No AQ attacks on US soil since we began fighting back.

did you forget about the anthrax attacks? we don't know for sure if aq did them or not, but it definitevely was a terrorist attack that we never solved or identified the terrorists even.

Terror orgainzations around the world being splintered and destroyed.

not according to this, and other sources...

Link

Fewer terrorist in the world because they all head to Iraq because it is as close as they can get to America. Good results so far.

not according to the "american Conservative" who interviewed "Robert Pape" of whom, they said...

Associate Professor Robert Pape of the University of Chicago, whose book on suicide terrorism, Dying to Win, is beginning to receive wide notice. Pape has found that the most common American perceptions about who the terrorists are and what motivates them are off by a wide margin. In his office is the world’s largest database of information about suicide terrorists, rows and rows of manila folders containing articles and biographical snippets in dozens of languages compiled by Pape and teams of graduate students, a trove of data that has been sorted and analyzed and which underscores the great need for reappraising the Bush administration’s current strategy. Below are excerpts from a conversation with the man who knows more about suicide terrorists than any other American.

from the interview...


That is exactly what happened. Six months after the document was produced, al-Qaeda attacked Spain in Madrid. That caused Spain to withdraw from the coalition. Others have followed. So al-Qaeda certainly has demonstrated the capacity to attack and in fact they have done over 15 suicide-terrorist attacks since 2002, more than all the years before 9/11 combined. Al-Qaeda is not weaker now. Al-Qaeda is stronger

full article here... Link

This was proven by documents that showed Iraq was planning on rebuilding his WMD program. The mushroom clouds was used to illistrate what would happen if we did not take the threats seriously from Saddam, he said he would sell or give WMD to any one that would use them on Israel or America. This crap of yours was refuted my many over the months I have been on JU.



This is true but it takes time to establish a working democracy. You foolishly think that four years is enough but if you bother to study our own history America was in serious trouble the first fifty years with attacks from all sides until we were able to stand on our own. We did not gain the respect of the international community until 1900, which was 130 years after we became a nation, yet you ignorantly expect Iraq to become a functioning democratic nation in less than 4 years. Please show me a country that was able to do that without our help.
Gene you claim to have gone to an Army war college but I still have doubts that you graduated one that was run by the U. S. Army. How many AQ terrorist attacks on U.S. soil have happened since we attacked Afghanistan and Iraq? If you are honest you will say none which means Mr. Bush was right. If you calim the one where a guy shot up the LA airport that the FBI calles a terrorist attack I will give you half credit. Gee, I feel safer alreaady.



You are correct, the reason why is because the region does not have any democracies and the leaders of those nations don’t want to see one any time soon so they are going to muddy up the waters as best they can but even in Iran you can see it is having an effect. What this means is the plan is working but will take time unless you are an idiot and can't stay focused on any one topic for more than a minute.



Where are these millions? AQ started with about 100K terrorist that was trained under Mr. Clintons watch. They don’t even claim to have that many now and they were the biggest and most organized. Hammas is the next biggest with a few tens of thousands but they have not grown much either. The revolutionary guard of Iran has some high numbers but they have been around since the 70’s where did you get these numbers? More to your point the supposed millions that want to attack America are all pooling in Iraq and still can’t defeat our meager numbers.



Maybe you did not get the memo, AQ used Afghanistan as a training ground for terror officers kind of like a terror OCS. They were never a standing army in Afghanistan only the AQ types there were training officers and sending them back to where they came from to train others to build up an army. All this while Mr. Clinton pounded sand with million dollar missiles to make a statement that he did not like what they were doing. Now that we are hunting them down and reducing their numbers you want to notice that AQ is scattered around the world. News flash Gene! They have been all over the world for years. Remember Blackhawk down? The strategy for that came from AQ and it worked at making America look weak enough to attack directly. Mr. Bush should be impeached for letting this happen! Oh, wait that was on Mr. Clinton’s watch sorry, my mistake.



Correct! Which is why we are fighting them in every country they are found, you only see the battles in Iraq because that is all you can focus on in 4 years. Remember your article on how the US was fighting in Somalia and making a mess there? The same Somalia where Mr. Clinton screwed up by letting AQ gain a foot hold and let them plan and then execute the Blackhawk down strategy. We have them on the run all over the world yet all you see is one country and one battle and call that a war.




Good of you to notice finally. Yeah, the reason we are there is to fight AQ wherever they are. You on the other hand want to run away before the fight is over and your party making public statements to the same only helps the enemy. Your party is good at that. Let’s see, your party backed the Soviet Union except when Mr. Kennedy was in office. Backed the communist against our own president in South America. Supported China against the US. Supported North Korea, and did put into power the Iranian terrorist that are in power today fighting us. Nice track record for your party. You know why some democratic women like to sleep with republican men? So they will know what it is like to sleep with a winner for a change.



Results:

No AQ attacks on US soil since we began fighting back.

Terror orgainzations around the world being splintered and destroyed.

Fewer terrorist in the world because they all head to Iraq because it is as close as they can get to America. Good results so far.

btw, he also said,,,

TAC: What do you think the chances are of a weapon of mass destruction being used in an American city?

RP: I think it depends not exclusively, but heavily, on how long our combat forces remain in the Persian Gulf. The central motive for anti-American terrorism, suicide terrorism, and catastrophic terrorism is response to foreign occupation, the presence of our troops. The longer our forces stay on the ground in the Arabian Peninsula, the greater the risk of the next 9/11, whether that is a suicide attack, a nuclear attack, or a biological attack.

Not at all Sean, We did not start fighting back until after the letters were mailed. We were still confirming who attacked us on 9/11 if you recall.



Sean if you remember we did not go into full attack mode until 2003 when we had our game plan in place. Yes, we lost Spain in the coalition but Great Briton was also attacked and fought through it in doing so it diminished their numbers. Keep in mind that most AQ attacks are planned years in advance. There were more attacks planned in the US but they were stopped according to our government. Once we made it through the period of planned attacks from before 2001 the attacks have dropped off. It took 5 years to plan and execute the attacks on 9/11, it took two years to plan the bombings in our embassies in Africa. The AQ trade mark is planning of spectacular news grabbing attacks.

What I mean to say is your article link is accurate but out of date for my posting.

I disagree and so does time, it is not our being in the Gulf that will trigger a mass attack but being seen as weak. As long as America was seen as strong the terrorist were happy attacking outside our borders and patting themselves on the back for the great victory. Once we were seen as weak the began to plan biggers attacks. First they were going to just blow up planes over the ocean to strike fear in our hearts and minds. But as time went on they found weaknesses in our systems and exploited them. According to witnesses there were supposed to be more planes slamming into landmarks around the country but the grounding of the air fleet was faster than they believed possible for this weak nation, meaning only four planes were involved in the attack.

If we were seen as weak after 9/11 we would have had a nuke go off within a year of the attacks. I expected more attacks but the nation reacted quickly and with force that did not seem to be stopable. Even Iran under its last president bowed to our will. When we were seen as weak because of our in fighting we started to lose friends and gain enemies. I am not saying political debate is bad but when it comes to war there can not be any division seen by the enemy or potential enemies. It is a sign of weakness and weakness breeds attacks from people that only respect strongmen.

How many attacks against US interests were there between 1993 and 2001?

How many have there been since 2001?

I rest my case.

if you want to narrowly define "us inerests" as only a direct hit on our soil, then yeah...you can feel that way. but i don't define it that way. this country can't seem to get it thru our collective thick skull that their goal is to weaken us by any means possible, and that their strategy is hardly limited to car bombs and suicide attacks. our lack of respect for our enemy in this "war on terror" as it is called, has lead to our being weakened, not strengthened. but that happens any time one does not respect their opponent. that is evidenced every sunday the NFL plays.

AQ expected us to attack afghanastan after 9/11...that's why they killed the guy who would have been our main ally there 2 days before 9/11. and if we didn't attack then, i believe attacks would have kept coming. 9/11 gave them the world's attention the way they wanted it. after those attacks and our counter attack. further attacks simply have not been necessary. since our iraq invasion, another us attack might actually cause us to refocus our energy on actually going after them in pakistan and along the border instead of wasting our resources and sacrificing our best and bravest in a quagmire. and of course, with their new lease on life since our dropping the ball in afghanastan, i doubt they want that.

Iraq, on the other hand, was simply a bonus to them. it drains our recources, provides them with a super duper recruiting ad and allows them to sit back and let us twist in the iraqi desert wind. all they have to do is send in a few guys to stir things up, and then just let the rest happen. they don't need a base in iraq, and know the iraqi's would never put up with it. AQ is a sunni group, iraq is a shiite dominated country. the worst thing that could happen to AQ is our pullout of Iraq and restrengthening of our forces, defenses and a calm, cool look at our strategy going forward. the war hasn't caused AQ to make Iraq a base of anything. they have a fine and friendly one on the afghan pakistna border, where no one messes with them at all. we could, but we're too busy playing whack a mole in iraq to do anything serious there. just like they want us to be.

sorry brad, on this one, we disagree.

I have to disagree with you here. We have an ally in Pakistan that is helping as best he can even to the point of getting death threats from his own intelligence service which sent up the alliance with Afghanistan and AQ. The area where the remnants of AQ leadership is in a no mans land. Yes, they are in Pakistan but the area has no government control. Going in there would spark a serious civil war that the leader would lose so we do the best we can with what we have. AQ tried to move its headquarters from Afghanistan to Iraq which is one of the reasons given for the invasion. The press hyped the nuclear weapons angle but even the administration did not support that.
AQ not only killed our guy over there 2 days before the 9/11 attacks they also moved all of their secondary leadership out of the country before the attacks. Most of them have been located and killed around the world so it is not as if the ball was dropped it is the press has focused on Iraq. When things started to look bad in Afghanistan to the press, they focused on AQ coming back! But if you are a student of history you will know that fighting there is seasonal. You don’t fight in winter. You will take more casualties fighting the cold than fighting the enemy. You find a hole in the ground and stay warm till spring and restart the war. Mr. Bush started to send more troops there as soon as it started to get warm to get a head of the curve and the press screamed it must be because we are losing in Afghanistan!
AQ prior to 9/11 boasted of having over 100K scattered around the world. Now they have less than 80k, unless math has changed a lot since I was a kid that is not trending to the stronger side of the equation. Yes, you have a lot of public well wishers that are vocal. But if you understand that area of the world you have to support them verbally. Anything less is disloyal and in that part of the world being on the losing side means death. If they were seen as winning as you suggest then AQ would be a million strong and kicking in our doors whenever they wished. Small cells scattered across America can do great damage. I don’t see it. They shot their wad did the best they could and now are fighting for survival. I still expect two or even three big attacks in the US before they die out. But that is just me. If they are smart they will lay low until a democrat gets in office and then attack. Democrats tend to be liberal and want to reach out and negotiate. In that part of the world if you want to negotiate you have to be losing. After 9/11 Senator Daschle wanted the administration to reach out to AQ and find a peaceful way to end this quickly. It is the first choice among liberals. Not good or bad it is their mindset. The problem with reaching out to them is that it is a sure sign of weakness and whatever agreements made will only serve the enemy not us. in America it is a good thing to reach out but not internationally with these people.

to be honest pal...i started quoting and responding,,,but i really don't know where to start here and i really don't have the time or interest to write another novel on the subject in a response. i essentially disagree with just about everything you said. about the only thing i agree with is the consideration of weather in the theater of battle. your blaming the media is typical. your assessment about what has happened is innacurate, in my view from what i know. and since both your and my views are well documente on these blog pages and i doubt it's necessary to get into another google pissing contest "proving" our respective viewpoints.

i am extremely comfortable in my viewpoint as i am sure you are. i'm sure we'll discuss this more down the road...take care:)

Nice dodge, see you later.

puleassseee...i'm damned if i do, damned if i don't , eh? you know very well i am not goin anywhere and these issues will come up over and over again. simply repeating things we've said in the past won't accomplish anything here. and the fact that you blew off someone who knows more about terrorism than you or i or anyone else here and countered it with a bunch of unsubstantiated claims and opinions that are merely typical talking points doesn't really hold my interest right now.

if ya really want to get into it, then provide something that can be backed up and alalyzed. i threw out something from a leading conservative journal and sourced it for scrutiny. you just give the sme old talking points with nothing to back the opinions up. throw out something from someone from a more progressive viewpoint that supports your opinions like i did. give me something to work with. otherwise it's just boring and the same old song from the right.

and i was just trying to be semi-polite about it above and got accused of "dodging."

get over yourself...i've been debating the Iraq war since before we went in. my positions have remained consistant. as time goes on, more people move to my side of the issue, not yours. your talking points are hardly influential or intimidating. they are just boring and typical. while you detest democrats, you should know by now that i am not one of them, nor am i part of the GOP. so your hate is misdirected towards me, or at least the person you think i am. you see the war issue as a lib vs con thing, i don't. and until you realize that misdirection in your thinking you will never understand this issue as your partisan punditry prevents you from looking at anything with a clear lens.

this war was a mistake. this is regardless of whether or not we were lied to in the 1st place. it was a tactical mistake to think that people who have been killing each other since 650 ad and had greater ties to their tribal heritage than anything the west calls "borders" by a long shot were gonna stop, shake hands and abide by our rules. those facts are far more important than the political fodder of finding out who voted what in 2002 or 98 for that matter. Bush sr, powell and schwartzkopf didn't go in back in 90-91 because they understood the tradgedy that would result in a western invasion of iraq and the occupation that would need to follow.

there were better ways to deal with saddam, and certainly better tactical ways to use our might and power in the so called "war on terror" and the people who use such tactics.

No AQ attacks on US soil since we began fighting back. did you forget about the anthrax attacks? we don't know for sure if aq did them or not, but it definitively was a terrorist attack that we never solved or identified the terrorists even.

Didn't succed either, did it?

in fact they have done over 15 suicide-terrorist attacks since 2002, more than all the years before 9/11 combined. Al-Qaeda is not weaker now. Al-Qaeda is stronger

And how many have succeeded?

Feel free to list attacks on US interests since then. There's nothing narrow in my description. No embassy bombings. No attacks on US soil. No attacks on US ships. The kinds of attacks that plagued us throughout the 90s came to an abrupt end.

Claiming that we have been "weakened" doesn't make it so.

I did not blow him off or you for that matter. I just don’t see anything pertinent from what he wrote and the current topic. Prophetic, maybe, but not pertinent, your man’s report came out before the invasion. Things changed in that time, things that make is statements less than relevant today. I thought you could see that. I was wrong.

Now an attack in the Green Zone that killed 8 including two elected IRAQI LEADERS. Yes we are doing just fine in Iraq like Sen. McCain told us!!! What a load of BS!!!