These are interesting set of questions for the Democrats to answer about Terror and the war thereof. How would you handle them? Perhaps someone, such as Grizzly, Expat, or even TQ(provided he leaves out the homoerotica), can give a logical answer to these questions, which appear to cut to the chase quite clearly.



TERROR FOR DEMS

By ARNOLD AHLERT

FOUR questions regarding the War on Terror that most Democrats can't — or won't — answer.

* If Iraq is the "wrong war, etc." where — exactly — should America be prosecuting the war on terror? Hint: If we capture or kill Osama bin Laden, is the War on Terror "over"?

* If all diplomatic measures fail to deter Iran's quest for nuclear capability, should the nations of the West use military force?

* If those other nations are either militarily incapable or simply unwilling to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, should the United States act unilaterally?

* If "war is not the answer" — and, as many Democrats have made clear, neither is the attempt to "democratize" the Middle East — how do you propose stop the spread of Islamo-facism?

There are serious questions — far too serious to be ignored or demagogued. The American people have a right to know what, if any, serious alternatives Democrats have for dealing with the War on Terror — before the 2006 election.

Good questions, John. When the Democratic party can come up with some answers, then I may support them again. Until then, I am a neocon (which I blame JohnL and a few others here for). I was hoping these new Iraq war vets who are running (Paul Hackett, Tammy Duckworth) would have some good answers. Haven't seen anything valid from them yet either. Same old same old. I've unsubscribed from my Democrat newsletters because they provide no answers, only criticism.

Another question for Dems. You are saying the wire tapping is illegal and then saying how easy it is for the President to get warrants through FISA. (have you made up your minds yet? Is it 48 hours or 15 days? Is this considered wartime to you Dems yet?) So if it's that easy, then what's the big deal if he doesn't get warrants? Common sense and Democrat-can't use those words together in a sentence.

Well, I am a democrat, so here goes:

TERROR FOR DEMS

By ARNOLD AHLERT

FOUR questions regarding the War on Terror that most Democrats can't — or won't — answer.

* If Iraq is the "wrong war, etc." where — exactly — should America be prosecuting the war on terror? Hint: If we capture or kill Osama bin Laden, is the War on Terror "over"?
Anywhere there are active cells of people who are planning attacks on America. No, of course capturing Osama doesn't mean much anymore. If you were intellectually honest, you wouldn't even ask that question, no democrats are saying that he is. Attacking Iraq was attacking a SOVERIEGN nation that had NOTHING to do with 911.

* If all diplomatic measures fail to deter Iran's quest for nuclear capability, should the nations of the West use military force?
Yes, of course.

* If those other nations are either militarily incapable or simply unwilling to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, should the United States act unilaterally?
Yes, of course, but it would be worth the effort to include the major Western nations, but not Israel.

* If "war is not the answer" — and, as many Democrats have made clear, neither is the attempt to "democratize" the Middle East — how do you propose stop the spread of Islamo-facism?
That is the hardest question. War alone won't do it. You can't democratize a different culture by force, that is just silly. I think neither party has come up with a plan that will work on that one.

There are serious questions — far too serious to be ignored or demagogued. The American people have a right to know what, if any, serious alternatives Democrats have for dealing with the War on Terror — before the 2006 election.

It is amazing to freedom loving, patriotic Americans like me, how enthusiastically the radical right is lining up to surrender our basic civil liberties and constitutional protections. You are the traitors to true American values and ideals.

So what's your answers to the questions John posted?

It might help if you read my previous post. Too much crystal in your gay days, Mr. Ski?

Going to get the second cup of coffee now Could you please lay off the gay remarks?

You are confusing.
I thought your so called cure from homosexuality was a big thing with you.

If I recall, this is not a 9/11 war on just terror. I believe this to be a war on Militant Islam. And clearly Saddam was aiding and abetting these terrorists. It is now a proven fact that he had at three or four training camps, where terrorists were trained by Iraqi authorities.

Further, Iraq is the most advantegous strategic location on this war on militant Islam. As Willie Sutton stated, when asked why he robbed banks, "Because That's Where The Money Is". The same thing applies here.



Good for you! Now, here is where the rubber Really meets the road. Just when should diplomatic measures reach an end? How much diplomacy is enough prior to taking action?



Why not that country most likely to feel the brunt from Iran?



While I agree here with you, there comes a time when force Must be applied, or any claim to credibility or moral authority will have been negated.

TQ, this has nothing to do with homosexuality. Again you are imposing your subject, homosexuality, on the forum. The real point of this thread is the questions posed by me via the article.

There was nothing about homosexuality mentioned within it. Kindly act like an adult and address the subject, ok?

And speaking of Iran, TQ, what should we do if this thread was to be turned into reality? Should we use force if Iran does decide to close down shipping in the Straight of Hormuz?

Iranian official: UN sanctions may lead us to seal off Persian Gulf

By Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondent


A senior Iranian official threatened that Tehran may forcibly prevent oil export via the Straits of Hormuz if the UN imposed economic sanctions due to Iran's nuclear program, an Iranian news Web site said on Monday.

This is the first time an Iranian official makes military threats in a public statement on Tehran's recent disagreements with the West.

The news site, affiliated with the radical student movement in which President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was once a member, quoted Mohammed-Nabi Rudaki, deputy chairman of the Iranian parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission.

According to the report, Rudaki said that "if Europe does not act wisely with the Iranian nuclear portfolio and it is referred to the UN Security Council and economic or air travel restrictions are imposed unjustly, we have the power to halt oil supply to the last drop from the shores of the Persian Gulf via the Straits of Hormuz."

25% of the world's oil production passes through the Straits of Hormuz, which connect the Persian Gulf with the Indian Ocean. The meaning of Rudaki's threat is that not only will Tehran stop its oil production from reaching the West, it may also use force to prevent the other oil prodoucers in the region (the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait) from exporting to the West.

Raduki also warned that his country might quit from its membership in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

No - the war is not over. As the Munich Olympic massacre showed us - you can kill the leaders, you can shoot the soldiers but there is always someone worse waiting in the wings. So the war or the Police action will not be over for some time.

As to where - that depends on which country we can convince to let us in. We've pretty much alienated the populations of most of the Middle East and Muslim Affrica. But having said that - with small, highly trained groups of soliders and special ops we go after them where ever they are.



Limited Military strikes - much in the same way Isreal did in Iraq in the early 80s when they bombed the one Nuclear facilty inIraq. A full force invasion is uncalled for and to be honest - we no longer have the troop strength left for any kind of protracted engagement.

Thanks George Bush.



Yes, if they really start making a bomb - and that's it's proven with actual and accurate intelligence - Iran has made implied threats aimed at the United States with much of his rhetoric - but it would be better if we had help.



War is not always the wrong answer. The sooner the Repubs understand that the Dems are not the wimps they accuse of as being - (remember Bosnia? A little war that Clinton engaged us in with not a single soldier killed in battle) - the better off we all will be.

Afghanistan was the right thing to do. We knew Osama was there and then we somehow failed to get him - go figure. And that my friends was a blunder made under a republican president.

To expect anyone to come up with an answer to the middle east ignores the long and troubled history of the region. Historically when the west tried to impose it's culture or ideas by force it's always failed. The only thing we can do is to support internal change and keep a lid on any dictator from aquiring nukes or weapons of mass destruction by what ever means are available.

Having said that, Saddam was under our thumb. Period. Colin Powell said we had him in a box. When we restarted the inspections after 9/11, he rolled over on his back like a dog and submitted to us. Now after we started this war we have tens of thousands of dead Iraqis and almost 2,500 American Dead.

Bush got us into this war as a choice based on anything but the truth.

What happens when we see that troop death toll rise above the number of those killed on 9/11? Already we are responsible for the current state of that country and the US shares the blood of the dead with the insurgency - which is mixed with nationalists and Al Queda - fighting us and each other - and killing anyone who gets in the way or is unlucky enough to be close to an attack or bomb.

Ask anyone of those in Iraq if seeing their dead child or mother or father or wife or husband, if all the current killing is worth it? Democracy, to many of these people, is a dream - and if it works. I - like any American - hope it does for the sake of the Iraqi people and our troops over there - then lets see how long it lasts.

So as an independent democrat - I think these answers are simple and reasonable and can work in the long run. Of course these issues are much more complex than most republicans will admit to. But as democrats, we don't shy away from military actions - Clinton proved that much more successfully than Bush - and we have ideas. Lots of ideas and many will work better than those of the republican side, and not bankrupt the Army and our armed forces in the process no matter what Rumsfield sputters off about.

Does that answer your question?

While they may be able to stop the flow for a few weeks or days - it will mean the end of their oil producing facilities for decades to come. This is just more useless rhetoric from the Iranian revolutionary council and they know it's bullshit. they won't shoot themselves that badly in the foot no matter what the UN does.

So where are the other democrats in here? Why are you not speaking up about this? This is why the GOP can win elections - they always try to put us on the defensive and they get away with it time after time!!

Speak out or we will forever be in the back row - we have better ideas, we actually support and contribute fresh ideas and sincerely believe in a balanced budget - we stand for freedom from government intrusions into our lives and want a smart, strong and whole US military - something the conservatives have no clue on how to do as they have virtually destroyed the US Army in their quest to become an imperial America.

So speak out you lazy Dems!

That is really a bad question. It suggests that if we were going to wholly invade someone, who better than Iraq? I don't really think that wholly invading anyone, especially without signigficant help from allies worldwide, is necessary nor even helpful for the War on Terror (we didn't do so in Afghanistan, btw - we supported a civil war)

Rather, replacing the programs that Clinton had in place and actually using them, in addition putting a lot more diplomatic and domestic effort and priority to identifying and arresting terrorists and to prosecuting their networks. It took a massive intelligence failure to allow 9-11 to happen, and with fervor and skill we ought to be able to combat terrorism effectively without unilaterally invading anyone.

This question also demonstrates the authors 'Alpocalypse Now" - like bias of "KILL KILL KILL!!!!" To actually answer it, IF we we going to invade someone, here are a few better choices than Iraq, in re: combatting terrorism

Gven that Saudi Arabia is the source of Wahhabism that is the main root of international terrorism globally - from Spain to Thailand - I would say that would be a good place to start. One can make a strong case that Iran is much better place to start than Iraq as well. Iran, afterall, actually has WMDs and we could have gotten world support (had we not already spent our 'political captial'; on Iraq) for immediate direct military action.


This 'hint' is precisely why the question is a bad one. No, it is not over. Moreover, the US doesn't have the resopurces for a military campaign that last s long as the WoT.



We should have bombed the **** outa the sites as soon as the seals were broken.

Yes. We should have bombed them already. I hope that Isael will do it any minute now, although Iran seems to be buying themselves more time with its cinsideration of sending its uranium to Russia for processing. I donm't trust that arrangement, frankly.


Another question that illuminates the authors bias. To paraphrase, "If killing them all isn't the answer...." Quite shortisghted solution, really. The Iraq War is exacerbating the aniti-Western sentiment that is the root of terrorism to begin with.

This is what we should do:

We need to set up political support for secular groups, and we need to put a lot of pressure to outlaw religious fanaticism like Wahabbism. We then need to concentrate on eliminating schools and groups still preaching and practicing it. In addition, we need to spy on those leaders who promote it and expose their indescresions so as to make them come across as hypocrites, and to make them lose their moral high ground, and their support - framing them for stuff they didn't do if necessary. Anyone assessed as too much of a threat we ought to take out quietly.

At the same time, we ought to be making a show of munificence so as to will the "hearts and minds" ... the Pakistan earthquake was a great opportunity for just such a show. We need more.

In addition, we need to re-set up worldwide cooperation on terrorism. Sudan offered us OBL, once upon a time. We need that kind of cooperation again. We need to focus our efforts on the monetary support for terrorism and tracking terrorist cells.

Any country that blatently flouts terrorism ought to get a few missles - the recent missle strikes in Pakistan for example.

Neither nor. It is 72 hours after the fact. It *IS* easy to get a FISA warrant - in fact, out of the 10s of thousands of FISA warrants issued, they've only rejected ONE.

Warrants, while not only requied by the Constitution, are useful in keeping in check governmental abuses of power. Many people don't like the idea of a government that can spy on anyone without telling anyone about it.

Thats where the warrant comes in. The idea behind a 'warrant' is that it makes the governement ask permission from a 3rd party (the judges) to make sure that they aren't just abusing someones ex-wife or worse yet political rival.

While it is easy to get a warrant from FISA, you still need to get one. The government still needs to go and ask eprmission to spy one someone. They need to leave a record of what they do and who they do it to, just in case they ARE spying on someone they shouldn't be.

Unfortunately, history is full of examples of governmental abuse of those exact powers. FISA itself is a reaction to just such abuse! believe it or not, Americans have from time to time used governmental powers for their own benefit. Hard to believe, I know, but it happens. I know that judges, police officers, doctors and politicians swear an oath of public service. Most of them are pretty good chaps.

Believe it or not, there are occaisions where a firefighter actually sets fires, where a cdoctor actuially intentionally kills patients, when a policeman commits crimes, where a politicians holds his/her own benefit at a higher priority than that of the common good.


One strange little quirk of human nature is also that the more power one is given, the more likely one is to abuse it!

This is why we should stick to warrants.



You just did. A compound sentence, but nevertheless....

During wartime it is 15 days. See here

Now here's just some "common sense" questions (and correct me if I'm wrong): Didn't people (Dems/brain-dead Liberals) complain just after 9-11 that Bush should have done more digging? But now those same people are complaining because he is ALLEGEDLY digging too much?

I know that libs like to throw about that 15-day-thing, but it's not that easy.

Sorry, Expat, I don't know where you get your figures about only one being turned down. I listened to a former agent on the Bill Bennett show several weeks ago who used to work for one of agencies that needs to get approval from FISA in order to complete their assignments. He said that the ones who are saying this thing about "15 days" are flat wrong and really don't know what they are talking about.

And, he gave an example by saying he'd requested 35 different times for a warrant and got turned down 35 times. He gave as the reason as being that FISA uses lawyer interns fresh out of school who have little knowledge. And, they ask so many questions to OK a warrant, that if he "knew" all this information he wouldn't need a warrant. Those were his exact words. He said he quit his department in discouragement.

And, yes, SkiGuy, you are correct! Damened if you do; damned if you don't. These guys are only after something to critize about in order to win elections. They are putting our nation's security at risk to gain votes.

EDIT: Adding comment. This ex-agent said this was his turndown rate just for himself. I believe he counted over the 200 mark for total turndowns in the year that he resigned.

You're a neocon? Thought you were big time anti-Bush when you showed up here? Quick turn around.

Welcome to the dark side.

It IS seductive, don't you know?

Well almost. (I did change my party affiliation) It's amazing when you use your brain, huh? Liberals, may I suggest you do the same.

What, to you, represents a NeoCon? Personally, I find any description that uses the word Conservative misleading. I'm just curious.

MY definition (and I may be wrong) is someone who supports war, a strong well equipped military, global military presence, and democracy. Don't know enough about economics to make a comment other than Neocons are anti-union. Probably the only thing I disagree with is Neocons tend to not admit mistakes.
Feedback?

Added: supports working for a living and being responsible

Actually the number as reported by the FISA court is that 6 requests were turned down out of more than 18,000.

Since 2001, the judges have modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for court-ordered surveillance by the Bush administration. A total of 173 of those court-ordered "substantive modifications" took place in 2003 and 2004 -- the most recent years for which public records are available.

The judges also rejected or deferred at least six requests for warrants during those two years -- the first outright rejection in the court's history.

So try a little fact checking - it's easy if you know how to use the internet.

Yes it is. But only for the weak minded.