The other side of the coin...

[Epyon]

Something I must say Pointer...

I don't think it's so much as not everyone accepts the fact that Bush is president, more like they accept that he's president but don't like his poor leadership. I'm inclined to say that even if no one protested this war, we'd be in Iraq for who knows how long, and therefore there would be less scrutiny allowing for even more underhanded deeds to go unnoticed such as violations of the Geneva Conventions, the lack of WMDs which was the big reason we went, the fact that the higher-ups knew about 9/11 from field agents yet chose to ignore it. Also the fact that it was known Al Qaeda and Iraq weren't allies because Saddam didn't want a power struggle and so therefore if we're fighting terrorists, specifically Al Qaeda why didn't we just keep the fight in Afghanistan instead? Bush's own party is even fed up with him at this point, and I think that translates as weak leadership if your own support group is frustrated with you. More importantly the Supreme Court has also stated that Bush and his administration may be in violation of the Constitution, not just the Geneva Conventions. So if everyone were to support Bush after the elections would he be less likely to be held accountable for such actions that completely violate human rights? The only way liberty can be protected is by vigilance, and holding officials accountable. By the way, was WW2 ever protested as badly as this one? Or is this war comparable to Vietnam judging by the way things are going? From what I know so far, many Americans were in support of WW2 after Pearl Harbor, whereas Vietnam it was heavily mixed because America wasn't under an attack.


Epyon

 

[Pointer]

Yes...

I felt those twinges of paranoia as well...

But, again I thought there was less threat from my own government than from the enemies of this nation who have OPENLY declared they would destroy us... sort of a lesser of two evils.

It is, indeed, a dichotomy and I truly can't think of a solution...

But, the next time Al Qaeda comes at us I hope it hits the left-wing screechers an makes them cry... then, I believe, the right-wing preachers will shut up and get out of the way...

 

[garand_shooter]

I'm inclined to say that even if no one protested this war, we'd be in Iraq for who knows how long,

The goal of the insurgency is not to defeat the military, it's to sway the minds of the policy makers that the war cannot be won or is too costly. Mao knew it, Ho knew it, etc. The timetables for these types of struggles are measured in decades, not years. The antagonistic nature of democracies, and especially our highly polarized one, is especially susceptible to this type of warfare. The protesting in this country aids the insurgency. As the saying goes, a house divided against itself cannot stand.

the fact that the higher-ups knew about 9/11 from field agents yet chose to ignore it

Any evidence stronger than conspiracy theories?

Also the fact that it was known Al Qaeda and Iraq weren't allies because Saddam didn't want a power struggle

Actually, the reasons usually cited are secularism (Saddam) and religious extremism (Al Qaeda). To think they couldn't put their differences aside to fight a common enemy is foolish. May I suggest reading 'The Connection' by Stephen F Hayes.

they accept that he's president but don't like his poor leadership

Bush's own party is even fed up with him at this point, and I think that translates as weak leadership if your own support group is frustrated with you.

You seem to like The Founders. I would assume you are aware that during the campaign of 1776, there were many who wanted to replace Washington as Commander of the Continental Army. What has history said about his leadership abilities? Maybe leadership has nothing to do with satisfying or impressing a particular group?

By the way, was WW2 ever protested as badly as this one?

WWII was a previous generation of warfare, manuevers based, designed to destroy the opposing army, and thus the enemy's ability to wage war. The current war, is much more psychologically based. As previously stated, the goal is to sway the decisions of policy makers. The insurgents know they cannot stand blow for blow with the US forces. This type of warfare, first devised by Mao, but expanded by others, allows a weaker force to defeat a stronger force. It's how the Soviets were defeated in Afghanistan. The media is used to render gruesome images, and sway public opinion, causing decreasing support for the war. If , during D-Day, the American people were exposed to the horrors of thousands of lives lost, and images of raw carnage, opposition and protest would have increased geometrically. We are a completely different society than we were 60 years ago, and a direct comparison of the two entirely different situations cannot be made.

 

[johnbt]

"if Mahmoud Abbas can prove that Hamas no longer has violent intentions "

If he can prove that then pigs will fly. And sing. Fly and sing.

I'm not holding my breath.

John

 

[johnbt]

"WWII was a previous generation of warfare, manuevers based, designed to destroy the opposing army, and thus the enemy's ability to wage war. The current war, is much more psychologically based."

Are you purposefully ignoring the firebombing of Tokyo, the atom bombing of two cities, the firebombing of Dresden and many other European cities such as the 10,000 who died one night in Kessel?

Between 9/40 and 12/40 approximately 15,000 civilians died from the attacks on southern English cities.

And then there was the Rape of Nanking. "Between December 1937 and March 1938 at least 369,366 Chinese civilians and prisoners of war were slaughtered by the invading troops. An estimated 80,000 women and girls were raped; many of them were then mutilated or murdered."

Gruesome psychological warfare.

 

[Epyon]

To garand_shooter...

Quote:
the fact that the higher-ups knew about 9/11 from field agents yet chose to ignore it

Any evidence stronger than conspiracy theories?

Does NPR count? Or is that left-wing propaganda? As for Washington being criticized for being a poor leader, I am aware of that. However I believe that his ability to be an awesome speaker is what held his rag-tag army together even in the face of adversity, thus giving his men motivation to hang tough and see it through. Bush certainly doesn't seem to even have that going for him. The other thing that I think the terrorists would want is not only for us to divide on an issue to the point where liberty collapses, so much as to wage a war of attrition, make it as long and drawn out as possible until we've squandered and spread ourselves too thin. However I would also say that they want us to lose our freedoms and right now, I'd have to say they're winning that front to a degree. However if we keep constant watch on our own government we can make sure they take care of terrorists WITHOUT violating the Constitution. As I'm sure many know this popular quote from Franklin, "Those who give up essential liberties for security deserve neither."


Epyon

 

[garand_shooter]

Are you purposefully ignoring the firebombing of Tokyo, the atom bombing of two cities, the firebombing of Dresden and many other European cities such as the 10,000 who died one night in Kessel?

No, and my intention was not to remove the psychological warfare aspect of WWII. The point I was trying to make is that the insurgents do not have the capability of eliminating our ability to wage war, their success or failure lies solely in their ability to destroy our will to continue.

Does NPR count?

If their reporting is based upon some concrete evidence, they absolutely count. If it's just rehashing the conspiracy theory, no. So I'll rephrase the question. Is there concrete evidence?

 

[Pointer]

the fact that the higher-ups knew about 9/11 from field agents yet chose to ignore it

I choose to believe that our "higher-ups" are of better character than those of non-democratic nations...
THEREFORE... I am inclined to believe there are good, and well considered, reasons behind what they do... or don't do.

I believe they did, in fact, know about the plottings of Al Qaeda and had a "ton" of intelligence on them... They also had a bunch of intel on many other enemies...

I believe that they did fail to put it all together fast enough to head off the 9/11 attacks.

Put yourself in their position... Would you ignore it if you knew... hell no!

The Intel Community simply missed it because their budgets had been slashed (By the Leftists) over the recent decades and they didn't have the capacity to manage and process the overwhelming quantities of intel...

Al Qaeda was not the only enemy and there were many others to be "watched" that tended to camoflage each other.

Are you purposefully ignoring the firebombing of Tokyo, the atom bombing of two cities, the firebombing of Dresden and many other European cities such as the 10,000 who died one night in Kessel?

Please note this...
Those incidents ALL took place near the end of the war...
We did not make a habit of destroying civilians... only if they were the ones who were making materiel (Weapons and bombs etc) for the military enemy who were then using them to destroy OUR civilians.

"Are you purposefully ignoring the bombing of"... London? Warsaw? Paris? The Bataan March? or the mass murder of countless people in The Philipines? or the Nazi murders of 11 million CIVILIANS?

I don't think you are... and no civilized person would purposefully ignore the potential murder of the victims of Al Qaeda...
We had already tried to end the damned war with every other means at our disposal and a lot of people died trying. The war was dragging on, and on, and too many innocents were dying on our side... We wanted a speedy end of the war...

If this attitude and these tactics had been used in the early years of the war it would have ended the war much sooner and saved a great portion of the approximately 25 to 30 million people who died in that war... but instead they waited until sufficient desperation had set in among the screeching leftists (and general population) and then they ended that war in very short order...

Some people are myopic and they are usually the ones who screech on and on and never contribute a real solution...

The protesting in this country aids the insurgency. As the saying goes, a house divided against itself cannot stand.

Was it Abe Lincoln who said that???