CubsWoo said:
Because it has been working. Terror attacks, as a whole, have been down steadily ever since 9/11.
The trend of decreasing terrorist attacks is nothing new. Basically, the war on terror isnt the only factor in play if anything it takes the trend and enhances the negative aspects as well as doing nothing to help the positive aspects of the trend.
http://www.mindef.gov.sg/safti/pointer/back/journals/2002/Vol28_4/6.htm
I show this document because it explains the trend. I say the War on Terror enhances the negative because it increases the fanaticism that drives larger attacks, and by increasing coverage of terrorist attacks the need for more numerous and violent attacks become necessary for terrrorists to get their message across.
The terrorists are losing in Iraq. They've been losing ever since we stormed into Baghdad, and now their last hope of 'reclaiming' Iraq is taking enough potshots and suicide bombers and hoping we leave Iraq unprepared to defend herself (which we're not.)
People like to talk about the 1700 dead American servicemen and women in Iraq. And yes, it's terrible that anyone, Arab, Iraqi, American, anyone has to die for something like this. But remember, in World War II America was losing 2,000 soldiers EVERY WEEK for three years. When you consider that we've been there for over two years, that's an amazingly low number of casualties.
1. I don't think Saddam Hussein had an elite, modern, large conventional military presence that would even be possible of inflicting such damage to the most well-equipped fighting force in the world. Of course, the casualties are low. I'm not completely confident in saying Iraq will not turn out ok, but I am pretty confident in saying that the United States is a sovereign nation that pumps countless resources into a war that has no legitimate purpose as a sovereign nation. A just cause for a war is always needed. There was just cause for a war in iraq, if you are an iraqi. It is no secret to me that the Iraqi people really had very little power to change what was going on (even though there are numerous insurgency groups during saddams time that alone as a nation is not enough), but that is the only way good government can be formed. If a nation does not have a powerful civil society, no matter what government you put in, it can become corrupt with no one to stop it.
2. There is definitely some truth in saying that terrorists arent winning in Iraq. al-Zarqawi is a Jordanian I doubt mixed middle eastern and Iraqi insurgency/populous really see him as much to rally behind. terrorism is probably going to fail in Iraq because of its own weaknesses. The american presence does help, but how many terrorists would be in Iraq if their wasnt a western power there. Id say very few, you dont have to fight anything that you dont make fight you. As i said also, to leave Iraq prepared you have to leave Iraq with a functioning civil society....which can take decades. Yes, the terrorists are just taking pot shots, which wont work, once again their own weakness, but now they get to do it all day everyday for years.
The same way the UN tried to justify it for the past 60 years. Sometimes, being right and being unpopular are one and the same.
The UN is flawed straight up. Its pretty much the "United First World Nations pretend to give a shit about what everyone else thinks and we'll try and protect smaller nations every once and a while to make you think we do". Sometimes being right, isnt being right at all. Sometimes being right doesnt mean its best or right to make everyone else right. What gets the US in so much shit throughout the world (not that it is always justified mind you, alot of it is senseless hate towards the US), they go to many different places and cultures and dont take time to learn how to deal with them correctly, they try to police them based on a western metaphysic. Ie Vietnam, if we would have taken the time to understand how the asian culture views warfare it would have been a much different war. I'm not necessarily a cultural relativist, but I do not think policing is a good way to handle the interaction of international groups and powers. Simply, it breeds hatred, death and misunderstanding, and it does not work.
Why ally with Stalin in WWII?
Oh, uncle Joe. This is a fair point, but uncle Joe wasnt making little Nazis and sending them to Germany. He was doing bad shit mind you but, well heres my point:
http://csmonitor.com/2005/0627/p09s02-coop.html
Uncle Joe was a naughty man but in WW2 he wasnt making the problem worse.
Has this part of the Patriot Act even come up in a criminal trial? I suspect it would go to the SCOTUS if it were ever used.
Actually yes, I did a speech like 2 years ago and I read this article about a Florida lawyer who tried to bring it up in some circuit court but it didnt make it very far. I know that sounds sketchy, but I'm not lying.
The patriot act is something in general that isnt "transparent" if you will, and usually in democratic society its good to be transparent. I understand the national security concerns, the specific part of the Patriot Act i was talking about above is designed because the documents in the cases may be national security concerns, but obviously when they are not that creates a problem. There are legitimate parts of the patriot act, but its just bad legislation.
This has been the one big mistake of the Bush-led Congress. Tax cuts are great, and help our economy - just not when you deficit spend.
Yeah. On a side note, alot of not so conservative spenders believe raising taxes is the answer, when the main problem is the allocation and use of moneys. If a politician ever tells you they are going to cretae policies that are going to really help the economy, they are striaght up lying.
To Strid: I dont understand how when i say "welfare state no thanks" you think that makes me a domestic "democrat".[/url]
. Its not like American soldiers are not doing "good" things in Iraq, the intentions are generally good, its just too bad that intentions only go so far when a fanatic blows himself in a newly built hospital.