Why Are Americans Backing Off With The War on Terror? (1 Viewer)

[St. Widge]

Germany and Japan had been throughly exhausted into "unconditional surrender", mentally as well as formally.

The civil war in Iraq is at a low enough intensity level that it can exist almost indefinantly. I think that's the significant difference.

Yeah, that and the motivation behind it. The insurgents in Iraq really do believe the are fighting a holy war. No such motivation existed in Japan or in Germany, especially once the Japanese Emperor declared that he was not divine.

 

[LSSpam]

Yeah, that and the motivation behind it. The insurgents in Iraq really do believe the are fighting a holy war. No such motivation existed in Japan or in Germany, especially once the Japanese Emperor declared that he was not divine.

Ideology can be as strong as Religion at times. I'm sure the SS and kamikaze pilots would agree. But yes, I understand your point.

 

[blackadder]

Wise words on the subject from Norman Lamont, Tory cabinet member prior to the Blair government.

America and Britain should quit Iraq as soon as possible
By Norman Lamont

Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 10/11/2006

The American voters have punished George W. Bush. Quite rightly, there should be a penalty for taking your country into a failed war. But even before the mid-term elections, there were signs of American preparation for withdrawal from Iraq, and, with the departure of Donald Rumsfeld from the Pentagon, we can be sure there will be more now. The Iraq Study Group, on ice before the elections, apparently considers different exit strategies. Whatever America decides, no doubt Britain will slavishly follow. But will America remember to tell Tony Blair when it leaves?

The Iraq war has been Britain's biggest foreign policy humiliation since the 1930s. For the Iraqi people, it has also been a disaster. Iraq has held elections, but no longer has an effective government. If there is one thing as bad as life under a tyrannical dictatorship, it is the anarchy of a failed state. They are merely different rooms in the same hell.

advertisementThe argument that the war was right, but that the post-war execution badly handled is just a sorry excuse from those with an unlimited capacity for self-delusion. Even if the number of American soldiers had been twice as large, the results would probably have been much the same.

Once the initial welcome for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein had passed, any prolonged occupation by alien troops was always going to be an increasing cause of resentment.

The real danger in the Middle East is that the situation in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iran could converge into an even bigger crisis. The problem is the inability of America to see anything from anyone else's point of view, whether it be Palestine or Iran.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...xml&sSheet=/opinion/2006/11/10/ixopinion.html

 

[TPS]

>>To be honest...I'm not in the place to make any assumptions. After what I've seen Al Qaeda do since 9/11, chopping off people's heads, suicide bombings, threats, true bombings in many countries...jeez, the list goes on. No, I'm not into any "considerations." I'm only into flat out truths that I know about these people and I do take them at their word.

They talk the talk. One beheaded journalist or one demoralized soldier gives them limited credibility. But for every one of us, we get 50 or more of them. We've easily killed 50 times more Al Quedans, their allies and Taliban than they have us (including the WTC). It's not even close. They've been blasted to smitherines. But they keep coming like roaches and always will. Wherever there is poverty, lack of progress in a culture and brainwashed hatred, there will be those willing to fight the cause. These guys are smart, and dangerous. But they really can't win unless we allow them to take away our rights and freedoms. **** them is what I say.

:rock:

TPS

 

[blackadder]

>>To be honest...I'm not in the place to make any assumptions. After what I've seen Al Qaeda do since 9/11, chopping off people's heads, suicide bombings, threats, true bombings in many countries...jeez, the list goes on. No, I'm not into any "considerations." I'm only into flat out truths that I know about these people and I do take them at their word.

They talk the talk. One beheaded journalist or one demoralized soldier gives them limited credibility. But for every one of us, we get 50 or more of them. We've easily killed 50 times more Al Quedans, their allies and Taliban than they have us (including the WTC). It's not even close. They've been blasted to smitherines. But they keep coming like roaches and always will. Wherever there is poverty, lack of progress in a culture and brainwashed hatred, there will be those willing to fight the cause. These guys are smart, and dangerous. But they really can't win unless we allow them to take away our rights and freedoms. **** them is what I say.

:rock:

TPS

But they are coming on rafts, like the boat people. They are stocked with provisions for the transatlantic voyage. They are going to land in Biloxi.

They're going to round every one up and force them to go to a mosque. And we are all going to drop evertything and submit to Allah.

Better run by the sporting goods store and pick up some knee pads before they are sold out...there's a lot of kneeling in your future since we are going to be overwhelmed by this relentless Islamic wave.

 

[alon504]

But they are coming on rafts, like the boat people. They are stocked with provisions for the transatlantic voyage. They are going to land in Biloxi.

They're going to round every one up and force them to go to a mosque. And we are all going to drop evertything and submit to Allah.

Better run by the sporting goods store and pick up some knee pads before they are sold out...there's a lot of kneeling in your future since we are going to be overwhelmed by this relentless Islamic wave.

Gotta respect your lack of respect for this War and the attacks that occurred by these people on our country. I don't lose sleep over the War, but, I take it somewhat more seriously than you seem to.....just me. For some reason, I have a hard time not being angry whenever I re-visit 9/11. I have several individuals that were killed on 9/11 where I visit their personal tributes and lend prayers to their family and friends several times a year. It keeps me in tough in a non-morbid way. But, it's a big world and we all are what we are...we come in all types, shapes, and forms....hopefully, it will be a long, long time before our country is attacked again and we have the cynical come out of the woodwork simply shocked. I'd rather live with the cynical than have it occur again...

 

[gumbeau]

But they are coming on rafts, like the boat people. They are stocked with provisions for the transatlantic voyage. They are going to land in Biloxi.

They're going to round every one up and force them to go to a mosque. And we are all going to drop evertything and submit to Allah.

Better run by the sporting goods store and pick up some knee pads before they are sold out...there's a lot of kneeling in your future since we are going to be overwhelmed by this relentless Islamic wave.

There are European countries that WILL be majority Islamic in my lifetime. There is nothing that can be done about that. It is fait accompli.

Short term outlooks on the world vs islam arrive at the conclusion that everything we do now is unnecessary. 9/11 was an isolated incident by a now weak band of crazies.

The long term view sees the 1 billion muslims and their very real intent to build a Sharia planet by multiplying themselves. The terrorists are just the ones who are impatient.

In 100 - 150 years there is going to be a tremendous conflict between Islam and the Chinese.

Fortunately, all of our mistakes right now won't be recorded in history because no one will bother to remember how we lost.

 

[blackadder]

Gotta respect your lack of respect for this War and the attacks that occurred by these people on our country. I don't lose sleep over the War, but, I take it somewhat more seriously than you seem to.....just me. For some reason, I have a hard time not being angry whenever I re-visit 9/11. I have several individuals that were killed on 9/11 where I visit their personal tributes and lend prayers to their family and friends several times a year. It keeps me in tough in a non-morbid way. But, it's a big world and we all are what we are...we come in all types, shapes, and forms....hopefully, it will be a long, long time before our country is attacked again and we have the cynical come out of the woodwork simply shocked. I'd rather live with the cynical than have it occur again...

I take it very seriously otherwise I would not spend the time posting on this board. It's one of the few ways I feel I can interact wit my fellow citizens and try to inject an opinion. I know it has more impact than writing my Congressman...

I take it very seriously because I believe that going into Iraq was a serious blunder that played into Al Queda's hands and that in the long run it doesn't contribute to "victory." I believe it digs a deeper hole for us on many levels.

And I don't respect the people that made this clear blunder. The ones that piggy-backed their Iraq agenda on top of 9-11. The pundits and bureaucrats and chickenhawks. The guys that cherry-picked the intelligence and had to "cook the books" to sell this adventure.

The same ones who are stirring this up into World War IV by floating this ridiculous notion that a bunch of robe and sandal-wearing terrorists are going to show up on our doorstep an forcibly convert us to Islam.

40% of Americans bother to vote. The percentage who regularly read newspaper is probably significantly lower. So, when you float that kind of BS, too many people believe it.

Al Queda is capable of attacking us and causing random death and destruction. They are not capable of imposing a caliphate on us. It is absurd.

I don't respect that kind of propaganda.

I respect the men and women quietly doing what is asked of them regardless of wisdom of those asking them to do it. I do respect the job being done in Afghanistan, and the special ops I presume (hope) are hunting Bin Laden. I immensely respect our career military people who behind the scenes have no doubt played a significant role in pushing the change of direction at the Pentagon.

 

[blackadder]

There are European countries that WILL be majority Islamic in my lifetime. There is nothing that can be done about that. It is fait accompli.

Short term outlooks on the world vs islam arrive at the conclusion that everything we do now is unnecessary. 9/11 was an isolated incident by a now weak band of crazies.

The long term view sees the 1 billion muslims and their very real intent to build a Sharia planet by multiplying themselves. The terrorists are just the ones who are impatient.

In 100 - 150 years there is going to be a tremendous conflict between Islam and the Chinese.

Fortunately, all of our mistakes right now won't be recorded in history because no one will bother to remember how we lost.

It's like beating your head against a wall...

Who has said that "everything that we do now is unessessary??"

We needed to go into Afghanistan. We need to get that right.

We need to hunt and kill Al Queda, and not just putative jihadis coming to Iraq. The leadership hiding in Pakistan too. We need to do that but I'm not sure it's a priority since the President stated a while back that he didn't think Bin Laden was relevant any more.

We need border security because they will likely try cross from Mexico sooner or later and 150,000 troops in Iraq does not prevent that.

But we didn't need to be in Iraq.

We also need to address the other festering issues in the region that every "friendly"government is begging us to address, yet we continue to ignore.

Really, I don't get all the defeatism here. Fait accompli??? We, the Europeans, at some point we are just gonna roll over and say "point me to the mosque??"

 

[St. Widge]

Fortunately, all of our mistakes right now won't be recorded in history because no one will bother to remember how we lost.

Don't sell people short. I'm sure someone will remember that we started a dumb war in Iraq instead of going after the AQ leadership and flow of cash.

But, I'm more optimistic than you. There is time to change our strategy and make us safer. In addition, although terrorism may be effective in creating fear and slowly killing people to the extent that it makes it foolish to stay in a place where you are a target, it is not effective in toppling governments or changing ways of life in other countries. That is unless you let that fear make you loose site of the freedoms and liberties that made your country great in the first place.

 

[java]

This has been discussed and debated for over hundred times here (and over elsewhere). Most people failed to know how to pull out the root of terrorism and therefore failed to understand Bush admin's decision on Iraq war. Even some of them understand it, they're not the generation like the genrations of their parents and grandparents. Ok, let me make it in short. The root of terrorism is deeply in its soil. The only way to change it is to change the soil. It's unlikely and unrelastic for us to change the soil of middle east, but iraq is really a good taget to start. A secular, democratic and progressive Iraq's impact on Middle east will be huge. The vision and goal of this strategy are not wrong. What we failed are its implementation and operation. Iraq war absolutely is war on terror. But I know the strategy and vision of the war are hard to sell to most americans.

 

[Dave]

Leahy aims at restoring habeas corpus

WASHINGTON, Nov. 11 (UPI) -- A battle is shaping up between Democrats and the White House over the Military Commissions Act, signed into law last month by President George W. Bush.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., is expected to take over as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and The (Calif.) Daily Journal reports that Leahy is drafting a bill to undo portions of the new law in an effort to restore habeas corpus rights for enemy combatants.

A spokeswoman for Leahy told the newspaper the bill would be intended to repeal portions of the law that prevent some detainees from pursuing federal court challenges to the government's authority to hold them indefinitely.
Spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler told the newspaper the goal is to "try and do something to reverse the damage."

Scott L. Silliman, Director of the Center for Law, Ethics and National Security at Duke University School of Law, told the newspaper an attempt to amend the law could set up a partisan showdown in Congress, and possibly a presidential veto.
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20061111-111429-7560r

 

[Random Fan]

Even if Iraq turns into another Saudi Arabia ten years down the road, it won't make a significant difference. More likely than not there are Al Qaeda operatives hiding in every middle eastern country right now. There are limitless places on this earth where terrorist cells can hide.

You will never pull out the 'root' of terrorism or entirely change the 'soil.' These people will always hate America. Always. I understand the plan of the Bush administration: they want to partake in nation building and engage on a social engineering feat so vast and expansive that it is utterly impractical in it's design. It's like pulling up weeds or picking at a sore. Every military action they engage in converts more and more people over to the terrorist cause -- the whole Iraqi war is like a big recruitment advertisement for Al Qaeda.

The whole approach is so ham fisted it reminds me of when Lenny from "Of Mice and Men" sought to silence the rancher's wife by grabbing her neck, shaking her profusely, and screaming at her to calm down.

The irony is, prior to the invasion, it's doubtful that Iraq was any more large a breeding ground for terrorism than many of it's 'progressive' neighbors like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, etc. Now the number of terrorists and new recruits to their cause has exponentially expanded.

 

[Random Fan]

Leahy aims at restoring habeas corpus

WASHINGTON, Nov. 11 (UPI) -- A battle is shaping up between Democrats and the White House over the Military Commissions Act, signed into law last month by President George W. Bush.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., is expected to take over as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and The (Calif.) Daily Journal reports that Leahy is drafting a bill to undo portions of the new law in an effort to restore habeas corpus rights for enemy combatants.

A spokeswoman for Leahy told the newspaper the bill would be intended to repeal portions of the law that prevent some detainees from pursuing federal court challenges to the government's authority to hold them indefinitely.
Spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler told the newspaper the goal is to "try and do something to reverse the damage."

Scott L. Silliman, Director of the Center for Law, Ethics and National Security at Duke University School of Law, told the newspaper an attempt to amend the law could set up a partisan showdown in Congress, and possibly a presidential veto.
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20061111-111429-7560r

It should be noted that even if they get the right of habeas corpus back, it's not as if it's an automatic get out of jail free card. Habeas procedure has had numerous and restrictive hurdles affixed to it over the last decade or so.

 

[Dave]

It should be noted that even if they get the right of habeas corpus back, it's not as if it's an automatic get out of jail free card. Habeas procedure has had numerous and restrictive hurdles affixed to it over the last decade or so.

Any legal experts correct me if I am wrong, but enemy combatants have never automatically had habeas protections. The last few Supreme Court decisions addressed if enemy combatants can apply for habeas protections, not that they should automatically have them.

In Hamdi O'Connor wrote that while an alleged enemy combatant "must receive notice of the factual basis for his classification, and a fair opportunity to rebut the Government's factual assertions before a neutral decisionmaker," the degree of due process would be commensurate with "the nature of the case." Because of the ongoing war on terrorism, "the exigencies of the circumstances may demand that, aside from these core elements, enemy combatant proceedings may be tailored to alleviate their uncommon potential to burden the Executive at a time of ongoing military conflict." O'Connor said hearsay might be admissible, for example, when direct evidence was not readily available.

And since the government might find it burdensome, or at least inconvenient, to present a powerful factual case justifying a detention, the Court's flexible due process standard "would not be offended by a presumption in favor of the Government's evidence, so long as that presumption remained a rebuttable one and fair opportunity for rebuttal [by the detainee] were provided." This is a remarkable concession to the government. In a normal criminal proceeding, a defendant enjoys a "presumption of innocence" that can be overcome only by evidence proving guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." In a civil proceeding, the side that produces a "preponderance of the evidence," showing that its story is more likely than not to be true, wins. But in an enemy combatant hearing as outlined by O'Connor, the government enjoys a blanket presumption in its favor.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/36440.html

The Military Commissions Act and the Writ of Habeas Corpus

1. The Constitution establishes the right of American citizens to petition the courts for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, i.e. the right of American citizens to have the courts determine if they have been unlawfully imprisoned.
2. Congress has the power to extend Habeus Corpus rights to a wider population than American citizens by statute, which it has done at various times in its history.
3. In the 1950 case Johnson v. Eisentrager, the Supreme Court ruled that statutory extensions to Habeas Corpus “did not extend habeas relief to alien military personnel held overseas."
4. In the 2004 case Rasul v. Bush, the Supreme Court ignored its own Eisentrager precedent and ruled that statutory extensions of the Writ of Habeas Corpus did extend habeas relief to foreign combatants being held at Guantanamo Bay.
5. Part of Congress’ purpose in passing the Military Commissions Act was to restore the scope of Habeas Corpus to what had been established by the Supreme Court in Eisentrager.

In the end, the Military Commissions Act was a response to the Supreme Court's inconsistent interpretation of a Congressional statute, not an improper attempt to alter a fundamental Constitutional right.
http://www.anchorrising.com/barnacles/003423.html