Cheney's grim vision: decades of war

Im not justifying what the UN did by creating Israel, but its there and you cannot get rid of it, the best solution is to have two states.

Ok, so we sit around at home, we let the terrorists control the Middle East, by fear. They threaten the rest of the world in time because we let them grow in power. I do think the military should be expanded, there should be soldiers staying at home, yes, but whos going to stop the enemy? Cannot rely on Spec Ops and other Black Ops to win. Cannot bomb the enemy to death. The solution is to find and stop them. What else would we do? Isolationism made us weak for World War One and left us unprepared somewhat for World War Two. Also, how did 9/11 happen, we didnt act in the WTC bombing, we should of awaken the sleeping giant then.

Would you, personally, leave these countries, who control all aspect of their populous in control? Theres police states over there. Dont we all want to bring down even the thought of the police state? I dont care if they werent pro-US governments, they would be better than whats there.

[Edited on 16-1-2004 by Taxman]

the govt certainly let 9/11 happen...there were step the govt could have taken as the attack was unfolding, but didn't. 9/11 wasn't a car bomb..it was a VERY elabrorate attack that took months and months to plan and took what...90 mintues to do..before all planes had crashed........what kind of country would see the attack unfolding and say 'hey, here is an opportunity to really get the lambs behind us, so we will let this attack unfold unhinderd'

Originally posted by clearmind
the govt certainly let 9/11 happen...there were step the govt could have taken as the attack was unfolding, but didn't. 9/11 wasn't a car bomb..it was a VERY elabrorate attack that took months and months to plan and took what...90 mintues to do..before all planes had crashed........what kind of country would see the attack unfolding and say 'hey, here is an opportunity to really get the lambs behind us, so we will let this attack unfold unhinderd'

I got a nickel that says we have another "terrorist attack" about 2 months before the november pres elections.

So clearminded, would you be pro-offencive or defencive policy on the defence of the US?

Im suprised we havent had another terror attack already, the US isnt well defended on its borders.

Ssshhhhhhhhhh... keep it down...

well tax.. i am not of a clearmind on that subject..coming from a military, law-enforcment background...if the situation demands a 'pre-emtive strike'.. of course but that said..we are not in a war that i think demands that type of action..at least not yet. the enemy is not a realy a particular country AND the 'pearl harbor of the 21st century' could have been stopped or greatly blunted. if the u.s was so blatantly two face on it forgien policy, this country would not have the problems we have now with the world..we give so much $$ and aid all over the world...hmmm does that mean that we should have a say in the politics of those areas?? i'm not sure on that..
the u.s is its own worst enemy..we are a very young country..the govt is changing the way it does business but will not admit that it is happening...well, at least not publicly. all counties go through turmoil, civil war, revolution...and the policies of the govt are head us into that direction....
what would have happened if the south had won the first u.s.civil war?? i think the u.s. would be more like europe.. a bunch separte countries that happen to share boarders...part of the reason the u.s. is like it is..is because we are so physicaly separated from other countries...

Taxman is obviously 'new'. No offence Taxman but I'll wait to see what you have to say a few months down the line.


I can't believe anyone would be surprised by this. It's just another personification of the blatant illusion of democracy and the necessary fuel of the military industrial complex.

War is peace.

I agree with taxman and his ideas.

Please understand ..... Not a Dem or Rep here, I am a Independent.


I think we are doing the right thing by making pre-emptive strikes. If it was a world pre Nuclear, Chemical, Biological weapons (NCB) then I would say that attacking Iraq was unneccesary. But since so much dammage can be done with a relativley little amount of work, I feel it is mandatory that we remove threats before we have to deal with them at home.

an example is termites.......

spray around your home before the get in.....once they are in it is a whole new playing field.

As far as 9-11 goes, in my opinion I feel that there were warnings and possibly ways of avoiding it. But the problem is with a population of 280,000,000 people and the rest of the world factored into the situation, It is a extremely difficult task for the person deciding what peice of information should be looked at seriously and what piece of information should be disregarded.

I must say the the government in no way, shape, or form had anything to do with 9-11.


Thats my 2 cents.

I am interested in everyones opinion and not interested in bashing.

Sorri fore da spellinge.


[Edited on 16-1-2004 by REASON]

Taxman, the more you try to kill them, the more they will hate you. Thus broadening the base from which terrorists are recruited. History shows that it is very hard to kill all of the potential recruits, which would be necessary in order to remove the threat of new terrorist attacks.

Instead the US should adopt a policy of building and re-building the world with aid. The world doesn't need military power. It needs financial, legal, educational and logistical infrastructure. If the US were to help building these things instead of trying to enforce its current geopolitical agenda, the terrorist threat would be removed forever.

However, the problem is that a few people benefit from having (imaginary) enemies and perpetual war. You are not one of them.

Taxman needs some education indeed. Deny Ignorance my friend.

You should read the info links before you judge them. And perhaps it's wise to spend some time reading.
There are many things you have to learn. And that's nothing about opinion but real hard facts for you to see. Deny them and you'll never understand why some things happen.

One, Im not saying go to war with every country that harbors terrorists or has terrorists in it, you send in spec ops into there and secretly wipe them out. I appolgize for not making that clear. Get permission. Then send them to hell. Not nessicarly war.

Also you say "if we kill them, they will hate us", well then, how do you win when they dont want peace? You cannot negotiate with Al Queda. Hammas and the ones in Gaza and the W. Bank can be nagoated with but ones like Al Queda wont back down. Hammas would stop if they got a Palestine nation. Al Queda will always be there. I say go and kill the ones that sneak around in Coloumbia, Philipenese, Indoneasia, Afgan, Iraq and Pakestan.

Also tiger and others, I did read those sites, yes Im new, and Im hell bent on taking down the enemy. The world does need a super-power that has a military that can win most wars to keep peace, however thats not so powerful that its able to take over the world. I rather the US than China or EU being the musle of the world. You cannot rely on China, just look at thier record of general isolation, they wont step in a war to prevent mass genocide for example. EU, no offence to the Europeans, dont have the will to goto war. They only send a couple thousand soldiers, the US sends tens of thousands. Yes, I belive that the militaries should be regulated and prevented from conquering the world. The question is who, if anyone, can.