From a man who didn't take the battle to anyone when it was his time?

And six people applauded a military genius, a man of integrity, our vice-president, a true Man Of The People.

I think Cheney IS quite intelligent to be honest, he's a very shrewd politician from what I understand.

Also hailing this as a success seems to me to be a massive slap in the face for all the servicemen who've died as a result of the operations of "Al Quaeda In Iraq" lead by Al-Zarqawi et al, who de facto didn't exist in Iraq until it was invaded.

Fair enough, no Americans have died on American soil as a result of terrorist activity since 9/11, but did you forget about the 4-figure number of young men who signed up to defend your country who've died as a result of Islamist terrorist activity in a country that was secular and had no extremist Islamist elements until you decided to invade it on a false premise? Prick.

When Cheney and his partners in crime come out with such blatant lies, they may win some votes at home from the more cranially challenged, but strengthen opposition elsewhere.

They are despised around the world for their greed, ignorance and deceitfulness, but hey, as long as they're increasing their chances of electoral success, who cares?

Scum of the earth.

I don't think Cheney is stupid. There is a reason for the speech, it is designed to have an effect and I think it indeed has that effect. Bolstering morale, strengthening the belief that Iraq was involved in 9/11, convincing the people that the government is doing a good job. It is also obvious who it is directed at, the ones with no or very little knowledge of foreign affairs (ie: the majority of voters).

Iraq was never a "safe haven" for terrorists. Quite the opposite. It was pretty much the only secular state in the region and Saddam despised islamic fundamentalists as much as they hated him. The majority of americans seem to think that just because Iraq was an arabic country with a dictator for a leader they would be supporting terrorism, which is of course quite easy to believe if you don't have enough knowledge. For those who knew about the situation in Iraq, the idea was howere ridiculous.

To some extent the US has "taken the battle to them". They did after all invade Afghanistan which was indeed a safe haven for terrorism and ruled by one of the worst mobs of religious fanatics ever (the talibans). Good riddance. Critics would of course point out that the reasons the Talibans were in power AND hated the US was because the US supported the Mujahedin in the war against the Soviet Union, then pretty much dumped them once the Soviets left. Bin Laden and his fellow thugs were trained and supplied by the US, remember?

To claim that the war on terrorism is going well is just wrong. The terrorists are winning the war by a land slide. To make sense of a phrase like "winning a war" you have to stipulate political conditions. It used to be that whoevers army was left after the dust cleared had 'won', that is not the case when you're not fighting a regular army, but rather a concept.

A concept you say? Yes, the Al-Q is not an organisation in any conventional sense of the word. It's a concept of political and religious beliefs and strategies. A movement if you will. Osama is not in fact a 'leader' but more of an inspiration and sometimes funder.

To stipulate some reasonable conditions for winning we have to clarify the objectives of the warring parts, so let's do that and assume the US Gvt means what they say:

US objectives:
1. Eliminate/reduce terrorism
2. Stop the recruitment/conversion of new terrorists
3. Capture the symbolic leaders
4. Promote good will from allied countries and work together

The Al-Qaidas objectives would be:
1. Increase recruitment by polarising the region
2. Hurt Allied interests and resources
3. Destroy US good will to prevent international co-operation


If we look at them one by one we find...

1. Eliminate terrorism.
This is going really bad. There are far more terrorist attacks now than pre 9/11. The US hasn't been hit *domestically* but that doesn't matter much because that job is already done. But England and Spain, the US biggest allies have both been hit as have others. In Iraq the amount of attacks have increased from zero to lots.

2. Stop recruitment
This is probably the biggest single failure. Al-Q are now known world wide and have supporters in every country on the globe. More and more muslims are getting radicalized every day due to percieved atrocities committed by the US and its allies. Every innocent Iraqi (whether the US is directly responsible or not) that dies will spawn terrorists. Things like Abu Gharib makes people who were previously neutral or even positive to the US start hating them (If my family members were tortured by the US I wouldn't have any qualms about blowing up some American troops).

3. Capture symbolic leaders
This has been successful to a certain extent. However, the big one is still at large so overall I would say it is a failure.

4. Promote good will and co-operation
Ok this has been seriously botched. 'Normal' and secular people are pretty much starting to view the US as the greatest threat to the world. Frankly, it is hard to argue. The US is responsible for many, many more peoples death and suffering than the Al-Q could ever hope to achieve. They have treated their allies like crap and have managed to make Bush one of the most hated men in the world.

Summary: Zero of those conditions have been fulfilled. If you add "Increasing the strategic presence in the middle east to secure vital economic interests (read: oil)" then you'd be able to check a box in the win column but the Gvt refuses acknowledge this as an objective so...

For the Al-Q

1. Increase recruitment by polarising the region'
Can anyone argue that this isn't happening?

2. Hurt allied interests and resources
Not that successful so far. 9/11 was the big one but after that it's mainly small stuff like killing very replacable soldiers or destroying minor facilities. I'd say this is a semi-failure.

3. Destroy US good will and international co-operation
The US is pretty much doing this for them.



On a more personal note, do you Americans feel safer now than pre 9/11?

Of course I don't feel safer

We have all of our troops in a country that was never our enemy in the first place. So we're more defenseless than we were at 9/11, AND we have at least twice as many enemies. Plus I really wouldn't be that surprised to hear some talk of the US being fucked up by the UN. I mean, they ALL hate us, and we've still got a couple years left for bush to attack another country or two...

... and then another 8 years for a Jeb-fronted admin to invade more. By the time he leaves office you'll have Iran and Syria in civil war too. Oh joy.