Losing the War on Terror, Mr. Bush?

[JoshK]

hmmm! so let me see if i get this right. when the report had a number of terror victims that were slightly lower than last year, it was good enough to conclude we were winning the war. but now that the report has been "fixed" and the number of victims is double than what was initially reported, the report is not good enough to say anything? now that the numbers of significant events are highest in 21 years it does not mean anything?

 

Of course a small factoid that all of you have cleverly decided to leave out is that the terror report statistics covered THE WHOLE FUCKING WORLD!

 

BFD, Jon. Americans (or anybody) getting beheaded elsewhere is no better than it happening here. Simply keeping within US borders to remain safe isn't an option.

[JoshK]

With as heavily as we watched Iraq, they weren't going to be doing shit in there. The sad fact is we could have handcuffed iraq indefinitely (or until Sadaam died) with the weapons inspections. They weren't finding anything (gee...I wonder why ) but for a few million bucks a year or whatever it was the country was essentially under a house arrest and wasn't going to be doing anything. Now we are paying, what, $87 billion a year and 900 American lifes, to keep them under "control"? Bad deal...this strategy was fucked from the beginning.

[klenke]

I think the statistics themselves don't really mean a whole lot. You have to place the statistics in context. Sure, the numbers were revised to capture more Western deaths, more terrorist incidents, but what does it really mean? There is no standard that says XX-many events over YY-timeframe means we are losing the war or winning the war. Whether or not we are winning or losing the war has more to do with public opinion and how at ease the public is with those events.

 

Example of how statistics mean nothing when supporting info is not given (to us):

"Doctors have determined that surfing on cc.com results in a 20% increase in the probability that users will develop glaucoma." Do you see the problem with this? This is all they ever tell you on the news. The 20% value doesn't tell you anything in the absense of supporting data, as in what is the initial rate from which the increase begins? How does this risk measure up against other risk factors?

 

My point: with the terrorist act numbers changing as little as they have (not orders of magnitude changes but percentage changes) there is no way to conclude one way or the other what this really means at all, much less as to winning or losing.

 

And you know you can't compare the rate over the last three years worth of terrorist events to the rate from 20 years ago or whenever. Today's world is different than then. There were other issues back then that affected our lives too but they weren't terrorism.

[j_b]

hmmm! so let me see if i get this right. when the report had a number of terror victims that were slightly lower than last year, it was good enough to conclude we were winning the war. but now that the report has been "fixed" and the number of victims is double than what was initially reported, the report is not good enough to say anything? now that the numbers of significant events are highest in 21 years it does not mean anything?

 

Of course a small factoid that all of you have cleverly decided to leave out is that the terror report statistics covered THE WHOLE FUCKING WORLD!

 

huh? what is it again that i cleverly decided? all reports from previous years, the blotched one with "errors" and the new one cover the entire world. i don't get it.

[jon]

JoshK, EMFA.

 

The terror report that you guys are arguing about, and obviously don't understand, covers the entire world, number of attacks, number injured, number killed, not just Americans. Someone decides to blow up a pizza parlor in Israel, whether there are Americans there or not, it's on the terror report. It includes these Saudi idiots who are blowing up their own people. So the arguement that you are all making, just to remind you, is that Bush is responsible for the global increase in terrorism. Does that really seem fair? I'm not voting for him, just pointing it out.

[j_b]

I think the statistics themselves don't really mean a whole lot.

 

well until someone shows us the last 20 years together in one data set, it'll be difficult to compare (curious how nobody discusses this, it must in the spirit of being objective ). but i recall that the trend for major events was downward for the previous 20 years and now it is the highest it has been since then. that is surely significant.

 

so i assume you must have said something to the effect that it was too soon to say anything when armitage used the botched report to argue we were winning?

[klenke]

With as heavily as we watched Iraq, they weren't going to be doing shit in there. The sad fact is we could have handcuffed iraq indefinitely (or until Sadaam died) with the weapons inspections. They weren't finding anything (gee...I wonder why ) but for a few million bucks a year or whatever it was the country was essentially under a house arrest and wasn't going to be doing anything. Now we are paying, what, $87 billion a year and 900 American lifes, to keep them under "control"? Bad deal...this strategy was fucked from the beginning.

That's true, Josh. That may have worked too. Or it may not have (you could find the Iraqis looking a lot like the average impoverished North Korean). Who knows? You could say that, had we imposed more sanctions on Iraq, the Iraqis would have eventually had a civil war to depose Hussein. It might have taken four more years for them to get to that point but it would have saved billions of US$ and US-lives. Add to this that the Iraqis would be turning their anger inward to themselves and the ruling goverment instead of outward to us and the Western world. A civil war in Iraq is what we may get anyway...but with the added detriment of Arab hatred toward Americans.

 

All their hatred toward us is missplaced and misguided. It is easy to blame the West. It is hard to blame and be active against the regime that controls you within your borders (e.g., Iran). If they want to ameliorate their lives, they need to enact their own regime changes and create democracies. Should we help to this end or should we be isolationists? Hard to say.

 

One thing's for sure, we need to get off (seriously reduce) our dependency on oil so we can say "fuck 'em and their oil." I wish this could happen overnight, but sadly, it cannot. It will take initiative and time, neither of which we currently have in the U.S..

[j_b]

the administration was comparing reports covering worldwide events to conclude we were winning. what has changed? nothing except for a doubling of the numbers initially reported, so i am not sure what it is "we don't understand".

 

to answer your question of whether it is fair to point the finger at bush, we need to see if the victims of attacks worldwide tend to be allies that were hit in retaliation for cooperating with our policies or "collateral damage" to attacks against our interests abroad. i am willing to bet that it is indeed the case in a majority of cases.

[chucK]

The plain result that these terror statistics tell us is that this administration has absolutely no compunction about telling outrageous lies to support their agenda.

 

Anything they put out at this point is probably regarded throughout the world with as much respect as should be given to Klenke's completely made-up glaucoma statistic.

[klenke]

I agree, j_b, the administration should have never used the statistics to conclude we were winning the war on terrorism. That was dumb. The statistics don't tell the whole story. Besides, within wars there are battles and lulls. During lulls, strategies are formulated. Just because you're not battling it doesn't mean the war is over. The drop in statistics could have merely meant the war was in a lull, not that the war was swaying one way or the other.

 

Oh, and ChucK, I didn't make up that glaucoma stat. Here is the source.

[j_b]

klenke: at this point i think it'd be extremely difficult to find a terror expert not associated with this administration that does not think the increase in attacks is related to the iraq war.

[jon]

I think what you people need to do is start looking at things with a more open mind and start accepting things as they are and not how they support your agenda. I'm not a Bush supporter, I didn't vote for him and I'm not going to vote for him in this upcoming election. I'm not voting for him because I think he is an idiot and has not done anything about some pressing domestic issues, like health care and education. I also believe that our President should have a military background, something Bush didn't take very seriously. What is going on in Iraq is so complicated I don't even want to discuss it.

 

On 9/11 we were attacked, not for what W did, actually I'm not exactly sure why, Bin Laden says because our military being in Saudi Arabia, who BTW had no problem bying F-15s from us and having us train their pilots which included one of their princes'. Fact is 9/11 is a culmination of a lot of things, possibly including what at the time seemed like small mistakes by various administrations. You can point fingers at whomever you damn well please as to who's fault all of this is, but I think it is pretty hard to point the finger at one administration saying that they are responsible for a global problem that is everyone's problem.

[chucK]

I'm not saying they are completely responsible, but I do fault them for doing a shitty job at fixing the problem (if that is even what they are trying to do).

[jon]

Chuck, I think that was the first statement you have made in this thread that didn't include the word 'Iraq'. Congratulations.

[j_b]

i believe the case can be made that they are responsible for the increase in terror events (some would even argue that 9/11 is due to their policy in afghanistan). i totally agree that the terror problem as such is not new; however what is new is making it a global war that can only be won by confrontation and that it justifies invading countries. big mistake.

[klenke]

Oil: let's get off of it. Then we as America could care less about what could or could not fester in a region of the world that has no value to the rest of the world other than the commodity they supply. For that matter, Afghanistan doesn't even have oil. What do they have that we need? Should we have or should we not have gone in there to depose the Taliban and rout (more or less) Al Quiada? If we had not, wouldn't this whole terrorism threat from Al Quiada be the same--not more, not less, but the same?

[Gary_Yngve]

JoshK, EMFA.

 

The terror report that you guys are arguing about, and obviously don't understand, covers the entire world, number of attacks, number injured, number killed, not just Americans. Someone decides to blow up a pizza parlor in Israel, whether there are Americans there or not, it's on the terror report. It includes these Saudi idiots who are blowing up their own people. So the arguement that you are all making, just to remind you, is that Bush is responsible for the global increase in terrorism. Does that really seem fair? I'm not voting for him, just pointing it out.

 

Jon, I think the point is that when the stats were fubared and there appeared to be a global decrease in terrorism, Bush was claiming that he was doing a good job. So he'll pat himself on the back for a good stat but argue that he cannot be blamed for a bad stat -- it's got to be someone else's fault, or no one else could do better.

 

Standard politics.

 

The economy boomed during Clinton's presidency, and I'm sure the Democrats said it was because of Clinton's policies. When the economy started tanking during Bush's presidency, the Republicans were saying that the downhill started even before Bush took office, so it's not his fault.

 

When [flawed] causal logic can be used in a politician's favor, he'll use it, and when it doesn't work in his favor, he doesn't use it.

[jon]

How else are you going to battle it?

[Dru]

richard simmons bitch slaps!

[murraysovereign]

...For that matter, Afghanistan doesn't even have oil. What do they have that we need?

 

Opium, mostly. Good stuff, too, by all accounts.

[jon]

Jon, I think the point is that when the stats were fubared and there appeared to be a global decrease in terrorism, Bush was claiming that he was doing a good job. So he'll pat himself on the back for a good stat but argue that he cannot be blamed for a bad stat -- it's got to be someone else's fault, or no one else could do better.

 

Standard politics.

 

The economy boomed during Clinton's presidency, and I'm sure the Democrats said it was because of Clinton's policies. When the economy started tanking during Bush's presidency, the Republicans were saying that the downhill started even before Bush took office, so it's not his fault.

 

When [flawed] causal logic can be used in a politician's favor, he'll use it, and when it doesn't work in his favor, he doesn't use it.

 

Not only is this stardard politics, Gary, this is standard business practice, it goes on in my field and most likely yours, claims to incorrect or falsified data, actually this is standard life.

 

"Hey if you don't eat carbs you will lose wieght!"

"Holy fucking shit I'll stop eating bread right now!"

And some obese doctor who died of a heart attack is hailed by as a hero by millions, including hundreds of executives in the food industry, so they can bring you thinks like low carb beef jerky.

 

Two years later, numerous studies show that the decrease in carbohydrates leads to a number of serious conditions like calcium leaching from bones and increase in heart disease. Not to mention that the average American's weight has increased.

 

So I don't know why this headline is so noteworthy, and if this is coming as some sort of revelation to some of you then let me to be the first to say WELCOME TO PLANET EARTH!

 

My point is that terrorism isn't caused by one person and it's not one person's to solve, it's a global problem that requires a global solution with some unfortunate sacrifices, which apparently some people in this thread aren't willing to make from the comfort of their desk.

[j_b]

How else are you going to battle it?

 

commit to policies that will allow some sort of true democracy to prevail in the countries whose populations support terrorists (i.e. supporting the current local dictator because it is expedient will not do). first be aware that democracy cannot be exported through warfare and occupation.

 

for klenke: http://www.john-loftus.com/enron3.asp

[jon]

So you mean giving them weapons and training them to use them, as well as operating other clandestine operations? Didn't we try this once with...... god the name seems to be escaping me.... hmmmmmmmmm...... oh shit I remember his name, Saddam Hussein!

[j_b]

i precisely mean not doing that. support the democrats not the dictators, even if the dictators give us what we want.

[jon]

You have to elaborate. Support them how? How do you support a minority interest in a country that supports terrorists? Drop leaflets? Have them open a Starbucks? I'm curious.