RAND study - terrorism is law enforcement issue

If it is only a law enforcement issue why we were unable to prevent 9/11? If its only a law enforcement issue why were they set up where the CIA and the FBI did not communicate prior to 9/11 only to find out afterwards that had they worked together they had all the info they needed to track and stop the perpetrators? Arresting people after the first tower bombing and subsequent attacks overseas did nothing to stop 9/11.

Now I'm not of the mind that our military only can defeat terrorism because it can't. The biggest need is to work with other governments and not allow terrorists safe havens where they can build and grow. Keeping them on the run and attack their financial backing. All are necessary ingrediants.
 
"If it is only a law enforcement issue why we were unable to prevent 9/11?"

What is happening to you lately? It's not like you were ever a brilliant poster, but you used to make sense.

Law enforcement isn't perfect, but 9/11 was 19 guys with box cutters. It was most certainly more in the realm of law enforcement, border security, better airport security, etc.

What is our military going to do about 19 guys with box cutters?

Are you drinking early? What gives?
 
bravo said:
Are you implying we never should have listened to you democrats?

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
Click to expand...

that said to invade and occupy Iraq ?
 
Gee whiz, someone finds another opinion stating that the way to deal with terrorism is through law enforcement. What a fucking surprise. And of course, since that opinion is reiterated now, that must mean it is the absolute truth.

Sorry, but even while I have always disagreed with the invasion of Iraq, the idea that taking a defensive only (ie: domestic law enforcement) stance against international terrorism means always being on the defensive, and a willingness to accept the occasion 9/11 type attack that law enforcement does not catch in time. As has been admitted, law enforcement techniques are not perfect - especially when it comes to prevention.

The idea that we can and should handle international terrorism entirely from a law enforcement strategy is simplistic and naive. Or perhaps some people LIKE the idea of government having more and more excuses to minimize or outright violate our constitutional rights. (If you think the democrats are any less likely than Bush & Co. to use national security to trump the constituion, then you are TRULY blind.) And let's not mention that most Al Queda attacks against the U.S. were NOT on U.S. soil, but rather against U.S. assets on foreign soil - areas where law enforcement are particularly unable to make any difference. Or do the people in our embassies, foreign offices, overseas bases and the like not count when we're talking prevention of terrorist attacks against the U.S.?

There IS appropriate use of military force in the war against international terrorism. And yes, children, it is a WAR, declared on us by extremists with an agenda, and prosecuted against us by brainwashed drones willing to die for their cause as long as they take some of us with them. The fact is we have a full fledged enemy - even though they are not of a specific nation state. And fighting our enemy is going to make people angry, no matter how we go about it. It does not make for better recruitment - that is a claim without any data to back it up. Al Queda was able to recruit plenty before we came after them. And they would have been able to continue to recruit plenty had we not gone after them. The difference being if we had not gone after them they'd still have full capability - with the aid and cooperation of a nation state - to continue to plan, coordinate and execute additional attacks.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq was not appropriate use of military force. Iraq was not a significant source of support, nor was Iraq a significant sanctuary for anti-U.S. terrorist activities. The invasion of Afghanistan WAS an appropriate response against the primary nation responsible for supporting those who attacked us. And the effort in Afghanistan would continue to be appropriate had we not been distracted by the fuck up in Iraq. But by allowing our effort to be divided, and subsequently placing the focus of our effort in the wrong place, we have allowed the enemy to regroup their efforts, making it necessary to all but start over.

But in refusing the enemy to retake Afghanistan, and refusing to allow them to remake Afghanistan into a sanctuary for their activities, they have been forced to move their activities to places much more difficult for them. And if we do the intelligent thing and continue to deny them sanctuary in Afghanistan, and also gain better cooperation (ie: permission to cross the border) to control the border areas of Pakistan, we will again force them to move to places even less conducive to their activities.

But if we do something stupid, like divide our efforts even further and take on Iran; or if we do something equally stupid like withdraw and let Afghanistan go back to its old ways, THEN we will be allowing them the sanctuary they need to plan, coordinate and execute operations against us. And law enforcement will NOT be able to stop them all, even if we suspend the constitution in trying to catch them out.
 
Gee whiz, someone finds another opinion stating that the way to deal with terrorism is through law enforcement.


Sorry, but even while I have always disagreed with the invasion of Iraq, the idea that taking a defensive only (ie: domestic law enforcement)

The idea that we can and should handle international terrorism entirely from a law enforcement strategy is simplistic and naive.


There IS appropriate use of military force in the war against international terrorism. And yes, children, it is a WAR,

The invasion of Afghanistan WAS an appropriate response against the primary nation responsible for supporting those who attacked us.

But in refusing the enemy to retake Afghanistan, and refusing to allow them to remake Afghanistan into a sanctuary for their activities,

if we do something equally stupid like withdraw and let Afghanistan go back to its old ways
Click to expand...

Dear blabbermouth,

You do realize you're a moron don't you?

Love, WM

XOXO
 
Good Luck, you need to read the RAND report. Al Qaeda is just as strong today as they were in '01; $1 trillion and an exhaustive military effort have made little difference in their capacity to strike. Oh, and guess what - the Iraq War has been an incredible recruiting tool for them & other terrorist organizations throughout the world (there ARE facts to back that up; read a few NIE's). The next attack is just as likely to come from some cell in our own hemisphere that was inspired to organize by our wars in the Middle East as it is to come from those who we actually wage those wars upon.

Wake up; you are wrong. Way, way wrong. It's time to stop being wrong, and to start using some sense. The plot to blow up 8 airplanes in the UK was stopped because of strong relations between law enforcement & intelligence and the local Muslim communities. The way we have been "fighting terror" is completely backwards, and counter-productive. I'm way past tired of those who continue to cling to the idea that this is a military "war", ignoring intelligence reports, facts & studies like the one RAND did.
 
Last edited:
There is a stupidity in today's breed of conservative - not all, mind you, but many - that seems incurable. It's like a chronic condition.

It's relentless.
 
I think a law enforcement approach is the right approach. Now that doesn't mean getting Officers Toody and Muldoon to go through the caves at Bora Bora looking for Long Tall Osama. But if a task force had gone in and looked for him that might have been more useful. To grab terrorist criminals you don't need regime change.

Anyway if anyone believes that the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan was about getting bin Laden I've got some real estate I'd like you to take a look at. When it's drained it will be just perfect for development.
 
cawacko said:
If it is only a law enforcement issue why we were unable to prevent 9/11? If its only a law enforcement issue why were they set up where the CIA and the FBI did not communicate prior to 9/11 only to find out afterwards that had they worked together they had all the info they needed to track and stop the perpetrators? Arresting people after the first tower bombing and subsequent attacks overseas did nothing to stop 9/11.
Now I'm not of the mind that our military only can defeat terrorism because it can't. The biggest need is to work with other governments and not allow terrorists safe havens where they can build and grow. Keeping them on the run and attack their financial backing. All are necessary ingrediants.
Click to expand...
Ok one by one. First, every city county and state has law enforcement, but there are murders robberies and rapes everywhere where they have law enforcement. It does not always prevent crime. Second, law enforcement can always use improvement and the fact that the CIA and FBI did not and could not in some instances communicate can be rectified by modifying those laws and making their jobs easier. Third, no one anywhere can claim that arresting a murderer will stop all subsequent murders, but it acts a deterent sometimes. Just because law enforcement is not fool proof does not mean that you should foolishly run off and start a war someplace just to say that you are doing something about the crime that was already committed against you. We have revamped our intelligence gathering and law enforcement agencies here and other countries have as well and IT, not the war in Iraq has been the reason there have been no further attacks on this soil. That will not hold and someday there will be another. War or not.
 
Onceler said:
Good Luck, you need to read the RAND report. Al Qaeda is just as strong today as they were in '01; $1 trillion and an exhaustive military effort have made little difference in their capacity to strike. Oh, and guess what - the Iraq War has been an incredible recruiting tool for them & other terrorist organizations throughout the world (there ARE facts to back that up; read a few NIE's). The next attack is just as likely to come from some cell in our own hemisphere that was inspired to organize by our wars in the Middle East as it is to come from those who we actually wage those wars upon.

Wake up; you are wrong. Way, way wrong. It's time to stop being wrong, and to start using some sense. The plot to blow up 8 airplanes in the UK was stopped because of strong relations between law enforcement & intelligence and the local Muslim communities. The way we have been "fighting terror" is completely backwards, and counter-productive. I'm way past tired of those who continue to cling to the idea that this is a military "war", ignoring intelligence reports, facts & studies like the one RAND did.
Click to expand...
Anyone who believes Al Queda is as strong as when they had the full backing of the Afghan government and had the ability to openly train, plan and coordinate their activities while hiding behind the borders of Afganistan is looking through blinders. Do you honestly believe that it is possible to conduct the same level of operations while hiding in remote caves with limited communications as when they operated out of large, well organized camps and open communications? Get fucking real. The claim they are just as strong is made in plain unadulterated ignorance.

I am not saying that law enforcement does not have a role. Certainly the ability to track enemy agents within the U.S. and intervene with their activities is a very large part of anti-terrorist tactics. But how much do you think law enforcement can do? We allow terrorists their sanctuaries, and they will continue to send their agents into the U.S. Do you think we will always be able to catch them in time?

You want me to make sense, but you are the one not making sense. If you want to estimate what will happen to terrorist recruiting if we limit ourselves to arresting enemy agents (assuming we catch them in time) take a look at how the IRA acted when their people were captured. They USED it to recruit more people. The simple fact is we cannot fight terrorist in ANY way without giving them fodder for recruitment. And extremists Islamic terrorist are far worse because they have a religious mandate motivating them - which is a powerful recruiting tool no matter what we do. The balance of the equation is whether an activity on our part disrupts their abilities more than it enhances recruitment. They can recruit by the millions, but if they have severely limited ability to train and plan, then those millions are just warm bodies. A thousand terrorists, given unfettered ability to train, plan and execute operations will ultimately do FAR more damage that 100,000 terrorists can accomplish if they are forced to hide, move around, and fight against military forces while trying to train, plan and execute operations. Al Queda's ability to recruit may be up, but their ability to train and plan is down.

Iraq is a cluster fuck, and tipped the balance against us because Iraq had comparatively little direct or indirect interaction with international terrorists. But the fact that invading and occupying Iraq was the wrong thing to do in response to international terrorism does not mean invading Afghanistan was the wrong thing to do. Had we kept our eye on the proper target, we could have had a far greater positive impact on Al Queda's ability to coordinate attacks, including the ability to pressure Pakistan to allow military operations on their borderlands, as well as having the available force structure to conduct borderlands operations.

But it is not going to be a quick fix. Even if Afghanistan stabilizes into a neutral government (hoping for a friendly one is not realistic) or even an unfriendly government, but one which is anti-terrorist, we will face a long term battle. Al Queda had a decade or more to coordinate and train. They had to move their operations to Afghanistan in 96, but that move only enhanced their ability to train openly. The number of trained agents coming out of those years cannot be reasonably estimated. But with training limited to hidden bases, and being forced to move around, the number of trained agents coming out is currently less than trained agents being used in current operations.

Additionally, when Al Queda was able to train freely, it gave them the ability to react quickly to changes we made in methods made by countries to prevent attacks. Disrupting their ability to train also limits their ability to change tactics as our law enforcement changes their tactics. That will (and has) greatly enhanced the ability of law enforcement to do their part in the battle against terrorism.

Bottom line:
1: Law enforcement cannot do it all. Period. We withdraw, allowing the Taliban to retake power, and allowing Al Queda to operate freely, and we will see several successful international attacks every year target countries depend on law enforcement for protection.

2: While "home grown" terrorist activity is a threat, the fact is NO ATTACKS have taken place that did not involve significant coordination, training, and material support provided by the major organizations we are fighting against. ie: without the parent organization's help, the home grown guys would not be a significant threat and would be far more likely to get caught trying to run their own ops.

3: PROPER use of military force is needed to curb terrorist activity. We cannot afford to wait until they finish planning and training, and only act when they try to conduct operations.

4: Bush has NOT used the military properly. Afghanistan was an appropriate move. Iraq was not, and is not only a major cluster fuck in itself, but also severely limited the success that could have been derived from operations in Afghanistan.

5: Regardless of what we do with Iraq, we need to refocus our mission in Afghanistan, to include operating in the borderlands of Pakistan.

6: We need a long term goal in fighting terrorism - a goal that includes making international terrorism a minimal threat. (It will never go away completely) That goal can never result from the purely defensive stance of relying on law enforcement to catch agents in place.

7: And as said before, law enforcement cannot do anything about protecting U.S. assets outside the U.S. But our goal in fighting terrorism MUST also include the protection of extra territorial U.S. assets. We cannot simply place a bunch of Marines in front of U.S. assets over seas to absorb any attacks that take place. We have to be proactive internationally as well as domestically. And proactive means using appropriate military action as needed by circumstances.
 
"Anyone who believes Al Queda is as strong as when they had the full backing of the Afghan government and had the ability to openly train, plan and coordinate their activities while hiding behind the borders of Afganistan is looking through blinders. Do you honestly believe that it is possible to conduct the same level of operations while hiding in remote caves with limited communications as when they operated out of large, well organized camps and open communications? Get fucking real. The claim they are just as strong is made in plain unadulterated ignorance."

Sorry; didn't make it past this. I don't care what your hunches or "common sense" tell you. I'm working off of intelligence that has been reported. You're working off....what again?

Here's one from last year titled "Al-Qaida Better Positioned to Strike the West"; I'll find some more recent stuff for you:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/11/AR2007071102443_pf.html
 
"And proactive means using appropriate military action as needed by circumstances."

You'd have to show me what that is, because I haven't seen it yet. Certainly, if there are terrorist camps that we can identify or something along those lines, things like airstrikes come into play. The gist of this thread & of the RAND study is that terrorism is primarily a law enforcement issue, and the philosophy surrounding the idea of a "war on terror," where our military is the primary focus, is completely backwards.

Terrorism is a method; it is not an army or a nation. Terrorism has been used by a huge variety of groups throughout world history. Also throughout history, law enforcement has proven again & again to be the most effective means of dealing with it. There is nothing about the current terror threat that changes that.
 
Onceler said:
"And proactive means using appropriate military action as needed by circumstances."

You'd have to show me what that is, because I haven't seen it yet. Certainly, if there are terrorist camps that we can identify or something along those lines, things like airstrikes come into play. The gist of this thread & of the RAND study is that terrorism is primarily a law enforcement issue, and the philosophy surrounding the idea of a "war on terror," where our military is the primary focus, is completely backwards.

Terrorism is a method; it is not an army or a nation. Terrorism has been used by a huge variety of groups throughout world history. Also throughout history, law enforcement has proven again & again to be the most effective means of dealing with it. There is nothing about the current terror threat that changes that.
Click to expand...
If you like, I will agree that the term "war on terrorism" is a misnomer. But despite the name given the conflict, we are at war with an organization who uses the tactics of terrorism. They have declared war on us, and we are fighting back.

They are located on foreign soil, which limits what law enforcement can do. And THAT is where RAND's conclusions falls apart. You certainly are not going to see FBI running around the border areas of Afghanistan. That was the difference with the current terrorist threat that made military action part of the scene. It as the unique condition of the government of Afghanistan that made them a military target. Since we cannot afford to simply wait and try to catch terrorists operations against the U.S, and since we cannot use our law enforcement to protect U.S. assets outside our border, and since Afghanistan refused to help using their counter terrorism assets (kinda hard to have counter terrorism assets when one supports terrorist organizations) it fell to our military to do the job. Of note is there are several other countries terrorists are known to operate out of - but those other countries at least gave lip service to forming counter-terrorism assets to help fight international terrorists. Thus our involvement with them is diplomatic rather than military.

Al Queda has been making a comeback. They are making a comeback because they have found new sanctuary in the borderlands of Pakistan - which is why I agree with the call for strengthening our presence in Afghanistan and putting pressure on the government of Pakistan. While we were still denying them sanctuary (with the help of Pakistan) we were successful in disrupting their abilities. When Pakistan dropped their end, sanctuary was reestablished, and our effect on their abilities was diminished.

The strategic reason for taking on Afghanistan was to deny Al Queda sanctuary. Since the government of Afghanistan not only refused to help, but openly declared continued support for Al Queda's activities, they made themselves an ally of an enemy. That made them a legitimate military target.

By denying Al Queda open sanctuary in Afghanistan, it forced them to move and hide. We chased them and they moved an hid some more, until they'd been pushed across the border. Then Pakistan started hunting them down, keeping them in hiding. And it was not until Pakistan stopped, and started treating with them, that they started making a real comeback.

In short, the idea of denying terrorists sanctuary works - which is a proper use of military force in counter-terrorism. The preferred method is, of course, to use either the law enforcement or the military of the country in which terrorists are seeking sanctuary. But in the case of Afghanistan that was not possible.

But we screwed up in not pursuing more heavily when we had the chance (had to go and invade Iraq, ya know, diverting needed troops from pounding around the mountains of Afghanistan killing terrorists to go jerk off on Saddam's palaces.) And then it came unstuck when an "ally" changed their minds about helping, thus allowing the enemy the sanctuary they were denied in Afghanistan.

But it is not totally unstuck. Pakistan has not turned completely around, and the right kind of pressure could get them back in the mix, or at the least, get them to turn a blind eye to our troops crossing the border to pursue enemy elements. The resurgence in Afghanistan is, by Rands own report, dependent on Al Queda securing safe havens inside Pakistan. If we get our shit together, we can deny them that new sanctuary, and put them on the defensive again.
 
Last edited:
Good Luck said:
If you like, I will agree that the term "war on terrorism" is a misnomer. But despite the name given the conflict, we are at war with an organization who uses the tactics of terrorism. They have declared war on us, and we are fighting back.

They are located on foreign soil, which limits what law enforcement can do. And THAT is where RAND's conclusions falls apart. You certainly are not going to see FBI running around the border areas of Afghanistan. That was the difference with the current terrorist threat that made military action part of the scene. It as the unique condition of the government of Afghanistan that made them a military target. Since we cannot afford to simply wait and try to catch terrorists operations against the U.S, and since we cannot use our law enforcement to protect U.S. assets outside our border, and since Afghanistan refused to help using their counter terrorism assets (kinda hard to have counter terrorism assets when one supports terrorist organizations) it fell to our military to do the job. Of note is there are several other countries terrorists are known to operate out of - but those other countries at least gave lip service to forming counter-terrorism assets to help fight international terrorists. Thus our involvement with them is diplomatic rather than military.

Al Queda has been making a comeback. They are making a comeback because they have found new sanctuary in the borderlands of Pakistan - which is why I agree with the call for strengthening our presence in Afghanistan and putting pressure on the government of Pakistan. While we were still denying them sanctuary (with the help of Pakistan) we were successful in disrupting their abilities. When Pakistan dropped their end, sanctuary was reestablished, and our effect on their abilities was diminished.

The strategic reason for taking on Afghanistan was to deny Al Queda sanctuary. Since the government of Afghanistan not only refused to help, but openly declared continued support for Al Queda's activities, they made themselves an ally of an enemy. That made them a legitimate military target.

By denying Al Queda open sanctuary in Afghanistan, it forced them to move and hide. We chased them and they moved an hid some more, until they'd been pushed across the border. Then Pakistan started hunting them down, keeping them in hiding. And it was not until Pakistan stopped, and started treating with them, that they started making a real comeback.

In short, the idea of denying terrorists sanctuary works - which is a proper use of military force in counter-terrorism. The preferred method is, of course, to use either the law enforcement or the military of the country in which terrorists are seeking sanctuary. But in the case of Afghanistan that was not possible.

But we screwed up in not pursuing more heavily when we had the chance (had to go and invade Iraq, ya know, diverting needed troops from pounding around the mountains of Afghanistan killing terrorists to go jerk off on Saddam's palaces.) And then it came unstuck when an "ally" changed their minds about helping, thus allowing the enemy the sanctuary they were denied in Afghanistan.

But it is not totally unstuck. Pakistan has not turned completely around, and the right kind of pressure could get them back in the mix, or at the least, get them to turn a blind eye to our troops crossing the border to pursue enemy elements. The resurgence in Afghanistan is, by Rands own report, dependent on Al Queda securing safe havens inside Pakistan. If we get our shit together, we can deny them that new sanctuary, and put them on the defensive again.
Click to expand...

If you like, I agree with the current terrorist threat that made military action part of terrorism.
They are making a real comeback.
In short, the border areas of Pakistan - which terrorists are several other countries terrorists operations against the defensive again If we get them back in the least, get our shit together, we get our troops crossing the conflict, we were successful in the case of Pakistan we can deny Al Queda open sanctuary Since the job.
Of note is not totally unstuck.
Pakistan stopped, and invade Iraq, ya know, diverting needed troops from pounding around the border and since Afghanistan refused to help, but those other countries at the least, get them to turn a legitimate military Al Queda open sanctuary they were still denying Al Queda sanctuary.
Since the government of Pakistan.
While we cannot afford to forming counter-terrorism assets outside our military to have counter terrorism assets outside our law enforcement to protect U.S.
assets kinda hard to help using their abilities was reestablished, and started treating with the help but openly declared continued support for taking on the government of Afghanistan it forced them that they started making a real comeback.
In short, the difference with the current terrorist threat that made military Al Queda open sanctuary they were denied in counter-terrorism.
The resurgence in which terrorists operations against the law enforcement to protect U.S.
assets kinda hard to use either the scene.
It as the U.S, and invade Iraq, ya know, diverting needed troops from pounding around the border areas of Afghanistan killing terrorists are seeking sanctuary.
But it is there are known to help fight international terrorists.
Thus our military to forming counter-terrorism assets outside our presence in Afghanistan is, by Rands own report, dependent on Saddam's palaces.
And THAT is diplomatic rather than military.
Al Queda has been making a real comeback.
In short, the tactics of denying terrorists operations against the tactics of denying terrorists sanctuary works - which is a proper use our law enforcement to catch terrorists sanctuary works - which is a comeback.
They are making a comeback.
They are located on Saddam's palaces.
And then it came unstuck when an hid some more, until Pakistan stopped, and we are at war on terrorism They have found new sanctuary in which terrorists Thus our border, and they moved an ally of - but those other countries at the least, get them back They are several other countries terrorists operations against the case of the country in disrupting their abilities.
When Pakistan While we cannot use of military of the mix, or the military target.
By denying them sanctuary was reestablished, and hide.
We chased them that they have found new sanctuary in counter-terrorism.
The preferred method is, of pressure could get them to simply wait and our effect on us, and putting pressure could get them to help using their end, sanctuary and put them back in the case of the country in counter-terrorism.
The resurgence in the case of military force in Afghanistan.
But despite the border areas of Pakistan we were still denying them sanctuary was reestablished, and put them to turn a misnomer.
But despite the sanctuary they started making a comeback.
They are making a comeback.
They have declared continued support for strengthening our law enforcement to protect U.S.
assets to help fight international terrorists.
Thus our law enforcement to protect U.S.
assets outside our shit together, we cannot afford to use either the least, get them back They are several other countries terrorists sanctuary works - which limits what law enforcement can deny them and they moved an organization who uses the conflict, we are ...
 
April 30, 2003
The Crime Of The Century:
A Never-Ending "War Against Terrorism"
by Thom Hartmann

"...Like every President since George Washington, Bill Clinton knew that nations only declare war against nations. While armies deal with rogue states, police deal with criminals, be they domestic or international.

Like Germany's response to the Red Army Faction, Italy's response to The Red Brigades, and Greece's response to the 17 November terrorist group (among others), Clinton brought the full force of the criminal justice system against McVeigh, and even had Interpol and overseas police agencies looking for possible McVeigh affiliates. The result was that the trauma of the Oklahoma City terrorist bombing was limited, closure was achieved for its victims, the civil rights of all Americans were largely left intact, and the United States government was able to get back to it's constitutionally-defined job of ensuring life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for its citizens...

To continue using our military against a criminal organization will only compound the horrific crime of 911, because armies aren't particularly good at police work.

It's time to restore civil liberties to Americans; rein in an Executive Branch intoxicated by warfare; and hand over to American and international police agencies the very real and very big job of dealing with the remnants of al Qaeda around the world, and prevent a recurrence of 911 by investigating who was involved and how they pulled it off in the first place.

Anything less will simply perpetuate this crime of the century."

Told ya so back then, but I was called a traitor, looney, sympathiser, America hater, troop hater, banned for life from Hannity's web site for posting this and herded into a 'free speech zone'.

All this was not in the Republicon party's plan for America. They turned huge profits and maintained power from this 'war of choice' and thats the bottom line. When are you on the right going to realize you've been manipulated all these yrs by a regime of traitorous criminals?
 
And remember The iraq invasion and occupation was by bush's own words a preemptive action. Against threats that have been proven to be false. Therefore the preemptive action was false. We invaded a sovern nation, killed hundreds of thousands of their citizens, wrecked their economy and infrastructure and had their leader hanged.

All a preemptive action based on false assumptions.

this is something that we loudly condemned the former USSR and others for doing...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top