Keith Olbermann: Special Comment; Democratic Compromise

[AsburySkinsFan]

Perhaps you're saying that terrorists do not need to come to US to killl Americans anymore, they can do it in their own back yard... and that's a good thing somehow???

That's because as much as they love the troops, they still see soldiers as expendible, although they will never say so, and will object to the very notion. Better a soldier die than a civilian is the underlying theme. As if that makes any sense what-so-ever, they are both people for crying out loud.

[Henry]

That's because as much as they love the troops, they still see soldiers as expendible, although they will never say so, and will object to the very notion. Better a soldier die than a civilian is the underlying theme. As if that makes any sense what-so-ever, they are both people for crying out loud.

I think it's more than that. I think when terrorists kill 10 civilians on American soil, 10 Americans die. But when terrorists kill 10 soldiers in Iraq, 10 Americans and 100 terrorists die.

Let's not forget we ARE fighting terrorism, and there's more to that fight than simply dying at their hands. I'm not fan of Bush, but we need no make up excuses to bash the guy at this point.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I think it's more than that. I think when terrorists kill 10 civilians on American soil, 10 Americans die. But when terrorists kill 10 soldiers in Iraq, 10 Americans and 100 terrorists die.

100 terrorists, are you really saying that we are killing 10 times more "terrorists" in Iraq as we are losing our own soliders, that would mean that the terrorists would have lost 30,000 people. I'm not sure I'm willing to buy that, now if you say we lose 10 soldiers and 100 Iraqis die, then that seems more plausible, but you're making the mistake in assuming that those who die were actually terrorists.

[DCsportsfan53]

3. I know I will sound crazy, but I think down the line Bush jr. will be seen as one of our greatest presidents in regard to what he tried to do with the middle east.

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

Holy crap! How did I miss this gem? Have you ever considered a career in comedy?

[AsburySkinsFan]

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

Holy crap! How did I miss this gem? Have you ever considered a career in comedy?

Yeah, I saw this too and it was so out there that I had to read it twice to be sure I read it correctly, then I went and moved on.

[Koolblue13]

I think it's more than that. I think when terrorists kill 10 civilians on American soil, 10 Americans die. But when terrorists kill 10 soldiers in Iraq, 10 Americans and 100 terrorists die.

Let's not forget we ARE fighting terrorism, and there's more to that fight than simply dying at their hands. I'm not fan of Bush, but we need no make up excuses to bash the guy at this point.

I don't know if I would say we are fighting terrorism, quite the oppisite. We might be fighting the people who attacked us or people who are terrorists, but we are only creating more terrorists in the mean time.

[Koolblue13]

Bush played the heart strings of America in the aftermath of 911 and used scare tactics to get that. The representatives in Congress should've known better, I don't blame the American people given the circumstances. However, I think those in Congress did know better and failed in their duty for a mixture of political and lack of spine reasons. They failed us, big time. I don't buy that they were tricked by Bush. They had access to too much information and too many different sources to just blindly rubber stamp it and blame it on Bush later. The dems in office at the time failed to do their job.

Wasn't it an 80 million dollar advertising campaign so that we "never forget"? I am amare of what the president did to encourage the war. However I think you might be giving congress the credit they should have earned. Nibody was level headed after 9/11. I agree the dems and repubs as well failed thier country after the attacks, but I don't think they had all the info either. Only people high up in the Admin and the CIA really knew what was going on.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I don't know if I would say we are fighting terrorism, quite the oppisite. We might be fighting the people who attacked us or people who are terrorists, but we are only creating more terrorists in the mean time.

No kidding, I guess it begs the question as to whether or not we are really fighting terrorism or recruiting for it.

BTW, terrorism is a tactic not a group.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Only people high up in the Admin and the CIA really knew what was going on.

And Bill Moyers did a fine job exposing that whole mess in "Buying the War".

[Henry]

100 terrorists, are you really saying that we are killing 10 times more "terrorists" in Iraq as we are losing our own soliders, that would mean that the terrorists would have lost 30,000 people. I'm not sure I'm willing to buy that, now if you say we lose 10 soldiers and 100 Iraqis die, then that seems more plausible, but you're making the mistake in assuming that those who die were actually terrorists.

I was using general numbers. The point is that if the terrorists think the battle is in Iraq, and they go there instead of coming here, and they try and kill our soldiers instead of trying to kill our civilians, we're going to get some of them.

I'm not suggesting that we are killing ONLY terrorists in Iraq, or that innocents are not getting caught in the crossfire or anything of the sort. Merely that drawing those who would harm us into a fight rather than waiting for them to strike us at home isn't necessarily a bad strategy.

In the case of Iraq I consider it more of a disaster on the tactical level.

[Koolblue13]

I was using general numbers. The point is that if the terrorists think the battle is in Iraq, and they go there instead of coming here, and they try and kill our soldiers instead of trying to kill our civilians, we're going to get some of them.

I'm not suggesting that we are killing ONLY terrorists in Iraq, or that innocents are not getting caught in the crossfire or anything of the sort. Merely that drawing those who would harm us into a fight rather than waiting for them to strike us at home isn't necessarily a bad strategy.

In the case of Iraq I consider it more of a disaster on the tactical level.

For the most part Henry, I agree with this. I differ in that the location of where we fight this fight, I think is irrelevent. As long as we are intangled in the ME, especially with troops, thier goal will be to come over here.

I also agree with the tactical error comment. When you go to war, you should really go to war. I think this war was sold to us as a civil, controlled attack with minimum cassualties. Thats garbage as far as my opinion goes and was billed to get more people behind it without the burden of guilt that should come with the knowlege of what actually happens to people in a war.

[Zguy28]

I think it's more than that. I think when terrorists kill 10 civilians on American soil, 10 Americans die. But when terrorists kill 10 soldiers in Iraq, 10 Americans and 100 terrorists die.

Let's not forget we ARE fighting terrorism, and there's more to that fight than simply dying at their hands. I'm not fan of Bush, but we need no make up excuses to bash the guy at this point.

I was listening to former Senator Rick Santorum speak on this the other day. He tried to convince the President to stop using "War on Terror" and start calling it what it is: A War against Islamic Fascists. He's right. Terror is a method used by these folks. It is not the enemy.

The President used it like once and came under heavy criticism from the media AND the State dept about being PC.

It was funny, Santorum said that every time someobdy says "War on Terror" they should drop a quarter in a jar. :laugh:

[Destino]

I was listening to former Senator Rick Santorum speak on this the other day. He tried to convince the President to stop using "War on Terror" and start calling it what it is: A War against Islamic Fascists. He's right. Terror is a method used by these folks. It is not the enemy.

The President used it like once and came under heavy criticism from the media AND the State dept about being PC.

It was funny, Santorum said that every time someobdy says "War on Terror" they should drop a quarter in a jar. :laugh:

I agree with Santorum. This isn't a war on terror it's a war on Islamic extremism.

The jar thing is pretty funny. :laugh:

[Predicto]

I agree with Santorum. This isn't a war on terror it's a war on Islamic extremism.

Hell just froze over. I agree with Santorum too.

he's still a moron IMO

[Destino]

he's still a moron IMO

That goes without saying.

[Zguy28]

he's still a moron IMO

At least he had the balls to stand up for what he believed, even though it got him voted out of office.

Evidently this created some kind of schism between him and the Prez.

[alexey]

I'd say "war" is an extreme way of dealing with a problem... and I am reluctant to endorse extremism as a good way of dealing with extremism...

As for Henry's point... terrorists will go after whatever targets are available. Our presence in Iraq does not SHIFT the battlefield somewhere else, it ADDS ANOTHER battlefield. Our presence in Iraq does not reduce our need to defend the homeland, neither does it reduce terrorists' determination to attack it.

Terrorism is often sold as a mindset, a fundamental philosophical difference between "us" and "them." It surely can be looked at as such... but at the root of the extremist mindset there is usually (always?) lack of opportunity.

The comparison between ideologies of Islamic Extremism and Facism is just scratching the surface... a look at the economic situation in Germany during the rise of Facism and in Middle East during the rise of terrorism shows that at the root we have a lack of economic opportunities.

[Henry]

As for Henry's point... terrorists will go after whatever targets are available. Our presence in Iraq does not SHIFT the battlefield somewhere else, it ADDS ANOTHER battlefield. Our presence in Iraq does not reduce our need to defend the homeland, neither does it reduce terrorists' determination to attack it.

So you're saying it opens up a second front, so to speak, forcing the enemy to spread it's resources out in order to engage us at multiple points, rather than concentrating on one.

I'd agree with that.

[Larry]

So you're saying it opens up a second front, so to speak, forcing the enemy to spread it's resources out in order to engage us at multiple points, rather than concentrating on one.

I'd agree with that.

A second front only forces "the enemy" to spread it's resources, if the enemy is playing defense.

When the enemy has the initiative, (the ability to pick and chose which fights he will fight and which fights he won't), then sending a bunch of your assets someplace else simply means that your enemy doesn't have to worry about those assets.

If, during the DC sniper crisis, George Bush had called out the National Guard in Richmond, that wouldn't have "forced" the sniper duo to send one-half of their forces to Richmond. It would have simply given them the option of shooting some soldiers in Richmond.

Putting occupation troops in Iraq doesn't force Al Qeida to pull their agents (if any) out of the US and send them to Iraq. It simply gives them the choice, if they chose, of attacking Americans in a location that's easier for Middle Eastern people to infiltrate.

[AsburySkinsFan]

A second front only forces "the enemy" to spread it's resources, if the enemy is playing defense.

When the enemy has the initiative, (the ability to pick and chose which fights he will fight and which fights he won't), then sending a bunch of your assets someplace else simply means that your enemy doesn't have to worry about those assets.

If, during the DC sniper crisis, George Bush had called out the National Guard in Richmond, that wouldn't have "forced" the sniper duo to send one-half of their forces to Richmond. It would have simply given them the option of shooting some soldiers in Richmond.

Putting occupation troops in Iraq doesn't force Al Qeida to pull their agents (if any) out of the US and send them to Iraq. It simply gives them the choice, if they chose, of attacking Americans in a location that's easier for Middle Eastern people to infiltrate.

Very nice Larry, and as close as I can understand what you have described here is what make guerilla tatics works so well. Make no mistake, the IED's etc. in Iraq are not "terrorist" techniques, that's pure guerilla warfare, and as far as I can remember guerilla warfare works exceedingly well against a large structured force (Brits in 1778, US in 1967-1975, Afghanistan 80's, and now here). The more I think about it, the more I'm beginning to realize that Iraq has the serious potential to become our version of Russia's Afghanistan.

[DjTj]

I think it's more than that. I think when terrorists kill 10 civilians on American soil, 10 Americans die. But when terrorists kill 10 soldiers in Iraq, 10 Americans and 100 terrorists die.

Let's not forget we ARE fighting terrorism, and there's more to that fight than simply dying at their hands. I'm not fan of Bush, but we need no make up excuses to bash the guy at this point.

I don't know, I think Al Qaeda made the same calculation, and they of course DECIDED to go to Iraq because they figured it was worth it for them.

When a terrorist kills 10 civilians on American soil, it means that years of recruiting, training, and planning was expended and the terrorist organizations have probably lost one of their most capable men.

When 10 American soldiers are killed in Iraq along with 100 terrorists, half of those terrorists were probably recruited from a nearby town from impressionable youths who thought they were defending their homeland ... the dead will have brothers and cousins who may take up the cause in revenge, and they will have parents and friends who may become sympathetic to the cause.

The war really isn't about body count, especially not for the other side ... tactically I think we gain something by fighting over there, but I think the terrorists gain something too - both in easier logistics and in creating propaganda. Nothing helped our own recruiting more than the attacks on our homeland, and I would imagine that our presence in the Middle East has the same effect on any angry Muslim youth in and around Iraq.

I want to say that it's almost a win/win situation ... we do in fact win by lessening the chances of a terrorist attack on American soil, but the terrorists win too by being able to fight on a front where they can actively recruit and grow their support ... now those are both short-term goals, and it remains to be seen who wins out in the long run - I think it's far from clear.

[Sarge]

Very nice Larry, and as close as I can understand what you have described here is what make guerilla tatics works so well. Make no mistake, the IED's etc. in Iraq are not "terrorist" techniques, that's pure guerilla warfare, and as far as I can remember guerilla warfare works exceedingly well against a large structured force (Brits in 1778, US in 1967-1975, Afghanistan 80's, and now here). The more I think about it, the more I'm beginning to realize that Iraq has the serious potential to become our version of Russia's Afghanistan.

Your memory of Vietnam is faulty

[AsburySkinsFan]

Your memory of Vietnam is faulty

So you're saying that the Vietcong didn't use guerilla warfare?

[portisizzle]

Useless tripe. Next.......

[Sarge]

So you're saying that the Vietcong didn't use guerilla warfare?

No. Your assertaion is that it works "Exceedingly well"

That was not the case in Vietnam