Why Republicans make sore losers
- Thread starter Bob
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
I do not believe terrorists or terrorist attacks can be stopped. Let's not forget- we are talking about religious fanatics who believe what they are doing is an act of god...
Respond to an attack, don't respond to an attack. Appear weak, appear strong. It changes nothing. The nuts will still want to blow us up and sometimes they will be successful...
No president and no military can keep us safe from these kooks. The whole "on Bush's watch", "on Clinton's watch" discussion is just silly. It's like saying one Florida governor kept us safe from hurricanes because none hit but another one had flawed policies because one did hit...
That IMHO- is the real world...
Are you saying that a strong military is not important? That we should give up fighting terrorists because no matter how hard we try, we will never completely stop them? Because by that logic, we can save billions in tax dollars immediately. Cops cannot stop murders and burglars--eliminate cops. Firemen cannot stop fires from happening- elimiinate firemen. Of course, by doing this you also eliminate society.
Geo's remarks pertained to the discussion in which more than one person asserted that our country was perceived as weak under Clinton, and this perception still lingered almost a year into the Bush presidency on 9/11. They claimed that this perceived weakness emboldened the terrorists to do what they did on 9/11. I happen to agree with Geo and at least one other poster that the strength of our military is not a major factor in this kind of attack. I do think that tight security and intelligence operations can go along way toward minimizing the risk through interception, but not through deterrence. The fact of the matter is that during the summer of 2001, the threat of terroism was not a high priority concern for Bush. He was more inerested in Iraq and development of ABM systems.
Last edited:
No. I am saying that a strong military (or a weak one) will not stop terrorism. I do not believe the military's MO is to fight terrorism. Do you?
Again, not what I said. We should take appropriate measures to stop terrorists before they act (e.g. strong intelligence) and be prepared if/when they strike (emergency management)...
I do not believe in fighting terrorism with The Bush Doctrine. And I do not believe in fighting terrorism by limiting the number of books of matches we could take on a plane (or the size of deodorant, hair gel, bottle of breast milk)...
You misunderstand my logic. But before I continue to clarify what I mean how's about you help me understand what you mean-
Do cops stop murders? Do firemen stop fires from happening? I think for the most part cops get them off the street after the fact and firemen put the fires out (after they started)...
No?
I believe what you are advocating here is in fact the so-called "Bush Doctrine". I think it is the CIA (the initial "I" is for intelligence) that is bombing Paki villages with Predator drones - a "doctrine" continuing under Obama. This is done to diminish the capacity of the terrorists. So it seems we're all on the same page here if we just call it the Obama Doctrine which is fine by me - it's still a duck.
Well, we can pretend that it was John Wayne as President for the 1993 attack, John Wayne's inaction on having bin Laden extradicted to us and John Wayne, Commander in Chief who shut down so many of our military bases. I would still contend that for the terrorists, the perception was that we were weak.
Additionally, when we started deploying troups to Afghanistan, a friend who is a fighter pilot was called up. He flew in Gulf Storm and was in 2002, 47 years old. John Wayne ceased training of younger pilots/military, further sending the message to the terrorists groups (since we hadn't gone after them before, didn't want the head terrorist in our court system and wanted to save money from our defense programs), that the US was weak and they would get away with what they were planning here.
We are probably going to disagree, but many, many military personnel would not even salute Bill Clinton because they didn't feel he was a good Commander in Chief.
When we were attacked, some close friends who voted for Al Gore said, "I'm glad we don't have a Dem in office."
It's hindsight, but it's factual. I hope Obama keeps our military strong. I would like to say that at the end of this term, "Obama has kept us safe."
Additionally, when we started deploying troups to Afghanistan, a friend who is a fighter pilot was called up. He flew in Gulf Storm and was in 2002, 47 years old. John Wayne ceased training of younger pilots/military, further sending the message to the terrorists groups (since we hadn't gone after them before, didn't want the head terrorist in our court system and wanted to save money from our defense programs), that the US was weak and they would get away with what they were planning here.
We are probably going to disagree, but many, many military personnel would not even salute Bill Clinton because they didn't feel he was a good Commander in Chief.
When we were attacked, some close friends who voted for Al Gore said, "I'm glad we don't have a Dem in office."
It's hindsight, but it's factual. I hope Obama keeps our military strong. I would like to say that at the end of this term, "Obama has kept us safe."
Whether it was John Wayne or John Smith, whether it was a dem or a republican, etc. etc.---
The whole idea that we were perceived as being weak is bunk, IMHO. 9-11 was being planned irrespective of how weak or strong we were militarily (in actuality or in perception). 9-11 was being planned whether we had a dem or a republican in the white house before, during or after that moment in time and irrespective of our response to attacks small or large. The religious fanatics act as they do because they are religious fanatics- the virgins await them in paradise and martyrdom is the ultimate prize...
So you have some friends in the military who have opinions. There are many in the military who have opposing opinions. So what. Because you declare something as "factual" does not make it so...
I am quoting this response for only one reason--not that I am in agreement or disagreement....
It just dawned on me, Geo--The reason I enjoy your posts are that you approach the subject matter as a politically "empathetic" person. Neutal, but empathetic. You have an uncanny ability to come from several directions and perspective on any issue in the guise of someone (or group) who may actually be directly affected by this or any issue.
Sorry, in advance, for the inapproprate placement of this post..
Last edited: