Does anyone else here feel that there is no real enemy of the US? That AQ, muslim extremists, taliban , Bin Laden, etc might not exist after all? I don t want to debate 911 in this thread, but if we were up against a REAL FOE, isn t plausible that they would have done something else by now? Blow up a few soft targets like middle schools or malls? Took out a train or bus just to let us know they could f*** with us whenever they felt like it and keep us living in fear? Am I the only one who sees the US occupying 2 countries fighting an enemy that, doesn t seem to exist? I am not talking about the guys blowing up humvees and shooting at marines. (maybe they are pissed we are in their countrrys and would cease fire if we left?) Anyone and anything gets smuggled into the US effortlessly on a daily basis, yet no attacks, why?

We were always at war with Eastasia.

Because after we responded they realized we are not a foe to be messed with? Any additional attacks would only increase our resolve which they do not want. Their only hope is our popular opinion turning against the war forcing a pull-out. If they attacked us again we would be there another 10+ years guaranteed. Our counter-attack has been so effective they have learned their lesson for the time being.

You don't seem to follow the news much imo

Excellent.

Mexicans aren't "the terrorists" and illegal drugs don't go boom.

I don't get it. Jaytee's references have always been over my head...

Please define effective?
Who has learned their lesson?
Why are we still there if "they" have learned their lesson?
If they have learned their lesson and we are still there, why will not still be there in ten years?

To be honest, I don't get it either. It just sounded like something AC Slater would say and he seems to be far less unpopular than me. Can't beat em, join em.

Oh, also, read more books.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastasi...Four)#Eastasia

1984 reference.

Which news are you refering to? The corporate owned MSM which is a joke? Yes, i heard Tiger Woods cheated on his wife and their is a problem in the gulf that noone seems to know what to do with. Do you follow fox? ABC?

1984 has always been my achilles heel of books that I haven't read that make me look stupid when they come up in casual conversation.

But I'll be damned if I'm going to read it at this point.

Maybe one day they'll make a movie out of it.

So you are saying that boarder patrol and customs look the other way at mexicans and drug shipments while they screen RPG carrying muslims? While you are here, what is a bigger problem in the US, AQ, or drugs?

Yes.

Drugs, thanks to the governments efforts and ad campaigns.

I'm not sure if i'm getting rerereleveled but here you go.

Understanding Needaride takes a combination of 7th level thinking and 7 year-old thinking.

+1 Would love to hear a coherent answer to this.

Not to condone pretty much anything in the OP but it is interesting that our wars are getting increasingly vague. At one point it was very clear, we are fighting German or Japanese imperialism. Then it became fighting "communism" in general which was more vague but still fairly concrete. Nowadays our wars are totally abstract they are wars on terrorism, wars on drugs and humanitarian wars.

Btw regarding the MSM quib I totally reject a sentiment that being knoweldgable about the news gets tied to watching fox news. Yes there are problems with the msm but anouther huge problem is all the apathetic guys who don't like the msm so they just barely read or watch anything and them become pretty ignorant about news in general.

Read this you philistines. http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/go-goldstein.html#ch3



































And if you have to look up the word philistine you truly are one.

nah I disagree. Our wars (like those before them) do more to galvinize antiamerican sentiment than they to do to surpress it through fear of punitive wars. Just look at how strong and diverse the insurgancies are, currently at 3 per week for suicide bombers in Afghanistan alone. Heck osama himself in his fatwas talks about how us supporting the corrupt Saudi monarchy is what he hopes to achieve through actions like 911. Staying active and beligerant in the region isn't really a deterant aganst terrorism quite the opposite. Is the us less likely to get hit by a terrorist attack now than before the wars? I doubt it, if anything it is worse.

A big problem with this is our metric for success, big terrorist attacks on us soil always have been relatively low in frequency compared to actually in the middle east which is where you have the poor pakistanis attending wahirism madrasses funded by Saudi oil money and the like that become the suicide bombers in Afghanistan. So using a us soil terrorist attacks as ametric is just pretty silly.

If there are no enemies how do you explain the rocket bombs?

And Slater, please tell me you didn't actually read the thread you just grunched and made a 1984 reference. That would be awesome.

Of course I read the thread first. I'm not some sort of 1984 duckspeaker.

Well, the subject was non-extant enemies so the only other possible references was Wag the Dog. And I'm not from Philistia.

To the best of my knowledge no civilian has been killed on US soil by a rocket bomb. What some pissed of afghgan does in his own backyard, which is prolly being tresspassed by very aggressive abhor first enemies , does not make him my enemy. What really came 1st the chicken or the egg?

George Boooooooooooooooosh!