You are not logged in.
Didn't we cave at Fallajuh and Najaf? How can anyone say the US has been tough on terror?
The bad guys who mutiliated those American contractors in Fallajuh, did we ever bring them to justice?
Sadr's people kidnap the father of the mayor Najaf and drag him through the streets of Basra. They kidnap and murder the mayor's brother-in-law. Why? Because the mayor is pro-American. Sistani shows up, we make a deal and invite Sadr to enter the political arena.
Who will be pro-American tomorrow if Sadr can kill the families of collaborators with impunity?
What about that arrest warrant for Sadr?
Why exactly was the town of Najaf reduced to rubble only to allow the chief target walk away scot free?
Tough on terror? Don't talk tough if you can't walk the walk.
Give someone a sufficient [b][i]why[/i][/b] and they can endure just about any [b][i]how[/i][/b]
Offline
Like button can go here
Well, Bush has been saying that we have to be more sensitive in the "War on Terror"... while Cheney bashes Kerry for saying the same thing.
Anyway, I think that this administration has done lots of bungling on the war on terrorism by leaking names of active mole in Al Queda, being unable to count in their annual terrorism report, refusing to provide evidence to help convict terrorists, etc.
As for results, in terms of American civilians killed by international terrorism Bush has had the three worst years since 1990.
Bush seems unsure if the "War on Terror" can be won... he doesn't seem to be the sort of leader that inspires confidence.
Offline
Like button can go here
We're pulling too many punches, backing off too often and too late. Letting too many enemies slip away.
But this isn't so much a GW Bush problem as an American problem. We're not only tread overly lightly out of concern for what every leftist euro-peon and third world dictator with a UN seat will think of us, but because we no longer have the stomach for what needs to be done. We need to be hard but fair to kill our enemies while winning at least grudging acceptance from the civilian population. We're too hung up on the perception of fair and squeamish about hard.
We need to very quickly decide, as a nation, if we're going to bite the bullet and do what needs to be done or just hole up on our own continent, close the borders and let the world burn.
Or as some seem to suggest, just learn to live with terrorism. They can't destroy us after all, just a few thousand people at a time. No biggie. :hm:
To them, here's your chains, sit down and shut up. Everyone else, what's it gonna be?
Morning rant concluded. :angry:
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Offline
Like button can go here
We're pulling too many punches, backing off too often and too late. Letting too many enemies slip away.
But this isn't so much a GW Bush problem as an American problem. We're not only tread overly lightly out of concern for what every leftist euro-peon and third world dictator with a UN seat will think of us, but because we no longer have the stomach for what needs to be done. We need to be hard but fair to kill our enemies while winning at least grudging acceptance from the civilian population. We're too hung up on the perception of fair and squeamish about hard.
I agree and disagree.
Unless we unite to fight this war as you propose, to talk tough but then act weak is the worst of all possible strategies.
Give someone a sufficient [b][i]why[/i][/b] and they can endure just about any [b][i]how[/i][/b]
Offline
Like button can go here