of debate.
I totally believe it is a worse way to die than those who died in the 9/11 attacks. I can't see how that statement is in any way irrespnsible or offensive. Being dragged out of your home and watching your entire family being butchered with machetes in front of you while you are beaten and then hacked to death. It is a much worse death than those who died on 9/11 suffered. Not that I am belittling the suffering of those who perished in the 9/11 attacks, but I think their suffering, however bad it was - and the ones who burnt to death, that is a horrible way to die - was not as bad as those who were massacred in Rwanda.
fadedsteve wrote:
p.s. Our military is perfectly capable of fighting the terrorist brigand army by the way!! I am not worried about losing to them militarily, I am worried about the social liberals not having the balls to continue to fight and persue the enemy!! Avoidance of conflict doesnt promote a long and lasting peace!
You can't fight terrorism militarily. Isolated military strikes, yes. Attacks to gain control of areas backing terrorism, yes (one of the reasons I back the war in Afghanistan so strongly). But you cannot fight terrorism in general with the military. It is just one tool for combating terrorism and not the most important tool at that.
Avoidance of conflict is exactly what promotes peace. The statement proves itself.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-09-12 05:36:21)