Do some on here think that we should negotiate/compromise with terrorists?

Do some on here think that we should negotiate/compromise with terrorists?

It depends on the circumstances. Take the situation in Moscow when the Chechen terrorists took over the theater. 129 hostages killed, an unknown number were made invalids from the gas used by the terrorists. That's not a good result.

It depends on the circumstances. Take the situation in Moscow when the Chechen terrorists took over the theater. 129 hostages killed, an unknown number were made invalids from the gas used by the terrorists. That's not a good result.

 

I am unfamiliar with this. Do you have a link?

I am unfamiliar with this. Do you have a link?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_theater_hostage_crisis

It depends on the circumstances. Take the situation in Moscow when the Chechen terrorists took over the theater. 129 hostages killed, an unknown number were made invalids from the gas used by the terrorists. That's not a good result.

 

Not supporting the terrorist here but I believe the gas was induced by the russian security services. This was the same gas that was later attributed to the deaths of most of the hostages.

 

The rescue attempt seems to havebeen triggered by a couple of hostages trying to rush a terrorist or trying to run away and being shot at. The gun shots led those outside to conclude that hostages were being shot and that they had to go in soon.

 

For the record I think negotiations rarely work when dealing with terrorist. It is a lot tougher to get a terrorist to walk of a bad situation than it is the normal run of the mill bank robber here in America to give up.

That tide has changed in the last four months. Of course, I am getting my information from the commanding General at Paris Island, who is about to be the second in command in Iraq. Every dollar spent in Iraq or any other spot in the world to eliminate enemies of this state is not being flushed down the toilet. Our military recruitment has been up during the last two cycles, especially in the Marine Corps. Is there something better to spend our tax dollars on than national defense now that we have a visible threat to our security in the world, I don't think so. Who's shoulders will our next terrorist attack be on? People who are proactive in rooting out the problem, or people who are for trying to let the problem take care of itself. How does allowing an anti-American faction to gain control of one of the largest oil centers in the world benefit the U.S.?

 

 

You say that every dollar spent to eliminate enemies is not wasted, but surely you would agree there is some threshold of cost above which we are spending more than we are benefitting. We're spending $330 million per day in Iraq and Afganistan. If you assume 90% of that is due to our operations in Iraq, that means we are spending a little less than $300 million per day in Iraq. That is 9,000 million dollars or $9 billion in Iraq every month. On an annual basis, that's more than the profits of Wal-Mart, Exxon Mobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and General Electric combined! (these were five largest profitable companies in the 2007 Fortune 500). If we kill 100 hard core al Qaeda every month (and I doubt we're finding anywhere near that many folks who actually have the wherewithal and the brains to threaten the U.S. homeland every month), that equates to a cost of $90 million per head. And if we're truly rooting out and killing bona fide al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq, why would they be stupid enough to continue to fight in a losing effort on our terms? I'm sorry, but consider me extremely skeptical that this is a cost-effective and sustainable venture for the U.S. to be engaged in.

 

And regarding your last point about letting an anti-American faction gain control of a big chunk of the world's oil, I have two comments: 1) That would be Iraq war rationale #587 (numbers 1-586 having already been discredited) and 2) We are inflaming anti-American sentiments in this part of the world through what is perceived as unprovoked aggression. Unless we are prepared to physically seize the oil resources of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the other middle eastern oil producers, our continued presence in Iraq is not going to reduce this risk.

You say that every dollar spent to eliminate enemies is not wasted, but surely you would agree there is some threshold of cost above which we are spending more than we are benefitting. We're spending $330 million per day in Iraq and Afganistan. If you assume 90% of that is due to our operations in Iraq, that means we are spending a little less than $300 million per day in Iraq. That is 9,000 million dollars or $9 billion in Iraq every month. On an annual basis, that's more than the profits of Wal-Mart, Exxon Mobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and General Electric combined! (these were five largest profitable companies in the 2007 Fortune 500). If we kill 100 hard core al Qaeda every month (and I doubt we're finding anywhere near that many folks who actually have the wherewithal and the brains to threaten the U.S. homeland every month), that equates to a cost of $90 million per head. And if we're truly rooting out and killing bona fide al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq, why would they be stupid enough to continue to fight in a losing effort on our terms? I'm sorry, but consider me extremely skeptical that this is a cost-effective and sustainable venture for the U.S. to be engaged in.

 

And regarding your last point about letting an anti-American faction gain control of a big chunk of the world's oil, I have two comments: 1) That would be Iraq war rationale #587 (numbers 1-586 having already been discredited) and 2) We are inflaming anti-American sentiments in this part of the world through what is perceived as unprovoked aggression. Unless we are prepared to physically seize the oil resources of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the other middle eastern oil producers, our continued presence in Iraq is not going to reduce this risk.

 

I posted in another thread in this forum, the comment from Hillary Clinton that Saddam was a threat. She made it at the debate last night.

 

Here it is:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/...te.transcript/

 

Some people now think that this was a very clear open and shut case. We bombed them for days in 1998 because Saddam Hussein threw out inspectors. We had evidence that they had a lot of bad stuff for a very long time which we discovered after the first Gulf War.

 

Knowing that he was a megalomaniac, knowing he would not want to compete for attention with Osama bin Laden, there were legitimate concerns about what he might do. So, I think I made a reasoned judgment. Unfortunately, the person who actually got to execute the policy did not.

 

I am assuming that since it was after the FIRST Gulf War, the WE in the bolded statement is during her husband's term in office.

I posted in another thread in this forum, the comment from Hillary Clinton that Saddam was a threat. She made it at the debate last night.

 

Here it is:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/...te.transcript/

 

Some people now think that this was a very clear open and shut case. We bombed them for days in 1998 because Saddam Hussein threw out inspectors. We had evidence that they had a lot of bad stuff for a very long time which we discovered after the first Gulf War.

 

Knowing that he was a megalomaniac, knowing he would not want to compete for attention with Osama bin Laden, there were legitimate concerns about what he might do. So, I think I made a reasoned judgment. Unfortunately, the person who actually got to execute the policy did not.

 

I am assuming that since it was after the FIRST Gulf War, the WE in the bolded statement is during her husband's term in office.

 

 

We also know that evidence which contradicted the worst case scenarios was not given much weight in the hasty decision to go in with guns blazing.

We also know that evidence which contradicted the worst case scenarios was not given much weight in the hasty decision to go in with guns blazing.

 

Hasty? He had been thumbing his nose for how long at the UN sanctions. 10 years? How long does a person get to disregard the demands placed on him by the world till he has to pay for it?

 

The thing is that Hillary said last night that for a fact he had some "a lot of bad stuff." Where it went, I guess he destroyed it has he said he did AFTER the fact.

 

But also remember in his interrogation, he made the claim that he was purposely doing things WANTING everyone to believe that he had the stuff. He wanted to prevent an Iran invasion. He never anticipated that USA would come in and take care of him.

 

Hillary says we know that he had it.

Saddam says he wanted and did things to make everyone believe that he had it.

And somehow GW is the one to blame for believing what was KNOWN according to Hillary and what Saddam he wanted them to believe.

 

After the initial war, could it have been handled better. Seems like it could. But to say he was wrong for going in, I don't think that is the case.

Once again. Saddam let inspectors back in right before the war but the Pres and Co. didn't want them to actually do their jobs so we rushed in before the inspectors could do anything. Saddam was contained and had no military to speak of.

 

On Iraq spending: We spend way too much and most of it doesn't get to our troops. Of the billions that go to "Iraq" the vast majority goes to Lockheed for new fighters that the Air Force doesn't even want, to contractors in and out of Iraq and to other parties that make profit off of the war. We spend too much money on a military that isn't designed to fight this kind of war. What sense does it make to spend a billion dollars building a new fighter jet when we're fighting insurgents on the ground? Keep in mind our Air Force is second to none. Why are we building new carriers when we are fighting terrorists in caves? We have the largest navy ever assembled.

 

We are not going to fight a war with another legit nation unless we start it. Russia, China, and yes N. Korea and Iran know that if they start something then they're going to be wiped off the map. We need to downsize needless parts of our military and focus on anti-insurgent warfare while maintaining a good standard warfare force. It can and should be done.

Bottom line ... the Clinton administration might have suspected that Saddam had WMDs, but they didn't go to war over it, choosing to contain him with sanctions that even the Bush administration maintained was working until they decided to start beating the war dreams.

 

If the Commander in Chief chooses to start a war, I feel he has an obligation to do so for the right reasons. Afghanistan was legit ... Iraq wasn't, best I can tell.

Bottom line ... the Clinton administration might have suspected that Saddam had WMDs, but they didn't go to war over it, choosing to contain him with sanctions that even the Bush administration maintained was working until they decided to start beating the war dreams.

 

If the Commander in Chief chooses to start a war, I feel he has an obligation to do so for the right reasons. Afghanistan was legit ... Iraq wasn't, best I can tell.

The Clinton administration was convinced that Saddam had WMDs and did virtually nothing about it. Sanctions were widely violated and they were not containing Saddam. The reason that Bush could not get stronger support for tough action against Iraq was, at least in part, that politicians and businesses in Russia, France, and Germany were helping Saddam line his pockets with billions of dollars through the UN's oil for food program.

 

During his interrogation, Hussein admitted that his government worked to convince the world that Iraq had WMDs as a deterrent to Iran. He also admitted that he expected Bush to react to the threat with a few days of bombing as Bill Clinton had done before.

 

I prefer a president who will err on the side of protecting American interests when convincing evidence exists. Clinton believed that Iraq had WMDs and was not complying with UN resolutions and he did virtually nothing in response. That is not my idea of strong leadership.

The Clinton administration was convinced that Saddam had WMDs and did virtually nothing about it. Sanctions were widely violated and they were not containing Saddam. The reason that Bush could not get stronger support for tough action against Iraq was, at least in part, that politicians and businesses in Russia, France, and Germany were helping Saddam line his pockets with billions of dollars through the UN's oil for food program.

 

During his interrogation, Hussein admitted that his government worked to convince the world that Iraq had WMDs as a deterrent to Iran. He also admitted that he expected Bush to react to the threat with a few days of bombing as Bill Clinton had done before.

 

I prefer a president who will err on the side of protecting American interests when convincing evidence exists. Clinton believed that Iraq had WMDs and was not complying with UN resolutions and he did virtually nothing in response. That is not my idea of strong leadership.

 

I may be wrong and you guys can correct me, but Iraq did not attack us AND Saddam did not even like Bin Laden. So being in Iraq really has nothing to do with fighting the terrorists. It has now become a place to fight them b/c they seized the opportunity to bog us down. But there was a connection to Bin Laden and attacks on the American soil - so . . .

 

even if you give Bush credit for stopping any more attacks on American soil that has nothing to do with being in Iraq - they are not the ones that attacked so move away from that point to make your argument stronger, or admit that Bush has really had nothing to do with preventing more attacks on American soil.

 

If people really feared us, why have the insurgents not simply put their weapons down and gone home?

I may be wrong and you guys can correct me, but Iraq did not attack us AND Saddam did not even like Bin Laden. So being in Iraq really has nothing to do with fighting the terrorists. It has now become a place to fight them b/c they seized the opportunity to bog us down. But there was a connection to Bin Laden and attacks on the American soil - so . . .

 

even if you give Bush credit for stopping any more attacks on American soil that has nothing to do with being in Iraq - they are not the ones that attacked so move away from that point to make your argument stronger, or admit that Bush has really had nothing to do with preventing more attacks on American soil.

 

If people really feared us, why have the insurgents not simply put their weapons down and gone home?

Being bogged down is a two way street. If our troops (as opposed to unarmed civilians) have been bogged down fighting al Qaeda in Iraq, they said terrorists have also been bogged down there. In fact, our troops and their Iraqi allies have decimated al Qaeda in Iraq. As for lying down their arms and going home, that appears to be exactly what many terrorists have done in Iraq.

 

Do people really believe that al Qaeda and the other terrorists organizations active in Iraq have unlimited resources so that carrying the fight to them on foreign soil has no impact on their ability to plan and execute attacks elsewhere?

 

I hear the argument all the time that our military is spread too thin because of the Iraq War to the point that it would be difficult to respond to threats elsewhere. Yet, those same people seem to believe that their is an unlimited supply of resources available to Bin Laden.

Apparently, we know Iran has WMD...however, we've not attacked them! The crux of this is that W wanted to "flex his muscle", and Iraq was seen as a much more "winable" option than Iran. Of course we all remember that "shock and awe" was going to be the solution. It actually turned out to be a huge miscalculation, and apparently Americans were "shocked" that it didn't turn out as promised, and the only "awe" is the "awwww shucks, it didn't work" attitude of many who still can't admit the decision was flawed.