Torture Won't Stop Terror

[Heracles 417]

Think you can muster that?

No I am no that smart.. Maybe you as well as 'Steve n Jinky' can pass on some intelligence my way..

As such, the choice would be to fight and kill people over there (to the tune of tens of thousands, by the way) or not to fight and kill at all. Me, I'd pick the latter. But the bloodthirsty and greedy (yes, they make tons of cash on this one, too) bastards at 1600 Penn Ave apparently feel differently.

Your starting to sound like the extremists. "Its all the US governments fault. Imperialists!! Capitalists!! bla bla bla".

I guess like minded people have made their similar views clear. That is, the US should sit down and do nothing while they are attacked and when they are attacked again, blame GW. If he takes action we blame him, if he takes a chapter out of your book and does nothing you still blame him..

What is your solution? What would your 'ideal' government do to tackle this major issue??

Edited September 10, 2006 by Infidel

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I guess like minded people have made their similar views clear. That is, the US should sit down and do nothing while they are attacked and when they are attacked again, blame GW. If he takes action we blame him, if he takes a chapter out of your book and does nothing you still blame him..

What is your solution? What would your 'ideal' government do to tackle this major issue??

At what point, exactly, has Iraq attacked the US or has been developing a credible and implementable plot to attack the US? Once you tell me when, where and how Iraq has been a threat to the US and it's citizens I will gladly reconsider my opposition to the illegal act of aggression that Bush and Co. got this country into needlessly.

Which brings me to the answer of the second question. What would my ideal gov't do to tackle this issue? It would tackle this issue (of terrorism) instead of wasting lives, time and resources fanning the fire we ought to extingiush if we truly wanted to reduce the threat of terrorism to the US. The illegal aggression against Iraq does absolutely nothing to make the US safer from terrorism. It does the exact opposite.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

I guess like minded people have made their similar views clear. That is, the US should sit down and do nothing while they are attacked and when they are attacked again, blame GW. If he takes action we blame him, if he takes a chapter out of your book and does nothing you still blame him..

What is your solution? What would your 'ideal' government do to tackle this major issue??

At what point, exactly, has Iraq attacked the US or has been developing a credible and implementable plot to attack the US? Once you tell me when, where and how Iraq has been a threat to the US and it's citizens I will gladly reconsider my opposition to the illegal act of aggression that Bush and Co. got this country into needlessly.

Which brings me to the answer of the second question. What would my ideal gov't do to tackle this issue? It would tackle this issue (of terrorism) instead of wasting lives, time and resources fanning the fire we ought to extingiush if we truly wanted to reduce the threat of terrorism to the US. The illegal aggression against Iraq does absolutely nothing to make the US safer from terrorism. It does the exact opposite.

uss stark comes to mind

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I guess like minded people have made their similar views clear. That is, the US should sit down and do nothing while they are attacked and when they are attacked again, blame GW. If he takes action we blame him, if he takes a chapter out of your book and does nothing you still blame him..

What is your solution? What would your 'ideal' government do to tackle this major issue??

At what point, exactly, has Iraq attacked the US or has been developing a credible and implementable plot to attack the US? Once you tell me when, where and how Iraq has been a threat to the US and it's citizens I will gladly reconsider my opposition to the illegal act of aggression that Bush and Co. got this country into needlessly.

Which brings me to the answer of the second question. What would my ideal gov't do to tackle this issue? It would tackle this issue (of terrorism) instead of wasting lives, time and resources fanning the fire we ought to extingiush if we truly wanted to reduce the threat of terrorism to the US. The illegal aggression against Iraq does absolutely nothing to make the US safer from terrorism. It does the exact opposite.

uss stark comes to mind

You're kidding, right? Can you come up with something relevant to the discussion?

Stark was deployed to the Middle East Force in 1984 and 1987. The ship was struck on May 17, 1987, by two Exocet antiship missiles fired from an Iraqi Mirage F1 fighter during the Iran-Iraq War.

Because the U.S. and Iraq were not at war at the time, the attack was likely not authorized.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

You're kidding, right? Can you come up with something relevant to the discussion?

oh well, it was an attack by iraq. sorry it don't fit your "criteria"

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You're kidding, right? Can you come up with something relevant to the discussion?

oh well, it was an attack by iraq. sorry it don't fit your "criteria"

So, that 1987 incident is the justification for invading Iraq? That incident actually demonstrates the threat that Iraq posed to the US? Is that what you're saying?

[Heracles 417]

At what point, exactly, has Iraq attacked the US or has been developing a credible and implementable plot to attack the US? Once you tell me when, where and how Iraq has been a threat to the US and it's citizens I will gladly reconsider my opposition to the illegal act of aggression that Bush and Co. got this country into needlessly.

I'll give you the news flash. Obviously you don't get that the war is much bigger than some shity WMD or Saddam. They are called "Islamic Extremists" who want to kill Americans.. (I.E E.G Terror Plot )

Which brings me to the answer of the second question. What would my ideal gov't do to tackle this issue? It would tackle this issue (of terrorism) instead of wasting lives, time and resources fanning the fire we ought to extingiush if we truly wanted to reduce the threat of terrorism to the US. The illegal aggression against Iraq does absolutely nothing to make the US safer from terrorism. It does the exact opposite.

No offense but that is wizard of oz talk. These scum bags do not want to negotiate, period! They did say the will stop if and only when the entire US converts to Islam..

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Your starting to sound like the extremists. "Its all the US governments fault. Imperialists!! Capitalists!! bla bla bla".

I guess like minded people have made their similar views clear. That is, the US should sit down and do nothing while they are attacked and when they are attacked again, blame GW. If he takes action we blame him, if he takes a chapter out of your book and does nothing you still blame him..

What is your solution? What would your 'ideal' government do to tackle this major issue??

Even diregarding the idea that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and no alliances with islamic extremist groups - how does knocking out Iraq do anything about extremists conducting acts of terrorism in the US?

The ports are wide open, people still can smuggle explosives and prohibited items on planes (because the TSA can't screen and search every bag), anyone who's travelled a busy mass transit rail system knows that what happened in London on 7/7 is near impossible to prevent.

I'll give you the news flash. Obviously you don't get that the war is much bigger than some shity WMD or Saddam. They are called "Islamic Extremists" who want to kill Americans.. (I.E E.G Terror Plot )

Saddam wasn't allied with Islamic extremists - that is one of the major reasons why the US allied itself with Iraq in the 70's and 80's. We already (previously) tried to 'influence' the Iranians with diastrous results.

No offense but that is wizard of oz talk. These scum bags do not want to negotiate, period! They did say the will stop if and only when the entire US converts to Islam..

Which will never happen - which begs the question: When has a democratic government been overthrown by acts of terrorism?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

At what point, exactly, has Iraq attacked the US or has been developing a credible and implementable plot to attack the US? Once you tell me when, where and how Iraq has been a threat to the US and it's citizens I will gladly reconsider my opposition to the illegal act of aggression that Bush and Co. got this country into needlessly.

I'll give you the news flash. Obviously you don't get that the war is much bigger than some shity WMD or Saddam. They are called "Islamic Extremists" who want to kill Americans.. (I.E E.G Terror Plot )

So, smoke and mirrors is all you got? Neither of the two items you throw back out there have anything to do with the illegal act of aggression that the US committed against Iraq on March 19, 2003. Not a thing.

Which brings me to the answer of the second question. What would my ideal gov't do to tackle this issue? It would tackle this issue (of terrorism) instead of wasting lives, time and resources fanning the fire we ought to extingiush if we truly wanted to reduce the threat of terrorism to the US. The illegal aggression against Iraq does absolutely nothing to make the US safer from terrorism. It does the exact opposite.

No offense but that is wizard of oz talk. These scum bags do not want to negotiate, period! They did say the will stop if and only when the entire US converts to Islam...

When did Saddam make that request? You're obviously quite confused... Edited September 10, 2006 by ET-US2004

[Heracles 417]

The ports are wide open, people still can smuggle explosives and prohibited items on planes (because the TSA can't screen and search every bag), anyone who's travelled a busy mass transit rail system knows that what happened in London on 7/7 is near impossible to prevent.

Of course. Thanks to groups like the ACLU and liberals in general authorities have no means of catching these criminals proactively without a lawsuit. I am sure a liberal group will state how the authorities have somehow breach an amendment therefore the suspects should be let go..

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The ports are wide open, people still can smuggle explosives and prohibited items on planes (because the TSA can't screen and search every bag), anyone who's travelled a busy mass transit rail system knows that what happened in London on 7/7 is near impossible to prevent.

Of course. Thanks to groups like the ACLU and liberals in general authorities have no means of catching these criminals proactively without a lawsuit. I am sure a liberal group will state how the authorities have somehow breach an amendment therefore the suspects should be let go...

The ACLU? Are you for real? The ACLU is preventing the screning of cargo at our ports and the screening of every item shipped via plane? You really are confused.

[Heracles 417]

how does knocking out Iraq do anything about extremists conducting acts of terrorism in the US?

It sets the foundations and the seeds for a stable democracy.

I am not surprised that so many liberals are against this war. American Liberals want freedom of speech etc but obviously only for themselves and not others.

PS By not agreeing with the removal of Saddam you are accepting the atrocities he committed against others, especially his suppresion of liberalism..

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

You're kidding, right? Can you come up with something relevant to the discussion?

oh well, it was an attack by iraq. sorry it don't fit your "criteria"

So, that 1987 incident is the justification for invading Iraq? That incident actually demonstrates the threat that Iraq posed to the US? Is that what you're saying?

you asked: has Iraq attacked the US

sorry if you don't like the answer

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The ports are wide open, people still can smuggle explosives and prohibited items on planes (because the TSA can't screen and search every bag), anyone who's travelled a busy mass transit rail system knows that what happened in London on 7/7 is near impossible to prevent.

Of course. Thanks to groups like the ACLU and liberals in general authorities have no means of catching these criminals proactively without a lawsuit. I am sure a liberal group will state how the authorities have somehow breach an amendment therefore the suspects should be let go..

Has nothing to do with the ACLU - its simply physically impossible to search every cargo container and every piece of passenger luggage on trains and planes without shutting down shipping and mass transit.

[Heracles 417]

The ACLU? Are you for real? The ACLU is preventing the screning of cargo at our ports and the screening of every item shipped via plane? You really are confused.

NO but they back measures that prevent authorities from doing their job to secure America. IE EG US telephone records.

For your information, such interceptions for national security are considered the norm in most 1st world nations.