According to an excite pool, 53% says yes. Tell me. What the f*ck did we even do except for saying that the terrorists have made a grave mistake and all that. If this attitude keeps up, NOTHING is gonna be done about this. However, I guess that is a givin no matter what the people say.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
Depends on what you considering "going after the terrorists." If you think going after the terrorists means dropping the bombs and dragging those responsible for the September 11 massacres to be going after them, then obviously we have not. If you consider gathering intelligence, evidence, and international support for any actions to be going after them, then yes we are albeit slowly. If you believe that going after terrorists includes restricting the opportunities for those responsible or others to commit an encore performance, then yes we have been going after the terrorists fullheartedly.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
*boot to the head*
You must learn PATIENCE, grasshopper!
Posted by MIB (Member # 426) on :
bull. It's been 20 days now. We know who did it, we know with very high certianty who's funding....."him" and we know who's haboring the son of a bitch. We also have the support of Russia, Australia, and almost all of the EU. What else are we waiting for? We can't wait for another 5 years so that a spy can infiltrate the terrorist cells.
[ October 01, 2001: Message edited by: MIB ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
I think most of the delay now is taking various avenues to insure that there is minimal support in the not-so-helpful countries for a 'counterattack' once we make these particular bad guys extinct.
See, if we whack these guys the wrong way, we could turn them into martyrs for too many people and spark another round of new terrorists.
The way to avoid that is one of two things:
One, We wait, gather and present evidence, and flex diplomatic, social, economic, and military muscle until we have as much support as we can possibly get,
or
Two, We attack alone, and try to not only wipe out all terrorists, but all potential WOULD-BE terrorists... which amounts to a LARGE portion of the Middle East... including our current Arab allies... something our European allies would most certainly NOT support (except Russia, 'cause she'd just extend her borders south to the oil fields)
That's why.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I rather doubt there's any way to respond that avoids creating martyrs or new terrorists. I fear we are facing a war that cannot be avoided, and cannot be won.
Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :
Don't forget, there's a lot going on that many common folk do not know about. As far as we're concerned, we're on a need-to-know basis.
Posted by targetemployee (Member # 217) on :
If there isn't another deadly attack on US soil in Pres. Bush's term as president, be that 3 or 7 years, then we were aggressive agaisnt terrorism in the days, months, or years that succeeded Sept. 11, 2001.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Er, 4 or 8.
...well since he wasn't elected in the first place...
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Oh, great, now Omega gets to make another one of his "He's your president, too you ingrate bastards!" rants.
Our president who gave $48 million to the Taliban in May because of their anti-drug policy, nevermind they've just been revealed as the biggest Opium supplier in Asia ...
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
cite, cite, cite.
I elected him. It was ALL ME.
Gotta go... Scalia's on the other line.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
D'oh! I was $5 million off, he only gave $43 million.
Robert Scheer, 5/22/01 Los Angeles Times
... do you want the Opium citation, too?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
No, but it would be interesting to know how big 'biggest' is. I detest superlatives, they're often misleading.
Until recently, I believe Turkey had been the 'biggest' ##### producer by far.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Funny. I get my supply of #### from my "3" key.
Posted by IDIC (Member # 256) on :
Ironically, I hear that president Bush, in his infinite wisdom, has decided to financially support the rebel Afghan faction - known as the Northen Alliance - to help them in their struggle with the Taliban. I wonder in just how many years that money will be used by some of the more radical NA members to fund new terrorist attacks against the USA (or any other western country for that matter).
Posted by MIB (Member # 426) on :
Well, you and I both know that intelligence isn't Dubya's fortay. (Did I spell "fortay" correctly?)
[ October 05, 2001: Message edited by: MIB ]
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Let's just say spelling isn't yours... Posted by MIB (Member # 426) on :
At least I'm willing to admit it. How about you, Dubya?
Dubya: Hold on. Let me call my daddy for advice on how to answer your question.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
*sigh*
And I thought we were making progress with this boy...
Oh, well.
BOOT TO THE HEAD!
*whiss*
*THUNK*
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
I drop kick him, you boot him in the head. That poor boy, it's a good thing his skull is so big.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
It would seem that you did spell "fortay" correctly. Unfortunately, the word you want is "forte", and you did not spell that correctly.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
fort�, actually...
Posted by MIB (Member # 426) on :
I'm sorry teacher Omega. I do not know what came over me. Some of my old habits die hard. I'm sorry teacher. Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Tom: Actually, no, it's just "forte". Technically, it's supposed to be pronounced like "fort", as that's the word from which it was derived. But someone started spelling it w/ an 'e', and then people apparently confused it w/ the Italian word "forte" (pronounced "for-tay", a musical terminology), thus leading to the current pronunciation.
So says the Random House dictionary behind me, anyway.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Im glad youve put the dictionary behind you. But arent we all trying to put something like that behind us?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
You seem to have put the 'A' section behind you. At least up through the word "apostrophe"...
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
