Jay Leno Asks Why - OT
- Thread starter Wesley
- Start date
I would have been surprised to see another attack like 9/11 on US soil before now because after 9/11 the intelligence community was properly funded again. I thought the media was blowing the "emminent attack" thing way out of proportion and was fueled by the ridiculous "orange alert" crap the government kept in the news after 9/11.
I agree that it's important to fight our battles outside of US soil, the problem with the war in Iraq in my opinion isn't that we're fighting there, it's that there are plenty of enemies outside of Iraq that are safe to do whatever they want to in Iran while we are mired down there.
Also, there have been several terror attacks outside of the US so it's not like the terror groups haven't been at work. While we American dogs are primarily the enemy, undoubtedly western Europe isn't exactly BFF with the Taliban.
America is a great place to live and it was built by brave men and women like knownothing who have fought to preserve it. But the original thing written by "Jay Leno" made all of these claims based on Bush's approval rating and if people felt the country was going in the right direction. America would be a great place to live whether Bush had a 0% approval rating or a 100% approval rating. It's a ridiculous argument.
Bush's administration has done some good things and some bad things. I just think that it could have been better, and I expect better from the President of the United States.
1. Afganistan yes. It's too bad we quit focusing on that and shifted our focus to Iraq. The war in Iraq did not have to happen. The country had no proven connections to Al-Queda. The critiques of the war are being vindicated every day as more information comes out about how Bush (really Cheney, he and Rove control Bush IMO) rushed us into an unnecessary war in Iraq. There is of course also the argument about how horribly the administration mismanaged the war.
2. Agreed. The country tends to do the best fiscally when the White House and Congress are controlled by different parties that can't agree on what to spend money on.
3. I think we would be far better off with Iran and North Korea if we had a president who understood foreign relations. What did we expect those countries to do when the president of the most powerful country in the world declares them part of the "axis of evil" and then invades the third axis of evil country, and who also advocates a policy of regime change? They both see the bomb as necessary to ensure that they stay in power. No one would be stupid enough to invade a nuclear power. There is also no effective deterent to them developing it since our military is already overstretched.
I loved Reagan...one of the greatest of all time...his stature will continue to grow as his presidency is more thoroughly understood in retrospect and within the context of what has followed him (and will follow him). Reagan was a true conservative!
I do think Bush will be favorably viewed down the road (primarily for the war on terror) but not in the same league with Reagan. Frankly, Bush has just not been conservative enough in my opinion.
The war in Iraq has been mismanaged, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't part of the overall strategy in the war. Our overall goal, in my opinion, is to eliminate Iran as a threat to our security. If you look at a map, Iran is conveniently sandwiched between Afganistan and Iraq. If you think that doesn't put a hell of a lot of political and military pressure on the Iranian government, you are mistaken.
Part of the reason that things are seemingly blowing up all over the place is because we are confronting the issues at hand. It's pretty easy, ala World War II, to sit around and hope the threats aren't real. Confronting Germany when they reoccupied the Ruhr would have been very unpopular at the time. It also would have saved millions of lives.
Oh, and incidently, it's not a war for oil. That is the propaganda. But oil does play a factor without a doubt.
Part of the reason that things are seemingly blowing up all over the place is because we are confronting the issues at hand. It's pretty easy, ala World War II, to sit around and hope the threats aren't real. Confronting Germany when they reoccupied the Ruhr would have been very unpopular at the time. It also would have saved millions of lives.
Oh, and incidently, it's not a war for oil. That is the propaganda. But oil does play a factor without a doubt.
Do you mean the Press? How they shifted there focus. Right now beleive it or not we have thousands of Marines and other branches over in afgan right now. The press may lead you to beleive otherwise.
I have to respond to this argument, because it is one of my pet peeves. I would contend that our war in Iraq has made us less safe, not more safe. I am not surprised at all that there has not been another incident on U.S. soil. As Bryce said, the intelligence was finally funded properly again. There have still been plenty of attacks outside U.S. soil. Don't forget all of the American lives that have been sacrificed fighting overseas as well. We've lost more Americans fighting in Iraq than we did in 9/11.
This argument is also based on the false assumption that there are somehow a fixed number of terrorist and all we have to do is just kill them all and then the problem will be solved. Our policies have given Al-Queda a recruiting tool, and there are more people that want to do harm to the U.S. now than there were before the wars. Had we spent half of the money we have spent fighting in Iraq on buying friends we would be far more secure than we are today at the cost of far fewer American lives.
there are plenty of other "bad men" we aren't removing (mostly in countries without oil). If you read Tennet's new book there wasn't even discussion about the intelligence that was being gathered...bush simply wanted war with iraq. Grudge I will buy...misintelligence I won't, we were going in no matter what intelligence we had.
By my math you are comparing 1 day to over 5 years. We will never eliminate terrorists. But we can eliminate states who support terrorists, and give them the ability to kill on a large scale.
There are not as many troops in either Iraq or Afganistan as were/are necessary to get the job done. Iraq has taken troops from Afganistan, and the Taliban have had more success than they should be because of it.
Then about every Senator and every Congressman (women) must have held that same grudge because nearly every single one of them (Hilary, Kerry, Reid, etc, etc) except most notably Obama was for the war in Iraq initially because they had the same intelligence as President Bush...that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But as politicians do...public opinion has swayed and so has their stance on the war.
If during a 5 year time period 3000 people die in one day from terrorism, or more than that die a few at a time which is better? I don't see a big difference.
They are seeking much more than 3000 at a time. I would like to hear what you propose as our course of action. Should we spend all this money on securing our borders? That would take trillions of dollars, and have less effect. Should we just ship money over there and hope that they start playing nice? What do you think we should be doing?
And we wonder why we can't get them to abandon their nuclear weapons program. Iran has the pieces in place to change on its own with time. It is one of the most democratic countries in the middle east and had a strong liberal sentiment among its youth. We have set that internal liberal movement back through our foreign policies. As Iraq demonstrates, it is very impossible to impose a western style government on a country. We can depose every "state sponsor of terror" we can find, but they are likely to be replaced by something even more radical. The changes in these countries have to come from within for the most part.
So when we get attacked on our own soil, what are we supposed to do? Nothing because we don't want the possibility of a soldier losing his life?
Go back to the Korean War or Veitnam...tell me how many lives were lost in a 5 year span? We are fighting a much more meticulous war that the US media portrays.
Now that we are in the quagmire in Iraq I think our options are a lot more limited. I personally like Senator Biden's plan about as well as anything.
Plan For Iraq
Otherwise though, I think it would be useful to spend much of that money on buying friends and intelligence. Information is our best weapon at this point. We also need to demonstrate as a country that we are likeable. Whether we like it or not, people will hate us because of our wealth. We have less than 10% of the world's population and over 50% of its wealth. We can afford to be a little generous. Just look at how well it works for Chavez in Venezuela. When you buy people things they like you.
For about the 5th time, our intelligence showed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and almost NO ONE disagreed! And I'm pretty safe in saying that there are just a few Al-Queda factions in Iraq...and they did attack us.
