However the Iraq War has not reduced that possibility!

Ok God! Sorry I questioned you. Did not know you were omniscience.

Reply By: COL GenePosted: Tuesday, January 10, 2006I would not want our Military to be fighting Terrorists in New York. However the Iraq War has not reduced that possibility!

Prove it. I can prove it has. Here is my proof : New York, or the US has not been attacked. I can prove that.

What you can not show is that the war in Iraq has made the United States safer or less likely to attack by terrorists.

What you can not show is that the war in Iraq has made the United States safer or less likely to attack by terrorists.

What you cannot show or prove is any of your points. By default he has, by default you never can.

Prove it. I can prove it has. Here is my proof : New York, or the US has not been attacked.

Okay, so two things have occurred within a span of time; you can make the correlation but you can't make the cognitive jump in linking the two since that would require a great amount of speculation and rhetoric.

Here's a brainteaser, provide me the evidence that New York will never be attacked. Feel free to fantasize and regard this question as hypothetical, even. Let's say America stays in Iraq indefinently and that we keep the 'temporary' Patriot Act (with all it's wonderful little sunset clauses that were only made such to keep libertarians at bay) and all the good little executive orders made within the last few years in place - still believe New York is never going to be attacked?

Live in the real world. Shit happens.

I'd push even further and ask what you believe we should do to further 'protect' Americans should yet another terrorist attack occur? 'Cause it's going to occur. Let's not pretend otherwise. What else do you support doing in America to protect Americans?

I know; I'd feel really safe if my government kept me in a 20'X 20' pen, naked, with twenty security cams looking inward to the pen and twenty security cameras looking outside of the pen. Government food will be presented to me daily, checked for my convenience and safety to insure against Al Qaeda poisoning. Twenty microwave lasers strategically positioned around the pen will fry anyone without my and government clearance. I'm safe, right?

Then I manage to trip over my own feet and land smack on my face.

Damn Govt. didn't protect me!

How do you want to live?

With your phone tapped and cameras at every intersection?

Guess what, you're already there.

When will the camera be on your mail box?

When will the camera be in your home?

Some people think things have already gone too far and that we've already ventured far too long down the rabbit hole.

Oh ya thats right that, New York would never be attacked. Your right. No bombs in the parking garage of the Wolrd Trade Center, No airplanes flown into them, no attacks on American Soil would ever happen.

Inappropriate response. You did not say "attack" but "fighting in the streets"--a big difference, since you were so anxious to juxtapose insurgent fighting in Iraq with door to door fighting in NY. The other examples you offer have nothing to do with Iraq unless you think Zarqawi is ubiqutious and is leading a second front. Al Qaeda is global and not confined to one commander in the field of combat; you insult my intelligence thinking I'm unaware of this threatening time. And I am aware that the war in Iraq has not prevented other acts of terror and plots uncovered.

Where did you get that!

I saw that cartoon and it immediately reminded me of col and bs about Iraq. If people like col were around back then we'd all be speaking a different language.

What you can not show is that the war in Iraq has made the United States safer or less likely to attack by terrorists.

Oh really? Has there been an attack on American soil since 9-11? Nope! So then I guess the war "has" made us safer.

There have been attacks all over the world and Iraq is the HOT bed of terrorist activities since we invaded. The most likely reason we have not been attacked in the U S is because we are doing a better job of preventing attacks. There is NO evidence there have been less attempts or that the underlying desire to attack us is not continuing. In fact, everything shows that the desire to attack the United States is greater then ever.

Thus my point, attacking Iraq has NOT SOLVED THE PROBLEM!

SteveD

And I am aware that the war in Iraq has not prevented other acts of terror and plots uncovered.

I think you meant to say "And I am aware that the war in Iraq has prevented other acts of terror and plots uncovered." And your game with word semantics

You did not say "attack" but "fighting in the streets"--a big difference

is showing just how little you have to work with.

I stand by my statement. "Prove it. I can prove it has. Here is my proof : New York, or the US has not been attacked. I can prove that." See post above in response to Col. Of Little Knowledge. I at least can say that with factual basis, to say that the War in Iraq has not stopped any terrorist attacks in the US or prevented and other types of terrorist activities in the US is supposition and therefore un-provable on its face.

The other examples you offer have nothing to do with Iraq unless you think Zarqawi is ubiqutious and is leading a second front. Al Qaeda is global and not confined to one commander in the field of combat; you insult my intelligence thinking I'm unaware of this threatening time.

Not true. Zarqawi is part of al-Qaeda and here is his relation to the world wide setup. al-Qaeda Organization in the Land of the Two Rivers is the name of the group he leads in Iraq. Tanzim Qa’idat al-Jihad Fi Bilad al-Rafidayn is the current name of the terrorist group led by Abu Musab Zarqawi. The U.S. State Department has understood this name, which is translated as The Al-Qaeda Organization in the Land of the Two Rivers, to imply that Zarqawi sees his group as the center of Jihadist activities in Iraq. This change was made after Zarqawi pledged his alliance to Usama bin Laden. Despite the change in name, the goals of Zarqawi’s group – to overthrow the interim Iraqi government and establish an Islamic state in Iraq by forcing out the U.S.-led coalition – remain constant. Zarqawi’s group is believed to be comprised of foreign terrorists, elements of the Kurdish Islamist group Ansar al-Islam, and indigenous Sunni Iraqis. In a speech broadcast over the internet on January 23, 2005, Zarqawi denounced the upcoming Iraqi elections, calling candidates “demi-idols” and voters “infidels.” Zarqawi’s statement, declaring a “fierce war” against democracy, accused the Americans of rigging the election to favor Iraq’s Shi’ite population. Increased Sunni Arab participation in Iraq’s December 2005 parliamentary elections offered hope to some that support for wider insurgency may be abating. However, violence resumed following a lull in attacks during the election, including attacks by Al-Qaeda in the land of the Two Rivers. As a follower of Usama bin Laden, he has pledged to fight the "infidels" anywhere they may be found.

I also did not know that you were privi to all the intel that they have gotten from Iraq and all the documents and other evidence they have gotten. Especially since the US Gvernment has only processed a very small portion of it. 2 million "exploitable items" have been captured in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan. They include handwritten notes, typed documents, audiotapes, videotapes, compact discs, floppy discs, and computer hard drives. And only 50,000 of these have been processed and examined. So you have no factual basis on which t set your statements.

Defer

Here's a brainteaser, provide me the evidence that New York will never be attacked. Feel free to fantasize and regard this question as hypothetical, even. Let's say America stays in Iraq indefinently and that we keep the 'temporary' Patriot Act (with all it's wonderful little sunset clauses that were only made such to keep libertarians at bay) and all the good little executive orders made within the last few years in place - still believe New York is never going to be attacked?

Only a fool would use the word "never". I can say this with some amount of logical reasoning and linear thinking. For every terrorist they capture or kill in Iraq, thats one less that can try and attack us here on American soil. That is a fact and not disputable. So simply stating that, it proves that the war in Iraq has helped make America safer. Each terrorist killed or captured is one less able to try and infilitrate into our country. As for your paranoia of what the Government is doing to you as far as watching you. Wel thats an issue you have to deal with, professional help or medication is always available.

I always find it amazing how far from the original subject soome of these threads wander. From my original post about body armour to the information above shows just how far off topic some will go to try and defend the view they have when they have nothing to say on the orginal subject matter. I think thats one of the things I enjoy the most about reading some of the responses to these items I post. Just how far afield will the poster go to try and bring out a totally unrelated subject as they have nothing constructive or related to add. I won't name names, you know who you are.

There have been attacks all over the world and Iraq is the HOT bed of terrorist activities since we invaded. The most likely reason we have not been attacked in the U S is because we are doing a better job of preventing attacks. There is NO evidence there have been less attempts or that the underlying desire to attack us is not continuing. In fact, everything shows that the desire to attack the United States is greater then ever.Thus my point, attacking Iraq has NOT SOLVED THE PROBLEM!

You have no factual basis for your suposition.

Facts:
Iraqi Terrorist are being killed/captured in Iraq
Non-Iraqi Terrorist are being killed/captured in Iraq
al-Qaeda is operating in Iraq (See above post, I don't want to have to repost it all.)
The US has not been attacked since we went to War.

Will we ever be attacked again? As I said above, and for your edification, only a fool would say we are never going to be attacked. But then again only a fool would say that for each terrorist captured or killed in Iraq its not one less to possably attack us here at home.

Fact: eggs are cracked and placed into a bowl!
Fact: flour, sugar, and cocoa are added in appropriate quantities!
Fact: the contents are poured into a pan and placed into the oven!
Fact: the oven was somehow preset to 350 degrees!
Fact: when the timer went off, the pan was pulled out of the oven and allowed to cool!

You cannot tell me that all these facts brought about the cake which I am eating at this time!

In fact, everything shows that the desire to attack the United States is greater then ever.

Everything does not show that col.

There have been attacks all over the world and Iraq is the HOT bed of terrorist activities since we invaded. The most likely reason we have not been attacked in the U S is because we are doing a better job of preventing attacks. There is NO evidence there have been less attempts or that the underlying desire to attack us is not continuing. In fact, everything shows that the desire to attack the United States is greater then ever. Thus my point, attacking Iraq has NOT SOLVED THE PROBLEM!

Get a GRIP fool! I "very" specifically said the US, NOT all over the world! And just an fyi....there's also NO evidence that there have been "more" attempts either! Yet "another" load of BS by the col of "very little knowledge"!

This here is proof that Cols hatred towards Bush and his love for Bush Bashing is not wearing out that he completely changed the topic of this article with this single post:

#18 by COL Gene Monday, January 09, 2006

Most of my facts come from U S Government agencies. I have also used articles from other publications as well. The data I use is correct but the Bushies call it Bush Bashing. A good example is what has happened to the Annual Deficit and the National debt since Jan 2001. 1000 of 1000 people would most likely say the past 5 years have been very bad for our future. That is an example of what JoeUsers would call Bush bashing. I guess that is how you must view the impact of the tax and spending policies we have been following! Reflecting that 3 million people illegally crossed our southern border would also be considered Bush bashing. The 1 million additional Americans that lost healthcare during the past 5 years would also be Bush bashing to JoeUsers. The slaughter in Iraq and the deaths since the last election is most definitely Bush Bashing. The fact we are more dependent of foreign oil today is absolutely Bush bashing.

I do how ever love that first line. Since he is always bashing the Bush Administration. Isn't the Bush Administration part of those US Govt Agencies he gets his info from? How exactly do you trust info coming out of an agency from those who you deem irresponsible?