Unfortunately, there will always be the possibility of another 9/11. The way to prevent that is heightened security at home, which can lead to a big brother type state in the name of "preventing terrorism." But if we try to eliminate terrorist groups, we will simply create more. Terrorist networks are very decentralized, which is how they manage to survive no matter what action we take against them (see the Taliban and al-Qaeda for examples). They operate in cells, without knowing where other cells are and what they're doing. You could knock out one cell in a city, but there could be two, three, or more cells still remaining that no one knows about.

For example, say a terrorist group has one leader and five lieutenants. We find and kill the leader and two of the lieutenants. The remaining three lieutenants will claim the group for their own, which will either result in the group reforming and remaining a danger or in three (or more) splinter groups, all of which will start gaining new members.

Terrorism is like a hydra. It's not as easy as cutting off the head and being done with it. There will always be new people ready and willing to take up the cause, no matter who their "leader" is.

I'd love to see an end to the war, but just pulling out of there all at once won't work. I'm not saying Bush hasn't handled this as well as he might have, but he did prevent New York from becoming a, as Clpo so nicely put it "radioactive crader." If we don't take care of the remaining terrorist groups is Iraq, the groups will grow stronger, and still hate the US, and we'd basicly have another 9/11 on our hands.

quote:

you idiots bashing Bush show nothing but ignorance

Ignorance? My dear boy, I bet I have more knowledge regarding the situation in Iraq and the Middle East in one toe than you do in your whole body...which is exactly why I bash Bush. He screwed up, therefore he deserves a slap on the hand. Or the face. It really doesn't matter to me.

quote:

what do you say we do about thes psyco's in iraq who want to kill us? what do you think will happen when Iran gets nukes?

For the first question, I say let them try. We'll deal with them once they actually make good on their threats. As for the second, I think nothing will happen. MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) means Iran won't do squat. If they did, we'd be on them like white on rice. An Islamic theocracy is no good when it's a giant radioactive crater, now is it?

quote:

you people who say get out of Iraq makes me sick

You people who blindly support every decision your president makes without considering the consequences of his actions make me just as sick. We've been in Iraq going on four years now. What has this achieved? Is Iraq any better off now than it was in 2003? Is the Middle East any more stable now than it was before 9/11? Are there less terrorists now? Are we winning the "war" on terrorism?

Please, tell me what has come out of Iraq other than 3000+ American body bags. Tell me what Iraq has come to other than civil war and anarchy. Give me a good reason to support staying in this generation's Vietnam. And then we'll see who's ignorant.

Hahaha

you idiots bashing Bush show nothing but ignorance, what do you say we do about thes psyco's in iraq who want to kill us? what do you think will happen when Iran gets nukes? after saying constantly they want to blow isreal off the map and chants death to America every day after their mourning prayer, you people who say get out of Iraq makes me sick

quote:

if they did not want democracy, wouldn't they have voted for a government that would have destroyed the democracy?

True. But voting for a democratic government doesn't always guarantee democracy. The Iraqi people may have wished to have a democracy with all the freedom such would entail, but it doesn't exactly look like that's what they've got. And that's the fault of all the Iraqis and insurgents who are working to destroy the democracy in Iraq.

quote:

Almost every country has a higher voter turnout than the United States. That's not a reflection on Iraq's desire for democracy; it's a reflection on how apathetic Americans are.

if they did not want democracy, wouldn't they have voted for a government that would have destroyed the democracy? that was a ballet choice on there.

quote:

That was actually sarcasm. I don't hate the country, but it is true I have no love for the party in control. Of course, every party has its flaws (which is why I'm not registered with any political party) so it's not as if I hate Republicans for no reason other than to hate them. They screwed up and are continuing to do so. Well, technically everyone screwed up and Bush keeps doing it, so I suppose it's best to say I dislike the government itself, Democrats and Republicans alike.

ah, ok. although I think the real problem is when political parties put their interests ahead of the country which is what I think is happening.

quote:

then why is there a higher voter turn-out percentage than in the states?

Almost every country has a higher voter turnout than the United States. That's not a reflection on Iraq's desire for democracy; it's a reflection on how apathetic Americans are.

quote:

do you hate the country or the party that is in control right now?

That was actually sarcasm. I don't hate the country, but it is true I have no love for the party in control. Of course, every party has its flaws (which is why I'm not registered with any political party) so it's not as if I hate Republicans for no reason other than to hate them. They screwed up and are continuing to do so. Well, technically everyone screwed up and Bush keeps doing it, so I suppose it's best to say I dislike the government itself, Democrats and Republicans alike.

quote:

This so called war is in effort not to defeat the enemy and take their land and declare rule over them. It is a war to export democracy to people who don't seem to want it. I don't believe Islam will allow democracy.
If we are truly fighting a war, we are doing it the silly way.

then why is there a higher voter turn-out percentage than in the states?

quote:

Indeed, I hate this country with a passion, which is why I criticize it in order to make it better

do you hate the country or the party that is in control right now? are you critizing Bush or the United States as a whole? you make the Republicans sound like a group of dicatators, and that in my humble opinion is skewing facts.

quote:

This is a democratic republic, is it not? Or did that change when I wasn't paying attention?

Don't worry, you're not the only one who missed it.
RaceDriver, check out the Peace and the Growing military Budget thread, It's developed into a similar discussion, and there's some interesting info which I find pointless to repost in another thread.

quote:

which good old clpo13 prefers to do the opposite

Indeed, I hate this country with a passion, which is why I criticize it in order to make it better. [/sarcasm]

It seems that every time a new conservative shows up, I have to tell them that I don't hate the country, but rather that I hate its leaders, who are incredibly out of sync with the opinions of the citizens of the United States. This is a democratic republic, is it not? Or did that change when I wasn't paying attention?

quote:

Why does that matter? What have you accomplished by killing 400 insurgents? Death counts mean absolutely nothing, especially when your enemy recruits from the very people you're fighting to protect.

I agree with you for arguing in favour for your country phantom (which good old clpo13 prefers to do the opposite), but he's right.
This so called war is in effort not to defeat the enemy and take their land and declare rule over them. It is a war to export democracy to people who don't seem to want it. I don't believe Islam will allow democracy.
If we are truly fighting a war, we are doing it the silly way. The proper way is nation vs nation. Winner takes all. I think its a farce how so many soldiers have been charged during this war. It took brutal dictatorship in Iraq to keep them peacefull, and nothing less is going to stop them fighting. They are not us, they are Iraqis.
All's fair in love and war.

quote:

you've accomplished a lot if it is reported. It gives me hope that all is not lost and that we can still fight and win.

False hope. For every insurgent killed, more pop up. This is a war of attrition that we will lose eventually because it is simply impossible to wipe out the enemy with force. It's just a matter of how bad we lose. Either we can pull out nice and quiet, or we can wait until a mass offensive that forces us out. But we will lose. We will lose because there is no way to win.

Yes, it's pessimistic, but it's also true. In order to beat the insurgents, you need to eliminate the conditions that produce them, i.e. radical Islamism, poverty, etc. But this is impossible now because we've already shaken up the hornet's nest. There is no way they'll listen to us now. The only thing to do is fight, which only produces more insurgents. I liken Iraq to a hydra. Cut off one head and three more appear.

quote:

Did you know that a particular Iraqi police station, after Saddam's execution, had 500 applicant compared to the 30 it had the month before?

And I bet 300 of them will take their training and disappear into the desert to join the insurgents. It's happened before, it's happening now, and I've no doubt it will continue to happen.

quote:

No, actually, it doesn't. In Vietnam, people targeted the military. Today, people are targeting the government.

slightly true, the people back then still targeted the president when the going got tough.

quote:

Why does that matter? What have you accomplished by killing 400 insurgents? Death counts mean absolutely nothing, especially when your enemy recruits from the very people you're fighting to protect.

you've accomplished a lot if it is reported. It gives me hope that all is not lost and that we can still fight and win. even though enemies are recruited from within, we are also recruiting from within. Did you know that a particular Iraqi police station, after Saddam's execution, had 500 applicant compared to the 30 it had the month before? That makes me feel optimistic.

quote:

partly because he ruled through fear.

Exactly. It may not have been great from a human rights standpoint, but it worked. The same thing occurred in Soviet Russia. Once the old ways were thrown out and people were given more control (as opposed to the state having total control), the country fell apart and has yet to recover. In its heyday, the USSR was incredibly powerful. But when Gorbachev began to introduce limited democratic and free market reforms, things went downhill fast. Iraq is the same way. I have no love for totalitarian regimes, but I prefer them to anarchy.

Interestingly enough, Russians interviewed following more reforms by Boris Yeltsin in 1992 said that they would rather have the economic security of total governmental control to freedom and democracy.

quote:

sounds much like today yes?

No, actually, it doesn't. In Vietnam, people targeted the military. Today, people are targeting the government. We've learned who the blame really belongs to, although the military has made quite a few mistakes people have glazed over (mostly due to the harsh and unfair treatment the military received during 'Nam).

quote:

we killed 400 insurgents, wounded and captured others, and lost ONLY 3 men?

Why does that matter? What have you accomplished by killing 400 insurgents? Death counts mean absolutely nothing, especially when your enemy recruits from the very people you're fighting to protect.

quote:

Yeah, that sounds fair phantom119.
I also reckon they need to incorporate alchohol into their religon, and chill out a bit.

ha ha, well; maybe they'd be drunkards like every other religion....even my own, which I happily criticize.

quote:

Why was there no budding civil war between Shiites and Sunnis under Saddam?

partly because he ruled through fear. The kurds were just the most hated, so he shelled them and gassed them, etc. But the Shiites muslims were also disliked, which is why if anyone disagreed with him, he'd put them and their families in a bus and bury them alive...or use acid, whichever was cheaper and most fitting for their "crime." so, just like Soviet Russia, you'd have the secret police; honsetly, I wouldn't fight if I knew a secret policeman could take me and kill me and my family without a second thought.

quote:

He employed whoever did the best job, regardless of religion

and they were puppets to keep the Shiites in check.

quote:

What happens when you run out of bandages? We will not last forever, and the insurgents know that. We're going to fail in Iraq no matter what. Better to have it be on our terms than risk another Vietnam.

It becomes another Vietnam when the people on the home-front stop supporting out troops. In Vietnam, we had people and politicians calling our soldiers "murderers" and "baby killers" and that they were fighting an "illegal war" and that they were war criminals, etc, etc. If you ask the Vietnameze generals, they knew they could not win military...so they depended on our divided opinions to lose and force us to pull out. sounds much like today yes?

Romans, Friends, Citizens, hear me now (I've been reading Julius Caesar...humor me ); Our defeats receive headlines, while our victories are laid hidden in the shadows. Is anyone aware that in one day (i'll get the date and statistics if requested...or at least try to), we killed 400 insurgents, wounded and captured others, and lost ONLY 3 men? Those are amazing battle statistics. But what do you hear on the radio and see on TV? "We lost 3 men today...10 civilians were killed." demoralizing? Yes! how do you think our troops feel when they hear those biased reports? I believe that a fair media report would say, "Today's death toll is, 3 American soldiers killed and 400 insurgents dead as well as 10 civilians that were unfortunately caught in the crossfire." does that sound fair? I think it does.

quote:

ironic how Iraq was invading Kuwait...and how they paid suicide bomber families.

Ironic...how that was more than 10 years ago.

Seriously, Iraq and Iran were polar opposites. Iran was an Islamic theocracy. Iraq was a secular dictatorship. Why was there no budding civil war between Shiites and Sunnis under Saddam? Because he kept them both at equal levels. He employed whoever did the best job, regardless of religion. Again, Iraq was a secular government that kept Iran in check. Now Iraq is in pieces, and Iran is free to do whatever it wants.

quote:

In my opinion....bringing in more troops will be helpful, as well as the planned army increase. Just like a wound, you must keep on the pressure.

What happens when you run out of bandages? We will not last forever, and the insurgents know that. We're going to fail in Iraq no matter what. Better to have it be on our terms than risk another Vietnam.

Yeah, that sounds fair phantom119.
I also reckon they need to incorporate alchohol into their religon, and chill out a bit.

quote:

Ironic, considering Iraq was doing a good job keeping the balance of power perfectly fine when Saddam was in power...

ironic how Iraq was invading Kuwait...and how they paid suicide bomber families.

quote:

I think an interesting "solution" to consider would be a 3-way partition. A system would have to be set up to divide the oil revenue equally but otherwise we could create 3-soverign and independent countries.

the sad thing is....it would probably work better.

In my opinion....bringing in more troops will be helpful, as well as the planned army increase. Just like a wound, you must keep on the pressure. More troops, will let us stay in places that American troops have already cleared out before. Thus, enabling the enemy to have less and less places to hide.

or if worse comes to worse, we could just blockade Baghdad and let them blow themselves to smithereens...(sarcasm)

quote:

Originally posted by elphabelle21:
I am SO SICK of all this Iraq stuff! We need to get our troops out of there! 20,000 more people who are at the risk of dying because our president doesn't care about the impact he's making on SO MANY LIVES. What more will he do to destroy the U.S. in the next year?

Come find me when you can string together more than one intelligible sentence... until then I recommend not using the internet.