Obama Continues Bush's Illegal Drone Surveillance

[Cerevant]

There should be a difference between the reaction they are hoping for, and the reaction they should get.  There should be a difference between the response they are hoping for, and the response they get.  I suspect that in the 16 case studies, the victims did not start two wars and run two elections with "terror" as a primary theme.

The goal of this administration was not to fight terrorism.  The goal of this administration was to use terrorism to push through their agenda.

[Seabiscuit36]

Afghanistan was the right war, Iraq the wrong one.  Simple and Plain, and its amazing to see how the two have been handled, and mismanaged. 

[Rome]

The war on terror has been about as successful as the previous wars on poverty, illiteracy, drugs, crime, teen pregnancy, and racism.

[PhillyPhreak54]

What about the war on message board seriousness?

[MadMarchHare]

This country deserves a better class of criminal.....uh, I mean politician.

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

There is no doubt that the terrorists instigated.  The problem is that we are treating them like adults, when we should be treating them like a 3 year old having a tantrum: don't give them the attention they are playing for.

Hahaha, ok.  So, next time the country is attacked, how best to react?  Just let bygones be bygones?  Have the government threaten the press to not make a big deal about it?

Seriously, what do you do in the event of a major attack?

The war on terror has been about as successful as the previous wars on poverty, illiteracy, drugs, crime, teen pregnancy, and racism.

Agreed, but that doesn't mean it's not a war worth waging more intelligently.

[Seabiscuit36]

There is no doubt that the terrorists instigated.  The problem is that we are treating them like adults, when we should be treating them like a 3 year old having a tantrum: don't give them the attention they are playing for.

Hahaha, ok.  So, next time the country is attacked, how best to react?  Just let bygones be bygones?  Have the government threaten the press to not make a big deal about it?

Seriously, what do you do in the event of a major attack?

The war on terror has been about as successful as the previous wars on poverty, illiteracy, drugs, crime, teen pregnancy, and racism.

Agreed, but that doesn't mean it's not a war worth waging more intelligently.

Clearly flagry will work in defending a nation. 

[Cerevant]

Hahaha, ok.  So, next time the country is attacked, how best to react?  Just let bygones be bygones?  Have the government threaten the press to not make a big deal about it?

So what are you saying, nothing should have been done?

I'm not saying the way Bush has gone about it is right, but it was the biggest attack in world history. Ignore them, and it would have or will happen again.

There should be a difference between the reaction they are hoping for, and the reaction they should get.  There should be a difference between the response they are hoping for, and the response they get.  I suspect that in the 16 case studies, the victims did not start two wars and run two elections with "terror" as a primary theme.

The goal of this administration was not to fight terrorism.  The goal of this administration was to use terrorism to push through their agenda.

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

No one is arguing that this administration sucks.  What I want to know is if your man is in the Oval Office and America gets attacked, what in the farg do you do?  Your response is nothing but a bunch of chatter with no real answer, so I'll ask you again.

[Cerevant]

I'm not the farging expert, but there are 16 case studies that say there is a better way to handle things.  If I had to guess?

Mistakes:
* Creating DHS drew attention and created fear in the US.  The same measures could have been implemented without creating a whole new bureaucracy.  BushCo created DHS because he wanted everyone to know how much they were supposed to be afraid (threat level)
* Border security measures are ineffective and would not have prevented 9/11.  Again, BushCo wanted everyone to see that he was on the job.
* The Patriot act and FISA changes.  Again, playing to the people's fears to give more power to the executive.  No effect on terrorism.
* Partisan support for xenophobia.  More fear.

Two options for dealing with Bin Laden:
* I think a quiet assassination would have been easier to pull off than a full frontal assault, but I don't have access to the intelligence to say if that would have been possible.
* If not, I would have thrown every available fighting man into Afghanistan and cut the head off of al Qaeda, even if it meant marching into Pakistan.  Hell, if there was that kind of commitment, we could have prevented him from ever getting to Pakistan.  There was no reason - zero - to set foot in Iraq.  The US had unqualified international support for dealing with al Qaeda after 9/11.  There is almost zero support for the war in Iraq.  Obama has this point 100% correct.

The only change in place that would have prevented 9/11 are changes to airline cockpit security.

The difference is in how you meet out justice: define specific limited goals, achieve them quickly and efficiently, with minimal fanfare.

Simple example - Reaction to Bin Laden's successful assination
Bad: Bush makes a long winded speech about dealing a blow to terrorists around the world and how great the US is, and how we must stay vigilant, yadda yadda...

Good: Press release stating the facts, followed with a statement that this should serve as a warning to others that attacks on US sovereignty will not be tolerated and that those responsible will be dealt with.

They got their revenge, and there was no way to mitigate the reaction to 9/11.  The only option left was to control the response.  Instead of a cold systematic hunt for Bin Laden, the US exploded in hysteria and started flailing around all over the planet.

[Seabiscuit36]

So we agree, Afghanistan was the correct operation, Iraq was a colossal clusterfarg, and seriously impeded our operations to the north in Afghanistan. 

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

Exactly.  The bottom line is it's ridiculous to say the U.S. shouldn't have fought back at all.  The problem is that the administration abandoned the actual war on terror to wage war for ulterior motives.

[Cerevant]

There is no problem with the concept of wiping out those responsible for 9/11.  Creating a "global war on terror" with no final objective (even if we didn't go into Iraq) is a big mistake which legitimizes all terrorism and hands the concept victory, since such a war cannot be won.

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

Who, exactly, are "those responsible?"

1.  The people who carried out the attacks, all of which are dead.
2.  The people that actively planned the attacks
3.  The people that financed the attacks
4.  The people that support the same extremist ideals and could be planning similar attacks
5.  All Muslims
6.  All members or affiliates of any terrorist organization
7.  Anyone with brownish skin

I'm just saying - Drawing the line is not that simple.

[Cerevant]

Seems pretty clear to me...

1, 2 and conditionally 3.  3 depends on fore-knowledge and intent.
4 is thought crime
5 isn't relevant
6 similar to 4, we don't prosecute people for what they might do.
7 isn't relevant.

Also, 4 and 6 are dealt blows by executing 1-3: by showing terrorists that the tactic is not effective, you reduce the incentive to carry out further attacks.  Not saying it won't happen, but there was terrorism before 9/11.