Why have we not been attacked since 9/11/01?

[MTAtech]

Regarding nations that are "moderating"..

Libia first, and Syria is beginning to make overatures that "maybe they can be more cooperative" Well see which way they go after the election.

The Saudi's are becoming more proactive against terrorists.

"It's hard work!"

WHAT ABOUT POLAND?

[BBA]

wow clubmed, that made perfect sense to me. i never thought about that before. I mean, i knew we were getting too thinned out, but i never though about someone else trying to play us into that.

BBA, johnnycombat, you both are presenting extremes that cannot possibly be. In reality both local Iraqis and foreign fighters are part of the insurgnecy. But i do agree with JP here, it probably doesn't have much to do with 9/11 and that struggle anymore, but rather just a "get the hell outta here" kinda thing.

Man, I have to agree, since I dont have exact data on who the members of the insurgency are...so we'll leave it at that. After all, Saddam did have a large number of loyal hitman on his side.

As for what CM said..., well, it's kind of far fetched, and depending on who wins the election we might be stretched militarily..but I dont think it's by design of Osama. It's more driven by politics...especially when you realize Bush wants to support our troops and Kerry wants to disband our troops (thereby keeping the US out of war).

Then again, Kerry likes the draft proposal submitted by two democrat senators recently Im sure you know, the one I'm referring too...the dem's are scaring mothers by sending fright mail the web over about the draft. It's gotten to the point that 50% or more of todays school kids actually think Bush wants a draft. Im glad most of them are not old enough to vote, since they dont have all the information in their heads.

Of course, since the volunteer recruitment has hit record highs since 9/11 under Bush, I dont think we will need a draft if Bush wins. BUT: I dont know anyone who would volunteer to join if Kerry is in charge...he might actually NEED a draft to keep the forces up.

Just politics...IMO

[Fletchaircarpent]

You would think it was a prefect opportunity to attack with the elections and all. I say bush is doing a great job.

[MTAtech]

Man, I have to agree, since I dont have exact data on who the members of the insurgency are...so we'll leave it at that. After all, Saddam did have a large number of loyal hitman on his side.

As for what CM said..., well, it's kind of far fetched, and depending on who wins the election we might be stretched militarily..but I dont think it's by design of Osama. It's more driven by politics...especially when you realize Bush wants to support our troops and Kerry wants to disband our troops (thereby keeping the US out of war).

Then again, Kerry likes the draft proposal submitted by two democrat senators recently Im sure you know, the one I'm referring too...the dem's are scaring mothers by sending fright mail the web over about the draft. It's gotten to the point that 50% or more of todays school kids actually think Bush wants a draft. Im glad most of them are not old enough to vote, since they dont have all the information in their heads.

Of course, since the volunteer recruitment has hit record highs since 9/11 under Bush, I dont think we will need a draft if Bush wins. BUT: I dont know anyone who would volunteer to join if Kerry is in charge...he might actually NEED a draft to keep the forces up.

Just politics...IMO

You write definitively (e.g. volunteer recruitment has hit record highs since 9/11) but it is one thing to write definitively, it is another to have your facts straight. I take exception to a number of your statements.

With regard to recruitment, I haven’t seen published figures but articles do point to drops in recruitment. The troop level is dangerously low. (see: http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0109/d...te.html?s=entt)

Moreover, when you say, “I don’t know anyone who would volunteer to join if Kerry is in charge,” is that a scientific poll? Besides, how many decide to join the forces passed upon the Commander in Chief. Personally, I’d rather have a CNC that has actually been in battle before I serve under won that says to the terrorists “bring’em on.”

There is merit to a draft as well as drawbacks. The basic issue is if you’re going to have war you have to have enough soldiers. If you can’t recruit them, you either can’t have the war or you need a draft.

Iraq wasn’t anticipated to take this long – another miscalculation. If Iraq is going to be occupied for 5, 10, 20 years – do the math yourself. How many recruits do you need to maintain a force there and in 600 bases around the world?

[jch216]

I believe the terrorists fear the future wrath of John Kerry should they attempt another attack on US soil....

Bawhahahahahahahha!!!

[John Prophet]

well some of the troops will be coming from S Korea...as Bush has already said he is pulling out a lot of those troops

then again they said those troops would be used here at home...which is REALLY scary to me, lol......after all congress passed the "posse comitatus" act for a reason......and I dont really think we need marines checking peoples IDs on the highways etc etc

http://law.wustl.edu/WULQ/75-2/752-10.html

when you get right down to it we have drifted WAYYYYY away from the constitution in many many ways...yet our leaders still say they want to spread democracy etc and they hold up our consitution as a shining example etc

I agree....I wish we'd FOLLOW our constitution

JP

[Chuckiechan]

Lets not get paranoid! There are still more Marines in country than out...Cripes!

It reason they are being pulled back is two fold.

First, they are too close to the front lines to be supported (without nukes) if the North attacks.

Second, getting them offshore or at least farther south makes it difficult for the North to know how many troops are deployed against them, and how many have been quietly shipped off to Iraq.

They are no longer being treated as a "trip wire" to be slaughered.

[aldtech]

Sure as hell not because we are safer.

[implexant]

Drawn from where? Everything we know about insurgents fighting in Iraq is that the vast majority are ordinary Iraqis. There are some foreigners but they are not the main fighters. Moreover, the statement makes the underlying assumption that terrorists are a finite resource. In actuality, terrorists are recruited constantly. The invasion of Iraq presented a wonderful recruiting mechanism for al Qaeda. Al Qaeda uses Iraq as a showpiece of one of their main claims, that the West wants to occupy and control holy Moslem lands and control oil belonging to Moslems.

From Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and wherever the heck else they come from. Normal Iraqis are now blogging, surfing the internet, and enjoying power and other freedoms. Radical Islamic Extremists that think Allah has called them to kill Americans are the ones fighting in Iraq.

And if you doubt that terrorists have been drawn into the southern regions of Afghanistan, well...

As Bogdan Dzakovic, a special agent and team leader for the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Security Division, said "airports are not safer now than before 9-11. The main difference is that life is now more miserable for passengers." (Source) Also, the Justice Department hasn't successfully prosecuted a single terrorism case. Cases have been overturned. Ashcroft is batting 0 for 5,000.

Ashcroft is batting 0 for 5,000 because the Congress of the United States of America keeps putting red tape in his way. Passengers aren't that much safer because in this country, terrorists actually have bloody rights. And our congress is bent on protecting them.

Can you quote a source for this conclusion? I don't see any evidence that this is true.

Iraq? Afghanistan? Does Saddam and the Taliban ring a bell?

I'd agree with that.

Why thank you

-Chris

[Pexster]

implexant, in case you haven't noticed, our Congress almost always asks "How high?" when our President says "Jump!" For you to blame Congress for Ashcroft's batting record is really a stretch. You might as well blame aliens (the extraterrestial kind).