[quote]AlexPSU wrote:
We need to be strong in this war on terror, but taking away my liberties is a win for terrorists if you ask me.
[/quote]
I always find it funny how liberals like to talk tough about the war on terror, but aren’t willing to sacrifice anything for it.
Alex, would you mind entertaining us on how we should be strong against terror, and what that entails?
Better yet, tells us what you are willing to sacrifice to win the war against terror.
[quote]AlexPSU wrote:
We need to be strong in this war on terror, but taking away my liberties is a win for terrorists if you ask me.
[/quote]
I always find it funny how liberals like to talk tough about the war on terror, but aren’t willing to sacrifice anything for it.
Alex, would you mind entertaining us on how we should be strong against terror, and what that entails?
Better yet, tells us what you are willing to sacrifice to win the war against terror.
[quote]scrumscab wrote:
I always find it funny how liberals like to talk tough about the war on terror, but aren’t willing to sacrifice anything for it.
Alex, would you mind entertaining us on how we should be strong against terror, and what that entails?
Better yet, tells us what you are willing to sacrifice to win the war against terror.[/quote]
We can’t win the “War On Terror”.
The “War On Terror” is much like the “War On Drugs”. It’s mostly propaganda and marketing used to coerce people into doing what you want. And it’s designed specifically so that you can’t easily oppose any part of it, or you’ll be labeled as evil for it. “You oppose the war on terror? You’re un-American! You’re unpatriotic! You want people to die!” or “Think of the children, marijuana is killing them! And adults shouldn’t allowed to make their own choices about what they want, they should be limited to Official Government Approved ™ drugs like alcohol and tobacco!”
The fact is, there is no “War On Terror”. You can’t make war against a concept, not like that. Not if you expect to win (What defines “winning” in this “war”? I’d LOVE to see that answered sometime.). If Bush had declared a “War on Known Terrorists” and then outlined a list of specific targets that he wanted neutralized, then I’d be a thousand times more impressed with him (especially if he actually made progress on achieving those goals).
But this “War On Terror”? Bah. What a load of BS. And what annoys me even more is that it overshadows so many other important things. Now, don’t get me wrong, national security is important, and the 3000 people who died in that attack is a tragic thing. But so are the hundreds of thousands who die each year in the US due to preventable issues. Ah, but it’s easier to point the blame for all of life’s evils on “those horrible terrorists”, rather than look toward home, and try to solve some of our own damn problems.
Do I think terrorists are evil, and deserve to die? Yes. Do I think we should work proactively to stop terrorists? Yes.
Do I honestly believe that invading a series of Middle Eastern countries will do much towards protecting me from terrorists? Not a bit. Terrorism will happen regardless of how many Middle Eastern governments we overthrow.
And as for most of the stuff that they’re doing in the “war on terror” here at home. . . I can’t tell you how much ‘safer’ I feel knowing that fingernail clippers aren’t allowed on planes. I also feel a lot safer when I read how the FBI is using powers granted in the PATRIOT act for preventing terrorist attacks in dozens, if not hundreds, of cases that are entirely unrelated to terrorism. (“Well, yeah, we did promise to only use these expanded powers to fight terrorism. . . but then we realized that we might as well use them to invade the privacy of US Citizens too. It makes our job a lot easier. . . and if they’re not guilty, they won’t mind! Right?!?”)
And I can’t tell you how safe it makes me feel when a buddy of mine, who’s an electrical engineer, has the FBI visit his house because some of his purchases were “suspicious” (he was buying standard electronic components for working on projects at home. . . we’re talking Radioshack type stuff).
Tell me again what all these sacrifices are getting me?
“Those who would give up essential freedoms in order to obtain temporary security, deserve neither freedom nor security.” – Ben Franklin
Regarding what topher wrote:
You’re right. It doesn’t matter that there are groups dedicated to bringing down the U.S. and killing U.S. citizens. We should drop this and just declare a war on car accidents.
Sugar,
I appreciate your post. I’m glad you are interested in discerning the differences between the candidates. I summarily reject the idiots who say “they are all the same.” There are enormous contrasts between George W. Bush and John Kerry.
Here are some reasons why I am enthusiastically going to vote for George W. Bush.
Honesty: He tells you exactly what he believes. What is even more rare, he then does it. In the post 9/11 world, our allies and enemies need to know EXACTLY where we stand.
Perseverance: No amount of New York Times/michaelmoore/lumpy carping will deter G.W. from doing the right thing. We have to have a President willing to defy the partisan press. If we listened to the above mentioned people, Saddam would still be supplying and training Al Qaeda terrorists in Northern Iraq.
Honor: George W. has conducted himself honorably and done credit to the office. No more personal scandals. He demands respect for the office and has earned it. No more “cigars and dress stains.”
Personal Responsibility: Through the use of bully-pulpit of the Presidency, George has said quite clearly, “The Government is not going to subsidize bad behavior. If you can work, work. Stop blaming others. Get an education. The Government will help if are trully in need.”
Compassion: Not the “only for the camera type.” If you search the right sources you will find testimony from soldiers and families who lost loved ones in 9/11 illustrating this man’s deep compassion. Most importantly, these particular events happened with the cameras off.
Sugar, I can probably go on for quite a while. I encourage you to watch him on C-Span. Better, go meet the man. Get an unfiltered look at him. Listen to him. I know you will be surprised and probably a little angered at what many of the media sources are not showing. I am confident that you will like what you see.
If you want more specifics on a particular policy or idea, please ask. This forum is fortunate enough to have many well informed people.
JeffR
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Regarding what topher wrote:
You’re right. It doesn’t matter that there are groups dedicated to bringing down the U.S. and killing U.S. citizens. We should drop this and just declare a war on car accidents.[/quote]
Wow. This might be the closest we’ve ever come to seeing BB speechless!
Nice post topher.
AlexPSU: [qoute]We need to be strong in this war on terror.{/qoute]
Ed Koch says the same thing. But, he’s supporting Bush not Kerry. And he’s as liberal as demeorcates can get. He feels that most democrates can’t stomach fighting the war on terror.
[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Regarding what topher wrote:
You’re right. It doesn’t matter that there are groups dedicated to bringing down the U.S. and killing U.S. citizens. We should drop this and just declare a war on car accidents.
Wow. This might be the closest we’ve ever come to seeing BB speechless!
Nice post topher.[/quote]
Yeah, you keep curling in the squat rack RSU, and back at ya.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Regarding what topher wrote:
You’re right. It doesn’t matter that there are groups dedicated to bringing down the U.S. and killing U.S. citizens. We should drop this and just declare a war on car accidents.[/quote]
Ah, interesting tactic. First you pretend to agree with me, but then you go on to put words in my mouth in an effort to make my argument sound silly.
It’s also called a ‘straw man’ argument, and considered to be a logical fallacy. In other words, you can’t prove my argument to be false by misrepresting my argument and attacking that misrepresentation. It just doesn’t work that way.
Now, to reply directly to your ‘arugment’. . .
You claim I said:
However, what I actually said was:
Do I think terrorists are evil, and deserve to die? Yes. Do I think we should work proactively to stop terrorists? Yes.
You may notice here that did NOT say that a terrorist threat “doesn’t matter”. What I rather clearly did say is that I feel our current way of dealing with this terrorist threat is severely lacking.
You also claim I said:
However, what I actually said was:
Here, you’ll probably notice that I never actually mentioned car accidents in my entire posting. I even went back and reread it. . . and it’s true, there is no mention of car accidents there.
You can claim that I’m supporting some silly idea that you came up with, but that doesn’t mean I’m actually supporting it. If you’d like some issues that I think should be getting more attention than they are, especially when so much recent news coverage is about the “War on Terror”, how about the fact that over 20,000 people are murdered every year in the US? As I recall, that’s somewhere around six to seven times the number of people who died in the terrorist attacks. How about the fact that it’s estimated nearly half the US doesn’t have health insurance?
Speaking of health, and considering this is T-Mag, lets talk about the 700,000+ people who die every year from heart disease. We lose more American lives every year to our own unhealthy fat asses than we’ll ever lose to terrorists.
Or, now that you mention it, we could perhaps spend a little more time working to improve motor vehicle safety. Especially considering that over 40,000 people died in car accidents last year alone. You may think that makes for a funny joke, but I think it’s pretty damn sad.
Not all of this can be fixed 100%, and not all of it can be fixed solely by the government, but I’d feel a whole lot better about my future, and the future of my country, if the government were a little more concerned with solving our own problems, instead of pushing this “War On Terror” (which really is just a political tool being used like the “War On Drugs” was for the past few decades (and don’t even get me started on how “successful” that’s been)).
I don’t understand why people are chastised for not being able to find jobs. Some people assume that the unemployed are naturally lazy and inferior workers.
The unemployment rate depends on macroeconomic factors, way beyond the control of just one woker.
Being employed doesn’t necessarily mean you’re a good worker. It either means, a) you know someone at the company you started working for, 2) you are good at selling yourself (has nothing to do with what you produce), or 3) you have something to offer the company.
If a company knows that cash flows are gonna be tight in a couple of years, it’s gonna stop hiring workers and possibly laying off workers, regardless of whether they are good or not.
I am very concerned about how many Americans have jobs that can keep up with the times (gas prices, real estate, etc.). If an American is not making it, there’s a big chance that he will probably need my assistance one way or another, e.g. welfare, health care, jail, police officers.
To blame an individual worker for his inability to find work is myopic, and just not a good way to look at things.
Topher,
OPEN YOUR EYES!
Your notion that there is no war on terror and that it’s bullshit is ridiculuos and narrow-minded. This war on terror is as real as it gets. Try telling Isreal that there’s no war on terror.
Just because this war is not drawn up with perfect lines in black and white does not negate the fact that we are waging war against terrorism. The dynamics of war continually evolve, and since our enemies can’t fight us head on, they have to use subversive tactics to expose our weakness.
BTW, a war of concepts, as you define it, can be won because all wars are a war of concepts - one’s ideals, beliefs, religion or culture opposed to another. If a war of concepts can’t be won, then how did the Allies win WWII?
I would define victory on the war against terror when the muslim world no longer has the will to wage this war and realizes the futility in trying to destroy the western world.
You can spare me your arguement that this will never happen because you believe terrorists/muslim extremists will never submit. The Japanese during WWII were just as die-hard and fanatical as these terrorist, but yet they reached a point where they submitted. HISTORY WILL ALWAYS REPEAT ITSELF, AND THIS WAR IS NO EXCEPTION.
It’s a scary thought when people like you start believing that the realities of this war is nothing more than smoke and mirrors.
Scrumscab,
Nice post. Let me clue you in on some essential facts.
If topher had lost a relative on September 11th, he would be singing a very different tune. Period. Unfortunately, some people have to be clubbed in the side of the head before they accept certain truths. I find it sad.
You, me, and most of the people on this board know we have to fight this war to win. We are being tested. Our way of government and our very lives are on the line. Remember how little ricin/VX it takes to decimate entire regions.
We are winning the War on Terror. Pakistan’s major offensive against Al Qaeda is an example. Another is the recent Saudi crackdown on Al Qaeda. Another victory is Qadaffi relinquishing thousands of TONS of WMD is another. Finally, we’ve killed or captured most of the leadership of Al-Qaeda and Saddam’s regime.
Let me expand on your point about the Muslim nations. If, as is the case in Pakistan/Saudi Arabia, the leadership begins to see that harboring/supporting terrorism is untenable from a political/economic/personal standpoint, then we and the rest of the world wins.
It’s happening. I say let’s give W. another four years to press our advantage.
I say Kerry can keep his “sensitive nuanced war.” It WILL NOT WORK.
JeffR
[quote]topher wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Regarding what topher wrote:
You’re right. It doesn’t matter that there are groups dedicated to bringing down the U.S. and killing U.S. citizens. We should drop this and just declare a war on car accidents.
Ah, interesting tactic. First you pretend to agree with me, but then you go on to put words in my mouth in an effort to make my argument sound silly.
It’s also called a ‘straw man’ argument, and considered to be a logical fallacy. In other words, you can’t prove my argument to be false by misrepresting my argument and attacking that misrepresentation. It just doesn’t work that way.
Now, to reply directly to your ‘arugment’. . .
You claim I said:
It doesn’t matter that there are groups dedicated to bringing down the U.S. and killing U.S. citizens.
However, what I actually said was:
Do I think terrorists are evil, and deserve to die? Yes. Do I think we should work proactively to stop terrorists? Yes.
You may notice here that did NOT say that a terrorist threat “doesn’t matter”. What I rather clearly did say is that I feel our current way of dealing with this terrorist threat is severely lacking.
You also claim I said:
We should drop this and just declare a war on car accidents.
However, what I actually said was:
Here, you’ll probably notice that I never actually mentioned car accidents in my entire posting. I even went back and reread it. . . and it’s true, there is no mention of car accidents there.
You can claim that I’m supporting some silly idea that you came up with, but that doesn’t mean I’m actually supporting it. If you’d like some issues that I think should be getting more attention than they are, especially when so much recent news coverage is about the “War on Terror”, how about the fact that over 20,000 people are murdered every year in the US? As I recall, that’s somewhere around six to seven times the number of people who died in the terrorist attacks. How about the fact that it’s estimated nearly half the US doesn’t have health insurance?
Speaking of health, and considering this is T-Mag, lets talk about the 700,000+ people who die every year from heart disease. We lose more American lives every year to our own unhealthy fat asses than we’ll ever lose to terrorists.
Or, now that you mention it, we could perhaps spend a little more time working to improve motor vehicle safety. Especially considering that over 40,000 people died in car accidents last year alone. You may think that makes for a funny joke, but I think it’s pretty damn sad.
Not all of this can be fixed 100%, and not all of it can be fixed solely by the government, but I’d feel a whole lot better about my future, and the future of my country, if the government were a little more concerned with solving our own problems, instead of pushing this “War On Terror” (which really is just a political tool being used like the “War On Drugs” was for the past few decades (and don’t even get me started on how “successful” that’s been)).[/quote]
All very interesting. It would have been a straw man if I were actually making an argument instead of just poking fun at you.
Of course, that would also require you to have made an argument, which you really didn’t.
You said:
"Do I think terrorists are evil, and deserve to die? Yes. Do I think we should work proactively to stop terrorists? Yes.
Do I honestly believe that invading a series of Middle Eastern countries will do much towards protecting me from terrorists? Not a bit. Terrorism will happen regardless of how many Middle Eastern governments we overthrow."
Yet, you didn’t offer any ideas as to how to solve that terrorism problem that you cared so much about as to say “Yes.”
In other words, though you claim to care a lot about terrorism and national security, when it comes down to it you seem to be interested in criticizing what is being done, not offering any solutions, and bemoaning money you would rather see applied to domestic social spending and bureaucracy creation (hello health care…).
Now, did you say “car accidents”? Nope. You just went on about “preventable things,” so I figured I would talk about the single greatest, preventable killer of young people in the USA and that would suit your point. And then, after criticizing, you go on to say that, actually, yes, that did suit your point. Interesting tactic - I don’t know which logical fallacy that is, but I believe it’s “self contradiction.”
At any rate, instead of nitpicking for fun and entertainment, I suppose we could talk about your main point, which is that you don’t like the idea of a “War on Terrorism” because it doesn’t seem to have defined goals. However, I would like to differ with you a little. The administration isn’t really concerned with terrorism as such – it’s more terrorism of the anti-American variety that is the chief concern. They’ve identified key groups in the middle east who are targets, and they’ve identified regimes who are succoring the terrorist organizations to pressure (or for more serious tactics if such tactics prove warranted).
As such, I don’t think it’s such a conceptual thing - not like the “War on Drugs,” which was basically stepped-up law enforcement procedures. It’s war against a targeted set of anti-U.S. terrorist groups and against the regimes who sponsor terrorists. That seems imminently more contained, and imminently more winnable, than what you outlined.
If you really think Bush’s security plan is simplistic, I encourage you to read these two articles: