How Do We End The War on Terror?

Hard Truth said:

I think the results speak for themselves, and the result was/is as much or more misery as under Saddam.

Click to expand...

Yeah?

Where are the torture camps today?

Montecresto said:

Sorry, Bush did in fact lie, and that's the history of the Iraq war, while I understand the difficulty in you particularly accepting that truth, it's irrelevant. And your simply wrong, that it was Democratic Party politics.

Click to expand...

Really. A report by Democrats that exonerates Democrats for making the exact same claims as the Bush administration but instead finds fault with that administration and accuses it of dishonesty in a Presidential election year isn't Democrat Party Politics.


:roll: you just keep on telling yourself that. The administration was wrong, but it did not lie.

How Do We Win The War on Terror?

How do we win the war on terror? What is the war on terror?

Here are some ideas for discussion.

I believe the war is a war against 7th century Islam. To win it we have to isolate it, to destroy those who are actively spreading Islam through terror and intimidation. We will need to help it undergo a reformation and to separate the politics of Islam from the religion of Islam.

In the US we need to methodically work our way through Islamists, revoking visas and, in some cases perhaps revoking citizenship. We need to stop Islamists from turning violent prisoners into violent adherents to the religion of peace. Muslims must be watched by our intelligence agencies and, once identified as problematical by our intelligence agencies then they should be watched by our police agencies.

We need Congress to declare war on Islam not on its tactic of terror. We need to close our borders.

We need to let the Islamist nations know that an attack on the US will result in the complete and utter destruction of every Islamic holy place, school and mosque in their countries. We need to publish a **** list. A country that is on our **** list will receive nothing from us. No American can buy goods from a country on our **** list. No American may travel to a country on our **** list. Any American who does trade or travel will go to prison for a first offense and have citizenship revoked for a subsequent offense.

We will not help in any way. We will not help if there is a natural disaster.

We need to call off Obama's war on industry, especially energy industries. A good first step to winning the war on Islam may be to boot Obama and his family out of the country. He is an Islamofascist supporter. One of the Islamist countries will be glad to have him.

Back to energy. We need to become the world's largest producer and exporter of energy. We have coal, oil, and natural gas. We need to give scientific prizes in each category for the best ways to use each. We need to design and give away nuclear power plants of at least three sizes. The smallest should provide power for a large building. The largest for a large fraction of a city.

Then we need to identify all politicians in this country who are Islamofascist supporters. They need to go. I suggest holding them in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp until after we win the war. It will have to be significantly enlarged.

That is enough for starters.

Re: How Do We Win The War on Terror?

I suspect the answer has something to do with taking off the gloves. Easy enough for savages to boast and strut and howl for more infidel blood, while they murder defenseless people. Not so easy to feel belligerent, when your would-be victims decide to come for you, and start spilling your blood, by the thousands of gallons, using very powerful weapons you have no answer for at all. People tend to lose their heart for fighting when they are being beaten to a pulp, but are helpless to stop the beating.

cpwill said:

No he didn't - because we weren't there for the oil. As is obvious to anyone with the ability to notice that we did not subsequently take it.

Click to expand...

I find it rather boring the way some people go on and on with total nonsense that is so visibly absurd for anyone not pathologically selective in their reading.

DDD said:

Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil - CNN.com

Click to expand...

Come on dude. How many times have I posted that link???? Of course oil is the chief reason the US is in the ME. Now then, what I said was that George Bush did not include oil as one of his stated reasons for going to war in Iraq.

But here, this ones even better.

"People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are. They talk about America's national interest. What the hell do you think they're talking about? We're not there for figs."

Chuck Hagel

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/chuck-hagel-iraq-oil_b_2414862.html

cpwill said:

Really. A report by Democrats that exonerates Democrats for making the exact same claims as the Bush administration but instead finds fault with that administration and accuses it of dishonesty in a Presidential election year isn't Democrat Party Politics.


:roll: you just keep on telling yourself that. The administration was wrong, but it did not lie.

Click to expand...

They were bi-partisan reports. Which concluded a dozen claims about Iraq, and the threat Iraq posed to Americans, that were lies, not substantiated by the available intelligence. The DS memo confirmed the same. Intelligence was being manipulated to fit BushCo's war policy in a deliberate attempt to deceive Americans into supporting what turned out to be both a colossal failure, and recognized now by a majority of Americans as a mistake. So keep on lying to yourself CP.

Montecresto said:

They were bi-partisan reports.

Click to expand...

:roll: care to cite the vote records. ?

cpwill said:

:roll: care to cite the vote records. ?

Click to expand...

I did in post 348.

The following nine Republicans were members of the Committee at the time the investigation was launched: Committee Chairman C. Patrick Roberts (R-KS), Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), R. Michael DeWine (R-OH), Christopher S. "Kit" Bond (R-MO), C. Trent Lott (R-MS), Olympia J. Snowe (R-ME), Charles Hagel (R-NE), C. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), and John W. Warner (R-VA).

The following eight Democrats made up the rest of the Committee: Vice-Chairman John D. "Jay" Rockefeller IV (D-WV), Carl Levin (D-MI), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Ronald L. Wyden (D-OR), Richard J. Durbin (D-IL), B. Evans "Evan" Bayh III (D-IN), Johnny R. "John" Edwards (D-NC), and Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD).

Montecresto said:

I did in post 348.

The following nine Republicans were members of the Committee at the time the investigation was launched: Committee Chairman C. Patrick Roberts (R-KS), Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), R. Michael DeWine (R-OH), Christopher S. "Kit" Bond (R-MO), C. Trent Lott (R-MS), Olympia J. Snowe (R-ME), Charles Hagel (R-NE), C. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), and John W. Warner (R-VA).

The following eight Democrats made up the rest of the Committee: Vice-Chairman John D. "Jay" Rockefeller IV (D-WV), Carl Levin (D-MI), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Ronald L. Wyden (D-OR), Richard J. Durbin (D-IL), B. Evans "Evan" Bayh III (D-IN), Johnny R. "John" Edwards (D-NC), and Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD).

Click to expand...

That is not the same as the votes

If the USA wants to continue interfering, then do so with the building of businesses, trade, and infrastructure. Take away the inclination to fight by giving people something that they do not want to lose in a bombardment. Building roads, drilling wells for fresh water, and paving roads throughout many areas of the developing world would be a good start to manifest a more cooperative world, and it costs a lot less than what we currently spend on our wars against terror.

cpwill said:

That is not the same as the votes

Click to expand...

Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Montecresto said:

Come on dude. How many times have I posted that link???? Of course oil is the chief reason the US is in the ME. Now then, what I said was that George Bush did not include oil as one of his stated reasons for going to war in Iraq.

But here, this ones even better.

"People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are. They talk about America's national interest. What the hell do you think they're talking about? We're not there for figs."

Chuck Hagel

Six Years Ago, Chuck Hagel Told the Truth About Iraq | Michael Moore

Click to expand...

Right, so many reasons US went to Iraq. So one can either postmodernly pick one, or holitically combine them all together.

As far as I am concerned, US liberated Iraq from Saddam.

Montecresto said:

Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

I find it entertaining that you remain unwilling to cite the actual votes, and especially any changes to committee membership.

From your link:

....The report's first conclusion points to widespread flaws in the October 2002 NIE, and attributes those flaws to failure by analysts in the intelligence community:

Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community’s October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting. A series of failures, particularly in analytic trade craft, led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence. ​

Subsequent conclusions fault the intelligence community for failing to adequately explain to policymakers the uncertainties that underlay the NIE's conclusions, and for succumbing to "group think," in which the intelligence community adopted untested (and, in hindsight, unwarranted) assumptions about the extent of Iraq's WMD stockpiles and programs. The committee identified a failure to adequately supervise analysts and collectors, and a failure to develop human sources of intelligence (HUMINT) inside Iraq after the departure of international weapons inspectors in 1998. It also cited the post-9/11 environment as having led to an increase in the intensity with which policymakers review and question threat information....

Click to expand...

So yeah. Then Democrats took over in 2006 for "Phase Two" of the investigation and suddenly discovered in the middle of an election year that it was all Bush's fault all along. :roll:

DDD said:

Right, so many reasons US went to Iraq. So one can either postmodernly pick one, or holitically combine them all together.

As far as I am concerned, US liberated Iraq from Saddam.

Click to expand...

And delivered them the Islamic State!

cpwill said:

I find it entertaining that you remain unwilling to cite the actual votes, and especially any changes to committee membership.

From your link:



So yeah. Then Democrats took over in 2006 for "Phase Two" of the investigation and suddenly discovered in the middle of an election year that it was all Bush's fault all along. :roll:

Click to expand...

Actually, I don't think they said that, there are many administration officials false statements that received the committees criticism. And what's entertaining, I gave you the link that you could easily have found yourself which has all the information you want. It is a long read, and it sorts through both democratic and republican objections to aspects of the report.

From the governments web site on this, here are several examples of the committee spreading the blame around, and not placing it all on Bush as you no doubt sarcastically stated.

The Committee’s report cites several conclusions in which the Administration’s public statements were NOT supported by the intelligence. They include:

Ø Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.

Ø Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.

Ø Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.

Ø Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.

Ø The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.

Ø The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.

Montecresto said:

And delivered them the Islamic State!

Click to expand...

ISIS controls parts of Iraq and Syria. Their positions are challenged from the freaking entire world.

To end the war on terror, we need to end political correctness. In our country we need to affirm that our constitutional form of government supersedes all cultural differences from abroad, translated sharia in any form is not welcome here.

When we are faced with an attack on our interests abroad and need to defend ourselves we need to end the political correctness which hamstrings our military with rules of engagement that puts our soldiers in danger. If war is necessary we should fight to win at all costs, not fly over dropping occasional bombs on targets limited by our ability to collect real time intelligence.

We should be true friends with our allies and clearly let our enemies know that there will be serious repercussions for those who seek to harm us.

We should understand that leading from behind is what they do in a parade to the guy with the bucket and the shovel whose job it is to scrape horse **** off the road.

There isn't much we can do to stop islamists who believe that they can change the world to Islamic rule. The battle ground is really in Europe where people can be transported by car and enter western Europe through Turkey which was admitted to the EU. When and if Europe recognizes Islamic law or recognizes Islamic customs the world is in serious trouble.

SayMyName said:

If the USA wants to continue interfering, then do so with the building of businesses, trade, and infrastructure. Take away the inclination to fight by giving people something that they do not want to lose in a bombardment. Building roads, drilling wells for fresh water, and paving roads throughout many areas of the developing world would be a good start to manifest a more cooperative world, and it costs a lot less than what we currently spend on our wars against terror.

Click to expand...

Your list of items are the target list for terrorists. In addition the people who help build these things also become targets. For your idea to work the people must be armed and trained.

Montecresto said:

And delivered them the Islamic State!

Click to expand...

True. Obama gave away a victory to appease his base. And because it mirrors his belief that we need to be taken down so we are just like all other nations.

Misterveritis said:

True. Obama gave away a victory to appease his base. And because it mirrors his belief that we need to be taken down so we are just like all other nations.

Click to expand...

Forgive me, but that's just nonsense.

Misterveritis said:

Your list of items are the target list for terrorists. In addition the people who help build these things also become targets. For your idea to work the people must be armed and trained.

Click to expand...

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result. It is time to try something new. Take away the base that provides the human fodder for the growth of terrorism. Build schools, build wells for fresh water, pave roads, extend loans for businesses, and grow communities that see reasons to cooperate with the rest of the world instead of resisting it out of frustration and boredom while living in misery. I suppose that doing the same thing over and over again is easy for many Americans to argue in support of because they are not overseas to see the results of these actions. Living in a land protected by two large oceans, filled with plenty, gives way easily to such continued beliefs.

Lend a hand in security, yes. But, lets halt those actions on our part that have over the years helped create these dangerous elements in the first place.

Montecresto said:

Actually, I don't think they said that, there are many administration officials false statements that received the committees criticism. And what's entertaining, I gave you the link that you could easily have found yourself which has all the information you want.

Click to expand...

:lol: I literally quoted your own link right back to you.

Here are some other fun citations:

....Section II of the report discussed the handling of intelligence indicating that Iraq might be attempting to purchase uranium from Niger. The report examined the role played by former ambassador Joseph Wilson in investigating the issue, and the way Wilson's assessment was communicated within the intelligence community. It also discusses the process whereby references to Iraq's uranium-procurement efforts were removed from some speeches at the behest of intelligence officials, but left in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address. The report concludes that prior to October, 2002, it was reasonable for the intelligence community to assess Iraq may have been attempting to obtain uranium from Africa.....

The report partially looks at the question of whether pressure was brought to bear on intelligence analysts to get them to shape their assessments to support particular policy objectives. It recounts how Sen. Roberts made repeated public calls for any analysts who believed they had been pressured to alter their assessments to speak with the Committee about their experiences. The Committee also attempted to identify and interview several individuals who had described such pressure in media reports and government documents. The report says that the Committee did not find any evidence that administration officials tried to pressure analysts to change their judgments...

Several sections in the report examine topics relating to allegations of links between Iraq and terrorism. The Committee said that the intelligence community produced reasonable conclusions on this topic, although the Committee found gaps in the intelligence-gathering methods used... In terms of pressure on analysts, the Committee said that after 9/11, "analysts were under tremendous pressure to make correct assessments, to avoid missing a credible threat, and to avoid an intelligence failure on the scale of 9/11." The Committee concluded that this resulted in assessments that were "bold and assertive in pointing out potential terrorist links," and that this pressure was more the result of analysts' own desire to be as thorough as possible, than of any undue influence by the administration, for which the Committee said they found no evidence....

The Republican and Democratic members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence voted unanimously to approve the finished report.

Click to expand...

That report being Phase 1. Then for Phase 2 of the Report, Democrats took over, having won control of the Senate in 2006. At which point they locked the minority out of the process and proceeded to drive a purely partisan effort.

Page 161 of Phase II Report - Minority Views of Senator Chambliss, Vice Chairman Bond, and Senator Hatch


Enjoy scrolling up through the proposed amendments. They pretty much go point by point with what you are quoting and destroy them with citation.

So, IOW, when the process was actually Bi-Partisan, it decided unanimously that flawed intelligence and analysis - not administration deception - was responsible for flawed statements by senior policy makers.... unlike what you are claiming occurred. The section you are citing was strictly a partisan document.

Again, let me know when you are willing to admit what the vote was on the bit you are citing and claiming is oh-so-bipartisan Democrats claiming that the mean ole Bush administration is just a bunch of liars in the middle of a Presidential election isn't exactly credible, but if it's what you need to depend on...

"True. Obama gave away a victory to appease his base. And because it mirrors his belief that we need to be taken down so we are just like all other nations."

Boo Radley said:

Forgive me, but that's just nonsense.

Click to expand...

I am generous. You are forgiven. Why, in your opinion, did he cut and run?

"Your list of items are the target list for terrorists. In addition the people who help build these things also become targets. For your idea to work the people must be armed and trained."

SayMyName said:

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result. It is time to try something new. Take away the base that provides the human fodder for the growth of terrorism. Build schools, build wells for fresh water, pave roads, extend loans for businesses, and grow communities that see reasons to cooperate with the rest of the world instead of resisting it out of frustration and boredom while living in misery. I suppose that doing the same thing over and over again is easy for many Americans to argue in support of because they are not overseas to see the results of these actions. Living in a land protected by two large oceans, filled with plenty, gives way easily to such continued beliefs.

Lend a hand in security, yes. But, lets halt those actions on our part that have over the years helped create these dangerous elements in the first place.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you should think just a bit more. We have many examples in history you could select. How has that worked before? If your approach works why hasn't it?