General discussion


World War III - Yes, President Bush is right

By maxwell edison ·

There are too many Neville Chamberlains in the world, and we are stuck in 1936. When will the rest of the world WAKE UP and see this for what it really is?

UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER should be the ONLY acceptable outcome. (And I don't mean the kind of surrender the French and the Democrats are suggesting.)

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

263 total posts (Page 1 of 27)   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

There's one small problem, Max

by jardinier In reply to World War III - Yes, Pres ...

You have to find them first. I assume you are referring to Muslim terrorists and not the whole Muslim population of the world.

One good thing that 9/11 bred is highly increased security measures to locate terrorists before they can perform their dastardly deeds.

A major terrorist plot was nipped in the bud in Australia not so long ago, and I am assuming that the primary reason there have been no follow-up attacks in America is attributable to the same factors -- highly increased surveillance and intelligence.

Increasingly some people are talking about a major winner-take-all jihad with Muslims in general. This would never be feasible as the largest groupings of Muslims are basically peaceable. The four largest groups of Muslims are in Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and Indonesia.

Of the top ten Muslim populations in the world, only one is in the Middle east -- Iran.

I don't know if I have addressed your question in the manner you were seeking, but will be more than happy to approach it from other angles if you could be more specific.

Collapse -

Yes, I know

by maxwell edison In reply to There's one small problem ...

I really do agree with all you said, and it illustrates the difficulty of it all. It certainly does, at least to me, seem like a damned if you do and damned if you don't scenario. But I think we're at least on the right path, if for no other reason, it's a path that's different than any failed approach of the past.

I read an interesting article (editorial) in one of yesterday's newspapers. I'll try to find it on-line, and link to it; I think you'd like it. It gave me a somewhat different perspective, but not a different conclusion, and led me to draw an analogy, both of which I'll explain later. So stay tuned....

Collapse -

I take issue with that use of the word "intelligence"

by Absolutely In reply to There's one small problem ...

"Surveillance" or "espionage" are more accurate. Intelligence is an attribute of the manner in which information is used, not just the purpose for which it is gathered. From a current reporter, I could understand the vested career interest in using the vocabulary of the Pentagon. But from a former/retired journalist, who by all indications knows better, I feel you deserve a stern reprimand!

Collapse -

"Seven Days in May" anyone?

by deepsand In reply to I take issue with that us ...

No amount of intelligence in the "intelligence community" can suffice to overcome the absence of such in the office of the Commander-in-Chief.

Collapse -

The text is amusing.

by Absolutely In reply to "Seven Days in May" anyon ...

The context is not.

Collapse -

Context not amusing?

by deepsand In reply to The text is amusing.

Even considering that the post was made on May 7th?

Collapse -

I meant the office of the clown without intelligence, not the date.

by Absolutely In reply to Context not amusing?

I don't know what's (supposed to be) funny about May 7th.

Collapse -

Not funny, just an amusingly appropriate coincidence.

by deepsand In reply to I meant the office of the ...

I'm assuming that you've read the book, "Seven Days in May."

Collapse -

Oh Really?

by km8295 In reply to I take issue with that us ...

I know this is the popular line, but I really want to encourage thinking and rational digging of the facts. If you think the President is not intelligent in his approach to the war on terrorism, then you made the allegation and you prove it. I hear a lot of rhetoric, but little hard-core data and proof. Yes, plenty of mistakes were made and many by a garbage CIA, State Dept. Clintonites, and others the President can only slowly root out. He blew it on the weapons of mass destruction thing, but still shook up the terrorist world badly, deflected attacks from this country, and put the terrorists on the defensive in their own back yard. These are not people to be reasoned with -- they are extremists (look at any extremist, and you'll know what I mean.)
So, prove your point, and we can fact-check each item. Forget mindless allegations.

Collapse -

Which ones??

by dawgit In reply to Oh Really?

"they are extremists (look at any extremist, and you'll know what I mean.)
So, prove your point, and we can fact-check each item. Forget mindless allegations"
Ok, but which side are you talking about here?

Back to Community Forum
263 total posts (Page 1 of 27)   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums