I was looking for "Regime change in USA" but failed to find it. You won't tell me you left out this, most logical of all, option? Groverat, I bet your mother shakes her head at you quite often...
You all cannot tell me that you truly believe any regime change anywhere is going to really reduce terrorism. It may reduce the weapons put in their possesion, but it will not stop the groups or the acts of terror themselves.
You all cannot tell me that you truly believe any regime change anywhere is going to really reduce terrorism. It may reduce the weapons put in their possesion, but it will not stop the groups or the acts of terror themselves.
What do you vote for then, Noah, the destruction of Islam?
You all cannot tell me that you truly believe any regime change anywhere is going to really reduce terrorism. It may reduce the weapons put in their possesion, but it will not stop the groups or the acts of terror themselves.
shhh, and America has suffered terrorist attacks since the 1970s. Don't tell him, though, it all started with Bush!
Even before the '70s - in 1954 four Puerto Rican Nationalists opened fire in House chamber. They got off 30 rounds and wounded five House members. But this bit of historical trivia doesn't have much to do with the WoT. It certainly was terrorism but it doesn't have much to do with what's happening today.
Good question. The media says the CIA does. This guy they just nabbed says he saw him in 2003. But one of my friends who's kinda smart and reads a lot says he's taking the dirt nap.
They're wondering the same thing about Saddam. I half think some of the shit they put out there is to cause OBL/Saddam to date themselves with a video of some kind. You know like Saddam will be at a meeting and wonder out loud who missed the NCAA office pool final four? Or maybe OBL on a segway?
My vote would be for "Concerted multilateral cooperation within a framework of international peace and justice". Actually, this is not just my vote in the poll, it is the correct answer. It is also why the current war - or at least the means by which we arrrived at it - is such a mistake.
I am unsurprised, however, that the correct answer was not included among the choices, given the originator of this poll.
Sure you'll find the US in there but France and Germany are near the top. So much for all that "Concerted multilateral cooperation within a framework of international peace and justice" stuff huh?
Sure you'll find the US in there but France and Germany are near the top. So much for all that "Concerted multilateral cooperation within a framework of international peace and justice" stuff huh?
Your post does not undermine my point, but helps to prove it. Suppose that the U.S., France and Germany cooperated so as to prevent arms flowing directly or indirectly to terrorists?
Actually, quite a bit of progress has been made on this issue since 9/11. (Of course, the flow of armaments is only one issue among many - the weapons used by the 9/11 terrorists were not armaments in the usual sense)
In any case, I greatly fear that the current conflict - and the partial breakdown in international cooperation and trust leading up to it - will undermine the progress that has been made.
Comments
just kidding.
Vote for something else if you think it's better than what is listed.
I guess you vote for US regime change (even though terrorism against the US has happened for the last 5 administrations)?
Regime Change in US - 1
Originally posted by NoahJ
You all cannot tell me that you truly believe any regime change anywhere is going to really reduce terrorism. It may reduce the weapons put in their possesion, but it will not stop the groups or the acts of terror themselves.
What do you vote for then, Noah, the destruction of Islam?
Originally posted by alcimedes
the U.S. undergoes regime change every 2 years.
shhh, and America has suffered terrorist attacks since the 1970s. Don't tell him, though, it all started with Bush!
I suppose Israel and some of the Muslim countries need a socioreligious change more than they need a Regime change.
We need to tear down their strong religious influences and push religion into the closet. Just like America did for the last 50 years.
My vote is for "The Peace on Terrorism".
Originally posted by NoahJ
You all cannot tell me that you truly believe any regime change anywhere is going to really reduce terrorism. It may reduce the weapons put in their possesion, but it will not stop the groups or the acts of terror themselves.
Root causes?
Originally posted by groverat
shhh, and America has suffered terrorist attacks since the 1970s. Don't tell him, though, it all started with Bush!
Even before the '70s - in 1954 four Puerto Rican Nationalists opened fire in House chamber. They got off 30 rounds and wounded five House members. But this bit of historical trivia doesn't have much to do with the WoT. It certainly was terrorism but it doesn't have much to do with what's happening today.
They're wondering the same thing about Saddam. I half think some of the shit they put out there is to cause OBL/Saddam to date themselves with a video of some kind. You know like Saddam will be at a meeting and wonder out loud who missed the NCAA office pool final four? Or maybe OBL on a segway?
I am unsurprised, however, that the correct answer was not included among the choices, given the originator of this poll.
BTW I found this interesting.
How the West armed Saddam Hussein
Sure you'll find the US in there but France and Germany are near the top. So much for all that "Concerted multilateral cooperation within a framework of international peace and justice" stuff huh?
Originally posted by groverat
Regime change in Israel would fall under Israel/Palestine peace.
An optimistic groverat? That's a new one....
edit: shit, man. That was my 2000th post? I was hoping for a world-changing post.... oh well...
Originally posted by Scott
How the West armed Saddam Hussein
Sure you'll find the US in there but France and Germany are near the top. So much for all that "Concerted multilateral cooperation within a framework of international peace and justice" stuff huh?
Your post does not undermine my point, but helps to prove it. Suppose that the U.S., France and Germany cooperated so as to prevent arms flowing directly or indirectly to terrorists?
Actually, quite a bit of progress has been made on this issue since 9/11. (Of course, the flow of armaments is only one issue among many - the weapons used by the 9/11 terrorists were not armaments in the usual sense)
In any case, I greatly fear that the current conflict - and the partial breakdown in international cooperation and trust leading up to it - will undermine the progress that has been made.