Do liberals actually think that since OBL hasn't been found, there's been NO progress in the War on Terror?

Question

They can't be that stupid, can they?

Answer 1

Sure , now if "terrorists " want to kill a bunch of Americans all they have to do is go to Iraq. I don't think that progress means many dead soldiers and Iraqi civilians.

Answer 2

The "War on Terror" is nothing new in the history books. Let's look back a few years at the situation...

- A major landmark is destroyed by a terrorist.

- The nation's leader, who was not elected by a majority, declares a "War on Terror". He stands amid the ruins and vows the nation shall avenge the act.

- He stops calling his country by its usual name, and starts using the term "homeland" instead.

- He combines police and intelligence powers under a single cabinet-level agency. A "Homeland Security" department.

- He gives no-bid crony contracts to friends.

- A few years later, he invades a country unrelated to his "War on Terror".

The leader I'm talking about isn't George W. Bush. It's Adolph Hitler. He was the first leader to coin the phrase "War on Terrorism". The landmark destroyed was the Reichstag, the German parliament building. "Deutschland" was replaced by "Heimat" (the German for "homeland") in his speeches. And you might recognize one division of his "Homeland Security" department: the Schutzstaffel... or SS.

Now I'm not saying Bush = Hitler. What I am saying is that the methodology for manipulating the public into a frenzy in 1930's Germany is eerily familiar to the one used by the current Republican party.

Hermann Goering said after his capture: "Naturally the common people don't want war, neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

My point is that you need to examine the whole "War on Terror" frame. "It is the wool that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth," as Morpheus said in The Matrix.

Thus my question back to you is: how can one progress upon an agenda that is incompatible with the fundamental beliefs of America?

Answer 3

No the war on terror is on the back burner while we screw around in a country that had nothing to do with a terrorist attack.

Remember, Saddam held a secular government that kept a lid on religious extremists other wise known as terrorists.

So we got rid of the person that was keeping terrorists out of Iraq.

Now we have Iran pushing influence in Iraq and supplying the insurgency.
Did you forget that Saddam kept a lid on this as well?

Anyone that mislabels counter productive activities as progress is the stupid one.

Answer 4

define Progress.. A whole region falling into total war. Iran having more power over the region because of this war. Global hatred for the US and its meddling in other nations affairs. Some good things have happened. Afganistan isn't a safe haven for terriorists anymore. But, they all just moved to Pakistan.

Answer 5

Why is it that we hear practically nothing about him anymore? Why is it that Bush made it a point to focus on Iraq instead of focusing on capturing the main man responsible for the deaths of 3,000 people? Why is it that we managed to capture Saddam Hussein, who posed no threat to us, but Osama bin Laden is STILL free 5 YEARS after the attacks? Also, do you think that being stuck in a war that has no end in sight is a sign of progress? If so, you have a strange concept of progress.

Answer 6

The Canadians and British have done some good things fighting terror, so have the Spanish and the French.

What exactly have we done? We haven't done enough, and if we had a Democrat as a president, like we elected in both 2000, and 2004, before our votes were disregarded, we would have been doing more, and when we have a new President, regardless of their party we will be doing more.

Answer 7

Can you name just ONE instance of "progress" in the war on terror?

Remember, Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

When someone murders another person in Los Angeles, do the police begin searching for him in Spain.....and shortly thereafter claim that the murderer isn't a threat to anyone any longer, so they stop searching?

Sound familiar?

Take the blinders off of your rose-colored glasses, my friend.

.

Answer 8

Progress on the WAR on Terror.....where....?????

When RU leaving 4 Iraq...or Disneyworld.....both are rooted in american childish fantasies

Answer 9

I can tell you this. Tim Osman (Osama Bin Laden) was a cia asset. Al Qaeda is nothing more than an extension of the operatus linked to U.S. Intelligence that was allowed, by script, to remove itself as a rogue break away entity of the U.S. Government.........you have been punked

Answer 10

It would be nice if you could name some progress. I mean, OBL started this... at least in 2001 he kicked it into full force, it would seem he is the primary goal.