Looking Beyond Terrorism

Discussion in 'Politics' started by poncho, Oct 5, 2009.

  1. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    President Barack Obama has stated that he has a low threshold for "success" in Afghanistan. He wants an Afghanistan that can no longer serve as a base for any terrorist group that would be able to attack the United States. Assuming that the President of the United States is true to his word, he should perhaps consider the possibility that the minimum objective for an American withdrawal from Afghanistan has already been achieved. If that is so, it is time for the United States to end its de facto occupation of the country and leave the Afghan people to settle on a form of government that will satisfy their needs, not those of a segment of the international community led by Washington.

    The fact is that the threat from terrorism has been greatly exaggerated for political reasons to create a sense of fear that has enabled Democrats and Republicans alike to aggrandize power in the federal government. The US State Department issues an annual report that identifies the "state sponsors" of terrorism, those countries that allegedly support and provide a safe haven for terrorist movements. The list has significance because inclusion on it automatically triggers sanctions and other punitive measures, but the report itself and the politics that drive it make its conclusions highly questionable.

    <snip>

    Does al-Qaeda threaten the United States? Well, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen seem to think so, but if they thought otherwise they would be out of a job. Perhaps the American public should begin to ask why hundreds of billions of dollars are being spent yearly to fight an enemy that might well be more imaginary that real. It is not unreasonable to suggest that it is time to put the genie back into the bottle and end the global war on terror once and for all. If President Obama really believes what he says, it is past time for him to accept that Afghanistan is a mess but unlikely to become a terrorist haven. Which means "mission accomplished" and it's time to leave.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D. is the Francis Walsingham Fellow at The American Conservative Defense Alliance (www.ACDAlliance.org) and a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer.


    Full Article



    How odd. A conservative think tank that actually practices conservatism and is loyal to the U.S. constitution.
     
    #1 poncho, Oct 5, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 5, 2009
  2. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Weapons are our#1 export so there will always be a terrorist threat someplace. If there isn't the US will start something. Hope it isn't WW3.
     
  3. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    There it is again - the idea that it's all America's fault!
     
  4. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    You should get the lens checked on your one way looking glass Dragoon ole buddy. Nobody is claiming America is at fault here. I suspect all the non stop conditioning from the faux republican talking points agency is warping your mind and clouding your vision. Still.

    Endless interventionism is the problem here. Not America.

    More intervention is never going to solve the problems intervention caused in the first place. It's not that hard to understand.

    Interventionist policy is like the nervous man with an upset stomach from drinking too much coffee who assumes he can alleviate his suffering by drinking even more coffee.
     
    #4 poncho, Oct 7, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 7, 2009
  5. NiteShift

    NiteShift
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,034
    Likes Received:
    0
    We can take Philip M. Giraldi (the writer of this opinion piece) with a grain of salt. He is the expert who claimed in 2005 that Bush was about to attack Iran with nuclear weapons.

    I wouldn't worry about this too much if I were you. Obama is probably at this moment looking for a way out of Afghanistan.
     
  6. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    I sure don't disagree that intervention is sometime not a good idea. But neither is standing by and watching everything happen around you either because sooner or later it comes to your doorstep if you do.

    My point is that America is not the source of all the trouble as some want us to believe and our primary export is certainly not weapons.
     
  7. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ever since FDR (nothing to fear but fear, itself) and the end of WW2 it has been government policy to keep the American public afraid of something . . . anything, doesn't matter. When I was in school, it was Russian nukes. Now we are to be afraid of every nut in the entire world.
     

Share This Page

Loading...