The W
Views: 98643791
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
3.9.14 0215
The W - Current Events & Politics - Fly paper
This thread has 14 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.88
Pages: 1 2 3 Next
(1778 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (46 total)
Michrome
Head cheese








Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3782 days
Last activity: 2848 days
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
Whether or not you supported the war, it is obvious that the U.S. presence in Iraq is having a fly paper effect. By this I mean that terrorists from all over the middle east are flocking to Iraq to take their shot at the U.S. military. Now, I doubt that this was the original plan, but couldn't it end up being a good thing that we get to kill all of these people all at once? Who better to deal with them than our military? I'd rather have them flocking to fight our military than come here to blow up buildings. I think Bush was right in a way tonight: Victory in Iraq is pivotal, we can't let it fall back into hell. There will be many casualties, but if we are victorious it could be the real turning point in the war on terror.
Promote this thread!
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni








Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2937 days
Last activity: 2934 days
#2 Posted on
I don't think Osama himself is going to be traveling to Iraq any time soon, so no matter how many terrorists kill themselves or are killed in Iraq, it doesn't do anything to dismantle the networks that are located throughout the world. Also, why is basically sacrificing soldiers to weed them out a good thing?



Weekly Visitor - PSSSSHAW!

Jersey Is Dead - New Old Stuff!!!
Michrome
Head cheese








Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3782 days
Last activity: 2848 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
Because I'd rather have them fighting soldiers than blowing up buildings full of civilians. Furthermore, when it comes down to the numbers game, for every soldier they take out, we'll bring down a lot of terrorists. People always talk about the dead U.S. soldiers in Mogadishu, but forget how many those soldiers took with them. We can't retreat at this point, it would be a horrible defeat in the war on terror, and would only embolden terrorists.
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni








Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2937 days
Last activity: 2934 days
#4 Posted on
They've already killed civilians in Iraq.



Weekly Visitor - PSSSSHAW!

Jersey Is Dead - New Old Stuff!!!
Gavintzu
Summer sausage








Since: 2.1.02
From: Calgary ... Alberta Canada

Since last post: 2816 days
Last activity: 2816 days
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
Michrome sez:

    ... couldn't it end up being a good thing that we get to kill all of these people all at once? Who better to deal with them than our military?


I think the problem with this thought is that there isn't a definite number of terrorists who can be captured or killed. The populations in countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Palestine are very young ... hmmmm Click Here (riyadh.usembassy.gov). "Saudi Arabia’s annual population growth rate remains high at 3%, but appears to be slowing. Youth under the age of 18 make up about 50% of the population. Creating jobs for the 100,000 new entrants into the workforce each year presents a major challenge for the economy."

50% of the population under the age of 18, many of these youths educated from childhood by militant clerics, and not a lot of jobs to go around. It sounds like prime recruiting grounds for future Mujahideen. If Iraq continues to be a pitched battleground with constant guerilla warfare, you stand the chance of seeing thousands of new terrorists (who are now 15 years old, say) flocking to Iraq in the next five years to fight the invaders. Just like what happened to the Soviets in the '80s in Afghanistan.

America's best bet is to set up a strong Iraqi government and get the heck out. Unfortunately, this may not be possible, and a civil war may be inevitable the day the U.S. pulls out. It's a mess any way you slice it.






They got a mule they call Sal, bulldozing up canal walls.
They're gonna tap that icecap too,
And when they do they're gonna make that green map blue.
And the weather is finally getting warm ...
A-MOL
Frankfurter








Since: 26.6.02
From: York, England

Since last post: 3823 days
Last activity: 3765 days
#6 Posted on
Any proof on these 'new' terrorists? It couldn't be Iraqi citizens attacking the 'invaders'? And wasn't the number of 'terrorist camps' already in Iraq one of the reason to attack?

Nobody really believes that the troops should pull out now. It's just that the situation is exposing the lack of planning that went on in the months preceding the invasion.



...full of energy. Multi-orgasmic, if you will, in a cosmic sort of way."
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 16 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#7 Posted on
It is an absolutely delusional idea to think that terrorism is a zero-sum game - that if terrorists are killing our troops in Iraq that will keep them busy and away from us. It certainly isn't keeping them from striking Israel, though, is it.

Of course, the latest attacks in Isreal won't do anything to slow down this hideous "flypaper" rhetoric. The concept has no basis in reality to begin with, so it’s certainly not going to be disproven by, you know, reality.

For that matter, don’t imagine that another attack on US soil would change their minds. (If that happens, they’ll just blame Michael Moore and the Dixie Chicks, for criticizing the President, encouraging the terrorists with our disunity.)

Oh, and by the way, the complete moral abyss you have to be in order to refer to these people as "flypaper" - to infer that they're best used as bait to protect you from the bad guys - is deplorable.



"These are the same arguments, the precise same arguments that were being made before the war. It’s going to be a quagmire. What is the plan? When do we get out? How much is it going to cost? Someone in the military might get his hair mussed. We heard all these arguments."
----Ann Coulter, supporting our troops. Click here for a tribute to all Iraq's bad hair days to date.
Michrome
Head cheese








Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3782 days
Last activity: 2848 days
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
Israel has never full-out attacked their enemies. It's always single, targeted attacks that never lead to anything because god knows that if Israel ever did what was necessary to defend itself people would be up in arms. Yes, people die in wars, I still fail to understand why liberals can't comprehend this. These people signed up to do this, and most of them are pretty damn happy to be doing what they're doing. Military families are proud, even if you're not proud of them. It is the military's job to face our enemies so citizens don't have to...that's why we HAVE a military. What would be your solution at this point, duck and run away? I am still waiting for the liberal solution to the war on terrorism. I saw 9 candidates offer NOTHING last night in a debate as far as the war on terrorism goes.

We heard this talk all throughout the eighties: It's "ridiculous" to think the Soviet Union will fall, Reagan "is an idiot", Reagan was "naive", we must be ready to accept "inevitable" revolutions, for "coexistance", and for a world "where we are not supreme." "The cold war cannot be won" was the most common thing to be read in every liberal newspaper across the country. And then it happened. Anything can be defeated, it just takes a leader willing to try to win, not avoid losing.
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 16 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#9 Posted on
    Originally posted by Michrome
    Israel has never full-out attacked their enemies. It's always single, targeted attacks that never lead to anything because god knows that if Israel ever did what was necessary to defend itself people would be up in arms. Yes, people die in wars, I still fail to understand why liberals can't comprehend this. These people signed up to do this, and most of them are pretty damn happy to be doing what they're doing. Military families are proud, even if you're not proud of them. It is the military's job to face our enemies so citizens don't have to...that's why we HAVE a military. What would be your solution at this point, duck and run away? I am still waiting for the liberal solution to the war on terrorism. I saw 9 candidates offer NOTHING last night in a debate as far as the war on terrorism goes.

    We heard this talk all throughout the eighties: It's "ridiculous" to think the Soviet Union will fall, Reagan "is an idiot", Reagan was "naive", we must be ready to accept "inevitable" revolutions, for "coexistance", and for a world "where we are not supreme." "The cold war cannot be won" was the most common thing to be read in every liberal newspaper across the country. And then it happened. Anything can be defeated, it just takes a leader willing to try to win, not avoid losing.


That was an excellent response to absolutely nothing I said. Try again.



"These are the same arguments, the precise same arguments that were being made before the war. It’s going to be a quagmire. What is the plan? When do we get out? How much is it going to cost? Someone in the military might get his hair mussed. We heard all these arguments."
----Ann Coulter, supporting our troops. Click here for a tribute to all Iraq's bad hair days to date.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2779 days
Last activity: 2622 days
AIM:  
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.00
    Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
    It is an absolutely delusional idea to think that terrorism is a zero-sum game - that if terrorists are killing our troops in Iraq that will keep them busy and away from us. It certainly isn't keeping them from striking Israel, though, is it.

    Of course, the latest attacks in Isreal won't do anything to slow down this hideous "flypaper" rhetoric. The concept has no basis in reality to begin with, so it’s certainly not going to be disproven by, you know, reality.

    For that matter, don’t imagine that another attack on US soil would change their minds. (If that happens, they’ll just blame Michael Moore and the Dixie Chicks, for criticizing the President, encouraging the terrorists with our disunity.)

    Oh, and by the way, the complete moral abyss you have to be in order to refer to these people as "flypaper" - to infer that they're best used as bait to protect you from the bad guys - is deplorable.


I don't think anyone is sinking into a moral abyss here. The US military exists to fight our enemies and to "protect [us] from the bad guys." Whether this is a viable strategy is another question, but I don't believe it's callous or immoral to suggest that our soldiers are best suited to killing our enemies.

Amd I'm with Michrome - what's the left's answer to terrorism? Is it islationism? Increased foreign aid? Electric cars? How do you respond to the fact - yes, fact - that there are evil people out there who wish to do us harm?



"Georgie Porgie, he might buy the whole league, but he doesn't have enough money to buy fear to put in my heart."
Pedro Martinez
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 16 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#11 Posted on
    Originally posted by PalpatineW
    don't think anyone is sinking into a moral abyss here. The US military exists to fight our enemies and to "protect [us] from the bad guys." Whether this is a viable strategy is another question, but I don't believe it's callous or immoral to suggest that our soldiers are best suited to killing our enemies.


No it isn't, but that isn't what the "flypaper" rhetoric states. It states that our soldiers are best suited to be killed by our enemies to keep them occupied.



"These are the same arguments, the precise same arguments that were being made before the war. It’s going to be a quagmire. What is the plan? When do we get out? How much is it going to cost? Someone in the military might get his hair mussed. We heard all these arguments."
----Ann Coulter, supporting our troops. Click here for a tribute to all Iraq's bad hair days to date.
Frosty Cat
Medisterpoelse








Since: 10.9.03
From: Burnaby, British Columbia

Since last post: 4009 days
Last activity: 4008 days
#12 Posted on
“Fly paper” is definitely the wrong analogy. Why? Because “fly paper” does not create flies.

The Americans’ presence in Iraq is not “drawing out” terrorists, it’s creating a whole new generation of terrorists where none existed before.

I absolutely love how THESE SAME PEOPLE were “noble freedom fighters (Ronald Reagan)” fighting Russian occupation of Afghanistan, but they are now, ALL OF THEM, “terrorists who hate freedom (George Bush)”


Build the puppet(1) – knock down the puppet(2)

1) Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, the Mujihadeen; All of them were supported, financed and armed by America in one clandestine operation after another. (Some not so clandestine!)

2) “We gotta justify our military spending and keep up the fear at home.”


My first post here, and I don’t want to be a wallflower!

Frosty Cat


MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 14 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.28
If we're so hyped on the "flypaper" thing, why didn't we just keep the Commies around? They were the greatest flypaper for this stuff ever. I mean, the Soviets kept the Islamicists busy for the better part of a decade. It's all Reagan's fault! Or Gorbachev's. Kidding aside, I have yet to hear why the Soviet Union, the world, or America for that matter, is safer or better off because of the fall of Communism. I'll take the inevitable "Oh my God, what does it take to convince liberals that Communism is evil and doesn't work!" responses, but I'd appreciate some kind of logical, thought-out responce in there also. It's a genuine question.

I still think more good than harm is going to come out of invading Iraq, although I certainly think it could have been done much better. The problem I, and most liberals, have with the administration is its lack of honesty. Because "we need to wave our dicks around a little bit" doesn't play so good on TV as a reason for starting a war, they just make shit up to fit whatever they think will get popular opinion on their side at the time. Now with tax cuts (where they first honed this stratagy), it's pretty scuzzy, but it is just politics. With a WAR, it's an immoral and deblorable way to run a Democracy.

I'm betting on the American people to finally get fed up with this, but with a right-wing congress and a media full of pussies, I'm not betting a lot.

(edited by MoeGates on 10.9.03 2040)

"I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about 'man on dog' with a United States Senator. It's sort of freaking me out."


Associated Press interview with Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), 04-07-2003.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2779 days
Last activity: 2622 days
AIM:  
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.00
Moe, do you trust George Bush with our army?

Would you trust a totalitarian government with our army? One that killed tens of millions of its own people, like the Soviet one?

Furthermore, the Soviets were clearly trying to take over the world, more or less, through satellite states and outright conquest. And before some jackass tries to say that "Well so did the US," I will simply note that we are a frigging democracy (republic, whatever - we're Western, and we're liberal. and we don't starve our own citizens).



"Georgie Porgie, he might buy the whole league, but he doesn't have enough money to buy fear to put in my heart."
Pedro Martinez
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 34 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#15 Posted on
Palp, the only thing I will say about the Soviets is that in the last 25-30 years or so of the USSR, they had just slightly better luck at taking over the world than I have had in my efforts. And I have at least run up less debt in doing so. We can say quite accurately that the USSR was ridiculously flawed, evil, brutal to its citizens, poor judges of fashion, and anything else you want to throw at them, but they were really a boogieman in exactly one aspect post 1975 or so, and that was that they had lots of ICBM's pointed at us. And that hasn't changed yet, and I'm not much sure that the attitudes of the people with the buttons for them is THAT much different these days.

And in response to the question of what should we do to deal with terrorism, I think a lot of the things we are doing are quite good right now. We were right to go into Afghanistan and I was glad to see Bush do so. We are right to be working with world governments to help them root out terrorism in their home countries, even if in some cases that means putting practice ahead of principle (I'm looking at you Pakistan). However, here's a thought that I know will get me attacked from people on both sides of the fence, but so be it. I would like to see the US declare total neutrality in the Middle East. Pull all funding from all sides of the issue. Remove ourselves from the issue that causes the greatest anger towards us. Hell, if Bismarck were still alive he would look at this situation and say realpolitik would dictate we shift all our support to the Palestinian Authority and away from the single isolated nation who no one in the entire region likes and towards the group supported by 1.2 billion Muslims. But history and morality wouldn't allow us to do that, so I'd take the next step over.



Coming to Chicago Nov. 12...I am SO there! - Brenda Weiler

blogforamerica.com
socalgail
Weisswurst








Since: 4.8.03
From: San Diego

Since last post: 4009 days
Last activity: 3854 days
#16 Posted on
We're not killing any terrorists. We can't find them.
They may blow themselves up but the kill ratios there are not in our favor. If we want to stop terrorism, we'd need to go after the mullahs teaching young boys that unlimited sex awaits them when they die as a martyr for Allah. Actually, unlimited is a bit of an exaggeration. It is, I believe, 72 virgins. Koranic scholars on this post, please correct me if I have that number wrong.

The $87 billion might be better spent coming up with a substitute for oil. But Halliburton and the Bush family fortune would suffer greatly should that substitute be found. Don't worry. Your Exxon shares are safe.





socalgail
Scott Summets
Sujuk








Since: 27.6.02

Since last post: 3855 days
Last activity: 3824 days
#17 Posted on
    Originally posted by Frosty Cat
    “Fly paper” is definitely the wrong analogy. Why? Because “fly paper” does not create flies.

    The Americans’ presence in Iraq is not “drawing out” terrorists, it’s creating a whole new generation of terrorists where none existed before.

    I absolutely love how THESE SAME PEOPLE were “noble freedom fighters (Ronald Reagan)” fighting Russian occupation of Afghanistan, but they are now, ALL OF THEM, “terrorists who hate freedom (George Bush)”


    Build the puppet(1) – knock down the puppet(2)

    1) Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, the Mujihadeen; All of them were supported, financed and armed by America in one clandestine operation after another. (Some not so clandestine!)

    2) “We gotta justify our military spending and keep up the fear at home.”


    My first post here, and I don’t want to be a wallflower!

    Frosty Cat





You do realize France and China funded these countries hundreds of times more than we did.



Have you tried the Chai? It's tea!
A-MOL
Frankfurter








Since: 26.6.02
From: York, England

Since last post: 3823 days
Last activity: 3765 days
#18 Posted on
Well, congrats to the US for not being as naughty as France and China.



...full of energy. Multi-orgasmic, if you will, in a cosmic sort of way."
Frosty Cat
Medisterpoelse








Since: 10.9.03
From: Burnaby, British Columbia

Since last post: 4009 days
Last activity: 4008 days
#19 Posted on
    Originally posted by socalgail
    The $87 billion might be better spent coming up with a substitute for oil.




Hey! Why don't we spend the $87 billion providing each young arab militant with 72 virgins*? I'll bet they're willing to participate!

*Okay, okay, thay won't ALL be virgins, but I'm sure they still won't complain.
-proletarian-
Chipolata








Since: 29.4.03

Since last post: 4006 days
Last activity: 4005 days
#20 Posted on
    Originally posted by Michrome
    Israel has never full-out attacked their enemies.



Yeah. The only bad thing Israel has ever done is ethnically cleanse Palestine, uprooting millions of people from land they had lived on for thousands of years, and ushered them into cramped plots of land in Gaza and the West Bank where they face terrible humanitarian conditions and frequent military forays at the hands of the IDF.....oh, wait.

Bullshit. Isreal is as much a villain in this matter as those wackos in Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Both sides kill each other for the same exact reasons. Don't let cultural bias blind you to this fact.
Pages: 1 2 3 Next
Thread rated: 5.88
Pages: 1 2 3 Next
Thread ahead: It's official : Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11
Next thread: Not Breaking News: U.S. Students Need Better Civics Education
Previous thread: Field Poll: Dean leads in California Primary
(1778 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Ugh. SCARY pic. Jesse could pull off the scraggly beard but he needs to start shaving his head again, unless he's planning to run for Unabomber sometime soon.
- JayJayDean, Ventura backs Kerry (2004)
The W - Current Events & Politics - Fly paperRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.144 seconds.