U.S. deaths in Iraq, war on terror surpass 9/11 toll

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Sep 7 2006, 01:06 PM) [snapback]315788[/snapback]</div>

so say your intelligence agency discovers a plot to kill thousands and they are located in far off places in countries we do not have relationships with - how do you stop it?

i am assuming you are allowing our intelligence agencies to operate down and dirty too.

i am assuming you are spending tens of billions on this too.

i am assuming that you are allowing renegade countries like iran to go about their business untethered.

i am assuming that you are making all efforts to wiretap, datamine, and do whatever is necessary to collect all data possible.

but,

if someone does get through and triggers another mass attack on the US and thousands die again - what would you do then. i mean, even you would admit, that it is impossible to bat 1.000% - eventually your intelligence agencies will make one mistake. What would you do then? BTW I have cousins in the FBI and CIA and understand to some degree the complexities of the intelligence game as they see it - i can tell you for certain - they know and appreciate the fact that the terrorists will get through to hit us again - it is just a matter of when, where, and how many body bags -- what do you do then?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Sep 7 2006, 02:15 PM) [snapback]315827[/snapback]</div>

Please please answer my questions. i an truly interested in how you propose to take care of this. my oldest son spent this summer in a think tank in wash d.c. - and "played" these types of scenarios all the time. give it a try - answer the questions above - please.

like what do you mean by manipulation? and what do you do when they get through and kill thousands of Americans?

thanks

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Sep 6 2006, 07:10 PM) [snapback]315502[/snapback]</div>

They are not coming anywhere close to freeing up enough money to fund this war. Cost of Iraq war

We have some $400 Billion deficit.

Clinton had a pay-as-you-go policy that forced the Senate to keep the budget balanced, resulting huge surpluses (surpli? ha ha). Bush reversed the policy and has put us in a position where some future President will have to deal with his spending. So I wouldn't fret nearly as much about the funding cuts over the past 6 years and next 2 years as I would when Bush leaves office. This war will have to get paid off somehow.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Sep 7 2006, 03:06 PM) [snapback]315860[/snapback]</div>

one more time. terrorists get through and kill 3,000 Americans. What would you do with that intelligence failure?

 

This is getting intresting,

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Sep 7 2006, 03:06 PM) [snapback]315860[/snapback]</div>

knocking again at your door. answer please. the terrorists got through. 3,000 Americans are now dead. What do you do?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Sep 7 2006, 10:29 PM) [snapback]316114[/snapback]</div>

1. you would invade another country to kill its citizens or those residing is said country? How would you do that without a declaration of war? How would they not have cause against us for doing such? What if they constructed it such that no firm connection could be discerned? Al-Qaeda is in dozens of different countries today. Are you favoring we invade these countries, seek out al-qaeda members and kill them? What if innocent people are killed in the process? What if they do not give us permission to enter their country to kill these people? And are you turning the CIA into a mob organization? What consequences does that have for us world wide? What if said country without FORMAL ties was PROVEN to have supported this operation that killed thousands of Americans either through financial means, giving information, etc?

2. I did not know the Taliban was responsible for 9/11. I though al-qaeda was. Please explain how the Taliban was involved in 9/11.

3. I posit that inefficiency is the least of my worries with war given our position currently. The ONLY inefficiency I would be concerned with is one related to the number of attacks that get through our defense.

and,
4. What if your intelligence agencies detect a for certain plot to kill thousands of Americans that revolves around the use of a nuclear weapon(s)? Would you PRE -empt at this point?

5. Are you ever concerned with the character of nation states - especially as it pertains to their acquisition of WMD's?

6. Do you condone the use of any means to extract information from terrorists to increase the EFFICIENCY of our intelligence organizations? Obviously if we capture a "bad guy" and we do not make him talk then we have not helped our cause.

7. What level of legal responsibilities would you hold our intelligence organizations to? Would US laws pertain to terrorists outside this country or even when we capture them or even when they are brought to US territories? What standards would US operatives be held to? Are you in favor of free and open communication between each and every US intelligence organization - domestic and international?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Sep 8 2006, 09:23 AM) [snapback]316265[/snapback]</div>

You are bailing out on me here. try again. the taliban supported al-qaeda the same way iraq did and saudia arabia and pakistan amongst others.

I need to know answers to the questions above. Because according to your premise you would never have attacked germany after pearl harbor, you would have invaded iraq and other countries, and you would have violated the rights of nation states. you would also be heavily involved in iran today.

at what point would you use non-military means? and would you follow UN dictates at all times?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Sep 8 2006, 10:51 AM) [snapback]316329[/snapback]</div>

Is the UN's word final - and the US of A has no recourse in your opinion?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 8 2006, 10:34 AM) [snapback]316319[/snapback]</div>

Actually, we didn't attack Germany after Pearl Harbor. We (along with Britain) declared war on Japan the next day. Germany delcared war on the United States a few days later (12/11/41). According to The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer, Hitler wanted to declare war on the US before the US declared war on Germany. We responded by declaring war on Germany & Italy the same day.

Personally, I think referencing WWII to draw parallels to the war on terror is really reaching. The war on terror started as a result of an attack on US soil. WWII was already two years in by the time we got directly involved. The Axis was already in control of most of Europe by that point.

 

The take on the UNs positions before the war

Taken from Wikpiedia (link below)

Positions of Security Council members
United States - The US maintained that Iraq was not cooperating with UN inspectors and had not met its obligations to 17 UN resolutions. The US felt that resolution 1441 called for the immediate, total disarmament of Iraq and continued to show frustration at the fact that months after the resolution was passed Iraq was still not disarming.
United Kingdom - Within the United Nations Security Council, the United Kingdom was the primary supporter of the U.S. plan to invade Iraq. Tony Blair, the British prime minister, publicly and vigorously supported American policy on Iraq, but was perceived by some to exert a moderating influence on the American president George W. Bush. British public opinion polls in late January showed that the public support for the war was deteriorating. It had fallen from 50% to 30% by March.
France - On January 20, 2003, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said, "We think that military intervention would be the worst possible solution," although France believed that Iraq may have had an ongoing chemical and nuclear weapons program. Villepin went on to say that he believed the presence of UN weapons inspectors had frozen Iraq's weapons programs. France also suggested that it would veto any resolution allowing military intervention offered by the U.S. or Britain, even if a majority of the U.N. Security Council members voted for it. Britain and the U.S. sharply criticized France for this position in March, 2003. De Villepin and Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov garnered unusual applause inside the chamber with their speeches against the war.
Germany - On January 22, German chancellor Gerhard Schröder at a meeting with French president Jacques Chirac said that he and Mr. Chirac would do all they could to avert war. At the time, Germany was presiding over the Security council.
Russia - On the same day, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said that "Russia deems that there is no evidence that would justify a war in Iraq." On January 28, however, Russia's opinion had begun to shift following a report the previous day by UN inspectors which stated that Iraq had cooperated on a practical level with monitors, but had not demonstrated a "genuine acceptance" of the need to disarm. Russian President Vladimir Putin indicated that he would support a US led war if things did not change and Iraq continued to show a reluctance to completely cooperate with inspection teams. However, Putin continued to stress that the US must not go alone in any such military endeavor, but instead must work through the UN Security Council. He also stressed the need for giving the UN inspectors more time.
China - The People's Republic of China supported continued weapons inspections. On January 23, the Washington Post reported that the Chinese position was "extremely close" to that of France.
Angola - Angola supported continued inspections, but had not taken a stand on disarmament by military action.
Bulgaria - Bulgaria suggested that it would support the use of military force to disarm Iraq, even without UN backing.
Cameroon - Cameroon encouraged the continued inspections, but had not taken a firm stand on whether the country would support a US led strike to invade Iraq.
Chile - Chile indicated that it would like inspections to continue, but had not taken a position on the use of military force to disarm Iraq.
Guinea - Guinea supported further inspections, but had not taken a position on the use of military force to disarm Iraq.
Mexico - Mexico supported further inspections, and indicated that it would support a US led military campaign if it was backed by the UN. The country hinted that it might consider supporting a military campaign without UN backing as well. President Vicente Fox heavily criticized the war when it started.
Pakistan - Pakistan supported continued inspections.
Syria - Syria seemed to feel that Iraq was cooperating and meeting its obligations under UN resolutions. Syria would have liked to see UN sanctions on Iraq lifted.
Spain - Spain supported the US's position on Iraq and supported the use of force to disarm Iraq, even without UN approval.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_UN_Securi...nd_the_Iraq_war

Other intresting facts:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/

http://www.sundayherald.com/print31710

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Sep 8 2006, 10:59 AM) [snapback]316379[/snapback]</div>

What's your point? The U.N. was opposed to the invasion, and we did it anyway. Also from Wikipedia:
'On September 16, 2004 Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."'

Too flippin' bad we carried on this stupid unnecessary illegal war. We should have gotten a clue from the U.N. that it was a stupid idea in the first place. Bush should be held accountable.

 

I remember the news stories on how the UN kept dragging its feet on all the resilutions Iraq kept blocking and the UN would just issue another one...

If we wouldn't have invaded we would probibly be on resilution 1,000 now.

& France , Germany , Syria , China & Russia would still be selling arms and other supplies to Iraq.