Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Other Talk > Religion, Politics and World Events
Reload this Page >

Giuliani: We Have an Obligation to Eliminate Terrorism, Not Tolerate It

Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

Giuliani: We Have an Obligation to Eliminate Terrorism, Not Tolerate It

Old 10-12-04, 10:50 AM
  #1  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
Giuliani: We Have an Obligation to Eliminate Terrorism, Not Tolerate It

http://realclearpolitics.com/Comment..._12_04_RG.html
October 12, 2004
We Have an Obligation to Eliminate Terrorism, Not Tolerate It
By Rudy Giuliani

(Note: The following remarks delivered at BCO4 conference call yesterday)

For some time, and including when I spoke at the Republican Convention, I’ve wondered exactly what John Kerry’s approach would be to terrorism and I’ve wondered whether he had the conviction, the determination, and the focus, and the correct worldview to conduct a successful war against terrorism. And his quotations in the New York Times yesterday make it clear that he lacks that kind of committed view of the world. In fact, his comments are kind of extraordinary, particularly since he thinks we used to before September 11 live in a relatively safe world. He says we have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they’re a nuisance.

I’m wondering exactly when Senator Kerry thought they were just a nuisance. Maybe when they attacked the USS Cole? Or when they attacked the World Trade Center in 1993? Or when they slaughtered the Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972? Or killed Leon Klinghoffer by throwing him overboard? Or the innumerable number of terrorist acts that they committed in the 70s, the 80s and the 90s, leading up to September 11?

This is so different from the President’s view and my own, which is in those days, when we were fooling ourselves about the danger of terrorism, we were actually in the greatest danger. When you don’t confront correctly and view realistically the danger that you face, that’s when you’re at the greatest risk. When you at least realize the danger and you begin to confront it, then you begin to become safer. And for him to say that in the good old days – I’m assuming he means the 90s and the 80s and the 70s -- they were just a nuisance, this really begins to explain a lot of his inconsistent positions on how to deal with it because he’s not defining it correctly.

As a former law enforcement person, he says ‘I know we’re never going to end prostitution. We’re never going to end illegal gambling. But we’re going to reduce it.’ This is not illegal gambling; this isn’t prostitution. Having been a former law enforcement person for a lot longer than John Kerry ever was, I don’t understand his confusion. Even when he says ‘organized crime to a level where it isn’t not on the rise,’ it was not the goal of the Justice Department to just reduce organized crime. It was the goal of the Justice Department to eliminate organized crime. Was there some acceptable level of organized crime: two families, instead of five, or they can control one union but not the other?

The idea that you can have an acceptable level of terrorism is frightening. How do you explain that to the people who are beheaded or the innocent people that are killed, that we’re going to tolerate a certain acceptable [level] of terrorism, and that acceptable level will exist and then we’ll stop thinking about it? This is an extraordinary statement. I think it is not a statement that in any way is ancillary. I think this is the core of John Kerry’s thinking. This does create some consistency in his thinking.

It is consistent with his views on Vietnam: that we should have left and abandoned Vietnam. It is consistent with his view of Nicaragua and the Sandinistas. It is consistent with his view of opposing Ronald Reagan at every step of the way in the arms buildup that was necessary to destroy communism. It is consistent with his view of not supporting the Persian Gulf War, which was another extraordinary step. Whatever John Kerry’s global test is, the Persian Gulf War certainly would pass anyone’s global test. If it were up to John Kerry, Saddam Hussein would not only still be in power, but he’d still be controlling Kuwait.

Finally, what he did after the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, where I guess at that point terrorism was still just a nuisance. He must have thought that because that’s why he proposed seriously reducing our intelligence budget, when you would think someone who was really sensitive to the problem of terrorism would have done just the opposite. I think that rather than being some aberrational comment, it is the core of the John Kerry philosophy: that terrorism is no different than domestic law enforcement problems, and that the best we’re ever going to be able to do is reduce it, so why not follow the more European approach of compromising with it the way Europeans did in the 70s and the 80s and the 90s?

This is so totally different than what I think was the major advance that President Bush made – significant advance that he made in the Bush Doctrine on September 20, 2001, when he said we’re going to face up to terrorism and we’re going to do everything we can to defeat it, completely. There’s no reason why we have to tolerate global terrorism, just like there’s no reason to tolerate organized crime.

So I think this is a seminal issue, this is one that explains or ties together a lot of things that we’ve talked about. Even this notion that the Kerry campaign was so upset that the Vice President and others were saying that he doesn’t understand the threat of terrorism; that he thinks it’s just a law enforcement action. It turns out the Vice President was right. He does and maybe this is a difference, maybe this is an honest difference that we really should debate straight out. He thinks that the threat is not as great as at least the President does, and I do, and the Vice President does.

Rudy Giuliani is the former Mayor of New York City.
Not sure what happened to the "nuisance" thread but Rudy's take.
bhk is offline  
Old 10-12-04, 10:52 AM
  #2  
DVD Talk Ruler
 
General Zod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Santa Clarita, CA
Posts: 21,422


Rudy/Arnold '08
General Zod is online now  
Old 10-12-04, 11:03 AM
  #3  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Now in the Mojave desert...but still, thankfully, outside Los Angeles
Posts: 1,640
Giuliani's so cute when he's ranting. He's like Bush's equivalent of Monica Lewinski.
waveform is offline  
Old 10-12-04, 11:05 AM
  #4  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
When posters start attacking the person rather than the opinion, it means they agree that the opinion is devastating and they have no substantive counter arguement.
bhk is offline  
Old 10-12-04, 11:09 AM
  #5  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Now in the Mojave desert...but still, thankfully, outside Los Angeles
Posts: 1,640
Originally posted by bhk
When posters start attacking the person rather than the opinion, it means they agree that the opinion is devastating and they have no substantive counter arguement.
Ahhh the ever unyielding Stutterin' Dub approach. If you do A, then it necessarily means B. Because I say so....and I'm prepared to keep saying it ad nauseum until everybody believes it.
waveform is offline  
Old 10-12-04, 11:09 AM
  #6  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 122,915
Too bad Rudy had an obligation to eliminate strip clubs too.
Red Dog is offline  
Old 10-12-04, 11:10 AM
  #7  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
Ahhh the ever unyielding Stutterin' Dub approach. If you do A, then it necessarily means B. Because I say so....and I'm prepared to keep saying it ad nauseum until everybody believes it.
bhk is offline  
Old 10-12-04, 11:12 AM
  #8  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
Too bad Rudy had an obligation to eliminate strip clubs too.
Probably a part of the war on crime(organized or otherwise).
bhk is offline  
Old 10-12-04, 11:12 AM
  #9  
Moderator
 
Groucho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 70,839
Anybody who believes it's possible to eliminate terrorism is living in a fantasy world. Say hi to Frodo for me.
Groucho is offline  
Old 10-12-04, 11:14 AM
  #10  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 122,915
Originally posted by bhk
Probably a part of the war on crime(organized or otherwise).

Yeah - we sure should target those strip clubs (where any crime going on is probably consensual) when there are far better fronts to fight such a war on.
Red Dog is offline  
Old 10-12-04, 11:23 AM
  #11  
Moderator
 
Geofferson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Village Green
Posts: 39,185
Originally posted by Groucho
Anybody who believes it's possible to eliminate terrorism is living in a fantasy world. Say hi to Frodo for me.
You know, I hear this argument all too often and I just don't get it. People say, why bother fighting terrorism? It'll always be there. Why bother with Iraq or Afghanistan? Terrorism will always be in the Phillipines, Israel, etc...

To those people who believe that is the case and we should not be fighting terrorism, I say why bother researching and fighting lung cancer? There will always be colon, breast, pancreatic and many other forms of cancer.

JFK (no, not John Forbes Kerry) said it best when he stated, "We are given more than any other country. It is our obligation to fight evil."
Geofferson is offline  
Old 10-12-04, 11:26 AM
  #12  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 122,915
Originally posted by Geofferson
You know, I hear this argument all too often and I just don't get it. People say, why bother fighting terrorism? It'll always be there. Why bother with Iraq or Afghanistan? Terrorism will always be in the Phillipines, Israel, etc...

To those people who believe that is the case and we should not be fighting terrorism, I say why bother researching and fighting lung cancer? There will always be colon, breast, pancreatic and many other forms of cancer.

There is a difference in believing that terrorism can be eliminated and believing that it is worth fighting and preventing.
Red Dog is offline  
Old 10-12-04, 11:27 AM
  #13  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: In a land far, far away.
Posts: 966
This, like everything else I read or hear spew from politicians mouths, is a twisted, partisan, fear tactic. Someone from Kerry's camp will likely follow this up with their own filth.
Contactsport1 is offline  
Old 10-12-04, 11:28 AM
  #14  
Admin-Thanos
 
VinVega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
Posts: 31,584
"I don't think you can 'win' the war on terror" - George W. Bush 8/30/04
VinVega is offline  
Old 10-12-04, 11:28 AM
  #15  
Moderator
 
Groucho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 70,839
Originally posted by Geofferson
You know, I hear this argument all too often and I just don't get it. People say, why bother fighting terrorism? It'll always be there. Why bother with Iraq or Afghanistan? Terrorism will always be in the Phillipines, Israel, etc...
I didn't say that we shouldn't be fighting terrorism, I said that it's impossible to eliminate it.
Groucho is offline  
Old 10-12-04, 11:31 AM
  #16  
DVD Talk Ruler
 
General Zod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Santa Clarita, CA
Posts: 21,422
Originally posted by Groucho
I didn't say that we shouldn't be fighting terrorism, I said that it's impossible to eliminate it.
Stretch Goal
General Zod is online now  
Old 10-12-04, 11:36 AM
  #17  
Moderator
 
Geofferson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Village Green
Posts: 39,185
Originally posted by Groucho
I didn't say that we shouldn't be fighting terrorism, I said that it's impossible to eliminate it.
Fair enough. I have "anti-fighting terrorism" on the brain since I was forced to walk through a large demonstration about it on my way to work this morning.

In retrospect, I should have made mine a stand-alone post and not in reply to your quote.
Geofferson is offline  
Old 10-12-04, 11:38 AM
  #18  
Premium Member
 
bfrank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 20,623
sounds like the war on drugs.

The problem is someone that claims we can eliminate "terrorism" by fighting has a total misunderstanding of the problems and issues that actually cause people to resort to terrorism.

It can be argued that our current path is actually creating more terrorists.
bfrank is offline  
Old 10-12-04, 11:44 AM
  #19  
DVD Talk Ruler
 
General Zod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Santa Clarita, CA
Posts: 21,422
Maybe we could legalize terrorism and tax it?
General Zod is online now  
Old 10-12-04, 11:46 AM
  #20  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 25,062
Originally posted by General Zod
Maybe we could legalize terrorism and tax it?
Ah, the Libertarian approach.
Tracer Bullet is offline  
Old 10-12-04, 11:47 AM
  #21  
DVD Talk Legend
 
raven56706's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Back in the Good Ole USA
Posts: 21,761
Mccain/Guiliani 2008

that looks better
raven56706 is offline  
Old 10-12-04, 11:48 AM
  #22  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 122,915
Originally posted by TracerBullet
Ah, the Libertarian approach.

Um no. Let's have the libertarians provide the libertarian approach. Not the liberals.
Red Dog is offline  
Old 10-12-04, 11:49 AM
  #23  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Chew's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: South of Titletown
Posts: 18,628
One things for sure, it certainly seems like both sides claim the other has a "total misunderstanding" of terrorism and how to fight it.
Chew is offline  
Old 10-12-04, 11:49 AM
  #24  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 122,915
Originally posted by raven56706
Mccain/Guiliani 2008

that looks better

Red Dog is offline  
Old 10-12-04, 11:58 AM
  #25  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: In a land far, far away.
Posts: 966
Originally posted by raven56706
Mccain/Guiliani 2008

that looks better
I lost some of my respect for McCain when he caved and started pimping Bush. He would have made a better pres than Bush.
Contactsport1 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.