Great article by Prof Hansen (War against Islamo Facism)

[storm1977 0]

So what is the long term solution??
Appeasment?

We should do what ever they say or they will kill people?

No, we should be proactive and target those who wish to destroy us. Terrorist do NOT negotiate. If you give them what they want, they will want more. These people are a disease which needs to be eliminated.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[wmw999 2,150]

Quote

Terrorist do NOT negotiate. If you give them what they want, they will want more. These people are a disease which needs to be eliminated.

How do you identify a terrorist? Ask them? Wait until they've suicide-bombed already? Or just go talk to everyone who looks like the perpetrator of the latest terrorist act?

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I actually think it does work, end of story.

Well, I don't

case closed

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,435]

>No, we should be proactive and target those who wish to destroy us.

Yes, we should. It is unfortunate that we spend our time fighting countries that do not threaten us instead of going after the people who have attacked us.

[Newbie 0]

For a start, the US and UK can ratify their foreign policy to stop acting either on poor intelligence and/or deceit of the people (there were NO WMD's, terrorists poured into Iraq AFTER we arrived there) and/or on their own self interests (there is oil out there, and they want it, as well as all the security, infrastructure-rebuilding contracts and aid packages that go along with the damage that's being done.

They can also listen to those who they are meant to be listening to - i.e. the public, so that when we voice concerns that the decision to go into Iraq is not so much about tracking down terrorists, but governments self interest, and doing so will bring suicide bombers out of the woodwork, that they take that on board when it happens and not express "shock" that people think there is a link there, when Muslims, non Muslims, security experts and Osama Bin Laden all report that there is a link there.

Suicide bombers are scum of the earth, but you know, we aren't all peaches and cream either. We might not be going in to foreign lands and blowing ourselves up, but we are attacking places and killing people - and civilians at that - by mistake and for no good reason at times, IMO. If the west doesn't understand that, i really don't think we can be too certain the attacks will just cease and go away, even if we capture and kill these people - as the London bombers showed, even the best intelligence and policing doesn't work when you have people who are under the radar who just suddenly decide to blow themselves up.

"Skydiving is a door"
Happythoughts

[storm1977 0]

You never cease to surprize me Bill.
How is your statement relevant?

Is there not a war on terror?
Are we not working with governments all over the globe
to try to end terrorism?

You are implying that we are not. That 100% of our
energy is in Iraq.

But to be honest, I will not have the Iraq debate in this thread. I really don't think your argument is valid.
Nice try though on the change of subject... I'll give you that.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[Newbie 0]

LOL

"Skydiving is a door"
Happythoughts

[storm1977 0]

Quote

For a start, the US and UK can ratify their foreign policy to stop acting either on poor intelligence and/or deceit of the people (there were NO WMD's, terrorists poured into Iraq AFTER we arrived there) and/or on their own self interests (there is oil out there, and they want it, as well as all the security, infrastructure-rebuilding contracts and aid packages that go along with the damage that's being done.

They can also listen to those who they are meant to be listening to - i.e. the public, so that when we voice concerns that the decision to go into Iraq is not so much about tracking down terrorists, but governments self interest, and doing so will bring suicide bombers out of the woodwork, that they take that on board when it happens and not express "shock" that people think there is a link there, when Muslims, non Muslims, security experts and Osama Bin Laden all report that there is a link there.

Suicide bombers are scum of the earth, but you know, we aren't all peaches and cream either. We might not be going in to foreign lands and blowing ourselves up, but we are attacking places and killing people - and civilians at that - by mistake and for no good reason at times, IMO. If the west doesn't understand that, i really don't think we can be too certain the attacks will just cease and go away, even if we capture and kill these people - as the London bombers showed, even the best intelligence and policing doesn't work when you have people who are under the radar who just suddenly decide to blow themselves up.

Quote

their own self interests (there is oil out there, and they want it,

I love this line. It amazes me that people still use it. Don't you think the US would at least be paying themselves back with oil profits? THey aren't. IMO they should. The US doesn't even import that much oil from the Middle east. It is cheaper and easier to get it from South America... It's much closer.


BTW - Call me when you find a government that doesn't work in the best interest of itself and its people. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF GOVERNMENT!!!!

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[Newbie 0]

No i don't think the US would be paying themselves back in profits. But will there be trade agreements with the newly formed (whenever that may be) Iraqi government for oil to the west? I would bet both my testicles on that.

Don't hold your breath on the call either, because i'm still waiting to find a government that doesn't govern for it's own interests - it's why i have little to no time for most politicians.

"Skydiving is a door"
Happythoughts

[storm1977 0]

Quote

No i don't think the US would be paying themselves back in profits. But will there be trade agreements with the newly formed (whenever that may be) Iraqi government for oil to the west? I would bet both my testicles on that.

Don't hold your breath on the call either, because i'm still waiting to find a government that doesn't govern for it's own interests - it's why i have little to no time for most politicians.

You are making me laugh.... you said "with the newly formed (whenever that may be) Iraqi government". DO you not read the news, watch the news or anything like that?

Also, Ask yourself this.
What is the purpose of any government?

You obviously don't understand that it is their job to look out for the best interest of the country. You will not find a country where that is not the case. You are going to be disappointed in life if you keep looking for it.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[wmw999 2,150]

Quote

What is the purpose of any government?

You obviously don't understand that it is their job to look out for the best interest of the country. You will not find a country where that is not the case. You are going to be disappointed in life if you keep looking for it.

But if he looks for evidence that the people in governmental positions always have the best interests of the country in their sights, he'll spend a long damn time looking. Because I can't think of a government that doesn't have a significant proportion of people who are drunk with power, and want to stay that way.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 2,435]

>How is your statement relevant?

If you think that it costs the US nothing to fight the war in Iraq, then my statement is not relevant. If you believe that it is costing us money and lives, then it is very relevant.

We have spent approximately 180 billion on the Iraq war so far. How many miles of border fencing could that have purchased? How good would our border security be if we could put 100,000 more border patrol agents on the borders, instead of sending 100,000 troops to Iraq?

It is pleasant to imagine that we are doing all we can to fight terror. The reality is that we are splitting our efforts, and giving the Iraq war a high priority. Most conservatives deal with this by claiming that Iraq is 'the front line in the war on terror' or some such. The reality has become pretty clear - that, if anything, the war in Iraq is increasing terrorism, and is thus working against our other efforts.

>You are implying that we are not. That 100% of our
>energy is in Iraq.

Surely you realize that we are not spending 0% of our energy in Iraq. We are putting a huge effort into that war, and that's effort that we are _not_ putting into border security, or coordination with other anti-terrorism efforts.

[Newbie 0]

Oh, so have all allied troops pulled out of Iraq then? Is it the peaceful haven of democracy that it should have been months ago as was promised? Has it;s infrastructe, socio and economic models been restored to anything remotely like what they were pre-war?
Don't make me laugh - there might be elected officials, but Iraq and it's government are far from "there". And yes, the government is meant to act in the best interest of the country, but the "country" you refer to is not a piece of land - it is the people of that country. When the government does not listen to those people, it's time for a change, hence the very close election here in the UK and the US - there is only so much people will take of the politicians acting for their own self interests before they will be voted out. No it's not perfect, but at least we get a chance to vote them out - not that the replacements tend to be much better most of the time.

"Skydiving is a door"
Happythoughts

[storm1977 0]

I told you I am not going to argue the point here. But again, if you think the reason there isn't a wall on the border is because we don't have the money ... then you are completely crazy.

"We can't put a wall up on the border people because we are fighting a war abroad!!!"

Weak arguement.

There isn't anyone/thing on the border because our politicians and president are PUSSIES when it comes to upsettign the Minority Vote.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[billvon 2,435]

>But again, if you think the reason there isn't a wall on the border is
> because we don't have the money ... then you are completely crazy.

You may not realize this, but we DO have border walls in some places. They work. Now, how much do you think a workable wall along the US-mexico border would cost? Roughly.

[storm1977 0]

Along the enitr border if bid on by private companies say 35 feet high....

I would guess in the neighborhood of 20 Billion.
That is roughly $60 for every person in the US.
I can't speak for everyone, but if on my tax form next year there was a secion which said $60 border security fee, and I knew it was going there... I would have no problem with it.

The thing is too, you don't need a fence on the whole border. If we did 5 miles on 5 miles off, 5 miles on, 5 miles off etc... But kept the sam numer of border patrol agents.... It would be twice as effective as it is now.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[jumper03 0]

Quote

Along the enitr border if bid on by private companies say 35 feet high....

I would guess in the neighborhood of 20 Billion.
That is roughly $60 for every person in the US.
I can't speak for everyone, but if on my tax form next year there was a secion which said $60 border security fee, and I knew it was going there... I would have no problem with it.

The thing is too, you don't need a fence on the whole border. If we did 5 miles on 5 miles off, 5 miles on, 5 miles off etc... But kept the sam numer of border patrol agents.... It would be twice as effective as it is now.

wonder what we would have done if the Indians had put up a fence at Plymouth rock?

Scars remind us that the past is real

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

wonder what we would have done if the Indians had put up a fence at Plymouth rock?

I'd have said, "holy shit, I'm alive in the 1400's". Also, "holy shit look at those guys building a fence"
Maybe "hey guys, nice fence. What did you use? White Pine?"

Actually, 'we' weren't around back then and it's a completely different world today compared to them.

I think this 'hypocrisy with history' tactic in (illegal) immigration discussions is a real non-sequitor. Context does matter - even if it doesn't feel consistent.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[SkyDekker 1,147]

Quote

I would guess in the neighborhood of 20 Billion.
That is roughly $60 for every person in the US.
I can't speak for everyone, but if on my tax form next year there was a secion which said $60 border security fee, and I knew it was going there... I would have no problem with it.

Uhmm not every American pays taxes...your math is slightly off...

131 million tax returns were filed in 2004...that makes it $153 per person. 42.5 Million of those returns had a zero tax liability, back those out and the cost per tax payer just went to $226...

Still think everybody wants to pay?

(assuming it really would only be 20 billion)

edited to change 2005 into 2004

[jumper03 0]

okay, fine, change 'we' to 'our ancestors'.

and I think the point is totally valid - we are all immigrants - who are we to now say to some else trying to do what our fore-fathers did - no you can't come in.

The Indians didn't want our ancestors but they came anyway. If illegal immigrants came across blazing away like our ancestors did across the old west what would we do?


The whole thing to me shapes up to be kinda like two fleas arguing over who owns the dog.

Scars remind us that the past is real

[jdhill 0]

Quote

The Indians didn't want our ancestors but they came anyway. If illegal immigrants came across blazing away like our ancestors did across the old west what would we do?

Well, what happened to the indians who did nothing? They were driven from their land... you could say the same for the indians who resisted, but they did not put up a unified front, and it could be argued that they did not have the means to resist... but, had the pilgrims, vikings, and spaniards been driven into the sea, North America may look very different today...

Fast forward several hundred years... we have the means to stop an onslaught of illegal immigrants, the question is, do we have the will?

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[wmw999 2,150]

"Possession is 9/10ths of the law" is a really good rule, as long as you're the possessor and strong enough to defend it.

Kind of sucks otherwise. Ask the Indians, the Palestinians, European and Russian Jews, the Aborigines, and all of the other dispossessed people.

Wendy W.
(proud Viking )

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[jdhill 0]

Quote

the Palestinians, European and Russian Jews

Its interesting that you put these two groups right next to each other...

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[wmw999 2,150]

Quote

Its interesting that you put these two groups right next to each other

Deliberate, too

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[jumper03 0]

Quote

Quote

Its interesting that you put these two groups right next to each other

Deliberate, too

Wendy W.

]

So really this boils down to a more basic philisophical debate when you strip all the diatribe away - Does might make right?

It does in the jungle. I guess we really aren't that far removed from the jungle after all.

*goes to find a vine to swing on*

Scars remind us that the past is real