Thank You Mr. President

7 years without being attacked.

from JoeUser Forums

If you notice since 2001 we stopped being attacked by any and all organized terrorists on our own soil, the only terror organizations out there fighting at all are North Korea, Iran, and the PLO or whatever name they are running under now. If you recall, President Bush said that Iran, Iraq, and North Korea were an axis of evil. Now we have Iran and North Korea as an axis of evil, Iran is not helping terrorists anymore, Iran is sort of bogged down and can’t seem to make any good hits either in Israel or the US and North Korea is starting to conform to international requests to play nice.

 

For that I thank the president and the Department of Homeland Security. While the military has gotten almost all the credit for the war on terrorism but we have been working very hard to protect our nation’s borders.  Our FBI has broken up dozens of terror networks within our borders. The Department of Homeland Security has done a fantastic job the last seven years. We have had over two thousand attempted attacks inside our nation and not one has come to pass. I especially want to thank the CIA for their efforts in stopping enemies from entering the nation. I know they are doing a good job because only their failures get publicized while their successes are kept extremely quiet. No failures in the press mean success.

 

The president has done a wonderful job in retooling our government agencies from the threat of communism to protecting our nation from threat of all kinds. In the last 14 years we had seven years of attacks from terrorists to seven years of no attacks on Americans or American interests. Dwindling terrorists around the world prove the lie that fighting them will only create more terrorists. The last 14 years show the contrast of not fighting them for seven years and we received increased attacks, then fighting them and the numbers dropping like a rock in a pond the last seven years.

 

You may argue that the war on terror is right or wrong but you can’t argue the results. My only complaint is, how far would we have gotten had we had a united nation supporting the war? How fast would we have progressed had we not had opposition politics slowing things down while voicing support for our enemy?

 

We get told that we have to pull our troops out of Iraq, as the best way to save our troops and to stop terrorism. Now we can see in hindsight that this suggested policy was wrong. In doing what the military wanted to do to win we are dropping the levels of violence allowing us to pull our troops out without fear of having to send them back.

 

Please don’t misunderstand me, I am not saying that the liberal President Bush has done everything perfectly but he did do most things competently. Our military made some minor errors in executing this war on terrorism but again no one is perfect and on the whole they did very well. Our FBI did extremely well, changing over from prosecution to prevention. The CIA did well in their change over from espionage only to the boarder defense of our nation. the new Department of Homeland Security starting without any history to guide them has done a masterful job of incorporating many existing government departments and agencies under one department and change their culture all on the fly while demanding perfection every day. One slip up, one mistake, one minor lapse in judgment and we will be attacked. Seven years of perfection is a lot to ask for and as a divided nation we did it. Imagine what we could have accomplished if we all worked together.

33,038 views 15 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

September 11. 2001 terrorist hijack four US airliners. They fly two of them into New York City’s world trade towers, another hits the pentagon. Passengers aboard the fourth jet give their lives to stop the hijackers. President Bush tells Vice President Cheney, “We’re at war, Dick. We’re going to find out who did this and kick their ass.” The democrats in congress asked, he had 8 months on the job why didn’t he stop this from happening? They seem to ignore the seven years of attacks from the same terror group prior to Mr. Bush taking office.

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

The more effective you are, the more criticism you will get.  Fostered by the enemy and abetted by the willing dupes that want us to forget what happened 7 years ago "since it will never happen again".

SoundPackager - Customize the Windows sound scheme
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

It will never happen again as long as we remember! The minute we forget will be the beginning of the next attack.

Reply #4 from PolMach Forums Top

Say what you wish about Bush, and I'm sure you will, but I admire that he wasn't running a popularity contest in the nation.  He stuck to what he believed were in the confines of his job. 

As far as the war goes, I said before, we haven't seen an attack on our soil since we attacked back, and saying this you can keep in mind that I am a mother of an American soldier that has been in the Middle East during wartime.

We tend to forget that much of our unemployment factors are based on certain states and not the majority of states.  These states are divided evenly between the parties.  The heaviest poll comes from Puerto Rico, which is counted in our unemployment statistics, by the way.  Puerto Rico was hit by inclement weather and is prone to hurricanes.  Then the trouble with illegal immigration and it's impact on the economy, which are not controlled so much by the president as they are by congressional and state laws.

I do know one thing, my husband and I are better off now then we were 8 years ago.  For me, that says success.  So yes, I concur, thank you Mr. President. 

+1 Loading…
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

I would agree that certain things have been fairly successful in these regards over the past few years but you really need to learn how to get your facts straight.

 

Here are some of what you state that is simply not true:

the only terror organizations out there fighting at all are North Korea, Iran, and the PLO
End of quote

Iran is not helping terrorists anymore
End of quote

North Korea is starting to conform to international requests to play nice
End of quote

We have had over two thousand attempted attacks inside our nation and not one has come to pass
End of quote

Dwindling terrorists around the world
End of quote

You may argue that the war on terror is right or wrong but you can’t argue the results
End of quote

I know they are doing a good job because only their failures get publicized while their successes are kept extremely quiet
End of quote

We get told that we have to pull our troops out of Iraq, as the best way to save our troops and to stop terrorism. Now we can see in hindsight that this suggested policy was wrong
End of quote

Seven years of perfection is a lot to ask for and as a divided nation we did it
End of quote

 

You ought to find a few more news sources to peruse and spend less time living in a dream world. The situations in Afghanistan and Iraq are fragile at best. US interests have been attacked in the past 7 years and if you read the papers there have even been incidents that have occured this week.  It is good that 7 yrs have passed without having a successful attack on our soil but you see as time passes that terrorism has not dwindled , that another attack on US soil is only a matter of time, and that the entire homeland security infrastructure has a long way to go before it even comes close to perfection.

 

 

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

and that the entire homeland security infrastructure has a long way to go before it even comes close to perfection.
End of quote

 

I can attest to this being true, I work for DHS. I can see the flaws in the system and I can see they are being worked on. I also know that we are probed a lot by AQ and to date they have failed. That is the perfection I write of. We were supposed to face 200 attacks in 2002 with more in 2003 in America to prove to us that we could not stop them from attacking us anywhere they wanted. Where were those attacks? 800 terrorists were in this country for that purpose. 749 have been captured before the close of 2003, 20 were part of the 9/11 attack that leaves 31 unaccounted for. The plan was for 12 to 15 planes to slam into buildings across America, I suspect that some of the 31 unaccounted for terrorists faded away when their planes were ordered to land that day. As the president said “we have to be perfect 100% of the time while the terrorists only have to get lucky once”.

 

You ought to find a few more news sources to peruse and spend less time living in a dream world. The situations in Afghanistan and Iraq are fragile at best.
End of quote

 

I would not say fragile, remember that the opponents to the war predicted that we would be fighting the war in Iraq for decades and tens of thousands of our troops dead the first day. We can’t win in Afghanistan because it is the graveyard of empires we were told. The war in Iraq lasted a few weeks. The war in Afghanistan was mostly over in a few months. There is no organized army fighting our troops in either country now. We are now told that the Taliban is coming back, in truth they have always been there and are now forced to fight in small pockets. They are reduced to attacking road builders because once the road goes in they lose ground.

 

US interests have been attacked in the past 7 years and if you read the papers there have even been incidents that have occured this week.
End of quote

 

Yeah, I wrote this on the tenth of September and the attacks happened after that. Yes, we have been attacked outside our borders, but for the last 7 years we have not suffered an attack on our soil which was the next step in the AQ plan. AQ can attack us in places they deem safe for them like Yemen, the last time they did this type of attack they attacked two embassies at the same time. It took them years to get it together enough to attack one embassy and then they run for cover. We all know they can and will attack us on our own soil but most everyone including the experts expected the attacks to come in 2001 through 2005, those plans have been disrupted and every day they are held back is a victory for us and a defeat for them.

 

It is good that 7 yrs have passed without having a successful attack on our soil but you see as time passes that terrorism has not dwindled , that another attack on US soil is only a matter of time
End of quote

 

Are you sure of this? The war on terrorism has been going on for 14 years, the first 7 we did nothing and we were attacked almost at will. Now that we started to fight back we have had 7 years without any serious attacks until this month which is the beginning of the eighth year. They have dwindled down and now they are building up again. Next we will be hit twice in the same day and so on until they can get enough people back into America to attack us again. But that is much harder than it was before because this time we are fighting back rather than trying to arrest them. When we go from 1500 attempted attacks a week down to 100 a month that is a downward trend. When we go from seven successful attacks in seven years to one in seven years I would say that is a down trend. 14 years of war, 8 successful attacks, the first seven years they had seven successful attacks, the second seven years they had one. But you are correct it is only a matter of time before they get lucky, or someone at homeland slips up, the law of averages is on their side as long as they keep trying. Our job is to kill them before they do reducing the number of tries each time.

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

I can attest to this being true, I work for DHS.
End of quote

A few months ago you said you worked in the real estate industry...You can't even keep your lies straight.

The war in Iraq lasted a few weeks. The war in Afghanistan was mostly over in a few months.
End of quote

Neither War is over. You are really delusional. Winning the war means a lot more than toppling an existing government.  Nation building is extremely complex. To bring democracy to the region is obviouly much more complex than the neocons thought it would be.

Our job is to kill them before they do reducing the number of tries each time.
End of quote

The goal is to reduce terrorism. There is soft force as well as hard force involved in the equation and we cannot solve the problem with hard force alone. The questions I would pose is for every terrorist we kill how many new ones are created? For every non terrorist caught up in the fray that is killed how many new terrorists are created? The problem is much more complex than you seem to think it is.

 

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

A few months ago you said you worked in the real estate industry...You can't even keep your lies straight.
End of quote

 

Well for someone like you that can’t seem to understand that people do many things I guess it would sound like a lie. When I got out of the Marine Corps as a disabled vet I worked in the travel industry for Carnival Cruise lines, then Carnival airlines and a host of other airlines saving up enough money to start my own business, an accounting firm. I currently hold an active real estate license, I also own a property management business that has been going on since the 80’s, after 9/11 I offered my services to the government in counter terrorism again and currently work for DHS, last week I started a lawn care business to help underprivileged youths in my area find work and teach them a work ethic you seem to not understand. I also work with convicted felons finding them work. I have been married for 28 soon to be 29 years, I have three children the oldest is 41, he has a doctorate in economics, my middle child is a nurse, and the youngest is 22 and is a bum.

 

In my spare time I like to write books on topics of science, adventure and fiction. My hobbies are astrophysics, and astronomy and I play golf and like to take walks on the beach and watch sunsets. Oh yeah, my father died on the force my mother retired from the NYPD, my sister was in the black panther party, her husband is a retired bank robber and now an active crack head since getting out of jail. I don’t have time to try to lie my life is too busy.

 

My point is that since you don’t know me you don’t understand that some people live life rather than observe life.

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

Neither War is over. You are really delusional. Winning the war means a lot more than toppling an existing government. Nation building is extremely complex. To bring democracy to the region is obviouly much more complex than the neocons thought it would be.
End of quote

 

No, winning the war means that the opposition government has stopped organized fighting, and the majority of the people have accepted that they have lost. In both cases we now have governments working with us not against us. We are now fighting terrorists and Iranians in Iraq and what is left of the Taliban and terrorists in Afghanistan. You seem to be hoping that the war continues in order to give us a chance to lose. The only way to lose at this point is to give up.

 

And for the record I stated the war was over not that we had won.

 

The questions I would pose is for every terrorist we kill how many new ones are created?
End of quote

 

Well, let’s see, before we started fighting back AQ had around 2500 members, after 9/11 they ballooned to 4500 members and are now down to around 1200 members. I would have to say that we are not creating many, they are recruiting less because they are not perceived as winning any more and in that part of the world you have to be seen as the winning side or you are a nonstarter. Their biggest recruitment tool is success. They have not had much even with the attacks this week. They are back to playing in their own back yard which means that they are just like any other little group, the prestige of being in AQ is or was that they attacked America.  People can now see that doing that will mean death and hardship so few are willing to join a cause that is losing so badly.

 

The problem is much more complex than you seem to think it is.
End of quote

 

No, it just seems more complex than it is. You want to deal in nuance and terrorism does not. The purpose of using terror is to wear down the people to make them quit and allow the terrorists to win by default. This is why terrorism except in very rare occasions only works in the first five years or not at all. Once you choose to fight terror no matter what it takes they lose.

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

You seem to be hoping that the war continues in order to give us a chance to lose. The only way to lose at this point is to give up
End of quote

I in no way hope such a thing. I do however realize that the solution to the problem is far more complex than some think.

This is why terrorism except in very rare occasions only works in the first five years or not at all.
End of quote

Rare occoasions? You must be blind to make such a rediculous statement.

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

I in no way hope such a thing. I do however realize that the solution to the problem is far more complex than some think.
End of quote

 

I am sorry but what you say seems that way, I am glad you don’t wish this. On the other statement I feel your answer is too simplistic as most of your comments are. You say it is more complex but you rarely explain yourself or what you mean. When pressed for specifics you evade most of the time. What is so complex?

 

Rare occoasions? You must be blind to make such a rediculous statement.
End of quote

 

Do you ever defend your blanket and unsubstantiated statements?

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

Do you ever defend your blanket and unsubstantiated statements?
End of quote

Simply go look at the governments list of terrorist organizations and count the number that have been around for more than 5 years.

When pressed for specifics you evade most of the time. What is so complex?
End of quote

Not much complexity to most of it Its not evasion, some things you say are so obviously incorrect  that they are not worth taking the time to respond to. You question everything simply to try to infer you are correct if someone does not respond but the fact is you are so blinded by partisan politics that you are incapable of knowing the difference between reality and rhetoric.

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

Simply go look at the governments list of terrorist organizations and count the number that have been around for more than 5 years.
End of quote

 

Sorry but that is not proof of any kind. You need to understand that the IRA had been fighting the Brits for over a hundred years and did not win. The best they came up with was a draw. Changing the context of my statement does not help you prove your point. Name the last terrorist organization that won. Name the last terrorist organization that won after five years of fighting on both sides. Remember that we were attacked for 7 years and did nothing to stop them. It was not until we started to fight back did their numbers start to shrink. Their recruitment is down while ours is up. So looking at the list of terrorist organizations is not an answer to my point or question.

 

some things you say are so obviously incorrect that they are not worth taking the time to respond to.
End of quote

 

Well, based on your replies that is most of what you disagree with. You do understand the concept of debate? I make a statement you make a counter statement and back it up with supporting evidence. Then I reply with my supporting evidence and continue till the truth is arrived at. Simply stating that my statements are in error is not a debate, or a discussion. Feel free to try again.

 

You question everything simply to try to infer you are correct if someone does not respond but the fact is you are so blinded by partisan politics that you are incapable of knowing the difference between reality and rhetoric.
End of quote

 

So you don’t understand the concept of debate. You choose to see it as partisan politics because you don’t understand what is going on. I question you and your statements to get you to say something of substance to support your statements so I can better understand your position. You see it as partisan and argumentative which is not exactly what I was trying to get at.

 

You don’t seem to be able to carry on a debate, you spout talking points and run away thinking you made a point. You did not.

Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

Sorry but that is not proof of any kind.
End of quote

It is proof in regards to your original statement for which it addresses

So you don’t understand the concept of debate
End of quote
.

I do not look for debate....I simply look to point out where your statements are untrue since you so often try to make a point using information that is incorrect or simply doesnt back up anything you try to infer.

 

IMHO you are someone who is clueless on the truth behind most of the issues. If I engage in debate it is with people who know the truth behind their side of an issue not with people who distort facts or who are such sheep that they dont even understand what the issue is really about.

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

It is proof in regards to your original statement for which it addresses
End of quote

 

Not at all for reasons I laid out when had I disputed your assertion.

 

I do not look for debate....I simply look to point out where your statements are untrue since you so often try to make a point using information that is incorrect or simply doesnt back up anything you try to infer.
End of quote

 

Okay, I will accept that. When are you going to back up your statements? You can’t state that what I state is untrue without some proof if you wish to be taken seriously. Without your proof you are just making statements that have no meaning.

 

IMHO you are someone who is clueless on the truth behind most of the issues.
End of quote

 

Sorry but your opinion, as humble as it is, has no meaning because even if you are correct you provide no proof I am wrong. How can I correct myself if you don’t show me where I am wrong? When I dispute you I produce proof. You ignore it but it is still provided.

 

If I engage in debate it is with people who know the truth behind their side of an issue not with people who distort facts or who are such sheep that they dont even understand what the issue is really about.
End of quote

 

I know you say you don’t debate and you should not engage in debate because you don’t know what you’re talking about. You see, you call me sheep but you have never provided proof that you are correct you just say you are and I don’t believe you. You say you don’t care so don’t bother replying because your too ignorant to deal with the facts. You can’t say I don’t understand what the issue is about since I have asked you to explain what you see as the issue and you have yet to even try, instead you just say that I am wrong so why do you bother pointing out where I am supposedly wrong without trying to educate the person?