Report: Iraq War Made Terror Worse

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
5. A noble cause worth fighting for.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats not an answer to the question. The difficult things in life are the hows. Anyone can say black people deserve the right to vote. The important thing to do is to take stock of their actions see how effective they are. Killing every white person in the south would have solved the race problem between whites and blacks. Is that ok to do because its for a noble cause?

[tolbiny]

The original question with new answers
If after four years of efforts to reduce racism in the south the number of lynchings of blacks had increased, fewer blacks were registering to vote out of fear, and the number of KKK members had increased- would you consider said efforts to be

1. A big success for a noble cause worth fighting for, no more problems with racism,
2. A moderate successfor a noble cause worth fighting for- lets keep doing the same thing.
3. A moderate failure for a noble cause worth fighting for- time to reasses and maybe adjust our tactics.
4. A complete failure for a noble cause worth fighting for- time for something new.

[Roybert]

[ QUOTE ]
Just a quick question for you. What if the New York Times ran a headline which read: "Civil Rights Movement Said to Worsen Threat of Racism." The article tells you "Efforts by the Justice Department to end racial discrimination in the South has helped spawn a new wave of racial animosity." You read further and discover that recruitment of members into the Ku Klux Klan has increased since the federal government stepped up its efforts to bring the vote to Southern blacks.

Tell me .. .would it be time to pull back and let the racists and bigots just have their way? Or would our determination to go forward with the civil rights struggle merely be strengthened?

Democrats, desperate to do anything to reverse their slide in the polls, are jumping on this story big time, with no small amount of help from the media

Look closely at the Democratic position here. They are saying that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq because it is causing more terrorism. In other words, we made them mad. We shouldn't fight wars because it might make the Islamic terrorists upset. That being the case, can you imagine how mad the Islamic fascists would be if we caught or killed Osama bin Laden? That is, if he isn't already dead.

Maybe we should call off the hunt for Osama, Mullah Omar, and the rest of them! After all, if we catch them it's just going to piss these pissants off. Can't have that, can we?


[/ QUOTE ]

The main problem with this analogy (one of many problems, quite frankly) is that it completely misrepresents the Democrats' position on the Global War on Terror. There hasn't been a single Democrat who has said that we shouldn't be fighting the war on terror. There have been many who are saying that we are going the wrong way and making stupid choices (with Iraq being the crown jewel of tragically stupid choices).

To go back to your analogy, if that indeed did happen during the Civil Rights era, of course the movement shouldn't be abandoned. What should happen is that the strategies being used to accomplish the goals of the Civil Rights movement should be questioned and the formulators of that strategy be held to account. Failed policies should be abandoned, failed policy makers should be removed and new ideas should be debated and attempted.

This is exactly what the Democrats are asking for now.

[steve9789]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just a quick question for you. What if the New York Times ran a headline which read: "Civil Rights Movement Said to Worsen Threat of Racism." The article tells you "Efforts by the Justice Department to end racial discrimination in the South has helped spawn a new wave of racial animosity." You read further and discover that recruitment of members into the Ku Klux Klan has increased since the federal government stepped up its efforts to bring the vote to Southern blacks.

Tell me .. .would it be time to pull back and let the racists and bigots just have their way? Or would our determination to go forward with the civil rights struggle merely be strengthened?

Democrats, desperate to do anything to reverse their slide in the polls, are jumping on this story big time, with no small amount of help from the media

Look closely at the Democratic position here. They are saying that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq because it is causing more terrorism. In other words, we made them mad. We shouldn't fight wars because it might make the Islamic terrorists upset. That being the case, can you imagine how mad the Islamic fascists would be if we caught or killed Osama bin Laden? That is, if he isn't already dead.

Maybe we should call off the hunt for Osama, Mullah Omar, and the rest of them! After all, if we catch them it's just going to piss these pissants off. Can't have that, can we?


[/ QUOTE ]

The main problem with this analogy (one of many problems, quite frankly) is that it completely misrepresents the Democrats' position on the Global War on Terror. There hasn't been a single Democrat who has said that we shouldn't be fighting the war on terror. There have been many who are saying that we are going the wrong way and making stupid choices (with Iraq being the crown jewel of tragically stupid choices).

To go back to your analogy, if that indeed did happen during the Civil Rights era, of course the movement shouldn't be abandoned. What should happen is that the strategies being used to accomplish the goals of the Civil Rights movement should be questioned and the formulators of that strategy be held to account. Failed policies should be abandoned, failed policy makers should be removed and new ideas should be debated and attempted.

This is exactly what the Democrats are asking for now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Someone please tell me the ideas they want debated other than premature withdrawal.

[Madonna]

[ QUOTE ]
Someone please tell me the ideas they want debated other than premature withdrawal.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why? Premature is an important issue. I for one think that premature withdrawl is the most important issue facing today's woman.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just a quick question for you. What if the New York Times ran a headline which read: "Civil Rights Movement Said to Worsen Threat of Racism." The article tells you "Efforts by the Justice Department to end racial discrimination in the South has helped spawn a new wave of racial animosity." You read further and discover that recruitment of members into the Ku Klux Klan has increased since the federal government stepped up its efforts to bring the vote to Southern blacks.

Tell me .. .would it be time to pull back and let the racists and bigots just have their way? Or would our determination to go forward with the civil rights struggle merely be strengthened?

Democrats, desperate to do anything to reverse their slide in the polls, are jumping on this story big time, with no small amount of help from the media

Look closely at the Democratic position here. They are saying that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq because it is causing more terrorism. In other words, we made them mad. We shouldn't fight wars because it might make the Islamic terrorists upset. That being the case, can you imagine how mad the Islamic fascists would be if we caught or killed Osama bin Laden? That is, if he isn't already dead.

Maybe we should call off the hunt for Osama, Mullah Omar, and the rest of them! After all, if we catch them it's just going to piss these pissants off. Can't have that, can we?


[/ QUOTE ]

The main problem with this analogy (one of many problems, quite frankly) is that it completely misrepresents the Democrats' position on the Global War on Terror. There hasn't been a single Democrat who has said that we shouldn't be fighting the war on terror. There have been many who are saying that we are going the wrong way and making stupid choices (with Iraq being the crown jewel of tragically stupid choices).

To go back to your analogy, if that indeed did happen during the Civil Rights era, of course the movement shouldn't be abandoned. What should happen is that the strategies being used to accomplish the goals of the Civil Rights movement should be questioned and the formulators of that strategy be held to account. Failed policies should be abandoned, failed policy makers should be removed and new ideas should be debated and attempted.

This is exactly what the Democrats are asking for now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Someone please tell me the ideas they want debated other than premature withdrawal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Steve,

You're embarrassing yourself.

You should let it go.

[Nielsio]

WHHHAAAATTTTT????

Government programs create the opposite effect of their (supposed) intentions? And thus creating an everlasting problem requiring evergrowing funds?

No way!!?!

[MyTurn2Raise]

[ QUOTE ]
WHHHAAAATTTTT????

Government programs create the opposite effect of their (supposed) intentions? And thus creating an everlasting problem requiring evergrowing funds?

No way!!?!

[/ QUOTE ]

[timotheeeee]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
WHHHAAAATTTTT????

Government programs create the opposite effect of their (supposed) intentions? And thus creating an everlasting problem requiring evergrowing funds?

No way!!?!

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[Copernicus]

As many suspected, the report did not say that terrorism was worse as a result of the war in Iraq.

A single leaked paragraph in the 35 page report, which is a 5 year look ahead at terrorism, says that Iraq is being used for proganda. Everything the US does is used as propaganda!

I hope they get serious about hunting down leakers of classified documents