The War on Terror can’t be won on the battlefield because the other side won’t show up on the battlefield. Every terrorist we kill is a victory for our side. Unfortunately, every person we kill is a victory for their recruiters. To win this war, we will need Intelligence and cooperation from other governments. Nuking Afghanistan would net us neither, and in all likelihood leave us fighting alone.

Its kind of like the hard nosed teachers those of us who were born during early 40’s can remember who could change the attitude of an entire classroom by disciplining one troublemaker.

My point is, if our freedom and way of life is worth fighting for and defending against an enemy who has made no bones about his desire to bring us to our knees, then either its worth fighting for with all the force we have, or we dont deserve it.

As for your point that our lack of a nuclear response to 2 countries that WE attacked is all due to political correctness, I respectfully and completely disagree. Certainly it’s POSSIBLE that nuking a middle eastern country could end up turning all their heads, but I think it’s far more likely to cause more problems than solve them.

SFC, I guess I don’t really have to remind you that we are not at war with Syria or Iran. We were at war with Japan and Germany (who declared war on us).

Whatever the reason, it has left us with a timidity and clear distaste for unambiguous action. As a result, our enemies view us, and correctly so, as weak, and corrupt.

So I’ll re write more clearly for you:
” If its therefore, a matter if strategy and tactics, and you are unwilling to do whatever is necessary RELATIVE TO THE THREAT, you have lost the fight of any threat to your country”.

That doesnt mean blowing up a nuke in Mexico City. It DOES means acting in a way that lets the world know whatever we do, or say to defend or preserve our way of life, we mean business.

Nuking Tora Bora itself will not dimish terrorists recruiting efforts, it sends a massage that we are not afraid of using all the might we possess in defense of freedom, that we’ll do the same to their training bases, there supply sources, and their population centers if necessary. The idea is not to change the mind set of a nut case. The idea is to influence the saner among them that no way are they going to be allowed to dominate, and threaten the world if we have anything to say or do about it.

Nuking Tora Bora would have killed OBL, and sent 5,000 terrorists to their graves. I am all for that. Unfortunately, it would have also created a rallying point for EVERY Muslim in the world, and would be the single greatest Al-Quada recruting tool ever used. If these people are not afraid to fly a plane into a building in order to get to their 72 virgins, what makes you think the fear of being obliterated in a nuclear attack would somehow get their attention?

Lastly, I am unsure how blowing up a nuke in the middle east gets Mexico’s attention, since they are immigrating illegally, not murdering civilians, so I doubt they would fear the same retribution you would have us deal out to terrorist nations.

The Constitution does not prohibit searches, it only prohibits “unreasonable” searches and seizures. Seems to me if the “chatter” from a cell phone call that happens to route through the U.S. satellite system includes “red flag” words and phrases, or is from or to known terrorists, it would not be “unreasonable” to find out what is being discussed. If it’s Aunt Nettie’s laundry, I’m not real sure even the CIA would have an interest in pursuing that.

And as far as FISA being 100% secret, how can you tell me a guvmint agency or operation, ANY guvmint agency or operation, is not subject to leaks given the track record of certain senators, representatives and their staffs?

If its therefore, a matter if strategy and tactics, and you are unwilling to do whatever is necessary relative to the threat, you have lost any threat to your country.

Doesn’t make a difference whether its an invasion of illegal immigration or Islamic extremism. On the one hand you face a cultural invasion that threatens the dilution of the language and the nation, on the other a very hostile threat to our moral, legal and cultural normality.

And what we as nation are willing to do about it versus what must be done to preserve our way of life. There are times when harsh words and being tough are necessary, and I think we are way beyond that happening in both cases. We’ve lost over 7,000 now counting 9/11 and if we’d had the balls to nuke Tora Bora and everybody in it in the first place, I doubt we’d fiddle farting around with Iraq today, and we just might the undivided attention of the government of Mexico with regards to immigration.

That’s great you aren’t worried about the government tapping your phone. Perhaps you’d like the police stopping you in the streets asking you for your “papers”? Maybe you are OK with the Government searching your house whenever they feel like it? Hey, as long as you aren’t doing anything wrong, what do you have to “hide”? For that matter, who actually needs the the Bill of Rights or the Constitution? I mean, they didn’t know anything about Al Queda when they wrote those silly amendments, right? Communist Russia had it right all along I guess.

Don’t tell that to the Japanese. Things have been pretty placid ever since…

Yes, it’s called national security. Because if people KNOW they are being monitored, the act of spying becomes futile. Ineffective. Sort of like telling al-Qaeda our schedule for pulling military out of Iraq, giving them a date to plan for.

The fact that critics are using homeland security, intelligence gathering, as a weapon against Bush shows the rampant level of BDS, putting personal politics above national interest.

Personally, I’m not too worried about government tapping my calls. I’m not doing anything wrong. How about you?

Those with reason to fear…bark the loudest.

I don’t reject your tough guy stance on moral grounds. I reject it completely on strategic and tactical ones. Killing more of “them” BREEDS more of them.

Look, there is a reason the Bush administration doesn’t want people to know who they are spying on. Since the FISA court is secret, and has basically NEVER turned anyone down who could reasonably point to the fact they were targeting a terrorist, I have yet to hear a legit reason why they would need this power. Unless, of course, they were spying on people they weren’t supposed to be spying on. If you want Hillary Clinton or Obama to have that power, by all means, bury your head in the sand and keep telling yourself that every President can always be trusted to only do the right thing. Because history certainly has proven that that case, no?

Is their freedom worth fighting for?

If yes, how much; Are you willing to kill an enemy by the thousands to keep your head attached to your gonads and the rest of your body to prevent another 9/11? and

Are you wlling to use our military to the maximum extent possible, including nukes, if thats what it takes to vaporize Bin Laden?

If not, why not?

Or do you prefer the course of action both Bush and Clinton have followed?

Just a simple yes or no, short answer. And please spare us another babbling on and on about about everything from Bush lied to Global warming. This is real simple, Are you ready and wlling to treat an enemy like an enemy or kiss his ass?

That hardly seems to me to be a flat-out broken law. But I don’t get out much, I guess, and I’m certainly no lawyer (although I know a lot of lawyer jokes).

And “eavesdropping” carries the connotation of targeting, in this case the citizenry in general. Hardly a thing a megolomaniacal dictator moonbats want GW to be would do as a matter of course.

I am neither a scholar nor a moonbat.

I’m not too lazy (I read it) and yes, I can read. Matter of fact, I find it a wonder sometimes that many libs can read. Maybe it’s not reading, it’s comprehending? Ya think?

As far as being “hardly a MoveOn or other talking-point piece”, I would have to say the Globe is not exactly a bastion of right-wing, conservative expression. Kinda like someone using articles from the JBS to support a point to a lib, I would say.

And the point that really struck me was when the article said “In the opinion of many scholars…” Is that like “All reasonable scientists agree that global warming is caused by humans…”? So far, I’ve only read about GW “probably over-reaching” but haven’t seen where he flat-out broke any laws. If he has broken those laws, go make a citizen’s arrest! I’d certainly be curious to know the legal outcome based on evidence, not the blatherings of “scholars” or moonbats.

Samantha, your analogy seems a bit off. If the evildoer with the knife is supposed to somehow represent Iraq, the more accurate question would be “If you are pretty sure that a guy has a knife in his pocket, and you think there is some possibility that he might use it on your family, do you shoot him in the face first, then go looking for the knife?” Because, of course, that is exactly what we did in Iraq.

Mexico is now colonizing America and imposing its language and culture on it. Though the Americans still have the strength of understanding to recognize that the Hispanic invasion should be stopped, they are unable to take the measures required to achieve this end. The very least that must be done to halt the Hispanic invasion is the mass enslavement, or execution, of the invaders, which must be followed by an American invasion of Mexico to enforce American language and values upon the Mexicans. But the citizens of the USA recoil from such ruthless violence embracing delusion instead. They pretend that their futile defense is not folly, ignore the slow but inevitable takeover of their country and persecute anyone who tries to dispel their illusions. America has lost its ability to defend itself and must eventually be overrun by people from other cultures.

Of course, I thought that posting this wacko’s ramblings would wake up the conservatives who read and post here, to the fallacy of their arguments, but I clearly misunderestimated your… intelligence? …ability to read and comprehend? …common sense?

Caesar was slaughtered by Roman Senators, and Rome descended into chaos. Eventually, the Roman Empire fell.

While this is a vastly oversimplified summary, I dumbed it down so you all could understand the implications of what this wingnut Atkinson suggests. I fear I am engaging in an exercise in futility, however.

Carlos, take a look at the article I reference, which is hardly a MoveOn or any other talking-point piece. Bush the Younger has repeatedly violated the Constitution and broken law after law. If you are too lazy to — or simply can’t — read the article, don’t blame me for not enumerating all 750 (and I’m sure there are more that the authors could not corroborate) violations here.