The final four....

[got tonkaed]

I do not doubt that many of the efforts taken have made our country safer. However, i have a bit of a problem with the notion that fighting this war on terror has made us in and of itself more safe. As has been noted before there are plenty of things which have been missed, such as a reasonable provision to improve port security, while we have continued to spend money on things that really arent war on terror related (ie iraq). If people have the need to fight radical islam that is one thing, and perhaps it would be safer for the country to take an aggressive stance. The problem with that is, islam is much more of a global religion than we give it credit for, and surely fighting radical islam, does not in and of itself, mean fighting only in the middle east.

Personally its not that i dont think we should be fighting radical islam, as i can see how as a country it probably has to remain a foreign policy issue for quite some time, but i think we have not come close to in any fashion doing it the right way. What i think we have accomplished, is fighting wars on different fronts, very quickly creating a war weary nation, which is not a thing you would have to have when fighting something of an endemic war. If your going to be fighting a war that is by and large unwinnable, it pretty much has been strategized and ran as best as humanly possible. As it has not been, i doubt that it really has made us all that much more safe at the moment.

[Napoleon Ier]

I do not doubt that many of the efforts taken have made our country safer. However, i have a bit of a problem with the notion that fighting this war on terror has made us in and of itself more safe. As has been noted before there are plenty of things which have been missed, such as a reasonable provision to improve port security, while we have continued to spend money on things that really arent war on terror related (ie iraq). If people have the need to fight radical islam that is one thing, and perhaps it would be safer for the country to take an aggressive stance. The problem with that is, islam is much more of a global religion than we give it credit for, and surely fighting radical islam, does not in and of itself, mean fighting only in the middle east.

Personally its not that i dont think we should be fighting radical islam, as i can see how as a country it probably has to remain a foreign policy issue for quite some time, but i think we have not come close to in any fashion doing it the right way. What i think we have accomplished, is fighting wars on different fronts, very quickly creating a war weary nation, which is not a thing you would have to have when fighting something of an endemic war. If your going to be fighting a war that is by and large unwinnable, it pretty much has been strategized and ran as best as humanly possible. As it has not been, i doubt that it really has made us all that much more safe at the moment.

Wow. I actually agree with the Viet-Tonk. Still, now America's in, they have to see it through, lest we have a repeat of the humiliation suffered as scenes from the Saigon embassy were broadcast worldwide...

[got tonkaed]

to be honest, i would rather have them start getting it right no matter what the cost, rather than be worried about being embarresed internationally. If your job is to secure the country from external threat, you should be well beyond such trivial things as political embarresment.

[brianm]

That is one thing that I think we can agree on. I would personally like to see more effort put into securing our own borders.

[got tonkaed]

That is one thing that I think that we can agree on. I would personally like to see more effort put into securing our own borders.

essentially thats where i fall in on. I think if we are doing all of this to make our nation more secure, there has to be at least a stronger effort to secure borders reasonably, not with something absurd like a fence, but with reasonable measures that can have a positive impact.

If a measured, effectively outlined war abroad was coupled with sound defensive measures taken at home, i think even us ideological opposers would have less of a leg to stand on.

[Snorri1234]

While it is true that we could do nothing and trust to luck that we would not be attacked, and we could do all we could possibly do and still get attacked anyway, I don't see how that is a logical arguement. Are you saying that it is best to leave all your doors open at night because if someone REALLY wanted to get inside they will do so anyway? That's foolish.

Ofcourse there is a difference between protecting the country and fighting an unjust war for oil.

Liberals are always upset about the idea of fighting against evil (unless that evil is a Marine Recruitment center in Berkley California) but history has proven again and again that the ONLY way to defeat evil is that you must be willing to fight against it, accept that you may not win every battle, and fight until you break their will to continue the fight. This strategy has ALWAYS worked when it was tried (example, World War II, the Cold War) and the strategy of limited struggle or appeasement has ALWAYS failed when it was tried (example, the buildup to world war 2, the Vietnam War).

I don't think there is anyone who thinks the terrorism-threat isn't bad and needs to be taken care of. However, a significant portion might have a problem with fighting an unrelated war against a bunch of people minding their own bussines.

However, I do not think that it is an accident or a lack of will on the part of the international terrorists that they have not attacked us here at home again since September 11, 2001. I think that we have taken positive steps to intercept terrorist plots, and while I am sure that eventually one such attack will get thru to us again, it is better than allowing ALL attacks to get through to hit us.

I fully agree.

I also think that the strategy of taking the war to THEM in Afghanistan and Iraq has done a lot to bleed their organizations of their best and brightest members and of financial resources, and that too has contributed to us not having a major attack on our homeland.

Don't buy it for a second. While Afghanistan might be a good example, Iraq really is just a shithole and anyone thinking it's going well or helping is deluding themselves.

The problem here is that the war on terrorism is not the same as other wars. Terrorists don't form armies you can fight effectively, they operate in small groups and attack when they want to. If anything I think the Iraq-war has played into the hands of the terrorists, as they have been able to recruit from disgruntled citizens who think America should mind their own bussiness.

The key to fighting against terrorism is securing yourself and stopping terrorism at the source. Not with a full out war, but with specialists teams gathering information.