Defending the Truth

Yeah, back to the cry-baby "illegal phone tapping" mantra again - even though it didn't happen.

But you're right, there's no way in heck that Bush will even try to run for a 3rd term.

CNN.com - Bush*says he signed NSA wiretap order - Dec 17, 2005

NPR: NSA Wiretapping: The Legal Debate

I think the articles speaks for themself.

It's not a problem with the illegality, it's the situation. The war on terrorism is not a legitimate war. Afghanistan was legitimate. World War II was legitimate. The Civil War was semi-legitimate, but acceptable in the end. The war on terrorism is like chasing victory in the war on drugs. It's absolutely unattainable. Terrorism is a reactionary and common tactic among nongovernmental forces, and thus, like any partisan actions, aggression only exacerbates it. It's accepted by society. Hell, we've been using it for years.

The war is ongoing, and so this wiretapping program (and, no doubt, further restictions on liberties) will be so as well. Restrictions on liberties were meant as temporary sacrifices, not common methods. If this war on terrorism ends in the next hundred years, I'll eat my hat.

...In YOUR opinion.

What's necessary for a "legitimate" war? Sherman tanks?

Is Guerilla Warfare legitimate war?

War evolves. War situations evolve.

The countries that aim to secure themselves in the world must also evolve in the way they do war. If we didn't, we'd be in Iraq with muzzle-loaders and bayonets.

It's not legitimate because there's no plan for victory. We just see situations cropping up at random and deal with them. It generally doesn't work, and even if it did, terrorism is accepted. It's been around since ancient times, and despite our hatred of it, the US uses it regularly.

With WWII and the Civil War we knew who was the enemy and how to stop them. Even guerrilla wars can be stopped with special tactics, but we don't use them too well. That's why we're failing in Iraq. First, we never considered the implications of "freedom" for the Iraqis, and second we didn't know how to deal with the inevitability of post-Saddam resistance and lawlesness.

Any military commander with half a brain will tell you that in order to succeed, you have to stop the problem at it's source, not rely on the enemy's first strike to dictate your actions.

1. No plan for victory? How do you know? Is it possible that "Plan A" and "Plan B" simply didn't work?

2. We KNOW who the enemy is in this war too - it's just that it's not Politically Correct to talk about it and go after them.

3. Partially true. The problem with the Bush Admins. idea of a "Marshall Plan II" in Iraq is that everything is different than during WWII. PLUS (and this is the non-politically correct thing we can't admit), these Middle-Easterners have NEVER known peace, prosperity, civility and progress.

4. Again, this COULD happen were this war not being run by opinion polls. Any war that is run by public opinion polls will NEVER be won.

1. Because obviously whatever is being done isn't working. Remember, the threat is worse, not better. We're not even distinguishing good from bad terrorism. We lump it all into the same category and assume it's negative. That's why the IRA decided to be political and not militant and why everyone is so worked up about Greece's revolutionary groups.

2. That's an entirely different argument, but I'll address that with #3

3. You mentioned that Islam is naturally violent, yet now you say the cause is an area where buying an AK-47 is as normal as buying a new car (except less expensive). I agree. It's not necessarily politically incorrect to say the Middle East has always been a place of turmoil, but religion isn't the key reason. Momentum is. Get a ball rolling, it won't stop. Likewise, start a war, it poisons relations and minds of everyone for generations to come.

4. War isn't run by opinion polls. War is run by generals and politicians, and because most military commanders know what works and don't have as many ulterior motives, I trust them over politicians.

1. Just because something doesn't appear to be working, does not mean that there wasn't a plan - which is your original allegation. And can you say - with a straight face - that the threat is worse? How many domestic terrorist attacks have we had in the last 5 years? How many have been foiled? Do you even know?
- And for the record, I think that even you know we are NOT fighting a Catholic/Protestant war here. We're fighting a war against radical Islamic terrorists. Apples & Oranges, friend.

2&3. Oh come on! I can buy an assault rifle today if I so choose! And guess what? I can buy all other kinds of explosive devises. The problem is NOT "access" and it is NOT "momentum". It's a mind-set, it's a religion, it's a generations-old paradigm. And yes, it IS a problem with ISLAM. Drop dead right on. Other religions have evolved. Islam has not.

4. The failure of the VietNam War was primarily that it became a "Living Room War". It's even worse now. And yes, the War in Iraq is being run primarily by opinion polls. THAT is why we have a party-change in Congress (probably a good thing), and that is why our current Congressional politicians are piling on the "anti-war" bandwagon. It's NOT about war. It's about politics!

1. How many terrorist incidents have occurred overseas? On the other hand, how many occurred between 1978 and 2001? Something as big as 9/11 only happens once every few decades and only results from serious lapses in security. If the U.S. government wanted to justify it's position, it would release information on how their actions have decreased the incidence of plots. They have not for one reason: there has been an increase in the number of plots

2. The problem isn't accessibility to weapons. I never said that. I said that the easy access reflects a region where warfare is a part of life. And it is momentum. There must be a dozen cases of long-running feuds stemming from the theft of a goat in the Middle Ages. It's not the original incident, it's that people keep retaliating against each other, and it enters into a cycle of violence.

3. Agreed. Politicians are the cause of that. Military commanders urged Bush not to invade. Military commanders urged him not to escalate. Military commanders told him the situation could not be solved the way he wanted to do it. They know the ground. They know how to conduct battles. They're trained to understand the necessary tactics in winning, and nobody listened to them. They have nothing to gain, because they're appointed, not elected by the American people.

.

How many international terrorist incidents? Depends largely on how you define the term. However, there is NO QUESTION THAT THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF THEM HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT BY MILITANT MUSLIMS.

And that proves that the number of incidents has decreased how...?

- Also, why wasn't there increased security after the FIRST World Trade Center bombing? Oh yeah, that's right. Clinton was too busy getting blow-jobs and lying to cover it up.

I didn't like Clinton, either, so stop thinking I'm a blind supporter of neo-liberalism.

And there you have it - by your own admission.
The problem is primarily the MIDDLE EAST - where there has NEVER been peace.
Muhammad came along and built a religion based on bloodshed. His drones continue to live out his legacy.

People fight. You throw a punch at someone, they have a natural feeling of anger and a desire for retaliation in revenge and in order to counter your attack. Thus, a fight is born. Religious tensions don't help the fight, but since when has any religious scuffle ended in one fell swoop? Religion in and of itself breeds contempt for other faiths and encourages proselytization by any means necessary. I'll say it one more time before I lose all faith in you. WAR IS WAGED BY HUMANS, NOT RELIGIONS!!!

And you're thinking Bush DID have something to gain by going into Iraq? You're thinking Bush went in to "vindicate his daddy" - as is the tired old liberal mantra? You're saying Bush is doing this for popularity's sake?

Where the hell did you get that?! I never said that. Hell, not even I think that's a good explanation for this war.

Good lord, you must be kidding!
The Professional Politicians are simply lining up on the side of popularity! Have you checked out the "stances" of politicians, like John Kerry, before and after the War began? It's a complete and total turn-around. Why? Because NOW it's not popular to be at war in Iraq. But when it looked like we were gonna march in, kick some ass, and come out heroes, John Kerry was all for it.
THAT is what I despise!

I'm talking about military commanders, not politicians. Once again, don't think I'm purely supportive of the Dems, because, as you said, they're politicians. I support many of their ideas, but they're politicians all the same. Of course they did a flip. It was political suicide not to do so.

You just took everything I said and drew out insane, weird meanings which I had no idea even existed within my statements. Your penchant for twisting words must be something that comes naturaly to the far right, huh?