Its not just Bush's "War on Terror"...

Its everyone who wishes to live in a world not ruled by fear of another mans religion, "War on Terror".

Right now most Muslims in America have no fear of Terrorist cause if for some reason the Terrorist win... then Muslims here have no worries until the rules start to invade their happy go lucky life here in America...

Think about it.... whats going to happen if the Muslim Terrorist win?
Women will be set back decades in human rights issues.
Dress codes will be enforced by execution.
The list is end less of the freedoms that will be lost......

:roll:

Bush's war on terror...Please...

What about the free peoples war on terror?

Is that going well enough yet?

We sit here at our computers keyboards and screens and type out all manner of solutions we wish to see and lay blame where we wish it to be ....:hmm:

Its our war ... if you like it or not ...so we need to look in the mirror.:sunny:

I looked in the mirror, but I needed a shave. So, I prayed instead and I saw President Bush kicking some butts without
the Democrat's approval ... :up:

St Pattrick's Day and SH4 go together ...:smug:

Yep. Most of the IR classes I took I spent a good deal of my time rolling my eyes. IMO, it is a crime how many of my classes (I am a Political Science major) have been professors preaching.

PD

I don't think the terrorists can "win" in the sense that you mean. Terrorism is a limited tactic and is aimed at instilling fear and producing dissent; it can't, by default, 'win' an entire inter-cultural struggle as you suggest. A "win" in this particular scenario would be not by terrorists but by at least a very large Muslim coalition which is yet to form; in fact as the disorder in the ME suggests, such a coalition is far, far from anything. Additionally, any wars fought against US or US-supported states by Muslim countries ended in disasters for them.

I don't think 'war' is the measure to solving them. It's much more a cultural than violent issue, and let's not bring violence into it. Asserting a strong tradition of secular government at home is the best that could be done in the West; Bush has not done a good job of that and, at points, seemed to turn it into a holy war of some sort.

I'm personally convinced that no "war against" will ever really succeed. In that case we need to define what Bush's war was for. Was it a war for American security? If so its success is marginal and has not really been tested yet. Was it a war for Iraqi/Afghani freedom/democracy? If so, it's a pretty big failure so far; democracy as a means for itself means nothing - and conditions cannot be argued to have improved (you got rid of Saddam/Taleban, but have you really made their lives better? I would argue that while there's some obvious big improvements, there are also big down-points, so the net result, especially in Iraq, is quite negative).

I'd love to hear a convincing argument against that stance (equal fault). I couldn't take any with a straight face so far myself (mostly because reasons given were ideological rather than factual in basis).

In another thread perhaps.

Somethings wrong with everyone (well not everyone) waiting for the terroist to strike America again to prove President Bush's war on terror was wrong.

Heck, they are already doing that ... :roll:

I don't think that's neccesarily true and I think most reasonable people will acknowledge that, even Bush aside, there would be something incredibly wrong with the country as a whole if anti-terror security was not significantly improved after 9/11 - and no doubt it was improved. If anything, Bush could rather be blamed for not improving it sooner and preventing 9/11.

At what cost, and to what extent has it been efficient abroad however, is questionable.

Likewise, it's in the nature of terrorism to never be 100% avoidable, it's one of the reasons the tactic works. I don't think another terrorist attack would really prove anything against Bush, to be honest; it'd just prove the fact that "War on Terror", like "War on Drugs" in the sense that the administration seems to be pushing it is a bit of a fallacy - it's a war of containment rather than a war of annihilation.

I voted not acceptable. I think he did a great job immediately after 9/11 showing a strong response. I think things have gone just a wee bit downhill since then. But what did we expect when we elected an aristocratic, C average dilettante who had to cling to his father's coat tails to get anywhere in life. That being said, I don't think Gore or Kerry would have done much better. Bush is at least reliable when it comes to national defense, and in these times that certainly means something.

PD

I don't necessarily agree/disagree with that. I just believe that having credentials to teach at a university level should not be a license to preach one's own views. Sure, to let students know what your views are is perfectly acceptable. But to design one's curriculum arround perpetuating one's own ideology is completely unacceptable to me. Now back to your regularly scheduled programming. :)

PD

You said a mouthfull there PD:up: :up: :up:
:sunny:

Agreed
 

Right on, great drive... :D

Yes, maybe because I am feeling a bit froggy today, but here are two jacka##es of historical purportions.

I wouldn't dream of saything that about a former President and Secretary of State normally, but giving aid and comfort to an enemy in a time of war is tantamont to the big "T" word. I can not begin to imagine this type of politicized rhetoric coming from a Franklin Roosevelt or a Harry Truman at a sitting President.

http://www.accessnorthga.com/news/ap...y.asp?ID=88008

It isn't really all the stupid ideas about the world that Carter espoused during his Presidency that causes me to really dislike him. I mean, I don't like George McGovern either, but Carter WAS the Presdient and being so, he shouldn't feel free to run around spouting about how horrible the current administation is. The old rule is that ex-Presidents are not allowed to be openly hostile to whomever the current administration is, espically when it comes to foreign policy.

The elder Bush was certainly no fan of President Clinton, but he sure didn't say anything about him publically until Clinton started to get involved in the 2000 campaign, and making comments on candidate Bush Jr., at which point Bush Sr. said that if Mr. Clinton did not cease and desist, the elder Bush would lay out his feelings vis-a-vis Mr. Clinton's foreign policy "successes" and Mr. Clinton's actions which has sullied the office fo the Presidency. I just state this as an example of the unwritten rule about former Presidents making public comments like Carter has a horrible penchant for.

Please don't respond that Carter is now a private citizen and is allowed to make any comment he would like. No one who is President ever returns to the simple status as the rest of us, they will always be a former holder of the most important job in the United States of America, and should act as such.

The only president he can be compared to I think is Roosevelt in they're reactions to a castrophe...They both ho humed along business as usual until the horrors of terrorisim and war fell in they're laps.They re-acted like normal human beings do when threatened ..fight/or flight....we fight.If anything Bush has had to try to walk a tighter thinner rope in regards to the current situation in that ..people keep trying to find the "END" solution...there is not one..it will not end ..ever.As the Muslim purpose it seems to me if I read correctly the Koran..in that they're prupose is to subjegate the entire world by any means neccessary and intentional viloence....this is unacceptable.

He that is evil let him be evil still, he that is righteous let him be righteous still.Behold he cometh quickly to give every man his due reward.

If you hear this more and more ... it's probably from faithful believers ... :yep:

St Matthew 24:3-8

Jesus answered them, "Beware that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Messiah!’ and they will lead many astray. And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars; see that you are not alarmed; for this must take place, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places: all this is but the beginning of the birth pangs.

Pessimism
 

The only way that the radical muslim terrorists can beat us, is if we have a pessimistic attitude. We all need to have a positive outlook and get a stiff upper lip, in the words of AC/DC. I believe that good and free men, will eventually beat the terrorist jihadist groups such as Al Qaeda. I think that good will eventually prevail, and i think we all should
:yep: :yep: