Looks like the war on terror might not be going as well as President Bush would have you believe.

http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8566210"] The Economist - Global terrorism On the March, not on the Run

you are weak and gutless, dd21!

just pointing out the facts, unappealing as they may be.

The link doesn't work, dd21...

you don't want "victory"!

Why is that weak and gutless, Ron?

just thinking a change in tactics may be the answer, not that Bush's "hit 'em with a big stick" approach hasn't had it's high points.

I think the President would be thrilled if the American people understood the seriousness of the threat.

The title was tounge-in-cheek, playing off Cessna's post yesterday. I think a lot of people don't understand the gravity of the situation, and the Bush administration's constant reassurances that we are winng are beginning to ring hollow.

Bush is right though, we can't afford to lose. That said, I'm not sure Bush's approach has been an effective one, especially for the man who politicized 9/11 so much for his own gain. Here we are over 5 years later, Usama is still free, and terrorism is on the rise, not decline.

sorry. i should've added " " or some other typical conservative talking-point.

Good, 'cause you scared me...

I know.



First, I think they were right, up to a point. As Bush said in his SOTU address, we had a very good 2005. Last year sucked.



You can disagree with the approach, but I'd like to see you offer your ideas. And stop with the canard about politicizing 9/11. The only thing he can be accused of is telling people that there is a danger (something you admit is reasonable) and running on his record (something all politicians do).

Besides everyone knows "The Economist" is a liberal rag.

Here's my idea on how to stop terrorism (okay it's not mine, I borowed it from a book called The Pentagon's New Map):

The way to stop terrorism is to develop the middle east into a more modern society, much like Bush is doing, however he's got the horse in front of the cart. You can't force democracy on a country. Never in the history of the world has a democracy emerged without one key thing that Iraq lacks, a large stable middle class. The way to foster the growth of a middle class in the middle east is to cut off their oil "trust fund".

If we develop alternative fuels (which Bush has supported, but done little) and stop giving corrupt Arab leaders billions of dollars to buy racehorses and diamond-studded mercedes, they will be forced to develop their own infrastructure by investing in their own country. As the infrastructure develops, standards of living increase, the middle class emerges, and fire brand clerics find fewer and fewer recruits to their radicalism. This leads to a liberalization of the whole region, cutting terrorism off at the source.

The main point: Bush is taking a back-asswards approach and is costing American lives and money with his blundering.

Not like that straight shooter Rush Limbaugh

I don't have a lot to argue with in your post. I wanted to point out that you mean to cut off the "leadership's" oil money. Bush's approach in Iraq - to insist that Maliki pass a law that provides the oil money directly to the Iraqi people - will actually help in this objective.

I agree that there has been too much focus on "democracy" in Iraq. I am more concerned with a government there that respects human liberty than one that is "democratic".

Excellent point J, it is the leadership who missues oil revenue.

See, there is some common ground for liberals and conservatives. Basically the only thing divding us (you and me anyway) is support for Bush.

I am not tied to Bush. I think that in the last couple of elections, Republicans in general, and Bush in particular, have represented the better option in dealing with Islamofascists. Obviously, you disagree, but I hope that's based on policy, not antipathy for an individual.

and based on the article in this thread, have you changed your view on this?

No. Bush's approach - actually combatting it - will draw out combatants, no question. The Kerry/Pelosi approach - pretend it isn't really happening - would have even worse consequences. Deal with it now, or deal with it after they have nukes. Your choice.

i don't get how those are the only 2 choices.

You could say that there are other ways to combat it, but dealing with it or not dealing with it (the Bush/Kerry dichotomy) are the two basic choices at the current time. I'm sure we'll now devolve into you preaching about how we ought to use holistic methods, etc., etc., etc.

why not devolve? the same reason that we realistically can't agree that the "surge" is a good idea but that it is also flawed because you can't compromise on the # of boots needed to accomplish it?

Ron, that is not a subject for compromise - there is a right answer. The President may be wrong about the number of battalions, or he may be wrong. But it's not something you can split the difference on.

And frankly, I don't want it to devolve because I am tired of listening to it. You've got all these great ideas that you've seen in Time magazine, most of which are already being pursued, while at the same time claiming to be unsullied by actually reading anything about the situation. One might see how it could grate on another's nerves.

J, are you just in it for the politics or are you in it for solutions? i agree with the surge...to a point. W has compromised on the number of troops. i'm saying: WHY HAS HE SPLIT THE DIFFERENCE? man, you always want to know hwo we deal with the real problems. i'm saying that the administration's compromise on the # of troops will likely not work just as his compromise by not listening to shinseki so that he could sell his plan to those who didn't want any war at all. what did i say that was so confusing for you?

i have pointed out 2 time articles i've read because they refut your assertions about gov't healthcare and what has been happening with gitmo. i get the news/stories from them but the thinking is my own. the only thing that grates on your nerves is being challenged which you've probably never had to worry about since you were able to twist with aplomb before.