|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Has the War on Terror made us more or less secure? Post by mylane on Mar 26th, 2005, 5:04pm Do you think that the specific approach of the Bush administration post-9/11 to terrorist attacks such as 9/11 has left us more or less secure? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by thebeast on Mar 28th, 2005, 12:54am I would say yes I feel safer. Do I feel totally safe? Of course not. Will I ever feel totally safe again? No I wont. There is no way that anyone, anywhere can feel totally secure. The events on September 11, 2001 changed all that. The Bush approach or whoever is making presidential actions will never be able to stop it completely. But what the Bush approach has done is make these terrorists think twice before they try anything else inside the United States. I remember watching the news covering that awful event in September. The twin towers burning and falling to the ground. All those people killed for something they had nothing to do with. I remember people jumping out of the windows to escape burning to death only to fall to thier death 80 stories below. I also remember the sacrafice the americans made on the hijacked plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. Think about what these americans did. They caused havoc so the terrorist could not complete thier mission. All these events made me cry then it angered me. Thats the problem with some americans now days, they forget. When it happened it was a different story. They wanted to do something about it. After the terror wore off, they were quick to criticize their governments actions. They criticize thier own government who was only doing something to protect them. I dont think that was the case in WW2 when the japanese bombed pearl harbor. One positive thing that did happen was the enlistment of people in the armed forces. Even higher than WW2. I have 2 nephews in Iraq serving thier country now. Its a tradition in my family for the males to serve thier country. I am very worried for them but I am also very proud of what they are doing. They are protecting my country and everyone elses country as well, even though lots of people dont see it that way. I pray for them to return safe and with no harm. I am going to make the trip to NYC in april. When I am there I will pay my respects to all the people who died at ground zero. And I will make my promise never to forget them and what happened. :( |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by mylane on Mar 30th, 2005, 9:43am Too early to tell. The current war on terror as creating a greater gulf between the west and the middle-east. The distinction between "US"and "THEM" and the degree of mutual hatred or at least distrust between the two sides seems to engender a climate of greater hostility. And I don't think any difference has been made, Bush's pan was totally ineffective, due in part to the fact that he blamed the wrong guy for the attacks on the World Trade Centers. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by killerabbit on Mar 30th, 2005, 5:40pm Nanay!!Will you pleaseeeeeeeee...change that pic...making me ill.Urrp* |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by thebeast on Mar 31st, 2005, 7:24am George Bush enacted as part of the war on terrorism a plan called Homeland Security in the United States. This made our airports safer, the planes more secure to prevent this kinda thing from happening again. Homeland Securtiy has also increased the communication between the FBI, CIA, and other Federal, State, and Local agencies in order for information that pertains to any terrorists activity can be shared among them. I feel safer in America. This is a fact. Since 911 there have been no bombings or terrorists actions in the United States. So yes the Bush plan has worked. On a global scale, Osoma Bin Laden is Osoma Been Hiding and he isnt training 10 and 11 year olds to be terrorists anymore in Afganistan. He may not be dead or captured but he isnt exactly free to do what he wants either. Sadam is captured so the threat of Iraq every developing more chemical and biological weapons and possibly nuclear weapons is gone. A few days after 911, George Bush made a speach. In this speach he proclaimed a war on terror...A WAR ON TERROR.... He mentioned anyone who dealed or harbored any terrorists would also be considered a terrorist. He mentioned Osama and he mentioned Sadam. These are only 2 people. But both these people are terrorists. People shouldnt think the war on terror is against one specific person. The war on terror is just that.. war on terrorists. I didnt hear Bush specifically say war on Osama or War on Sadam... but he did say war on terror. Osama is a terrorists and Sadam is a terrorists. It dont even matter if one is worse than the other because they are both terrorists. I think things in Iraq are getting better. They have a government installed there. They are building schools in Afganistan now also. In Saudi Arabia, the muslim women are wanting equal rights...change is coming to that part of the world and its long overdue. And thats a good thing. All these changes are gonna happen.. more people will die..and then they will learn and accept. I see all kinds of positive things happening due to the United States policys in the Middle East. I focus on the positive not the negative. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by kim on Apr 13th, 2005, 10:16am whats ironic is that they keep bragging that they know who the terrorists are n where they are located but terrorism has been with us since time in memorial. Fact is, theres big money in war. Wether its in Afganistan, pakistan n all the other istan countries ;D :P.... Philippines or int he US.... War is big money n people earn a lot at the expense of those soldiers that they say are "expendable". If they really wanted to take the fight on terrorism seriously they how come i dont see anything positive coming out of it? Ya sure saddam is in jail n bin ladin is now in vagas posing as a vegas chick ;D but did it stop anything? Here in PI the gov. said that they are in an all out war against terrorism but when there is an attact against civilians they would send hundreds of soldier up in the mountain n claim that they are gonna pulvorize the terrorist but when the eemy sends a tapes statement saying that they are willing to talk if the gov declares seas fire. The gov wil then say.. ok lets talk... WHat the hell is that for? Its like when we were kids palying tag. And when you are about to get caught you say.... time first... Then you catch your breath n run again.. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by mylane on Apr 13th, 2005, 6:57pm on 03/31/05 at 07:24:39, thebeast wrote:
I dont think that we can ever be completely safe from terrorism, but it is obvious to me that the first step should have been capturing Osama Bin Laden, that is one thing that STILL hasnt been done. I also think that a man or ANY man who is WILLING to attempt to turn a mass slaughter of thousand of his own citizens and an opportunity to steal oil from an internationally Middle East country does not deserve a political position. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by thebeast on Apr 15th, 2005, 1:57am I dont understand how anyone could think that the United States is in Iraq now cuz of oil...Prices for gas are the highest ever now...America wants stability in that region not oil...Do u really think we are just taking Iraq's oil? Somebody tell me where the hell it is..This is what we do we give Iraq money to fix all the oil wells which the terrorists destroyed by the way, so they can be come an economically sound society like Saudi Arabia. We purchase oil just like everyone else. Do we make deals? well sure we do thats what its all about is making deal. Oh yeah remember when Iraq invaded Kuwiat..when they found out they were gonna get their ass kicked whats the last thing they did b4 they left? Yes they set all the oil wells on fire. And guess who paid to fix them. You got it the United States. We paid with our blood and our money to get Kuwait back on thier feet and we are doing the same thing in Iraq.. but we are not taking or stealing anything...With some stability over there things will be much better in the long run. On a different note i visited ground zero last weekend. Nothing but a big hole in the ground. It saddens me still to think of all that life lost..these people were not soldiers. And one of my nephews is due back from his tour in Iraq this week. I have another nephew over there who is a marine in the infantry. I hope he safely returns soon also. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by kim on Apr 15th, 2005, 6:38am the oil crisis now is in no way connected with US taking over Iraq. Its just that the oil industry underestimated the oil consumptions of other countries like China n others. The demand for oil is higher than the supply. Joel you said that US paid with their blood to liberate n save iraq. Thats true because lots of US soldiers died in that war but do you actually think that th politicians behind that war just wanted to liberate Iraq without gaining anything? They said that Saddam has lots of chemical weapons in Iraq and they used that as a reason to invade the country. And after all the deaths and searchings they didnt find anything... But hey thats the price of any war... Both innocent n guilty people die in any war.... Collateral damage?... I'm not saying i'm mad at what happened to Iraq... Maybe i am in some way... Joel if you really support the war on Iraq tell me atleast 5 good things that the Iraq war resulted in. Who benifited from the war? US?....Iraq? or some other country? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by thebeast on Apr 16th, 2005, 2:01am Kim you are wrong about the oil crisis. The oil crises is caused by a number of things. One which u stated is correct. Another reason is the fact that the U.S. did invade Iraq and while we are over there not for oil any kind of war has an effect on the market. Especially a market as fragile as what oil is. Another reason is terrorists destroy lots of oil wells that hurt production. All these reasons in combination are the reason for the oil crisis. But rid the world of terrorists in that area will only help it not hurt it in the long run. You ask who benifits from the Iraq conflict..well everyone benifets in some way. People forget the reason why we are there. Not because of oil, not because we wanted to liberate Iraq(this is a benifet but not directly related to why the U.S. invaded), not even because of chemical weapons. The reason the United States invaded Iraq was Saddam was not living up to the agreement he made with the United States when we were over there during dessert storm. That means he was not cooperating with the contract he made with the U.S. He made a deal that we would not invade Iraq and and take him out of power. In other words if he was a good boy and did everything that was said in that contract we wouldnt invade and take him out of power. Well he never did that. The chemical weapons was just another reason for us to invade but not the main reason. We know he had them at one time cause he used them on his own people, we know he would never stop trying to produce WMD. He was a evil man and he didnt deserve to be the leader of Iraq. No we didnt get UN approval, but facts are facts the contract said it when he was defeated in dessert storm. The United States did everything it could to get approval but I dont agree that just cause it wasnt unanimous approval dont mean we should have to listen to it. Hell the United States is who invented the UN. And when u start letting the UN govern your country you are gonna be in a world of hurt later on. 5 reasons on who benifets 1 Iraq benifits cuz they will have a democracy 2 All free nations will benifit becasue of this democracy 3 A democracy in the middle east will spill over from Iraq to other middle east nations and a change will occur. 4 In the long run Iraq will become an oil producing power which will help the oil crisis. 5 The people of Iraq dont have to worry about getting their heads chopped off by a crazy dictator just because they dont agree with him on issues. The main fact is the United States and all the other allies did the world a favor by ridding Iraq of Saddam. Problem is all you liberals are blinded by the real reasons why we are doing what we are doing. All liberals ever see is the death and destruction and well its a war in the Middle East so it must be about oil. lol |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by SofreshSoClean on Apr 16th, 2005, 8:56am Beast you hit the nail on the head on that one couldn't say it better myself |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by kim on Jun 1st, 2005, 1:56pm I will give you credit in what you said about other people are going to benifit from the war in iraq... But can you actually say that after your "good" government has finished rehabilitating iraq that they wont demand for anything in return? Like controling the oil industry?.... Or controling the "new Iraqi government" for their own benifits? Politics is not all black n white. there are always gray areas. Hidden agendas on everything. Thats the truth about politics. Can you honestly say that after all the billions that The US gov. spent in "liberating iraq" that they have no plans in earning money from them afterwards? War is big money. Thats one reason why everyone loves going to war because they can always justify putting a big budget on buying weapons and stuffs at the expense on the soldiers who dies in wars. I would probably feel more secure if they eliminate atleast 50% of the threat. As far as i can see, all the efforts that has been done are insuficient.... THIS IS JUST MY OPINION... ;) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by thebeast on Jun 3rd, 2005, 2:08am Kim..The United States Government doesnt want to control anything in the middle east. That region is a mess why the hell would we want to control it. What the United States does want is stability and allies. We want a democracy of some type where ever there isnt one. The United States doesnt want to control anything. My government believes in freedom and the pursuit of happiness. And this is the way it should be in any country. Regaurdless of religion. The United States wants a world that is safe and free of dictators and communism and kings. We believe the people should be the ones who decides who will be thier leader. Kim the United States helped liberate Europe, Japan, and even the Phillipines in World War 2....are we controlling anything? I dont think so. Sure my government has some bad apples in it...but greed and power are not the reasons why the United States goes to war with anyone. Do you really think that if greed and power was all that my government was after? If so why did George Bush get elected to a second term. No the american people would not elect someone or any official that they even thought that about to a second term. The reason we are in Iraq is the reason I stated in the earlier post. Not to control anything but to rid the world of a lunatic and to liberate the Iraqi citizens. As far as how much it has helped, I disagree.. I think things have improved greatly..sure you still have spiratic episodes of explosions that kill american soldiers by terrorists in Iraq. Whats unusual about that? Until the whole world realizes that terrorism is a problem and join the United States and all of the other allies it will always be a problem. The countries like France, Russia, and Canada who trade with Iraq b4 are the problem. They make deals like oil for weapons and oil for food. These are they crooked politicians. This is why they do not want to join in and help defeat terrorism. Maybe one day when a terrorists blows something up and kills about 5000 people they will realize it. We are a world that is connected economically. We have to trade and deal with each other to get goods, supplies, food, whatever. Terrorists just want to kill basically for things in thier regions to remain the same. They want to live like its the middle ages. It cant be that way. We have to move forward and progress as a global society. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by kim on Jun 3rd, 2005, 4:37am on 06/03/05 at 02:08:49, thebeast wrote:
I dont think you have any idea on how the US government controls our beloved country. And its not only our country that they control but other countries too. Take for example the middle east. My Aunt is a Psychiatrist who goes to other countries for charity works. While she was in Saudi she was slapped on the face by anarab man because she wasnt wearing her vail. But THe same man gave an american woman a smile n even bowed to her. The american womans was wearing short and tank tops without any vail.... ANother simple but weird example is here in PI. Hard rock cafe in makati has a sign board in the front door that says that there is a dress code and that shorts and sandals are not allowed. But thel let all the "amaricans" go in wearing slippers and shrts while they would deny the filipinos who are wearing the same. Why? its becasue we are in debt to the US government and the US is using that to control us. Yes the middle east is a very wacky and weird place but it is also the center of oil Just imagine how much billions anyone can earn if they control te middle east. second part of this will come later... I just got back from work and cant think straight. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by thebeast on Jun 7th, 2005, 2:07am Well Kim I was not aware of that going on in PI....but the problem is not the american government controlling the PI government...the problem is the PI government controlling you.... I dont blame you for being pissed off. I would imagine the church is somehow involved. Maybe the Catholic Church officials dont think it is civilized to go into the Hard Rock Cafe with shorts and tank tops and sandals on..hell its so hot and humid over there I would think it would be okay for all of you very attractive ladies to go out anywhere showing a little skin just to keep cool and not have a heat stroke. I certainly have no problem with it and I would think I would speak for the entire american male sinning gender. lol Anyway this is what I am talking about is change. Equal rights for everyone. Back in the late 60s and early 70s the women in the United States got together and got a bill into congress called the Equal Rights Amendment..it passed..so now women have it legal and in writing that they have the same rights as any male for employment or anything else and they cant be discriminated against because of sex , age or race and religion. Do women still get discriminated against in the states? Well sometimes they still do...but if she can prove she is just as qualified for anything, she can take it to the supreme court and sue whoever. In the United States if a male slaps a woman in the United States they take your ass to jail. Hell you dont even have to slap them all you gotta do is act like you gonna slap them and she can call the police and they can take u to jail. Kim move here to the states and I will pretend that i am gonna slap so you. Then you can call the police and have my ass sent to jail ;) Kim the problem you are talking about is more related to plain prejudice or discrimination. I want the world to be a safe and secure place. I want everyone to be equals. I believe thats the same thing the United States Government wants. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by gracia on Jun 7th, 2005, 3:28am Quote:
Nah Kimmy it's not because we are indebted to them...its because that any americans who wear shorts and slippers still smells like green bucks and that means business is good, while a filipino who will go there in shorts probably smells like mud and probably a nuisance. Its the Filipino who will descriminate fellow filipinos and that's the sad fact. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by thebeast on Jun 7th, 2005, 7:27am Gracia that is very sad...Money is good for business but money can also be the evil of any society. Gracia you a clever and classy lady and I like your honesty. I think I am often misunderstood as cocky and arrogant here. Thats truely not the case. I just love my country and believe in its policies. I like the system and its one that works and I truely believe it can work anywhere. The key is the people. If the people are unwilling and not active in their government then the whole system breaks down. Its true...a goverenment is only as good as the people who elect the people to be in government. You have to take the pros and the cons together. You just cant take the pros because no government is without its cons. But if you look at the big picture the cons dont seem as bad. Every country is important regaurdless of economy or size. I cant stand countries that are sill living like its 100 BC. These countries are not doing themselves or anyone else any good. Countries with religion in thier politics will never prosper and move forward. They will always be fighting among themselves. I am a christian...he is a jew... she is a muslim.....who cares...we are all human beings and we have to live in this world together. Terrorists are gonna be a thorn in the side of the whole world until all countries come together and rid the world of them. One more thing....if all the countries on the earth would join the fight on terrorists there would be less innocent people and soldiers die in the long run as well. I am sick of the oil card and the power cards being played against the United States. This is simply untrue. My government would never send soldiers off to a land on the other side of the world just for oil or power. Its just not the american way. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by gracia on Jun 7th, 2005, 6:03pm Beast.....its just my opinion though that in every decision even if it came from a simple human being about his/her personal life, that can't escape from criticism or praising from his/her peers or neighbors or from his/her immediate family. My point is, any decisions made especially from high ranking officials, it is expected to either be criticize or be praise. Critics is everywhere....it is better to let them do their thing but at least you know where, what and which to believe in. Let them believe the worst if they wanted to, i still believe the truth will prevail in the end. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by kim on Jun 8th, 2005, 9:57am You have point there grace... But one of the reasons why most...or some filipinos worship americans so mcuh is that the think of them as their "savior" and that they are too powerfull to be on the bad side of. I respect your opinoin and i admire your "patronism" joel... Its just that we have different opinions. If you think that your government is all good and "only" wants to help other countries then thats your opinion. Mine is different. "In my opinion", US government ALWAYS butts in in affairs that they are not suppose to be butting in. The reason they gave to justufy the war in iraq was that they say that Saddam was producing chemical n nuclear weapons in Iraq. Did they find and evidence to prove this after they killed thousands of people in iraq? If you honestly believe that your government is in Iraq ONLY to help them have peace wel then again, THATS YOUR OWN OPINION ;).... THEN AGAIN... my opinion is that they WANT to control other countries for their on benifits... THATS JUST MY OWN OPINION :P |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by killerabbit on Jun 8th, 2005, 10:20am Question Kimmy ;DDo Politicians fake orgasms also?Money always seems to create racism all on its on. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by kim on Jun 8th, 2005, 10:29am i have no idea wabby ;D But most probably they are good at it since they are good at faking everything else ;D.... And about the money issue... the golden rule states that "HE WHO HAS THE MONEY... MAKES THE RULES" ;D ;D ;D Thats why i'm saving up lots of money to be able to make my own rules... I'm saving i peso a day... so i only need one million days to be able to get one milion peso :o ;D ;D ;D |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by thebeast on Jun 9th, 2005, 1:20am Opinions are opinions and thats cool but dont confuse opinions with facts. I never once said the United States government is perfect or witout its problems... but thats a given in any government... but the reasons the Uniteds States is involved in Iraq now is a fact... I stated time and time again the fact the reason the United States is in Iraq now is because the leader of Iraq (Sadam) was not following the agreement that was made after he was kicked out of Kuiwait in Dessert Storm. He was not cooperating with the UN officials, he was still trading with other countries to get weapons, he was still murdering and terrorizing the people of Iraq, this is just a few of all the things he agreed not to do after Desert Storm. The contract states qoute....If Iraq doesnt follow all of the restrictions set forth in the contract...serious consequences would result. The fact that the United States is in Iraq is because of this..nothing else. I dont know how many times this has to be said before it finally sinks in. I am giving facts here not opinions. It dont matter if wmd was there or not. The idea of WMD was just another reason for the US to invade. The idea of creating a democracy in Iraq was another reason. These are not the reasons y The United States liberated Iraq. The United States invaded Iraq due to a broken contract is the real and only reason. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by kim on Jun 9th, 2005, 3:07am Iraq has been a mess for ages.... Why did US "only" interfered now?? As i say again. Thats your "opinion" joel... "IN MY OPINION" I don see your so called facts as FACTS. Or its may be that we just read the facts in a different way... FACT: US invaded iraq becausse it is violating the UN rules... Yahooooo!!! ... US found a reason to go to war!!! Well they need a reason right? I wonder where Bin Ladin is? Isnt he the one who's suppose to be in Jail right now??? I wonder what the US government is going to do now that they have "LIBERATED" iraq? I think i'll sit back on my chair n observe if the US governmen will leave Iraq alone after they have "helped" them or will they take control of the county n claim it as their "new colony".... HHHMMMMM WHATS IN IT FOR THE US? I wonder...... :-X ::) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by thebeast on Jun 9th, 2005, 8:11pm Kim the reason and the fact y United States invaded Afganistan is due to 911and to catch Bin Laden...Bin Laden is not in jail no but he might as well be...he is condenmed to a life of hiding and living in caves. His life might as well be over. I dont think he can even do much anymore. He is just a figurehead or just a symbol now days. Afganistan and Iraq are 2 different issues. Iraq was liberated and invaded because they broke a contract they made with the United States and the other allies. Afgan was liberated and invaded due to the events that happened on 911. Both countries harbor terrorists so its its kinda like killing 2 birds with one stone. Kim I am crazy bout u but u should love your american brothers and sisters cuz we are really just looking out for you in the long run. ;) The only thing that is in it for the United States and every other democratic nation is stability in the region. You wait and see whats gonna happen over there in the following years. Its already starting now. Those arabs will get a taste of freedom and then they will never want to give it up. Their lives will improve. They will govern themselves. Their economies will improve. Then they will screw the United States just like pretty much all the other countries we tried to help b4. But thats okay. Cuz we are used to being the scapegoat. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by thebeast on Jun 10th, 2005, 2:12am on 06/09/05 at 03:07:07, kim wrote:
When Iraq invaded Kuwait is why The United States got involved...When Iraq did this the whole middle east was screaming for The United States to do something about it. They wanted The United States and the other allies to come do the dirty work. They didnt want to use their financial resources or spill thier blood. They had no problems with The United States coming in and kicking him out of Kuwait. One more time....we should of taken care of the problem then...but political pressures were put on the white house so George Bush Sr. and his advisors made a deal with Sadam...this was a contract that was accepted by not only the Iraq government but the UN as well. Well guess what....Sadam and his terrorist flunkys did not follow the contract....So what do you do.... let him continue to not follow the contract? Hell b4 we invaded Iraq the 2nd time we gave Sadam and his flunkys plenty of time to get out of there. Sadam is a lunatic. He dont care about nothing but Sadam. He not even smart. He should of just left with breifcases of money and went into hiding with his buddy Bin Laden. But Sadam is no radical revolutionary like Bin Laden. Sadam likes to have his picture taken and likes lifes more civilized surroundings. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: 1 The assault on Afghanistan Post by skepticzero on Jun 11th, 2005, 12:24am What you might call the War On Terror has been immaterial with regard to our collective day-to-day safety and detrimental to the long-term safety of the U.S.. The assault on Afghanistan To say that the Bush Administration’s actions have made terrorists think twice about attacking us suggests that somehow al Qaeda did not know that there would be retaliation for their attacks. Nothing could be further from the truth, and al Qaeda’s own actions show that to be the case. Moreover, al Qaeda’s own documents and even its very structure show U.S. retaliation to be at the very heart of their strategy. This is supported by intelligence community experts who have spent years working on the al Qaeda problem and know a lot more about that organization than the rest of us. Al Qaeda leaders were well aware that 5000-6000 members worldwide weren’t going to somehow defeat the U.S. militarily by conducting terrorist attacks inside the U.S.. What they needed was a global jihad, a call to which Muslims would be duty-bound to answer—what they call a defensive jihad. This exact strategy was applied successfully (with U.S. financing and CIA training) in Afghanistan against the Soviets. This time they knew they could depend on Saudi financing, which continues to this day. To conduct this jihad, al Qaeda needed to be able to function as an insurgent army. Even the al Qaeda propaganda and training videos, which most Americans have seen, showed recruits undergoing combat training rather than terrorist training. Battle-hardened Arabs from the Soviet-Afghan War were brought into Afghanistan to teach the bulk of members how to fight U.S. forces. U.S. forces who fought in Afghanistan and engaged al Qaeda specifically, reported that al Qaeda fighters were vicious and well-coordinated, unlike some of the Taliban forces they had encountered. It’s worth noting that only a small percentage of al Qaeda fighters were trained to actually conduct terrorist operations. In anticipation of the next day’s attacks on the U.S., on September 10, 2001, al Qaeda assassinated powerful ethnic Tajik warlord Ahmad Shah Massoud, who was the most likely resistance leader to ally himself with U.S. forces. (He had previously established an enclave within the Panjshir Valley, putting Kabul within STS missile range.) Following that, Usama bin Laden (UBL) sent the bulk of the al Qaeda fighting force out of Afghanistan to protect it from the initial U.S. assault. Al Qaeda fighters wrote of tearful disappointment at having to leave rather than stay to fight U.S. forces. The only U.S. action that took al Qaeda by surprise was the delay before the U.S. assault, and that worked in al Qaeda’s favor. They had actually planned for an immediate retaliation. U.S. Intelligence officers and CSG all immediately believed that the attacks were perpetrated by al Qaeda. However, there were politicians involved who held up the process, apparently in an effort to make it fit pre-existing political goals. Military brass, when not being interviewed on TV (speaking off the record), have said that our two greatest mistakes in Afghan assault were the failure to strike Afghanistan by the afternoon of 9/11 and the application of a small U.S. force--which resulted in what the brass have described as a grave misuse of special operations forces and also resulted in the assault being conducted largely as a proxy war, with Afghan drug lords being paid by the CIA to ultimately just let Talib fighters run away to either fight in the next town or rest in Pakistan. Contrary to the American myth that al Qaeda is on the run and cannot conduct operations, they and a number of aligned extremist groups are able to move freely in Waziristan (in Pakistan) and large areas of Afghanistan. The U.S. government never let the military apply the force needed to ensure that this would not be the case. So approaching four years after the 9/11 attacks, al Qaeda is still out there and right near where they were when we invaded Afghanistan. None of this is consistent with the idea that al Qaeda was somehow surprised that the U.S. responded at all are that they have been taught some kind of lesson by the U.S. and will now go into hiding. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: 2 The Iraq War, oil, and the neocons Post by skepticzero on Jun 11th, 2005, 12:27am The Iraq War, oil, and the neocons That the neoconservative element of the Bush Administration had designs on Iraq that pre-dated the Persian Gulf War is no secret. The neocons openly advocated using American military power to ensure American economic dominance and suggested invading Middle Eastern countries as one way to ensure that dominance. Some of this was posted right on the PNAC website until it was cleaned up a few years ago at the behest of Dick Cheney. (Try giving Wolfowitz’s Defense Planning Guidance a read if you can find an uncensored copy.) The neocons often framed their arguments around the idea that Saddam supported terrorist actions. As the 90's wore on, it became evident that this was less true than they had hoped. After Saddam's failed assassination plot against George H. W. Bush in 1993, U.S. intelligence and, from what I understand, special operations forces effectively took Saddam out of the terrorism business. By the mid-90s, the neocons' Iraqi terrorism argument was rather dated, at least to those in the intelligence community. Fortunately for the Bush Administration, even by 2003 most of America never bothered to read up on terrorism, or even follow the intelligence leaked out to the foreign press. Instead, a highly improbable account of Iraqi intelligence agents meeting with extremist leaders was well-publicized, particularly on ultra-right-wing radio shows and pro-administration news outlets and websites. In the early ‘90s, the neocons had been vociferously critical of then President George H. W. Bush for not occupying Iraq during the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Bear in mind that George H. W. Bush, his cabinet, and General Powell were old guard conservatives, not necessarily aligned with the neocons. The neocons were staunchly anti-Bush from the end of the Gulf War forward. In 1993, once they learned that President Bill Clinton wasn’t interested in supporting their Middle East agenda either, they became some of his strongest critics as well, dogging him throughout the remainder of the decade. Additionally, during the era of sanctions against Iraq during the Clinton presidency, American oil companies became concerned about letters of intent for oil extraction and distribution that had been signed between the Saddam Hussein regime and Russian, German, and French energy conglomerates such as Elf Aquitaine (now TotalFinaElf and now accused of human rights abuses in Myanmar). In short, these agreements promised preference for contracts with these foreign energy companies once the sanctions were lifted. The conventional wisdom was that if the U.S. were to effect regime change in Iraq, those letters of intent would be void, since they were signed with the Ba'athists. So by the late 1990s, when the Bush team was being put together, a natural convergence of the dreams of the neocons and those of very-well-connected U.S. big energy occurred. This was an extraordinary amount of political power and wealth focused on getting a regime-change-friendly administration into power. It wasn't a conspiracy; it was just business. Even though the mainstream media carried U.S.-Iraq dealings regularly, Americans often conveniently forget that the Bush Administration was rather vocally sabre-rattling at Iraq from almost its very beginning—well before the 9/11 attacks. Wolfowitz, along with his boss, Donald Rumsfeld, and Douglas Feith and the other neocons were pushing hard for a showdown with Iraq. At that time, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and the National Security Adviser, Condoleeza Rice, were also busy pushing the very dubious missile defense shield, presumably to protect us from al Qaeda ICBMs. (UBL's extremist group had been known for years prior to 9/11 to be the pre-eminent threat of our time.) None of this was secret; both were hot-button issues at the time. It appears that the 9/11 attacks and the ensuing invasion of Afghanistan were major upsets to administration plans in a military sense but boons on the domestic front. As small a force as possible was applied to Afghanistan. The justification for such a minimal application of power was pedaled as some kind of ingenious plan by Rumsfeld. The brass, when not screaming about it, laughed in exasperation. The Afghan invasion's benefits to the Bush Administration came in the form of a new way to market the future Iraq invasion (as part of a broader War On Terror), a strengthening of executive power and curbing of domestic freedoms, and getting the American public to back the entire program in total ignorance. They could now justify their pre-existing tendency toward secrecy, quell dissent (by declaring dissenters unpatriotic or even “with the terrorists”), and convince the American people that Iraq, with it's non-existent stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, destroyed heavy armor, defunct air force, and small sunken navy was somehow an imminent threat to the security of the U.S.. The claim was that Iraq was a state sponsor of terror and was aligned with Saddam's enemies, al Qaeda—the leader of whom had unsuccessfully begged King Fahd to let him lead a mujihideen army against Saddam in 1991 instead of inviting what he considered American infidels into Saudi Arabia to set up bases. The king chose the latter, and bin Laden was ousted from the country. The administration helped to ease people into supporting the Iraq invasion by claiming that Iraqi oil revenue would finance the occupation. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: 2 The Iraq War, oil, and the neocons (continued) Post by skepticzero on Jun 11th, 2005, 12:28am After the Taliban fell and their remnants and al Qaeda guests ran off to the safety of extremist-friendly Waziristan, where the Pakistani army is now pretending to hunt them (knowing that if they were to actually catch someone notable, Musharraf's rule would end with the Islamists who actually already run most of the country taking over Islamabad), the administration was able to refocus on Iraq, and with the bulk of our fighting force still available. So the Iraq campaign was undertaken, having been declared part of the War On Terror in the spring of 2003. To date, U.S. taxpayers have footed the @$300,000,000,000 bill for the invasion and occupation, more than 1600 U.S. soldiers have died, and no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were ever found in Iraq. Recently we were told on national TV by Rumsfeld that his exit strategy, which any military officer can tell you is comprised of volumes of technical documents detailing how to leave an occupied country, was instead “victory”. To say that the intent of the Iraq War was to steal the oil is to grossly oversimplify. With Saddam's letters of intent out of the way, U.S. oil companies did stand to make an irresistible amount of money in Iraqi oil, but oil services, general construction, and services for the military (at an unprecedented level) were where the real money was. Contractor companies knew there would be little or no oversight ($9,000,000,000 has even gone missing entirely with no investigation and no apparent concern from the American people). The campaign was not a war to steal the oil, per se, but it has undeniably been a transfer of $300,000,000,000 from the American taxpayers to well-connected companies, many in the oil industry. However, from a historical perspective, one should never lose sight of the fact that the Bush Administration’s stated justification for the Iraq War was that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and that, in possessing those weapons in violation of UN resolutions, posed an imminent threat to the security of the United States. Since the world has discovered that their stated reason was in fact false, there has been much historical revisionism on the part of the administration and its supporters. You will now hear them state a whole host of other supposed reasons that we invaded Iraq, such as the following: -Saddam was a brutal dictator. The U.S. has supported brutal dictators before, including Saddam Hussein. In 1983 Rumsfeld even went to Iraq and shook hands with the dictator to congratulate him on gassing the Iranians. In the late 60s, the U.S. compared the fascist leader of South Vietnam it supported to Abraham Lincoln. The U.S. installed Pinochet, supported Ferdinand Marcos, supported the fascist regime in El Salvador, and, in the 50s, re-installed the Shah of Iran, overthrowing a democratically-elected leader. In any case Saddam’s brutality was not part of the justification for invading Iraq. -We wanted to spread democracy. Bush actually ran on a platform that specifically called for more isolationism and an end to the nation-building of the Clinton years. The administration did not press the idea of spreading democracy until it needed a new mantra for the Iraq campaign. Contrary to what Bush supporters and administration officials now say, spreading democracy was not the originally stated purpose of invading Iraq. Of course, administration officials know that they can retroactively change the stated reasons for having invaded Iraq, and their followers will accept the change without question and adopt the rhetoric. We have already seen this occur. In addition, the invasion of Iraq represented a fundamental shift in U.S. war policy to one of preemptive aggression. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: 3 Iraq now and in the future Post by skepticzero on Jun 11th, 2005, 12:29am Iraq now and in the future Despite the tearfully joyous reports about Iraqi democracy and their past elections we Americans hear on our domestic news outlets, Iraq is a disaster, and for several reasons: -Iraq is in a state of anarchy. Journalists often can't get out to cover the supposedly wonderful stories of progress in Iraq because moving around in the country is too dangerous. -Iraqis vehemently hated the interim government we set up in their country. -They hate the new leaders they elected. This goes way beyond the lesser-of-two-evils scenarios with which Americans contend in their election every four years. When Iraqi hate people, they kill them. Iraqis are participating in their government now only to manage the situation—to make sure that other ethnic groups don’t gain control right away. -Each of the three major groups passionately hates the others. There is no way to do justice to that statement. Iraqis do not have a national identity; their borders were drawn by the British. In the north, the Kurds want to be part of a greater Kurdistan, which consists of territory in several other countries, including Turkey. Under the 13 years of U.S. control of northern Iraq's skies, the Kurds had more political freedom than they do now. They had their own pluralistic government and women in government. They did not have to accommodate extremist Shia doctrine. They have lost power under the new system. The generally secular Ba'athist Sunni in the Triangle went from being the privileged group under Saddam to the ethnic minority. These people have lost their political power and really have nothing to lose. Some will try to join the government, which we are seeing now, but in the end, they'll fight to regain what they have lost. The Shia, the largest ethnic group, identify with Iran. Democracy to them is the ability to vote in a theocracy. They believe that democracy is an affront to Islam. They will likely eventually elect an Ayatollah as Supreme Leader who will put them, and, they hope, the Sunni and the Kurds under extreme religious rule. In the election, the Shia overwhelmingly voted for whomever Grand Ayatolla Ali Sistani recommended. -Tribes within the same ethnic groups often hate each other. -The Iraqi Army is at best a joke and at worst more harm than good (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/09/AR2005060902245_pf.html). Although, the U.S. media always prefaces anti-insurgency operations with the party-line “Iraqi forces supported by U.S. troops…,” off the record, U.S. soldiers often tell of the uselessness of Iraqi forces. In short, these people have been killing each other since before the Magna Carta was signed, and they're not going to stop because the U.S. hands them democracy Cliff's notes. Iraq will not be a democracy, despite the current pretense—though the current state of affairs could drag on for years before the killing erupts. A likely option, however, is that the U.S. installs another brutal dictator to crack down on all three groups and calls it a democracy—a made-for-television democracy on which American news outlets can report. In fact, this is what history tells us will probably occur, since the U.S. has a history of overthrowing democratically elected leaders and installing or at least supporting brutal dictators. We did it in Chile in 1973, Iran in the 50s, and Iraq. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: 4 Saudi Arabia and the greater Middle East Post by skepticzero on Jun 11th, 2005, 12:31am Saudi Arabia and the greater Middle East The U.S. closely supports the Saudi monarchy, one of the most disgusting ruling families ever to exist. And the monarchy’s made-for-TV democratic reforms are good for Bush Administration PR, but won’t mean much for Saudis, especially women (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=5&u=/ap/20050602/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saudi_women_drivers). In general, the Middle East is moving toward fundamentalist Islam, not democracy. Democratic reforms are just another tactic for delaying the inevitable fall of these countries to fundamentalism while maintaining support from the U.S.. Moreover democracy is actually considered by the Wahhabis or Salafis who hold sway over religion in Saudi Arabia to be an affront to Islam. Any perceived spread of democracy in the Middle East will ultimately result in either new dictatorships or anti-democratic Islamic theocracies. Moreover, the regimes themselves are opposed to democracy. A ruling family, such as the House of Saud, that has been able to pillage its own country for decades is not going to invite challenges to its power and to suggest otherwise shows a complete lack of understanding of Saudi history and the workings of dictatorships in general. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: 5 American criticism of the U.S. government Post by skepticzero on Jun 11th, 2005, 12:32am American criticism of the U.S. government So some of us who criticize some of the U.S. government’s foreign policy actions do so not because we opposed the assault on Afghanistan, but rather because of the piecemeal effort in which the DoD carried it out, tying the hands of the military to preserve the bulk of its power for a conflict that was to be instantiated later. Additionally, being critical of one’s government is a mainstay of a free democratic society. The point at which the administration’s foreign policy has intersected domestic policy has become a cause for concern as well. Many Americans have noted the frightening Orwellian changes in our democracy, including the following: -Suspension of habeas corpus for U.S. citizens deemed to have the nebulous distinction of having something to do with terrorism. Having something to do with terrorism has never been defined. Prosecutors have already begun to use terrorism laws and labels to help them with cases that have nothing to do with terrorism, even though we already have laws governing capital crimes and gang activity. Back when the new terrorism laws were enacted, dissenters pointed out that not having checks and balances governing terrorism laws would lead to these abuses by prosecutors but were told that prosecutors were upstanding people who would never abuse the laws. -Violations of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, particularly via certain provisions of the U.S.A Patriot Act, a cluster of laws to broaden police powers. Not all of the U.S.A Patriot Act is problematic, but some aspects are grievously un-American. -Secret laws, a concept the stupidity of which our forefathers could not have even imagined. When a suit was brought against the government based on certain U.S.A Patriot Act provisions, the plaintiff discovered that the case could neither be discussed nor arbitrated because the provision was secret, thus making the entire case secret. I don't know how it ultimately turned out, probably because it's a secret. -Secret evidence, evidence against which one cannot defend oneself because it's secret. -Secret lists. If you're on one, such as the extremely error-prone secret no-fly list, you will find out when you are declined an airline ticket, but you can't appeal it with the government because they can neither confirm nor deny that you are on the list, because it's a secret. It's worth noting that the most obvious loss of freedom Americans have experienced, in the form of violations of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, mostly preceded the George W. Bush Administration. For example: so-called free speech zones were popularized under the ever self-serving Bill Clinton, probably so he wouldn't look awkward on TV with people chanting within range of the boom mics at public events. Free speech zones were enormously popular with both major parties during the last presidential election. Even standing silently at a Bush rally while wearing a T-shirt critical of the Bush Administration could get one detained by the Secret Service. This mentality has taken root, with a survey of U.S. high school students last year showing that they do not support the First Amendment as they understand it. America's turn toward statism and the curbing of civil liberties has been justified by the Executive and the party in power by a need for security and the effective marketing of the idea of perpetual war (another Orwellian concept). Were America not notoriously unread on its own history; it's own government documents, such as the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the U.S. Code; as well as the historical Greek, European, and early American texts on democracy, it might have come across a quote such as the following and taken it to heart: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”—Ben Franklin. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: 6 Torture and murder of prisoners under the... Post by skepticzero on Jun 11th, 2005, 12:33am Torture and murder of prisoners under the control of the U.S. military Torture is illegal under Title 18 of the U.S. Code. There are no exemptions. Two detainees were tortured and murdered in Afghanistan, prisoners were tortured in Iraq, and prisoners are rendered by the CIA to countries that will torture them for us and then returned if still alive. Therefore, like it or not, America is now a country that has tortured and murdered prisoners, just like a number of banana republics. We cannot undo what has been done, but it would behoove us to stop the practice. Also, many Americans are unapologetically pro-torture, going even beyond the administration's refusal to comply with the Geneva Conventions with regard to prisoner status and detention. The common excuse is that the terrorists do no adhere to the Geneva Conventions. There are two major problems with that kind of thinking: -Torture is against U.S. law. -The vast majority of prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Gitmo are not actually terrorists. Arab foreigners are being kidnapped and sold to the CIA as terrorists for the bounty. Kidnapping is a cottage industry in Iraq. Also, statistically people swept up in anti-insurgent operations in both countries are not going to be terrorists. -America is always supposed to take the moral high ground to ensure its moral authority. We're not supposed to torture suspected enemies even if doing so is their practice. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: 7 Homeland Security and future terrorism on U.S... Post by skepticzero on Jun 11th, 2005, 12:34am Homeland Security and future terrorism on U.S. soil The idea of a Department of Homeland Security was originally floated under the Clinton Administration but gained no traction. People feared the ineptitude of our existing intelligence services. In 2001, we spent $30,000,000,000 on our intelligence community and got 9/11 for our money. Supposedly in an effort to improve communication and cooperation, the Department of Homeland Security idea was revived. Now we spend a lot more money and have the same questionable results: -Airport security is a joke. Not much substantial has been done to improve it. Journalists wanting stories on lax security have been able to breach security a number of times; however, much of that reporting has stopped because the government's response has been to prosecute anyone who exposes airport security lapses by breaching security. -Ports are still insecure. The shipping industry has been able to stop efforts to institute thorough container checks. -Our borders are a porous as they ever were, and well-connected big business is helping to keep it that way on our southern border. For their extra billions, Americans now have the illusion of security. Intelligence analysts widely agree that the Bush Administration has played right into the hands of UBL and the broader Muslim extremist movement. The real danger for Americans is that our enemy is intellectually superior to our Executive. If you’ve read The Art of War, you know that such a scenario is not conducive to national security. America is merely fortunate that UBL or another Muslim extremist group has not yet tried to launch another large-scale attack within the U.S.. However, major attacks are years in the planning. Chances are that when al Qaeda or the next group is ready to strike, it will be able to do so unhindered by U.S. authorities. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: 8 Politics, the American media, and political... Post by skepticzero on Jun 11th, 2005, 12:35am Politics, the American media, and political entertainers As you have probably seen, average Americans appear uninformed on these issues. There is good reason for this. America is a nation of television watchers, not readers—particularly when it comes to news. So an American’s daily view of the world comes from corporate news outlets such as CNN and Fox News. The latter is decidedly pro-administration and CNN is working hard to follow Fox News’ model to match its ratings. It’s not a political conspiracy, but rather a result of the fact that television news is entirely ratings-driven. Market analysis shows that detailed reports on U.S. casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq cause Americans to change channels. Similarly, reporting that doesn’t support a rosy view of the War On Terror in general doesn’t appeal to Americans as well. The drive toward journalistic integrity in the American media died long ago. Reinforcing the Bush Administration’s positions is a host of ultra-right-wing radio personalities with tens of millions of devotees. These people are entertainers, not journalists, and don’t even have to pretend to report to any standard. Going into the 2004 Presidential election, millions of devotees to one of the most popular of these entertainers actually believed that stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq simply because they had been told that that was the case by this entertainer. I’m sure many still do. The people who regularly listen to these entertainers are not likely to do fact-checking, read other opinions, read books written by field experts, or have read history. Recognizing the tendency of the American people not to be well-versed in history or even their own constitution and not to read detailed analytical news from the public and foreign press, American politicians have learned to live from sound bite to sound bite. Hence there is no real political debate in the U.S. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: 8 Politics, the American media, and political. Post by killerabbit on Jun 12th, 2005, 9:40am on 06/11/05 at 00:35:39, skepticzero wrote:
Ah...So the majority of americans finally have a voice over the minority!Its about time.Thank you for clearing that up:) By the way....my concern about the security of the US is that its following the plot line of the new Star Wars series too closely.Hahaha!:P:P Yer a Great American...get er done! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by mylane on Jun 12th, 2005, 6:50pm on 06/09/05 at 01:20:21, thebeast wrote:
hmmmm....I believe the war on Iraq was bungled BIG time the war on terror has uncovered a lot of dirt which has raised awareness. Right now things are volatile or unstable, but awareness to the 'DIRT' has grown and in the long term solutions will be brought up. Let’s take a breath, and prepare for this new era! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by skepticzero on Jun 12th, 2005, 11:34pm on 06/12/05 at 18:50:12, mylane wrote:
Saying the Iraq War was bungled suggests that there was a plan that was a) ignored, b) not properly executed, or c) not adequate for the challenge. I do not think any of those are the case. Pentagon insiders say, off the record, that there never was any plan. Also, I respectfully disagree with your assertion that somehow a nebulous global realization of the failings of the U.S. is going to usher in a new era of change in U.S. policy, particularly in the Middle East. Firstly, the current administration repeats its mistakes, accepting neither advice nor criticism, even from experts. Secondly, the party in power is fatally infused with ultra-right-wing fundamentalist religious extremists, theocrats (http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm) who unflinchingly back rightist policies sans study and, more frighteningly, openly pursue the dominion of their religion over the U.S. As we should all know by now, religious extremists are very difficult to handle rationally. They attribute the policy failures of their Executive to a moral deficit in the country as a whole and will continue to do that as the U.S. falls more under their control. However, for those of you in the Pacific archipelagos, with regard to the U.S. military and regional policy, the massive U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) is going to come across as a much different animal than CENTCOM. CENTCOM is highly politicized, being managed largely from Washington and therefore catering to a powerful Israeli lobby and the aforementioned ultra-right-wing fundamentalist religious extremists. It straddles the intractable casus belli of Middle East discord, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In contrast, PACOM is a quietly-run distributed command network of cooperative security locations, with Hawaii and, to a certain extent, Guam, as hubs. These cooperative security locations are basically informal, mutually-beneficial agreements for U.S. basing rights. They are managed locally and often through civilian contractor landlords, giving the local governments plausible deniablility and the landlords the task of keeping both sides happy. So from your perspective, in light of the growth of PACOM in the next few years, the U.S. might indeed appear to have learned lessons and revised its foreign policy goals. Of course, Washington could still wreck PACOM. Assuming that won't be the case, keep an eye on U.S. influence in Palau in the coming years, a prime candidate for U.S. military growth under PACOM. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by thebeast on Jun 14th, 2005, 6:01am If 911 not happen America would not be in Afghanistan...If Iraq was following the contract that was made, America not be in Iraq. Its that simple. You can speak of covert operations by the CIA and privite politics going on at the white house all you want and I am not saying it does or doesnt go on, but if these things not happen, America not be in the Middle East. Its a simple reaction to an action. As far as the press goes... well they report the news the way they want to be it pro republican like CNN or Fox or Pro Democratic like CBS. The truth of the matter is we dont really know what goes on behind the walls of the White House or the CIA. Anybody can get a story about something and print it. Is it the truth? Maybe so...maybe not so. Sure there is scandal. But the United States is not in Iraq or Afghan for oil or power of any kind. Are contracts awarded to U.S. and other allied companys to rebuild Iraq and Afghan. Well of course they are. Somebody gotta do it. Are the majority of these contracts given to U.S. orginanizations... probably so...and whats wrong with that? Yes contracts for big money are given to U.S. companys. But look at what both Iraq and Afghan will get. I wonder how many middle easterners are employed due to these contracts? Along with big paying American contracts comes lots of jobs available to a Iraq or Afghan economy that is very poor. Jobs are great for any economy. And americans spending money over there as well. So you see its kind of a you scratch my back i scratch yours kind of situation. Nothing shady about it. Why should countries who didnt want to get involved be involved in anything in the rebuilding of these middle eastern nations. They are part of the problem anyway. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by killerabbit on Jun 14th, 2005, 7:51am No we need to be more secure...after irag...lets do N.Korea!and while we are at it....lets just go ahead and take over Mexico...before they take over us:P |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by skepticzero on Jun 14th, 2005, 11:08pm on 06/14/05 at 06:01:58, thebeast wrote:
Not really, since the people who comprised Bush’s NSC and DoD publicly advocated regime change in Iraq since even before the Gulf War in 1991. Also, again, the Bush Administration’s stated rationale for invading Iraq was that Iraq posed weapons of mass destruction, and that in doing so posed an imminent threat to the security of the U.S. The problem is that this rationale was not true, and experts in the field had been saying as much for years. Additionally, the U.S. already had an air presence in Iraq, going back several years, bombing Iraqi radar installations and SAM sites and could move SoFs freely in northern Kurdistan. So the U.S., for all practical purposes, was already in Iraq whether Saddam was perceived to have been in compliance with U.N. resolutions or not. So the U.S. presence in and later large-scale entry into Iraq are far from simple. on 06/14/05 at 06:01:58, thebeast wrote:
Well prior to 9/11, some covert CIA operations yielded positive results against both the Saddam Hussein regime and--in the struggle against terrorism--what we now know as al Qaeda. Given that the administration’s stated reason for invading Iraq was untrue, America’s invasion of Iraq was not reactionary. Again, not simple. on 06/14/05 at 06:01:58, thebeast wrote:
This necessitates the reading of many different news sources, particularly foreign ones, and books for a person to be informed. However, in the U.S. the trend is to watch the most rudimentary from of news on television, such as Fox News or CNN and listen to political entertainers on the radio. on 06/14/05 at 06:01:58, thebeast wrote:
Although the U.S. did have a stake in the Central Asian oil pipeline prior to 9/11, and the administration had behind-the-scenes dealings with the Taliban, the post-9/11 invasion was a direct reaction to the terrorist attacks. That is rarely disputed, even by the left in the U.S. Iraq is a different story. U.S. big energy had designs on Iraq almost as old as those of the neocons and they massively contributed to the Bush campaign (and, I believe, to the Kerry campaign, hedging their bets). Moreover, the neocons published that they supported the use of U.S. military power to ensure U.S. economic dominance in any scenario in which U.S. economic dominance came into question. They cited the Middle East as a prime example and also openly advocated U.S. political hegemony in that region. So therein we have both oil money and power as prime motivators in the effort to get rid of the Saddam Hussein regime. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by skepticzero on Jun 14th, 2005, 11:09pm on 06/14/05 at 06:01:58, thebeast wrote:
Nothing if it was that simple. Once again, it is not nearly that simple. Firstly the awarding of reconstruction contracts in Afghanistan is a non-issue, since the Afghan campaign was born out of necessity, with Afghanistan not being a war of choice. Secondly, in the U.S., big energy and infrastructure companies had lobbied presidential administrations for years to invade Iraq. The hope on their part was that doing so would void any letters of intent signed between Saddam and Russian and European energy and construction conglomerates. However, beyond that, I couldn’t find any reference to anyone specifically taking issue with U.S. companies getting construction contracts in Iraq following the U.S. invasion. on 06/14/05 at 06:01:58, thebeast wrote:
Anarchy. Due to extreme negligence in the manner in which the civilian leadership in the Executive chose to run the Afghan campaign, that country is a collage of fiefdoms. Hamid Karzai is really little more than the mayor of Kabul in the same way that Pervez Musharraf is really only the mayor of Islamabad. The rest of Afghanistan is under control of the drug lords the CIA paid $50,000 each to be somewhat loyal. It was under many of these same drug lords that the Taliban were able to win over the support of an Afghan people tired of being raped and murdered indiscriminately back in the 1990s. In the Taliban, Afghans chose extreme religious zealots over complete lawlessness. With the return of the violent drug lords to power following the U.S. invasion, some Afghans are again supporting the Taliban, who have been able to operate comfortably from inside Afghanistan and Pakistan, mainly in what is known as Waziristan, largely because of the tiny U.S. troop presence. A large U.S. military force could have wiped out the drug lords instead of paying them off along with the Taliban. This is the lament of the brass. Iraq is an anarchical disaster waiting to turn into a civil war. I already covered this in detail, but Iraq is a democracy only on paper and U.S. television. People voted; they have nothing. They hate their leaders. They hate us. on 06/14/05 at 06:01:58, thebeast wrote:
Not nearly as many as you would think. Look it up. In Iraq, Firstly, American workers and companies are often put ahead of Iraqis. Iraqis have been complaining about this since the end of the invasion. Iraqi subcontractors get shafted and here in the U.S. seminars promote Iraq as a playground for U.S. companies. Secondly, money provided by the U.S. is often literally packed into briefcases in the central bank in Iraq and sent off with Iraqi politicos, much of it never to be seen again. Note that 9 billion dollars is missing (and that, oddly, there is no independent investigation of that). on 06/14/05 at 06:01:58, thebeast wrote:
Americans in Baghdad spend the bulk of their money inside the Green Zone, with the money going to U.S. companies. And in the outlying enclaves in which Americans can be huddled together for protection away from Baghdad, Americans are buying services from the U.S. companies that service those areas. on 06/14/05 at 06:01:58, thebeast wrote:
They should be involved because they bring extra billions to spend on Iraq that doesn’t come directly from U.S. taxpayers. This isn’t a game in which we should exclude people whom some Americans don’t like (primarily because they’ve been led to believe that they should); in the long run it’s wealth getting siphoned out of the U.S., making us poorer. Also it would be better if these U.S. companies were here rebuilding our rotting infrastructure in the U.S. instead. on 06/14/05 at 06:01:58, thebeast wrote:
Why? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by thebeast on Jun 15th, 2005, 2:36am on 06/14/05 at 23:08:06, skepticzero wrote:
If Saddam cleaned up is act and did what he was supposed to do, The United States wouldnt have a reason to invade. He was given over 10 years to do this. He didnt even try to cooperate. Of course U.S was already in Iraq... how else we know what he is up to. After he invaded Kuwait, I guess we should just say okay we not keep an eye on him no more????? on 06/14/05 at 23:08:06, skepticzero wrote:
CIA operations.... well I am glad you know a lot about those CIA operations. Are these the same reliable CIA operations that said Iraq had WMD. Listen most CIA operations no one ever knows about. I wonder where you are getting your info???? Somebody had to write it. Its only complicated if you make it complicated. We know Sadam had WMD at one time, thats a fact. We found evidence of material for chemical weapons and plans for chemcal weapons. Do u think this is not a threat? Also just because no fully developed WMD was never found does not mean he didnt have them. Hell maybe Sadam made a deal with some other nation to hide them for him. See I can stretch just like you. on 06/14/05 at 23:08:06, skepticzero wrote:
Well I read it and watch it...but I think most americans including me form thier own opinions.. not ones from Wolf Blitzer or Dan Rather....it would be narrowminded to think otherwise. Personally I am a Paula Zhan and Larry King fan on CNN. Paula is nice to look at and they both seem to provide the news and conduct interviews with an open mind. on 06/14/05 at 23:08:06, skepticzero wrote:
Sometimes in politics you have to choose between the lesser of 2 evils. This goes way back to the beginning of time. Great nations were developed this way. Hell The United States gave Saddam weapons to use against Iran. Iran is flooded with terrorists and radical muslims. So they greater evil at that time. I on 06/14/05 at 23:08:06, skepticzero wrote:
Lots of motivations but it would be very foolish to think The United States would send young soldiers to a far away country just because big companys in the United States wanted to get involved somehow with Middle Eastern oil. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by thebeast on Jun 15th, 2005, 4:47am on 06/14/05 at 23:09:03, skepticzero wrote:
I never said contracts were a reason y the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, I simply stated I see nothing wrong with it. As far as Iraq goes and contracts goes, The United States had an embargo on Iraq enforced by the Clinton Administration. So at that time no kind of contracts of any kind with Iraq. Now things are different. And I see nothing wrong with it. on 06/14/05 at 23:09:03, skepticzero wrote:
Do you have hard evidence of this $50,000 dollars paid to drug lords in Afghanistan...or is this liberal news organizations information or maybe you have a direct link to the CIA records? Listen the people of Afghanistan are a lot better off now than they were before. Besides at sometime these people need to learn how to govern themselves. Yes things are not perfect there but they are not perfect anywhere. If they want their freedom bad enough in the long run it will get better. Its up to them. The United States can only do so much. Besides the United States persence there was to destroy the terroirists camps and to catch Osam Ben Hiding. I know we not catch him. But he is as close to dead now anyway. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by thebeast on Jun 15th, 2005, 5:07am on 06/14/05 at 23:09:03, skepticzero wrote:
A democracy has to start somewhere dont it? Have you forgotten The Declaration of Independence? I watch the news on tv and read the paper everyday... I have never heard the Democracy is just jim dandy in Iraq...what american news station do you watch? What did you expect over there? Did you expect Iraq to have a democracy like The United States in a few years? Have you forgotten The Revolutionary War or the 2 World Wars. Boy those were easy werent they. How long did it take for Germany and Japan to get thier eonomys and government in working order?They have nothing? They have their freedom. Its gonna be up to them what they do with it. As far as people hating thier government...well whats so unusual about that? That is just human nature no matter where u live in the world. And they hate us...well I am not so sure about that... I am sure the terrorists and the radical muslims hate us...but the average joe Iraqi sure was hugging and kissing us when we marched in...or i guess this was another public relations trick? I bet american soldiers were pointing there guns at the Iraqis and telling them to hug and kiss us. Maybe some do hate us... I dont think its really them hating us as much as they hate the situation they are in and once again there is nothing unusual about this... i think for the most part they dont hate us. on 06/14/05 at 23:09:03, skepticzero wrote:
Well of course you gonna have Iraqi subcontractors complain. They are a country with an economy thats in shambles. I guess all the concrete and asphalt and other materials are shipped in from the United States??? Come on everyone is making money not just the United States. I am confused about this 9 billion dollars missing and the brief cases of money put in the bank and taken by Iraqi politicos. If there is no investigation how anyone know about 9 billion dollars missing and the breifcases of money taken by Iraqi politicos??? on 06/14/05 at 23:09:03, skepticzero wrote:
Well this is probably correct for the military yes but for civilians I am not so sure..if so its only for their own protection and I see nothing wrong with that. I dont think eating a cheeseburger in Baghdad is worth getting killed for. on 06/14/05 at 23:09:03, skepticzero wrote:
Listen France, Russia, Canada deserve nothing...no part of anything cause they were not willing to get involved at first....why do they want to be involved now? As far as the american taxpayer goes...do u really think if these other countries got involved it would lower the income taxes for the american taxpayer....you have got to be kidding me. Your understanding of the tax system is worse than mine. And the rotting infrastructure of America??? Where do you live? America has the best infrastructure in the world for the most part. I am sure there are problem areas in large citys but this is being taken care of. Rome wasnt built in a day you know. on 06/14/05 at 23:09:03, skepticzero wrote:
Countries that continued to trade with Iraq after Desert Storm contributed to the reason why Sadam lasted as long as he did as the leader of Iraq. They traded weapons for oil and and food for oil. This would of been hard on the people of Iraq but maybe then they get so feed up with sadam they overthrow him themselves. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by thebeast on Jun 15th, 2005, 6:35am skepiczero I know what you are. You are a person who likes to ride the middle of the road. You really have no politics at all. Sure you have someone elses theorys and facts but you use them on both sides. To me you are worse than the liberals. You are always changing your mind. You are what I call a bandwagoneer. You choose what is popular at the time. Right or wrong dont mean nothing to you. Its easy to ride the middle ground. You have no opinions or facts of your own. They are all someone elses.You plagiarize big time. You are quick to criticize those of us who watch the news and read the papers. Yet where do you get your info? Maybe this is a game and thats cool. But if you are not for or against something to me you are undebatable ;D So if you not choose I will not debate you. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by killerabbit on Jun 15th, 2005, 7:02am Oh goody!this is better than Jerry Springer!Meow! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by teagirl on Jun 15th, 2005, 7:07am Skeptic Zero I would like to laud your very well written treatise on the existing politics in your country. You have presented a very well written, concise, very intellectual post. I am someone who doesnt really dabble much into politics but the way you have presented all arguments, pointing out facts without resorting to name calling or exasperation can only prove to me that you are someone who is well read and well informed. I would hate to think that you are the type to plagiarize just to prove your point. I dont think that is the case in this situation at all. It seems to me that the way you presented the argument could only signal this truth: That you are passionate in what you believed in and over the years have gathered facts, mulled over them and came up with what you have posted here. I wish I have half your eloquence but that is not the issue here. The issue is you have presented to people like me (the ignorant and the uninformed) the big picture. With all the circus going about and the infomation spinning, its hard to focus on the truth. I absolutely think you did a wonderful job in presenting a very unbiased and unabashed liberalism. Kudos! And well, to stay within the topic, I have always wondered why the US staged an "attack" in Iraq when it was clear that no WMDs were found in that country. Thats what the news we heard, covered by different reputable tv stations. It has always confused me why the US have not gone after Al-Qaeda or Bin Laden when it was him who bombed the Twin Towers. What was Iraq all about? Why didn't the US retaliate at once. It was like everyone was scrambling into position. But I am always embarassed to post here lest I show how ignorant I am regarding US politics and world affairs. PS. Welcome to the forum. I hope you will enjoy your stay here and well, pardon the name calling. I for one would like to know more what you have to say and I'm sure there are others here who welcome different issues, different sides to the story. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by skepticzero on Jun 16th, 2005, 1:01am on 06/15/05 at 02:36:18, thebeast wrote:
The administration’s stated reason for invading Iraq was false. Stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were never found. The justification for invading Iraq was only that the non-existent weapons of mass destruction posed an imminent threat to the security of the U.S. The idea that the justification was a kind of broad perception of Saddam’s cooperation or lack thereof is historical revisionism. on 06/15/05 at 02:36:18, thebeast wrote:
Actually, Saddam was already being monitored by others, and I don’t think anyone has suggested that he not be monitored. The work of the U.N. weapons inspectors, who were there during most of the interim between the wars, was validated by the administration’s own investigator, David Kay, whose conclusions (after spending $600 million) were the same as theirs. In Kay’s final report he concluded that the administration had been completely wrong about the supposed weapons of mass destruction stockpiles. In addition, neither his Senate testimony nor his report to the CIA, both of which are public record, contradict his final report. on 06/15/05 at 02:36:18, thebeast wrote:
Actually, many CIA operations that have already occurred are, oddly, a matter of public record or can even be obtained under FOIA. Also, CIA operatives, case officers, and analysts—people who know a lot more about the CIA than either you or I--certainly do know what they were doing while at the CIA and have written extensively about it. on 06/15/05 at 02:36:18, thebeast wrote:
Contrary to popular belief, many in the intelligence community were telling the administration the exact opposite of what they claim Tenet had been telling them. This is widely known, even outside the intelligence community. on 06/15/05 at 02:36:18, thebeast wrote:
All this info has been written about extensively by CIA operatives, case officers, and analysts, and can be found in the CIA’s own archives. Also, others in the intelligence community have written about the events surrounding the Iraq War. None of this is secret. All one has to do is bother to read it. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by skepticzero on Jun 16th, 2005, 1:04am on 06/15/05 at 02:36:18, thebeast wrote:
Destroyed and defunct weapons are not a threat. No one disputes that Saddam had possessed and used chemical weapons in the past. In 1983 Saddam even received a congratulatory visit from Rumsfeld for his use of chemical weapons against Iran. What Saddam didn’t use up on Iranians or his own people fell into disrepair, at least that’s what U.S. Weapons Inspector David Kay reported. on 06/15/05 at 02:36:18, thebeast wrote:
I haven’t stretched anything, but the idea that Saddam got a weapons stockpile out of the country is indeed a stretch with no basis in fact. on 06/15/05 at 02:36:18, thebeast wrote:
The problem with the popular U.S. television media is that they don’t report thoroughly on the Afghan War or the Iraq War at all. The media presents only high-level snippets of world news reporting in general to leave plenty of airtime for nonsense that does not matter, such as the Michael Jackson trial. on 06/15/05 at 02:36:18, thebeast wrote:
That is the logic that gave us Bin Laden. The U.S. could make better strategic choices instead of creating the next monster to have to combat 20 years later. on 06/15/05 at 02:36:18, thebeast wrote:
Not just big companies, neoconservatives as well. People fitting in either or both of these groups dominate the current and previous Bush Administrations. Bush and Cheney are oil/oil services men. Cheney is also a neocon policy architect. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, and Perle are neocons, the latter three of whom wrote about invading Middle Eastern countries in the 1990s. Rice is both involved in oil and a subsriber to neocon views. It’s not foolish to do the math; it’s logical. Blind faith in politicians would be foolish. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by skepticzero on Jun 16th, 2005, 1:09am on 06/15/05 at 04:47:51, thebeast wrote:
The letters of intent were in lieu of contracts, since contracts were pointless at the time. However, there is certainly nothing wrong with U.S. companies getting foreign contracts in general. on 06/15/05 at 04:47:51, thebeast wrote:
The CIA payments are not classified, or at least weren’t back when the Afghanistan assault started. Even Tenet discussed the payments. Although many of the drug lords were mercenary Taliban commanders, 35-year veteran CIA operative Gary Schroen, who was on the first team into Afghanistan after 9/11 said that he used the briefcase he was given full of millions of dollars “…to assure the leadership of the Northern Alliance that we were serious…”. A 2002 Newsweek article by Evan Thomas specifically mentioned a $50,000 payment to a mercenary Taliban commander, information the author had received from CIA field agents.This is just how the CIA operates. My original point was that if the administration really wanted the assault on Afghanistan done correctly, vast numbers of U.S. forces should have been applied to the campaign instead of farming most of the fighting out to mercs. U.S. forces are more capable than Afghan mercenaries, and SoF forces have complained about their misuse in that by Rumsfeld, who would not let them function within the parameters of their training where they are most efficient. Senior military commanders have said exactly the same thing. on 06/15/05 at 04:47:51, thebeast wrote:
That depends on whether being raped and killed by the drug lords in charge now is better than being disfigured, tortured, and/or killed by Taliban for a lack of devotion. on 06/15/05 at 04:47:51, thebeast wrote:
For 15 years they have chosen not to govern themselves and live in anarchy. on 06/15/05 at 04:47:51, thebeast wrote:
Maybe UBL is dead; maybe he isn’t. But we have no way of knowing whether he is anywhere near close to being dead. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by skepticzero on Jun 16th, 2005, 1:14am on 06/15/05 at 05:07:04, thebeast wrote:
All the wars you mentioned were wars of necessity. The Iraq invasion was a war of choice. Our troops didn’t have to be there at all dealing with the plight of Iraq, a country not worth one American life. The administration’s pretense at spreading democracy in Iraq never had to happen. on 06/15/05 at 04:47:51, thebeast wrote:
Hardly. They have freedom from Saddam, but unlike during Saddam’s rule, Iraqis cannot move around in relative safety. Their society can barely function. on 06/15/05 at 04:47:51, thebeast wrote:
Ultimately they’ll kill each other. on 06/15/05 at 04:47:51, thebeast wrote:
The difference is that Iraqis who hate their leaders make concerted efforts to kill them. on 06/15/05 at 04:47:51, thebeast wrote:
Iraqis celebrated when U.S. forces first took the country. That was then. The lovefest ended quickly. The Sunni Baathist minority in the center of the country was the top ethnic group under Saddam. They have lost all their privileges as Baathists since the U.S. took over. The insurgency, whether from foreign extremists or Baathist resistors, is largely supported in the Triangle. The Shia have affinity with the Iranians, who already hated us. The Kurds had the best relationship with the U.S. before the invasion but have repeatedly gotten the shaft as the U.S. has urged them to compromise with the Shia. on 06/15/05 at 04:47:51, thebeast wrote:
I doubt it. U.S. soldiers are not conspirators in this campaign. Misinformation, or perhaps more accurately the omission of information, comes from DoD to the administration and is parroted by the popular media. on 06/15/05 at 04:47:51, thebeast wrote:
The missing $9 billion wasn’t widely covered by the media. It was back in January. Look it up. But even America’s beloved CNN at least carried a blurb about the Inspector General’s audit, which said that the CPA could not account for $9 billion (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/). You would think it would be hard to miss the disappearance of $9 billion of taxpayer money as a news story. No congressional committee chairmen even called for an investigation. The hauling around of cash in suitcases was just the way they operated the central banking system at the time. No doubt large sums of cash disappeared. It was an idiotic practice that would be difficult to defend. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by skepticzero on Jun 16th, 2005, 1:19am on 06/15/05 at 04:47:51, thebeast wrote:
Perhaps they were too smart to get involved, since they seriously doubted the weapons of mass destruction argument in the first place. They want to be involved now to make money the way U.S. companies are. on 06/15/05 at 04:47:51, thebeast wrote:
No. Nor did I state that the inclusion of other countries’ companies in Iraq’s reconstruction contracts would lower income taxes for Americans. Including other countries would reduce the overall economic burden of Iraq on the U.S., ultimately impacting the wealth of our country. Our massive debt, including that of our conglomerates, is financed by foreign countries. on 06/15/05 at 04:47:51, thebeast wrote:
On what basis? on 06/15/05 at 04:47:51, thebeast wrote:
The U.S. has an infrastructure in serious decline compared to what it was 25 years ago. The federal highway money allotment to states is no longer adequate. This has become a huge problem throughout the country. Ask a governor’s office. Nationally, bridges and overpasses are in states of disrepair never before encountered. The U.S. interstate highway system, a massive undertaking in the first place that hasn’t been completed for that many years, is decaying because it is so prohibitively expensive to repair. on 06/15/05 at 04:47:51, thebeast wrote:
If you are still referring to Europe and/or Russia, Saddam’s army did not have new European weapons and had few new Russian weapons when the U.S. invaded. In fact, their heavy armor was destroyed in the Gulf War by the U.S. and apparently not replaced. Companies from several countries, particularly Middle Eastern countries, defied the sanctions. Supposedly American companies were involved as well. Oil companies want to work with oil-rich nations, and the Europeans and Russians probably knew that eventually the U.S. would try to stop them from working in Iraqi oil altogether, at least for some period of time, which is exactly what happened. on 06/15/05 at 04:47:51, thebeast wrote:
This was the common rationale for the sanctions. The Iraqi people did not control the Iraqi military. Iraq was a dictatorship. (Now it’s a failed state.) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by skepticzero on Jun 16th, 2005, 2:17am on 06/15/05 at 06:35:05, thebeast wrote:
Like anyone, I have political views. Mine fall along the lines of pragmatism, not being servile to any U.S. political party. Having posted “both sides” above, is indicative of seeing a political opinion as having to fit the ideology of one side or another—Democratic or Republican, good or evil, etc. in order to be debatable. I see many sides and two major parties that have failed their country. on 06/15/05 at 06:35:05, thebeast wrote:
I have not changed my mind in any of my posts so far, although I, like anyone else, am not beyond making errors in posts. I read voraciously, pay attention to events around me, and form my own opinions based on known facts and opinions of people on the ground in given areas—soldiers (several of whom I know), intelligence community members, and civilians in affected areas like Iraq--as reported by people who are actually there. Like any thinking person I compare those reports with those from other credible sources. With regard to your statement about right and wrong meaning nothing to me, it is untrue of my view of right and wrong as moral absolutes. But to whose right and whose wrong are you referring? Who makes that decision? on 06/15/05 at 06:35:05, thebeast wrote:
I have not plagiarized any material, would like to know on what basis you have asserted that I have plagiarized, and challenge you to prove your assertion. on 06/15/05 at 06:35:05, thebeast wrote:
I have not criticized anyone in particular for watching news or reading a newspaper. The criticism must have been inferred. on 06/15/05 at 06:35:05, thebeast wrote:
I have clearly stated my opinions on whether the Afghan campaign and Iraq War have made us more or less secure, but perhaps those opinions don’t fit into a narrow view of what you would have me be for or against. One need not try to artificially frame debate only in terms of absolutes. Opinions can be vastly more complex than good/evil or Democratic/Republican. Additionally, I wasn’t expecting a personal attack based on a topic about whether the Afghan campaign and Iraq War have made us more or less secure. Such an attack doesn’t have anything to do with debate. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by kim on Jun 16th, 2005, 10:32am Well for one thing reading everything in here has made my brains sizzle :P I think i'll leave the argument between joel n zero since they are inthe same country and that they listen to the same news n the same ppl. As far as "my opinoin" goes, When US went on a rampage n invaded iraq. They retaliated by doing harm to our country. Why becouse our dear president thinks that Bush is her best friend ::). So the answer tot eh question if this war on terroristm has made me feel more secure, the answer is NO. As May has pointed out, what we heard on the news was that US never found any WMDs in Iraq and Bin Ladin is no where to be found... Can someone pls tell me what the US is doing about Bin Ladin? Are they much mor einterested in rehabilitating Iraq for they personal gains or are they still sticking to finding out where Bil ladin is? And a reminder again to all the posters.... ATTACT THE ISSUE AND NOT THE PERSON.... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by skepticzero on Jun 16th, 2005, 9:45pm on 06/16/05 at 10:32:32, kim wrote:
That is indeed the case. The stockpiles of weapons were not found and that is exactly what David Kay, the administration's own weapons inspector, reported. on 06/16/05 at 10:32:32, kim wrote:
Intelligence community workers from both the U.S. and abroad believe he is residing in Waziristan, a region in the border area of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Waziris are fiercely anti-government and rife with fundamentalists. The Pakistani Army cannot operate there with impunity. Last year the Pakistanis announced a spring offensive in which they did basically nothing. Musharraf knows that if he did anything of consequence in Waziristan, he would lose control of the country, and Pakistan would fall to fundamentalists--basically making it like Afghanistan but with nuclear weapons. Others have theorized that UBL is in Islamabad, since a couple of supposed al Qaeda operatives have been caught there. on 06/16/05 at 10:32:32, kim wrote:
Not much. U.S. troops have the capability but not the numbers to launch an excursion to get him. Moreover, they cannot hunt for him in Pakistan. on 06/16/05 at 10:32:32, kim wrote:
Well, troops and equipment were withheld from the Afghan campaign from the beginning. Rumsfeld's claim was the we were fighting a new kind of war that required sending as few troops as possible. It was nonsense, at least according to the military. The brass winced at the stupidity. UBL got away. At the battle of Tora Bora, the U.S. had to depend on Afghan troops to seal the escape route for al Qaeda. So, of course, al Qaeda escaped. Although Rumsfeld stated that no resources were diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq, Intelligence community members who operated in Afghanistan have said that they lost resources soon after the Afghan campaign began, as Iraq war planning ramped up. The Iraq fiasco is making a lot of money for well-connected U.S. companies (and costing the taxpayers $1 billion per week). As we have just seen (http://nytimes.com/2005/06/15/politics/15climate.html) members of the Bush Administration will no doubt be rewarded in the private sector for allowing connected companies untold wealth. It's the classic revolving door scenario. on 06/16/05 at 10:32:32, kim wrote:
Within the past few months, Republicans have been quietly floating the idea that UBL is irrelevant and does not need to be found. If they can sell that idea, it will absolve them of any responsibility for finding UBL, and thus prevent the need to bolster forces in Afghanistan. Additionally, UBL is a convenient bad guy to drag out into the media's glare for the 2006 congressional elections. Keeping him around ensures reusability, whereas capturing him would be a one-time play, albeit a big one. Ironically, the Repubs are, in a way, correct about UBL's irrelevance, though not for the reasons they cite. UBL is one of many Islamic extremist leaders. Organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood, which is essentially the parent of al Qaeda, existed before UBL and will exist when he is gone. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by skepticzero on Jun 16th, 2005, 10:35pm on 06/15/05 at 07:07:03, teagirl wrote:
Thanks, Teagirl, for the words of welcome and the compliments. I think I've covered the details ad nauseum, but it's nice to have a supporting view on occasion. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by thebeast on Jun 16th, 2005, 11:28pm on 06/16/05 at 01:01:48, skepticzero wrote:
Did Saddam do anything to break the contract that was negotiated and agreed to after Desert Storm? The contract states qoute....If Iraq doesnt follow all of the restrictions set forth in the contract...serious consequences would result if contract is not followed. So it dont really matter if chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons were found. Are you saying Saddam was following the deal that was made after Desert Storm? WMD was only one of lots of reasons. The administration knew that and so did congress. Or do you know more than they do? on 06/16/05 at 01:01:48, skepticzero wrote:
I think these reports were given to late. You know after Iraq was already invaded. Dont really matter what a report says in past tense does it. I wonder if your reliable Freedom Of Information Act explains that? Yeah the good ole FOIA maybe reliable but how current is it? Especially the information regaurding CIA dealings. You are lucky there is a FOIA...lots of american soldiers and american civilians died so you could read it. on 06/16/05 at 01:01:48, skepticzero wrote:
Actually the CIA only wants you to know what they want you to know. If the CIA posted everything they did there wouldnt be any need for the Central Intelligence Agency. So lots of agents out of work and people like Adolf Hitler and Osama Ben Hiding would be ruling the world now. What they do post is information that is past tense and like you said information about things that happen that are accpetable to getting something done(only info that they want you to know) Information that is old and outdated dont really do anyone any good anymore so thats y they post it so you can read it. And say Ahhhhhh thats y that happened. I think i heard the last of all the Watergate Files were released recently...wow that happened in the early 70s. I am willing to bet a lot of americans forgot about that or dont even know what Watergate was and who cares anyway. It happened before I was born. If I wasnt awake in history class i wouldnt know about it either. Richard Nixon is dead what you gonna do to him now. Justice was served and the right thing was done back then anyway. on 06/16/05 at 01:01:48, skepticzero wrote:
No thank you this kind of info is outdated. Granted I dont know all of it, but I know enough to know what is right and wrong. The United States Policy is a good policy that has the whole worlds best intrest. The money exchanged is necessary. To me there is nothing illegal about it...u said the things they do is considered acceptable. I have no problem with giving money to the lesser of 2 evils even when it dont always work out the way it is supposed to, because the only other alternative is war. Possible but not likely war with nuclear weapons. After the dropping of the atomic bomb in Japan things in the political and intelligence community changed. It was necessary to use the bomb then, but doing so changed things. I accept it. Some Americans dont want to get involved with the world. They say stay home and just look out for ourselves. What would the world be like if we did that. Did you ever stop to consider that? Would the world be a better or worse place? I think the world is better because we do get involved. Stability is what is needed in the middle east. Thats what America wants. I would like to know the stuff they dont tell you though. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by thebeast on Jun 17th, 2005, 3:20am on 06/16/05 at 01:04:57, skepticzero wrote:
Maybe so maybe not but he would of continued to try thats a fact...you ever think what would of happend if Hitler got the bomb first...and at first The United States didnt think he was much of a threat either...better to nip it in the bud now. on 06/16/05 at 01:04:57, skepticzero wrote:
You take news information and facts then you fill in the holes with your opinions....thats stretching. on 06/16/05 at 01:04:57, skepticzero wrote:
Most media like cnn, nbc, abc, cbs, fox give a vairiety of news info could be news about the war in Iraq, the forcast for weather, sports, legal and entertainment. If it happens its news and its on tv. Who are you to decide what is and isnt news? What does the news about Michael Jackson have to do with the war in Iraq. Is there some tie that the media does with the news about the Jackson trial and the news about Iraq? Or maybe you think most americans are not as smart as you and cant tell a difference? Dude with this statement you are sounding like a dictator or communist. Here is a suggestion. If you dont like what is on the news..get up and change the channel. There are lots of other stations to watch. You live in America, you can do that you know...but I am willing to bet you watch your fair share of it. Who are you to decide what is and isnt nonsense? on 06/16/05 at 01:04:57, skepticzero wrote:
Listen nothing is logical in politics...have u not figured that out yet? You need to focus on the good. You live in the greatest country in the world... if you your government is really that bad...leave. Its pretty simple. on 06/16/05 at 01:04:57, skepticzero wrote:
I am not up on the lingo. Neoconservative, I wonder who made that word up? I have heard of neo nazi those are skinheads. But I looked up neo in the dictionary. Neo means new. I then looked up neoconservative up online. Turns out neoconservatives were once liberals in the states. Well all neo means is new. Is new bad? well if it has nazi after it yes. But neo b4 conservative simply means new conservative. So whats wrong with that? Republican conservatives right wing, left wing whatever the case maybe...they are looking out for whats best for america. I cant complain about that. We have a system of checks and balances here and it works pretty good. Nobody really has the power all to themselves. Be he neocon, right wing, liberal or whatever. You are slipping into fantasy now. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by thebeast on Jun 17th, 2005, 5:17am on 06/16/05 at 01:14:40, skepticzero wrote:
A war of choice? You have forgotten terrorism. Most people think Saddam is a terrorists. Its a war against terrorism. A war against even the threat of terrorism. Bush went to congress. Gave them all the info and I repeat all of the info(not just the info of WMD) and congress said go for it. I think admistration really did think he had WMD. Maybe he did, maybe he didnt. Nobody will really know for sure. And if not so what. Because Saddam was a nuisance and needed to be taken care of. He not following contract. He still trying to build up his army by trading for weapons. He still terrorizing his country. Now do u really think Administration would do that without something else. A back up plan. You are right the media does have a lot to do with it. Weapons of Mass Production was all you heard about. But that not the only reason. I think we waited to long to get involved in WW2. Listen you can wait and wait and wait. Things not gonna change unless u just do it sometimes. So we did what we should of done in Desert Storm. on 06/16/05 at 01:14:40, skepticzero wrote:
I call that terrorism on 06/16/05 at 01:14:40, skepticzero wrote:
Those are terrrorists. The average joe Iraqi doesnt do this. And lots of average joes in Iraq, who just want peace and freedom. You are talking about the minority here. The terrorists and the outlaws. on 06/16/05 at 01:14:40, skepticzero wrote:
They gonna have to learn to get along. Not gonna be easy. It never is. Do you remember when slavery was abolished here in the states. Hard times but its possible to do. on 06/16/05 at 01:14:40, skepticzero wrote:
Well always gonna be someone who hates us. They dont hate us really. They hate the united states neolifestyle. ;D They dont want to change. They gonna have to sooner or later or they will kill each other. And if they do well then problems solved. on 06/16/05 at 01:14:40, skepticzero wrote:
I like the kurds they helped out a lot in the invasion. But they gonna have to compromise some just like everyone else. on 06/16/05 at 01:14:40, skepticzero wrote:
Well I was being sarcastic... i think you know this and decided to use the popular media to justify your point. Media has nothing to do with this. They were very happy U.S. troops were there but i cant say the terrorists were or even happy about it. on 06/16/05 at 01:14:40, skepticzero wrote:
I knew about the 9 million dollars. I hope it does some good...whereever it is. Just be patient... I am sure in 5 months it will be on the FOIA web page. on 06/16/05 at 01:14:40, skepticzero wrote:
Well if you had 9 million dollars would u stick it in an Iraqi bank? I wouldnt |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by thebeast on Jun 17th, 2005, 5:42am on 06/16/05 at 01:19:37, skepticzero wrote:
Oh so cash in after all the hard work is done. Thats nice situation for them . Thanks but no thanks Allied forces dont need them and the United States certainly doesnt need them. on 06/16/05 at 01:14:40, skepticzero wrote:
Come on nothing would change. Not in anyway that you could see it. What are you saying? The United States spends to much money on something you dont agree with....now that i can accept. on 06/16/05 at 01:14:40, skepticzero wrote:
on the basis of what i just mentioned above on 06/16/05 at 01:14:40, skepticzero wrote:
Well there is always something. Listen I dont know where you live but where I live its aggrivating to drive. Why? Well because of all the damn road construction thats why. I traveled all over this country. The roads seem to be in great shape. Why dont you ask our friends in PI the condition their roads are in. What do u want roads made of gold???? And if u are sick of all these terrible roads, I got an idea....fly to wherever u are going. Its probably cheaper. on 06/16/05 at 01:14:40, skepticzero wrote:
Listen the United States hasnt traded with Iraq in a long time. I dont care what big oil companies wanted we didnt trade with them during the sanctions. And Iraq had weapons. You downplay the fact that they had them but they had them and they get them from France and Russia. Mostly from Russia. Its Black Market but they still come out of those countries. Countries knew this was happening all along. They chose to look the other way. on 06/16/05 at 01:14:40, skepticzero wrote:
Well if you are saying the sanctions werent working? well yeah thats right it wasnt working. Hard to work when everyone dont do it. So thats another reason we did what we did. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by Norkay on Jun 17th, 2005, 12:18pm Wow,this is very interesting yet very informative posts by these very smart guys but uh oh.....it looks like it's going to be a debate already and not just sharing one's opinions.It's good it's not done live,LOL, or I was already shaking,or might have grabbed Joel/Beast and kiss! Hehehehehe.LMAO. Anyway, you two have very impressive political knowledge ,not only about your country but also the world. How ignorant I am , I see. :-[ :P P.S: Skepticzero, hello and welcome to the forum. ;D Why don't you post also on the other threads, like "All About Sex"? More exciting topics there. ;). Hehehehe ,joking ;D Enjoy! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by gracia on Jun 17th, 2005, 5:55pm okay....hands off to you guys... ;D but i was having a headache reading ur posts...maybe i have to humbly admit how far my brain can comprehend....slowly and moderately... ::)any thread for brainless creatures...guess i fit there |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by teagirl on Jun 17th, 2005, 11:38pm on 06/17/05 at 05:42:55, thebeast wrote:
What has P.I. roads got to do with war on terror debate? I resent that statement. I doubt if you have been to the Philippines, Joel. And if you have, I doubt you have been to Cebu for you to make such an unfair statements like that. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by thebeast on Jun 18th, 2005, 2:26am on 06/17/05 at 23:38:24, teagirl wrote:
Well May hello...I am so glad you mentioned that because you are exactly right. The roads in PI got nothing to do with the war on terror just like the roads in America got nothing to do with the war on terror...and your buddy skepticzero is the one who brought it up. He seems to think that the road conditions are in very bad shape. So any resent should be toward him. As far as the condition of the roads in PI, I only know what I am told by filipino/filipina members in this forum and other people living in PI and I used it to make a point to skepticzero..that the road conditions are not as bad as he stated. He is reaching again because the road conditions in the states are fine...but since you brought it up...lets set the record straight... tell me how are the condition of the roads in PI as a whole compared to the condition of the roads in The United States as a whole???? Remember to calculate the number of autos using the roads in your reply. What I stated was not intended to offend anyone. Most of all you May. I sometimes wonder if its my statement that you find resentful or just me personally you resent? It matters not May because your american brother here is still your friend even if you resent me or not. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by skepticzero on Jun 18th, 2005, 7:43am on 06/16/05 at 23:28:07, thebeast wrote:
I could not find your quote in any of the post Gulf War docs of which I know, but the White House has provided a list of the 15 U.N. resolutions it claims Saddam had violated (minus #678 on Kuwait). The U.N. lists fewer as being in violation since it did not agree with all the U.S. opinions. Of the White House listings, 687, 707, 715, 949, 1051, 1060, 1115, 1134, 1137, 1154, 1194, 1205, and 1284 deal with either claimed violations regarding weapons or impeding weapons inspections. However, the weapons on which the resolutions were based were never found and were the administrations sole premise for launching the invasion of Iraq. on 06/16/05 at 23:28:07, thebeast wrote:
@1700 dead U.S. soldiers make it matter. The president took the country into its first pre-emptive war based upon a premise that was previously reported by U.N. inspectors and the rank-and-file of the intel community, and ultimately Bush's own weapons inspector to be false. on 06/16/05 at 23:28:07, thebeast wrote:
Not at all. on 06/16/05 at 23:28:07, thebeast wrote:
This is incorrect. Despite historical revisionism, the sole stated justification for invading Iraq was that it had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction that posed an imminent threat to the security of the U.S. on 06/16/05 at 23:28:07, thebeast wrote:
on 06/16/05 at 23:28:07, thebeast wrote:
Actually, it's your Freedom of Information Act as well, though it is being neutered by the Bush Administration. But the Freedom of Information Act does not actually tell anyone anything. Additionally, I would be very hesitant to speak of FOIA with such contempt. Freedom of information is necessary to democracy. Unnecessary secrecy is the bastion of statism. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by skepticzero on Jun 18th, 2005, 7:48am on 06/16/05 at 23:28:07, thebeast wrote:
It's a current as the information that it protects. FOIA is not a repository, it's a law governing information. Information is reported or published by the government every day. Naturally, as I stated above, time is linear, necessitating that, say, the CIA (like anyone else) actually perform some action before it can write a report on it. However, reports written in 2003, 2004, or 2005 about actions in 2003 are hardly void because they were not published on the same day the events they characterize might have occurred. on 06/16/05 at 23:28:07, thebeast wrote:
Too bad that FOIA is now being subverted by the Bush Administration. He dishonors the memories of those who died for freedom. on 06/16/05 at 23:28:07, thebeast wrote:
Information written recently about a war in which U.S. troops are still involved is relevant. When historical information is documented, it does not become less true because the progression of time. For example: former CIA officer Robert Baer’s analysis of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Saudis back in the 80s and 90s is as relevant now as it ever was. In fact, it’s required reading for understanding al Qaeda. While he conducted his research, he beat a drum, warning the upper tier of the CIA about a looming threat from fundamentalists. The leadership didn’t listen. British military officers wrote about the occupation of Iraq in the early 1900s. The British also wrote extensively about their experience with insurgencies, which they eventually learned to manage. Our military leaders—such as General Abizaid--have read such books, but apparently our current civilian leadership didn’t bother. on 06/16/05 at 23:28:07, thebeast wrote:
Again, how does historical information become outdated? If the CIA records events in Afghanistan and Iraq, which is standard practice, those events do not become untrue as the years pass. on 06/16/05 at 23:28:07, thebeast wrote:
Assuming you mean U.S. foreign policy, that policy, by definition, is supposed to be in the interest of the U.S., not necessarily the rest of the world. And the neocon policy wonks made that clearer than ever during the 1990s with their advocacy of using U.S. military power to ensure U.S. economic dominance. It was a rather definitive statement of policy. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by skepticzero on Jun 18th, 2005, 7:50am on 06/16/05 at 23:28:07, thebeast wrote:
In the case of Afghanistan, the alternative would have been more U.S. soldiers killed in direct combat against the perpetrators of 9/11 but the probable routing of al Qaeda and Taliban forces. As it stands now, the proxy-fighter drug lords let the enemy run away to such a great extent that not only were Taliban fighters back in western Afghanistan operating against U.S. occupation forces by the end of 2002, but so were their al Qaeda guests. In Iraq, the war was strictly a war a choice. If we had not invaded, then Iraq would be what it was, a brutal dictatorship that was contained and at least stable. on 06/16/05 at 23:28:07, thebeast wrote:
Actually, in 2000 George W. Bush ran specifically on a campaign of isolationism. People like to forget that. He called for less engagement with the rest of the world and cited the nation-building of the Clinton years as an example. Now we spend more money nation-building than ever before. on 06/16/05 at 23:28:07, thebeast wrote:
No. I never called for less nation-building, although I think we should strengthen the criteria under which we dispense foreign aid. on 06/16/05 at 23:28:07, thebeast wrote:
Some places would be worse, and some would be better off without U.S. involvement. on 06/16/05 at 23:28:07, thebeast wrote:
Unfortunately, we have not brought stability to the Middle East. The U.S. invasion changed Iraq from a deplorable but somewhat stable dictatorship to an anarchical failed state and terrorist hotbed. on 06/16/05 at 23:28:07, thebeast wrote:
Many Americans don’t appear to know what they want. Prior to the Iraq invasion, plenty of intelligence community personnel, retired military officers, and think tank policy wonks made it loud and clear that an occupied Iraq would be a disastrous failed state. There was enough informal debate for one to hear a daily barrage of it, even on mainstream TV news, right up until the invasion. The administration didn’t listen to any of these warnings from people likely to know the subject matter. In 2000, Bush supporters voted for a candidate who was against nation-building. They got the opposite, and then elected him to a second term in 2004. This does not show decisiveness on the part of the people. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by skepticzero on Jun 18th, 2005, 7:54am on 06/17/05 at 03:20:15, thebeast wrote:
That's the classic argument for attacking Saddam. The problem is twofold. First, Saddam's weapon's production capability was destroyed. His military was completely in decline. Second, many other nations, unlike Iraq, were capable of building things such as nuclear weapons and had up-and-coming weapons programs. North Korea is a great example, but that country is not oil-rich. on 06/17/05 at 03:20:15, thebeast wrote:
Stretching is making a conclusion not necessarily supported by facts. Everyone posts his or her opinion. However, I'm guessing that what these "opinions" are simply unfamiliar ideas. on 06/17/05 at 03:20:15, thebeast wrote:
Someone who wants to see actual news instead of tabloid news. The American television media devote huge portions of their airtime to foolishness. ABC, CBS, Fox News, CNN, etc. tell you next to nothing in a 30-minute news segment. If you flip over to the BBC, you'll see more actual news. Every morning on the BBC, I see about five stories that will be relevant in the history of the future, while U.S. media outlets are busy obessing over celebrity antics or hyping television shows owned by their parent networks. on 06/17/05 at 03:20:15, thebeast wrote:
Absolutely nothing. That's the point. on 06/17/05 at 03:20:15, thebeast wrote:
I would have never guessed that being critical of the American media made one a dictator or communist. on 06/17/05 at 03:20:15, thebeast wrote:
If I had not been changing the channel I would have had no basis of comparison for determining how bad the American media was. on 06/17/05 at 03:20:15, thebeast wrote:
A viewer. We all make that decision. That's how we decide what to watch. on 06/17/05 at 03:20:15, thebeast wrote:
Focusing on the good doesn't make the good happen in the real world. Verifiable positive change does. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by skepticzero on Jun 18th, 2005, 7:57am on 06/17/05 at 03:20:15, thebeast wrote:
It was for the Nazis. That's what they used to say to dissenters in the very early days of Nazi rule. This sentiment cropped up in America in the 60s from those who hated dissent and critical, independent thought--people who believe that one should never question the government. on 06/17/05 at 03:20:15, thebeast wrote:
The neocons did. The term is not derogatory. They used it to describe themselves. on 06/17/05 at 03:20:15, thebeast wrote:
Neocons have been in control of U.S. foreign policy for 4.5 years, so I would hope that anyone who actually voted in either of the last two elections would not have to look up neocon in 2005. However, simply deconstructing the term "neoconservative" does not define neocon philosophy. Neocons stand for a particular set of beliefs, some of which I have already stated at least once within this topic. To say that they are simply new conservatives is meaningless. In short (very short) the neocons believe in preserving American economic hegemony anywhere in the world through American military dominance. This is a radical belief and is very different from that of the typical traditional economic conservative. To put it very simply, if you believe that the U.S. should outcompete China economically in order for us to maintain our economic dominance, then you have a traditional conservative economic view. But if you believe that the U.S. should, say, subvert the Chinese economy through overt or covert military action in order to keep their economy from superceding ours, then you have affinity with the neocons. The difference is obvious. on 06/17/05 at 03:20:15, thebeast wrote:
That has been changing with regard to the separation of powers. The power is shifting to the Executive. on 06/17/05 at 03:20:15, thebeast wrote:
Why exactly? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by skepticzero on Jun 18th, 2005, 8:04am on 06/17/05 at 05:17:22, thebeast wrote:
Wrong. Saddam had been put out of the terrorism business, albeit quietly, by the U.S. long before George W. Bush even ran for president. on 06/17/05 at 03:20:15, thebeast wrote:
I seriously doubt that over half of the adult population of the Earth believes that Saddam was a terrorist. Saddam once supported outside terrorist groups in instances in which he had something to gain. He used them very sparingly. U.S. forces ended that practice in the early 90s. on 06/17/05 at 05:17:22, thebeast wrote:
The Afghan War is a war against terrorism. Lumping the Iraq War into what the administration is calling the War On Terro is an insult. And the people who pushed for the invasion of Iraq had written public documents and given speeches calling for invading Iraq years prior to 9/11. on 06/17/05 at 05:17:22, thebeast wrote:
Congress was definitely on the bandwagon. They're a gaggle of followers, not leaders. on 06/17/05 at 05:17:22, thebeast wrote:
More of a nuisance than Kim Jong Il? I'd like to see fact supporting that. What made him more of a nuisance to the U.S. than other dictators or monarchs? Was he more of a threat to the security of the U.S. than the House of Saud, one of the most despicable regimes to ever rule a country in modern history, members of which directly or indirectly supported the Muslim Brotherhood, al Qaeda, and/or other Wahhabists/Salafists--some of them even to this day? If you can still remember 9/11, you might recall that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis pumped up on Saudi Salafism. on 06/17/05 at 05:17:22, thebeast wrote:
The media does not control what the president says. The president gave his justification repeatedly in public addresses. The given justification was only that Saddam, by possessing (non-existent) stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in violation of several U.N. resolutions posed an imminent threat to the security of the U.S. It's worth noting here that not only did many sober minds predict that the Administration would change its story about the justification after not finding the weapons (because these same people seriously doubted the weapons nonsense), but they also predicted that Bush supporters would go along with that historical revisionism without question. The only real problem is that all this info--speeches from Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and even Rice--are a matter of public record. But the administration must have been (correctly) banking on the fact that its supporters would just go along with it and not bother to look anything up. on 06/17/05 at 05:17:22, thebeast wrote:
Actually, the insurgency in general draws widespread support from within the Sunni Arab population in the triangle. The Sunni are bitter at having lost the top-dog status they had under Saddam. Ask someone who worked in Fallujah a year or two how much support angry unemployed Baathists and foreign terrorists get from the Sunni population. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by skepticzero on Jun 18th, 2005, 8:11am on 06/17/05 at 05:17:22, thebeast wrote:
On whose authority? They have thousands of years of conditioning telling them not to get along. A farcical government of Gucci guerrillas isn't going to stop that. on 06/17/05 at 05:17:22, thebeast wrote:
Not really. They won't all be able to kill each other, so Iraq will end up being more like late-1990s Afghanistan. Then maybe al Qaeda can vacation there. on 06/17/05 at 05:17:22, thebeast wrote:
They'll probably ultimately be killed by our NATO allies, the Turks, who have been killing them for years. Even speaking Kurdish at a political general assembly was illegal in Turkey under Article 117 of Law 2820 of the Turkish Code. on 06/17/05 at 05:17:22, thebeast wrote:
Incorrect. I had no way of knowing you were being sarcastic based on the rest of what had been posted. on 06/17/05 at 05:17:22, thebeast wrote:
The media is the vector by which the government gets news out to the public. They have to be involved. on 06/17/05 at 05:17:22, thebeast wrote:
What about the other $8,991,000,000? on 06/17/05 at 05:17:22, thebeast wrote:
Probably a London bank. on 06/17/05 at 05:17:22, thebeast wrote:
I hope Americans aren't suckers enough to be patient about $9 billion in stolen U.S. taxpayer money. on 06/17/05 at 05:17:22, thebeast wrote:
There isn't actually a FOIA webpage, per se. Individual agencies have web pages with instructions on making FOIA requests: http://www.foia.cia.gov/ , http://www.usdoj.gov/04foia/ , http://foia.state.gov/ , http://foia.fbi.gov/ , http://www.usgs.gov/foia/ , http://foia.navy.mil/ , http://www.census.gov/po/www/foia/foiaweb.htm , http://www.hhs.gov/foia/ . The list goes on. on 06/17/05 at 05:17:22, thebeast wrote:
I'm sure it was whisked away to another country and will never be seen again. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by skepticzero on Jun 18th, 2005, 8:21am on 06/17/05 at 05:42:55, thebeast wrote:
So European countries that didn't support Bush should be penalized strictly on the basis of not going along with the WMD charade? on 06/17/05 at 05:42:55, thebeast wrote:
Europe is very wealthy. European countries wasting their billions on Iraq certainly would help the situation. on 06/17/05 at 05:42:55, thebeast wrote:
Iraq is a country worth neither one American life nor one U.S. dollar. I'd like to see a respected economist's opinion stating that the Iraq War was fiscally responsible. on 06/17/05 at 05:42:55, thebeast wrote:
You had said: “Your understanding of the tax system is worse than mine.” What does wasting tax money on Iraq have to do with understanding tax code? on 06/17/05 at 05:42:55, thebeast wrote:
So if I follow that logic, our roads can continue to deteriorate, but as long as they are better than the roads in another country, then they are not actually deteriorating. Like I said, ask a governor's office for a candid opinion on the state of roads nationwide. Governors have been griping about the decline in the quality of our roads for years. on 06/17/05 at 05:42:55, thebeast wrote:
Roads that are passable. on 06/17/05 at 05:42:55, thebeast wrote:
Not the U.S. government. on 06/17/05 at 05:42:55, thebeast wrote:
Untrue. Dresser Industries, a Haliburton subsidiary sold Iraq equipment through a French company in a joint venture with Ingersoll-Rand. So people who want to blame the French ought to think first. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by skepticzero on Jun 18th, 2005, 8:24am on 06/17/05 at 05:42:55, thebeast wrote:
With regard to the French, demonization of that country mostly comes from a Hannity & Colmes episode in which the host, bolstered by convicted criminal Oliver North, cited an erroneous report from Polish weapons inspectors claiming that Roland missiles with manufacture dates of 2003 were found in Iraq. This was false, and the Poles later revised their report. The Roland missiles were dated 1986, the year France stopped manufacturing the missiles and seven years before they stopped making them. Given the linear time confusion I've encountered in an earlier post here, I'll volunteer that missiles whose last production run was in 1993 could not have been manufactured in 2003. Following the invasion, U.S. weapons inspectors did not find evidence of French weapons sold during the embargo. However, anti-French pundits used the initial incorrect report repeatedly and made it part of the American people's get-the-French lore. On the other hand, there is an unconfirmed report, supposedly citing U.S. intelligence officials, that two French companies had sold Iraq helicopter and fighter jet parts in January of 2003. The Russian violations should be no surprise, though, again, most of the U.S. complaints stem from the actions of one company--Rosoboronexport--which thrived under Russia's oligarchy before the country began to calcify into a dictatorship. Prior thereto, U.S. companies sold Iraq clostridium botulinum, bacillus anthracis, histoplasma capsulatam, clostridium perfringens, clostridium tetani, genetic materials, bacterial DNA, dozens of other pathogenic biological agents that I can't recall, and escherichia coli--all under a Commerce Department license. American Type Culture Collection was one of the fine companies that provided these items to Iraq. Then there are the U.S. companies that sold nuclear, chemical, and/or rocket technology to Iraq: Bechtel, Electronic Associates, Honeywell, Tektronix (where some acquaintances work), Eastman Kodak, Dupont, Axel Electronics, International Computer Systems, Hewlett Packard, Rockwell, and a bunch of others. So did the French and Russians. on 06/17/05 at 05:42:55, thebeast wrote:
Incorrect. The stated justification for invading a Iraq was not a nebulous host of murky excuses. It wasn't that sanctions weren't working. It wasn't that Saddam was not a nice guy. It wasn't to liberate the Iraqi people. It was that Iraq's (non-existent) stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction posed and imminent threat to the security of the U.S. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by skepticzero on Jun 19th, 2005, 2:23am on 06/17/05 at 12:18:46, Norkay wrote:
Thank you for the warm welcome, Norkay. I haven't gotten around to posting in "All About Sex". Is that your area of expertise? ;) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by skepticzero on Jun 19th, 2005, 2:27am on 06/17/05 at 17:55:42, gracia wrote:
So was I. ;) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by Norkay on Jun 19th, 2005, 4:14pm on 06/19/05 at 02:23:17, skepticzero wrote:
You are welcome Skepticzero.Sex is not my expertise but I am learning :P. Actually it's you who I wanna know your knowledge about sex so why don't you join us there too? ;) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by Norkay on Jun 19th, 2005, 5:44pm The war on terror can be won and that means it can make us more secure,although at the moment ,we can't still tell how secure we are since these terrorists became more violent because of being taken actions against them.I wonder how can we say we were more secure before, after we have learned/found out how these terrorists were operating everywhere in the world. Five years on, much has changed.In the Middle East,the toppling of the most teacherous, inhuman, evil etc. leader,Saddam and the occupation of Iraq have shattered the old order though it is still too soon to say into what configuration things will eventually settle.In Afghanistan and Pakistan,secular rulers have kept the Islamists at bay,while the "jihad" which I think much-feared,that would engulf all of central Asia never materialised.No one would sensibly call any of these countries wholly stable.But it now seems right to declare that arc's South East Asian prong has been made safe. In Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim country,it is less than three years since the terrible bombing of a night club in Bali (only the worst violence the terrorists has made there) showed that Al-Qaeda associates were operating there freely.It was also known that other associates were active in other countries including the Philippines, Malaysia,Singapore and Thailand. Things look very different now.In Indonesia,the recent bombing in the island of Sulawesi,if I'm not mistaken, shows that violence is far from eradicated in Indonesia but the attack which killed 19, provoked worldwide attention precisely because it bucked an encouraging trend.I believe everyone notices that military and police work specially in Asia has greatly improved for declining terrorism.Also,the security services of Soth-East Asia have learned to cooperate with each other and with their counterparts in Australia and in America.I think one main reason for Souht East Asia to gain success in tackling violent Islam is the region's adoption of democracy and openness.Although, fundamentalism is always alive anywhere.Terrorism may always launch occasional strike.They will always enjoy little sympathy from people who have the same hearts as theirs. In Thailand, the heay-handed and incompetent treatment of Islamists has provided an example of how not to do things, so no surprise then, that violence has gotten worse in that country.But at least this,like a continuing insurgency in southern Philippines,is relatively small and localised problem.Turning back the tide is possible. P.S I just shared. I enjoy reading each other's opinion but I don't think I would like to see my post to be quoted line by line.Also, the topic is about the war on terror and not ONLY about Iraq invasion.*straight face icon* |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by kim on Jun 20th, 2005, 9:33pm on 06/19/05 at 02:23:17, skepticzero wrote:
although kris is learning fast on all about sex i'm afraid thats not her cup of tea. But she is a very attentive student... RIght kris? ;D... And if you will notice that i am the moderator of the thread the "government n politics" and also in the "all about sex".... aint that a weird thing to do??? ;D although it is not commonly known, politics and sex are very much alike. There is always screaming saying nasty words and lies too. ;D |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by kim on Jun 20th, 2005, 9:44pm Ok i am getting a veeerrrrryyyy serious head ache jsut trying to keep up with everything that is written here. You know guys these thread used to be dead n now these two guys have been posting tons of comments everyday... The fact of the matter is that no matter what each of you say no one will give in to the other. But since i think you are having a good time debating then go ahead ;D :P.... Lemme know when one of you gets tired n would want to stop. Then i'll read your post ;D ;D.... I dont know you yet zero but i admire your comments... As for joel... uummm.... eeerr.... well he already knows ;D |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by Jimbo on Nov 1st, 2005, 7:48am :-/ I wrote this the day after 9/11 after seeing the terrible disaster the day before.. Somehow, what I wrote didn't come true, greed and disrespect actually have grown at an alarming rate :( So many have forgotten the attack on 9/11, and became complacent:( "I hope and pray that the missing patriotism returns to stay. Its a fact it was lost to the "ME" generation, and we had no leadership in this country that could or would try to gain respect for us and our country. Of course we are responsible for our own behavior, and have to take responsibility for it. That VERY important part of life has passed by those that blame others for their short commings. ANYONE but themselves!!!! I have confidence in our president, and truely beliieve he is a just and compasionate man. He cares, unlike our president prior to him. I am sorry, but that is my opinion, and not a popular one. BUT!!! Its not just the president that can lead, but all of America, including the congress and senate! Its time to stop the give me's, and turn to the givers... Its time we respected ourselves and others. If we have no respect for ourselves, we cannot show respect for others. I know I am just going on and on, but I am hurting very deeply for all the country and the brave people that have so generously gave of themselves to help. I pray that America becomes America again! I think we have a few things in common, such as helping those that are willing to help themselves. Letting people experience the pain, and then helping them to use it for good, not as an excuse... If this seems confusing, it probably is. I am emotionally upset as to how this country could be so involved in greed and self gratification to ignore our saftey, and the security of our country." This was just how I was feeling the day after, but I don't think my prayer has been answered:( |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by kim on Nov 23rd, 2005, 4:50am If its any consolation jimbo these sot of things dont happen in your country alone ;D |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by skepticzero on Dec 5th, 2005, 10:27pm on 11/01/05 at 07:48:42, Jimbo wrote:
Americans are notoriously complacent and don't remember much for very long. It's seen in our doctrine of perpetuating a complete lack of accountability in government. Nixon resigned in disgrace but died with the press portraying him as an American hero. Now seen as a great elder statesman, Carter had a disastrous presidency and shifted the U.S. foreign policy focus to be even more Saudi-centric than that established by FDR. Reagan--laughed at as a clueless baffoon while he was in office, whose administration ran record deficits, ran an illegal operation to provide arms to the Contras, and accelerated the turn toward militarism that now grips the American psyche--died with the nauseating fanfare one might think would be reserved for a truly messianic figure. George H.W. Bush, who skated on Iran-Contra without having to answer for it even though it's extremely unlikely that he wasn't involved and who launched a war to restore a reprehensible and disgusting monarchy to power, is another mistakenly-revered figure. Moving ahead past the ambivalently-perceived Clinton, Americans didn't remember that 9/11 was perpetrated by Salafist/Wahabbist fundamentalists in Afghanistan when they sheepishly supported the idea of invading Iraq, a country that intelligence analysts were telling the administration had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks and a country whose leader was a sworn enemy of al Qaeda and, as early as 1990, a desired targed of theirs. Americans haven't thought to ask why six months after the ouster of the Taliban from Kabul and their supposed defeat they were able to resume operations against Afghan cities and villages and sustain those attacks to this day while the bulk of deployed U.S. military power is operating in another country. The very fact that UBL and Dr. Al-Zawahiri are possibly still alive and have for four years had sanctuary in Waziristan, a territory controlled by a supposed ally, doesn't seem to stick in the memory of Americans either. Americans don't ask questions. They don't question why the brass seem to be so fervently at odds with the Secretary of Defense on matters of policy, nor do they seem to even notice it. Americans don't ask why over four years after 9/11 and over two years after the invasion of Iraq the military is almost bereft of Arabic speakers, something the officer corps finds crippling. They don't ask themselves why they embrace militarism in a country whose forefathers founded it on the belief that the primary enemy of freedom was government and that a standing army was always going to be a dire threat to freedom and was therefore to be used only in extreme emergencies. Americans don't question the wisdom of trying to implement Jeffersonian democracy via Wilsonian means in a tribal region in which people have been driving nails through each others' heads since at least the beginning of written human history. Even the fact that the pretext for the Iraq War was changed after the war had begun doesn't give Americans pause. Nor does the fact that the Iraqi insurgency, predicted by experts and history, took the administration by surprise. The lack of a war tax as well as the lack of a sobering daily reminder of the human cost--caskets arriving at Dover--has escaped most Americans as well. Americans have missed and continue to miss quite a bit and forget the rest. on 11/01/05 at 07:48:42, Jimbo wrote:
Now even the term patriotism has been corrupted. The early American variety placed personal freedom at its center, at least ideally, and promoted the constant questioning of government, especially in times of war. That of the current administration equates patriotism to unquestioning obedience and loyalty. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by skepticzero on Dec 6th, 2005, 4:15pm on 12/06/05 at 09:39:59, Jimbo wrote:
There was a debate? on 12/06/05 at 09:39:59, Jimbo wrote:
Taken together those two sentences might be seen as disturbing and could serve to illustrate a fundamental problem in America today. Since "policys" [sic] are a function of government and not the people, I must wonder whether you are equating "country" with government in your previous sentence. For an American, standing up for one's country is standing up for its people. But Americans are obligated to stand up to their government when it is wrong rather than for it. This is a fundamental principle of being an American established with the very formation of the country. Our forefathers feared government tyranny above all else. Sadly many Americans today (at a minimum over 50% of voters) have succumbed to a militarist/statist mentality that equates unwavering support of government with patriotism. on 12/06/05 at 09:39:59, Jimbo wrote:
History of what? As someone who has read the Bible through several times, I can see that it easily qualifies it as a great volume of fiction and its KJV translation as a pillar of the English language, but it's not a definitive history book. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by nOrKAy on Dec 6th, 2005, 5:14pm I'm sorry to insert an "out of the topic" post here :P . But since it seems that only in this section that you, Skepticzero, visits ( just assuming,since I only see you post here ), that's why I thought to come here and take a little interruption. Just incase you didn't see our "welcome back" greeting for you in the "Greeting" section, I want to welcome you back, in behalf of the forum, in joining with us here, again. And by the way, I miss your haikus under "Fine Arts". ;D on 12/06/05 at 16:15:15, skepticzero wrote:
Politics and religion can never go along together, that's why they have to be separated. Thus, let us not take it here. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by MissFartyPants on Dec 9th, 2005, 2:33pm on 06/17/05 at 12:18:46, Norkay wrote:
Yeah, Johnny (or is it Melvin?) - why not, eh? Come on, we know you can't resist posting on the other threads as well. When are you going to grace us with your presence? ;) (Man, I am soooooo bored!!!) Now where's that vibrator? ;D Oooops wrong thread. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by MissFartyPants on Dec 9th, 2005, 2:41pm Wow! I am easily impressed by these posters eloquence and whatnot (yawning as I type) ............ (fit of laziness.......) I digress. Did I mention I'm bored? Are you following this? Yes, I'm talking to myself..... "You know that one time at Van Camp .... " |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by nelson3082000 on Dec 9th, 2005, 3:02pm well each country got there policies whether right or wrong we have to follow them and stand up for them i guess |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by nOrKAy on Dec 13th, 2005, 9:43am Cathy, Indeed, they are so impressive! Especialy the previous "debates", yeah? I was so impressed,too and actually ,I still like reading those previous pages. ;D |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by thebeast on Dec 15th, 2005, 8:19pm When ever a country like the United States goes to war there are pros and cons. Lots of pros and cons. If 911 would not of happen I am willing to bet The United States wouldnt have a presence there. You can even say that 911 was an opportunity. I disagree with most americans dont care or dont ask questions. I do agree that most americans have lives and they live them and are only concerned what effects them here. Whats wrong with that. Isnt that the way any civilized human being would be. The same goes for citizens of Iraq. Do you think they want to be bothered with the reasons why and why not? No they want to live their lives and raise their families and live a life with as little hastle as possible. Does that mean they dont question or care, or dont know whats going on? I dont think so. But one thing is certain. You cant have the freedom to do what you want, say what you want and protest, and raise your family the way you see fit with a dictatorship and a butcher for a leader. The only way you can get these things is with a democracy of some type. One in which you elect your leaders. At this very moment in Iraq, they are having elections. Their economy is better, more schools are open, more business are open than when Sadam was in charge. And now my second nephew is over there fighting for thier freedom. He is in a lot more danger than what my other nephew was. He is a marine in a infantry recon outfit. I hate the fact that he is there. But at the same time I am very proud of what he is doing. Are there greedy reasons for the Uniteds States being in Iraq? Yes..but every war from the begining of time has had those same reasons. It dont make it right or wrong. Its about what is best. A democracy in the middle east will be the best for them. The United States will have to always have some kind of presence there now. Countries that are full of terrorists like Iran and Syria have to much to lose. These countries want to keep thier countries poor and obsolete. They want women to be second class citizens with no rights at all. They want the children poor and hungry and uneducated so they can recruit them into their terrorist ideals. And the simple fact is what terrorists do isnt best for anyone or any nation. If you dont see that you are in my opinion narrow minded. I know a little about politics but not a whole lot. I am what you would call a patriot. All of my points of views are ridden with patriotism. I love my country and I have fought for it the same as both my nephews are doing now. I know and understand if I lived in the middle east, I would not have what I have today. I wouldnt have the freedom to get what I wanted. I wouldnt even have the right to speak my mind. You have to look at the big picture and not focus on one thing like oil or the United States trying to force its ideals on a nation that is in shambles or 911 or terrorism or trying to spread democracy or getting rid of Sadam or Chemcial, biological, nuclear weapons or making a better life for people or whatever else you can think of. The fact is its a combination of all of that. You have to look at everything and think about what is best for the world as a whole and be positive about it. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by thebeast on Dec 16th, 2005, 12:20am This whole nonsense of war of choice is bull. Pearl Harbor was the final blow that lead to the U.S. getting into WW2 and 911 was one of the reasons the U.S. is in the Middle East now. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by skepticzero on Dec 22nd, 2005, 10:07pm on 12/15/05 at 20:19:54, thebeast wrote:
That depends on what "there" means. That the 9/11 attacks should have led to the invasion of Afghanistan is a given. That they should have ultimately led to the invasion of Iraq, which does not even border Afghanistan, is a stretch at best--especially given the apparent predication of the administration's al Qaeda-Iraq connection on the testimony of Ibn al-Shaykh al Libi, who has since admitted that lied about al Qaeda-Iraq connections to the Egyptians to whom he had been rendered to either avoid torture or reduce the severity thereof. Note that John McCain gave the names of Green Bay Packers when he was tortured by the NVA in their quest for him to name names, and a 1940s study by the Marine Corps showed torture or the threat of torture to be a sure way to get bad information. So has British history. The administration disregarded all this readily-available info in its zeal to build a case for war against Iraq, with any fabricated connection apparently being good enough. None of this can be divorced from the fact that the people who became the Bush administration's foreign policy architects had been openly calling for the toppling of Saddam (and publishing papers stating that opinion) since about 1990 and were taking a verbally aggressive stance against Iraq almost immediately after Bush took office in 2001. The immediate predecessors of these policy wonks had been advocating an assault on a Middle Eastern country since the early 1970s. on 12/15/05 at 20:19:54, thebeast wrote:
An opportunity for what? For an administration whose foreign policy was crafted by wonks whose career dreams had been to invade Iraq (and previously Iran), 9/11 was--at least at first--a kink in their plan. The prospect of having to commit heavy armor and the bulk of the U.S. fighting force to a conflict in Afghanistan did not bode well for an assault on Iraq. The fabricated link between al Qaeda and the Baathist regime in Iraq was exactly what was needed as an excuse to broaden the War On Terror to include Iraq. The president had alluded to the fact that a link would be established in his "axis of evil" speech. Saddam was a ripe target for U.S. opportunists, given his invasion of Kuwait, previous, chem-bio weapons programs, and the slew of U.N. resolutions regarding Iraq. In the interim DoD minimized the impact of the Afghan campaign by using a relatively small number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, misusing Special Operations Forces personnel in that country, and selling the whole idea as a "new kind of war" for mass/TV consumption--causing much eye-rolling among the brass. For the administration 9/11 has definitely been an opportunity to employ Orwellian measures--to broaden long-term police powers to an unprecedented scale, use the concept of perpetual war to control the U.S. population, to institute what is approaching a $300,000,000,000 transfer of funds from U.S. taxpayers to well-connected corporations and Iraqi politicos, and to increase the power of the executive to thwart the system of checks and balances to the extent possible--all under the guise of protecting America. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by skepticzero on Dec 22nd, 2005, 10:12pm on 12/15/05 at 20:19:54, thebeast wrote:
Plenty, and you've just demonstrated my point. The U.S. is supposed to be a participatory democracy. It's up to the citizenry to be vigilant and stay on top of government so they'll have sound knowledge upon which to vote some politicians out and keep others. Currently, Americans rely on sound bites to be the basis of their judgment, and politicos play to that weakness. The last U.S. election was a montage of sound bites. The advocacy of non-participatory government might demonstrate one's affinity with political systems such as those in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Kuwait, Syria, Jordan, Yemen, and the U.A.E. In those countries, one does not have to be bothered with participating in the political process or even keeping abreast of it. Instead a person can merely sit back and let whatever is going to occur happen and hope it doesn't happen to him or her. on 12/15/05 at 20:19:54, thebeast wrote:
I'd be loath to equate civility with political detachment. on 12/15/05 at 20:19:54, thebeast wrote:
Again, these are people who lived under a dictator following years of garbage government and colonial rule. They never had to participate. Now that the U.S. has transformed their country from a brutal dictatorship into an anarchical failed state, regular Iraqis are just trying to survive and make sure they're not in the wrong places when the civil war starts. on 12/15/05 at 20:19:54, thebeast wrote:
It's worth noting here that the Iraqi people never asked to have Wilsonian democratists impose Jeffersonian democracy on them. The people in the region have been impaling each other on staffs for about 25 times longer than the U.S. has existed. They're tribalists. On the other hand, to the north the Kurds were doing quite well while they had autonomy. on 12/15/05 at 20:19:54, thebeast wrote:
Women have fewer rights than they did under Saddam. The Kurds had to be placated for the loss of some of their freedom with Mosul. Civil conflict is imminent. Sunnis are not going to go quietly into minority status, and the Shiite majority is ultimately going to try to impose strict Islamic law. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by skepticzero on Dec 22nd, 2005, 10:33pm on 12/15/05 at 20:19:54, thebeast wrote:
Fighting for anyone's freedom is not the stated reason for the invasion of Iraq. The stated reason was that, given Iraq's (fabricated) ties to al Qaeda, its (nonexistent) stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction made it an imminent threat to the security of the U.S. on 12/15/05 at 20:19:54, thebeast wrote:
I'll go out on a limb and say that "greedy reasons" such as instantiating a war for the benefit of some U.S. corporations and wasting U.S. military power on a pursuit that was not directly related to defeating the Salafist jihadist threat definitely were wrong and that sacrificing 2160 U.S. soldiers in a country not worth a single American life definitely is not best. The U.S. government is supposed to be answerable for its actions. We're not supposed to excuse its corruption as the citizens in non-democratic countries have to do. on 12/15/05 at 20:19:54, thebeast wrote:
Firstly, why? Who says that tribal people whose tribal leaders are offended by democracy will be best served by democracy? Secondly, any pretense at democracy--the TV-democracy we see in Iraq--will be short lived. Ultimately the U.S. will welcome a dictator in Iraq, just as it did with Saddam. Of course, the U.S. will claim that the dictatorship is a democracy. on 12/15/05 at 20:19:54, thebeast wrote:
At an enormous cost to us in blood and money. What makes Iraq worth it? on 12/15/05 at 20:19:54, thebeast wrote:
While women are treated like property in Iran, Syria is a very different country. It has a Baathist government with a minority ruler. It's more like Saddam's Iraq. Moreover, Iraqi women have now been made into second class citizens as a result of our democratization of Iraq. on 12/15/05 at 20:19:54, thebeast wrote:
If by "they" you are referring to the rulers of those two countries, then not exactly. The rulers hope to enrich themselves on the backs of the poor first and foremost. Madrasas and fundamentalist clerics were intended to focus the energy of the poor on external targets such as Israel and the U.S.. This is a dangerous policy pioneered by Saudi Arabia, where we have already seen it begin to backfire. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by skepticzero on Dec 22nd, 2005, 11:12pm on 12/15/05 at 20:19:54, thebeast wrote:
I have not nor would I argue that terrorist actions are good for nations. on 12/15/05 at 20:19:54, thebeast wrote:
Yet what one person or his president's administration sees as the big picture isn't necessarily actually what's best for the world. An American has the right not to be positive about a negative and need not just assume that U.S. policies or actions are correct simply because they are U.S. policies or actions. The big picture might be what we will see when Iraq implodes and/or becomes a dictatorship; our grandchildren are paying for this Iraq endeavor; our country is reviled more than ever before, which will translate to even more money lost; and even more U.S. soldiers will have been killed. Additionally, the look-at-the-big-picture-and-be-positive argument could be seen as just another foray into the propaganda trap--to gloss over the extremely serious and grievously egregious shortcomings that have characterized the Iraq War. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by thebeast on Dec 23rd, 2005, 12:53am on 12/22/05 at 22:07:29, skepticzero wrote:
Listen answer the question. Dont bombard me with your information that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. If 911 not happen would we be in the Middle East now? Yes or No...I say No what do you say? And to make things a lot more easier when I say Middle east I mean both Iraq and Afgan. Just to save you some time to research your FOIA web page or the other information web sites that give you a hard on. on 12/22/05 at 22:07:29, skepticzero wrote:
I look at it differently. I say they are protecting America. With our soldiers in the Middle East keeps the terrorist occupied over there and not here in the states. Our soldiers are even protecting the common joe Iraqi. Are you saying they are dying for nothing. If you are you are wrong. As long as we have a presence in the Middle East..America will always be safer. That is the reason 911 happen in the first place because we were to reluctant to get involved there with our armed forces. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by thebeast on Dec 23rd, 2005, 1:30am on 12/22/05 at 22:12:07, skepticzero wrote:
I didnt demonstrate anything you assumed that you know me just as you assume you know the american people. Americans do vote and Americans vote politicians out of office as well. Now they might not vote the politicians that you dont agree with out and they dont vote the politicians that I dont agree out as well. The last U.S. election was a montage of sound bites??? What the hell do you mean by this? Do you mean that newcasters on CNN told the american public to vote for Bush? And then the american public heard this and went out and voted for Bush? Listen the last election was one of the closest in history if not the closest. Just because the American people didnt vote for someone you dont agree with politically dont make them careless or not concerned. Americans know exactly what is going on. They have all the information they need in order to vote the way they want to. And they did vote the way they wanted to..but just because they voted for what you would call a neoconservative party does not mean they dont know what is going on. In fact they are voting for whats best for america. And there is nothing wrong with that. on 12/22/05 at 22:12:07, skepticzero wrote:
Okay not every single american votes.. I will agree on that..but thats his or her right..but even so that still dont make them uncaring or not concerned with what is going on. Maybe you think every American should be like you and after they work a long hard day come home and get online and go to the FOIA web pages and the CIA web pages and get a hard on. LOL no dude not all americans are like you. They have families and children to raise and the ones that vote go and vote and they vote the way they want to vote. And I dont think comparing Americans or The United States of America with Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Kuwait, Syria, Jordan, Yemen, and the U.A.E. makes much sense either. You are not very familiar with these countries and the people of these countries, just as u are not familiar with the people of your country and your country as well. Things are different there than here. The fact that a lot of americans do vote is one of them. on 12/22/05 at 22:12:07, skepticzero wrote:
Well maybe if you had a wife and kids and a mortgage and a car payment and a job where you had some responsibility, and no free time..you might feel differently. on 12/22/05 at 22:12:07, skepticzero wrote:
Boy you really take the negative approach dont you? There will not be a civil war in Iraq. Just the same as whats going on now. Minor skirmishes with terrorists and radical muslims and outlaws. As far as the common Iraqi goes..they gonna have to learn how to participate. Gosh you want results to fast..building a new and better government and a new and better country takes a long time. They will survive just as America, Germany, Russia and Japan survived during thier conflicts and struggle for freedom. Its gonna take time though. Its already taking place. on 12/22/05 at 22:12:07, skepticzero wrote:
Well they gonna have to learn how to get along. Its time for them to catch up with the rest of the world and stop living like Gingis Khan. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by thebeast on Dec 23rd, 2005, 5:30pm on 12/22/05 at 22:12:07, skepticzero wrote:
Well I doubt women have any more or less rights there. Again thats gonna take some time. When you think about it did women have any rights in the United States when George Washington was president? Thats the way you have to look at the situation over there...you look at it just like The United States when the revolutionary war was going on. As far as the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiite are concerned they gonna have to adapt and learn to live with each other, I dont care what thier history is. They gonna have to learn how to do it or more than likely get a bullet in the head, thats pretty simple. There is not gonna be a civil war over there...not like the civil war we had here in the states. Not enough people and our troops are still there and I am willing to bet they are gonna be there for a long time. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by thebeast on Dec 23rd, 2005, 5:43pm on 12/22/05 at 22:33:19, skepticzero wrote:
I dont think you have heard thats not the reason anymore. Things change you know and you have to adapt. Maybe those were the reasons at first but they arent anymore. Has any policy or reasons for war especially in the last 100 years always remained the same. Mistakes were made in all wars and loss of life is always part of it. Nobody ever said it was gonna be easy. As far as fabrication well thats questionable. The president gave all the info he had to congress. Did they know it was false or true information? I dont know. I find it real hard to believe they did. But like I said there is more than one reason for going to war. If you just have one reason to go to war it isnt gonna benifit anyone. Seems to me you are to focused on the he said this he said that concept....well just because he or they said this or he or they said that doesnt mean that is the only reason. And as far as Bush goes I heard him say more than just WMD as a single reason from the very begining. on 12/22/05 at 22:33:19, skepticzero wrote:
Let me ask you a question. What nation consumes the most oil? Answer...The United States. Another question..Is the middle east the most unstable area in the world that is oil rich? Answer...Yes...Another question...Isnt the idea of what is good for US corporations also good for the American Economy and what is good for the American Economy good for the American people in the long run? Answer...yes. Does it always work out smoothly like it is supposed to? No. So in saying all of this how can you say our soldiers are sacraficing thier lives for a country or people who are not worth it. Iraq has the ability to become a very rich country. They have the resources in order to do it. What they lack is the ability to accomplish this task. That is another reason why we are there. To show them how. So lets look at what the american soldiers are doing. They are protecting the american people by fighting terrorists over in the middle east and not here in America. They are protecting the resources of Iraq, which will always be the resources of Iraq. They are protecting the Iraqi people. They are also looking out for American intrests. No american soldier ever dies for his country for nothing. If thats what you really think not only are you unamerican but you are not worth thier protection. on 12/22/05 at 22:33:19, skepticzero wrote:
Thats gonna depend on the American people as a whole. Look the loss of one life is costly, but you have to compare the loss of life with this war to others. And the loss of 2160 american lives isnt anymore or less important than the over 500,000 or whatever the number may be in any previous war. on 12/22/05 at 22:33:19, skepticzero wrote:
For the reasons I just mentioned above. And once again there are lots of them. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by thebeast on Dec 23rd, 2005, 7:06pm on 12/22/05 at 22:33:19, skepticzero wrote:
I think when I brought Iran and Syria up my point was these countries are ridden with terrorists. As far as the women go in Iraq, they are not treated any more or less better than before, after or even during Sadam. As far as women in Iran and Syria go I wouldnt exactly call it equal. All this is gonna depend on what the women are willing to do. They gonna have to take a more active role and speak out more. This is gonna take time as well...but its happening and if it happens in one country it will spread. on 12/22/05 at 22:33:19, skepticzero wrote:
I was not directly referring to the rulers of these countries like Iran and Syria...but at the same time the rulers of these countries know thier countries are ridden with terrorists and I would imagine some kind of financial gain is made between the rulers of these countries and the leaders of the terrorists. It doesnt really matter does it? When you are tired and starving and you have no roof over your head and a terrorists takes you in and treats you good and feeds you and and tells you lies about The Uniteds States and all of its allies and brainwashes thier minds with lies not only about The United States and the muslim religion, it still gets you the same result...which is a new terrorist recruit. The rulers of these countries dont make it any easier. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by somebody on Dec 23rd, 2005, 8:19pm Ok, I got to page 5 and it was just getting way too long for me. Here's why I do not fully support the Iraq War: 1. There is no proof Saddam had something to do with 9/11 though Bush lied and said it in a speech. No one ever thought Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 until Bush mentioned it in a speech. Now tons of Americans suddenly believe this even though Bush later refuted what he implied in the speech. We can not seem to get this out of people's heads...it's like the saying "if you say something enough, ppl will start to believe it". We were not told we were invading Iraq to free the Iraqi people. We were told Saddam has WMD and is linked to 9/11. This is the reason why so many people were behind Bush...because they're so afraid of another attack. Now these two reasons turned out to be false and we're being told, we are there to fight tyranny. 2. I support overthrowing tyranny but we should've focused more on Bin Laden before going after Saddam. Opportunity cost...all the money and effort we put into Iraq could've gone towards fighting Bin Laden and his men. I can't say the war is worth all the American lives lost. We won't know til the outcome...five to ten years from now. Let's also not forget the 30,000 Iraqis that have died since we invaded. They are human too. I find it very sad when people forget about the 30,000 Iraqis who died. Many of the dead include innocent civilians, women, and children. Concerning the hard rock cafe...I am not Filipino and I've never been to the Philippines but generally speaking, people in poorer countries tend to associate Americans with money, wealth, status, etc so they tend to treat Americans better. Maybe it doesn't directly have something to do with money but more about race too. From my understanding, the Philippines was colonized/controlled by whites for centuries so this lead many Filipinos to believe whites and mestizos are better. I have a lot of Filipino friends in real life (I live in the states) and most are very proud of their Filipino heritage but I do notice that the older generation of Filipinos do somewhat have this "white is right" mentality. I don't know if I'm correct in my opinion but if I am not, I'd like some insight from Filipino members. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by skepticzero on Dec 23rd, 2005, 8:37pm on 12/23/05 at 00:53:52, thebeast wrote:
My reply was entirely germane to the discussion. I was making the distinction between the Afghan campaign and the Iraq War, a delineation I made in my first sentence in response to your use of the word "there" since a) Afghanistan is in Central Asia and Iraq is in the Middle East, b) these operations started almost a year and a half apart, and most importantly c) these missions had different objectives, with the Afghan invasion being a direct and warranted reaction to the 9/11 attacks while Iraq was a bullet on Feith's wish list. on 12/23/05 at 00:53:52, thebeast wrote:
Research was not necessary to know where Afghanistan and Iraq are on a map. Although I don't understand the disdain for reading and research and resources such as the Freedom of Information Act--which serve as a bulwark against undemocratic state secrecy--opponents of reading and research on government and of resources such as FOIA can find solace in the fact that FOIA has largely been routed since the Bush Administration took office, with the number of documents classified as secret having increased to record levels. Even many historical documents are no longer available to the public. on 12/23/05 at 00:53:52, thebeast wrote:
I don't see the need for personal attacks in this discussion. on 12/23/05 at 00:53:52, thebeast wrote:
That is a popular administration talking point--that if U.S. troops are fighting in Iraq, then somehow all the other Islamic extremist terrorist groups in the entire world will be forced to cease any plans for, say, domestic U.S. attacks or attacks on U.S. interests abroad and go fight in a few geographic locations inside Iraq. Although some run-of-the-mill jihadists have converged on Iraq the line of thinking that terrorists will be staved off globally by U.S. troops fighting in Iraq is both counterintuitive and unlikely. Organized groups like al Qaeda have proven themselves both smart and patient. They'll strike a target of their choosing at a time of their choosing, no matter where we might have troops deployed. It's unfortunate that we do not have an administration focused on actually defeating the jihadist threat and not wasting our manpower on Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. on 12/23/05 at 00:53:52, thebeast wrote:
I doubt that the executives of all the defense contractors, oil companies, oil services companies, and infrastructure companies who are making billions because of Iraq at the expense of U.S. taxpayers would say that U.S. troops are dying for nothing. I'm sure they appreciate the sacrifice. on 12/23/05 at 00:53:52, thebeast wrote:
Actually, that is completely the opposite of the truth. Al Qaeda's chief grudge with the U.S. was the stationing of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia (which is in the Middle East). It was only after King Fahd invited the U.S. military in his country just prior to the Gulf War to subdue Saddam that Bin Laden broke ranks with the royals and got himself kicked out of the country. Following that Bin Laden spoke at length and wrote extensively about his disappointment with the House of Saud for letting "infidels" into the holy land and his desire to attack America. Then came the fatwas and the attacks. So history has already proven that having a military presence in the Middle East has made us less safe. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by thebeast on Dec 23rd, 2005, 11:24pm on 12/23/05 at 20:37:01, skepticzero wrote:
You are talking in circles. And you are wrong because a)Afghanistan is in Southwest Asia. I know exactly where Afghanistan is at. What is this a geography lesson? Maybe I didnt make my question to you clear enough..Okay one more time...If 911 didnt happen(that means if the events on September 11, 2001 that took place in NYC and Washington DC and whatever other areas that pertain to the events that happen on this date) would the United States still invade Iraq? I say no they wouldnt have..what do you say? The I dont know could be an answer but that would be a kind of a spineless answer. on 12/23/05 at 20:37:01, skepticzero wrote:
Well I think you do need to research...like I said it is in Southwest Asia not Central Asia. on 12/23/05 at 20:37:01, skepticzero wrote:
What makes you think it was a personal attack on you. I guess I could say what you say about the American people who are not informed or tend to forget or dont care...could be a personal attack on them as well..but I wont stoop that low. I have no disdain on the fact that you read the FOIA or anything else you visit online. What I do disdain is it seems me you have the idea that pretty much everywhere else you dont seek your information is crap. on 12/23/05 at 20:37:01, skepticzero wrote:
It is...well I didnt know that..but I not sure if you are aware of this but you are not dealing with the administration. on 12/23/05 at 20:37:01, skepticzero wrote:
al Qaeda is organized now? How do you know this? on 12/23/05 at 20:37:01, skepticzero wrote:
Its not wasting manpower and its a war agaisnt terrorism that means all terrorism. on 12/23/05 at 20:37:01, skepticzero wrote:
What do the U.S. taxpayers say...well they reelected Bush..that tells me they pretty much agree with what is going on...at least the majority anyway. And I actually think these companies are losing money not making any at this point. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by thebeast on Dec 24th, 2005, 12:07am on 12/23/05 at 20:37:01, skepticzero wrote:
Come on Bin Laden was in Afghanistan during Clinton's Administration and we knew what he was up to then...Clinton order some air strikes but that was pretty much it. It took 911 to get the ball rolling just like Peal Harbor during WW2. And history proving military presence in the Middle East has made us less safe? We had only one incedent that I can think of b4 911 and that was the bombing in the parking garage underneath the world trade center back in 1993 or 1994 and even so that bombing was no where near the ramifications that 911 was. There might of been others but not here on U.S. ground and like I said they were no where near the ramifications of 911. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by thebeast on Dec 24th, 2005, 12:21am on 12/23/05 at 20:37:01, skepticzero wrote:
Its not a personal attack its just lingo same as what you use...it simply means something you find enjoyable. egs...I got a hard on for life. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by skepticzero on Dec 24th, 2005, 1:43am on 12/23/05 at 01:30:20, thebeast wrote:
You precisely demonstrated the point and apparently missed it simultaneously. on 12/23/05 at 01:30:20, thebeast wrote:
I would never assume that I know you nor have I ever claimed that I do. on 12/23/05 at 01:30:20, thebeast wrote:
I live in the U.S. and have a pretty good idea of what is going on here. on 12/23/05 at 01:30:20, thebeast wrote:
Americans traditionally vote in small numbers. on 12/23/05 at 01:30:20, thebeast wrote:
You must have missed the endless sound bites that comprised the speeches prior to the election. Try looking up sound bite. on 12/23/05 at 01:30:20, thebeast wrote:
They're careless and not concerned in general, not simply because they voted for Bush. Despite the last election, Americans are known for not even bothering to vote. on 12/23/05 at 01:30:20, thebeast wrote:
Americans are neither prolific readers nor critical thinkers. They learn "what is going on" from TV and radio, neither of which tell them what is actually going on. on 12/23/05 at 01:30:20, thebeast wrote:
Which apparently isn't much. on 12/23/05 at 01:30:20, thebeast wrote:
Or the way somebody wanted them to. In Iraq people have been asking their Mullahs for who they should vote. In the U.S. people consult pastors and talking heads. on 12/23/05 at 01:30:20, thebeast wrote:
There is no neoconservative party. There is a neoconservative minority within a conservative party. But I'd be hard-pressed to deny that Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz--all Bush policy architects who unapologetically claim to be neoconservatives--are neoconservative. Their affiliation is not a matter of opinion; they are PNAC members and openly subscribed to a neocon agenda years before Bush took office. They were even able to affect policy to a certain extent during the Clinton years. on 12/23/05 at 01:30:20, thebeast wrote:
That's highly subjective. A turn to statism, militarism, and unchecked government power doesn't strike me as what's best. on 12/23/05 at 01:30:20, thebeast wrote:
If they cared, they would vote. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by skepticzero on Dec 24th, 2005, 1:48am on 12/23/05 at 01:30:20, thebeast wrote:
God forbid that Americans should actually ever read anything. As 19th-century plantation owners and even southern poor whites feared the education of slaves, the enemy of the modern conservative is an educated public. on 12/23/05 at 01:30:20, thebeast wrote:
Why the fascination with the prospect of other men having erections? on 12/23/05 at 01:30:20, thebeast wrote:
I didn't. The point--you missed it. on 12/23/05 at 01:30:20, thebeast wrote:
Incorrect. My job gives me a modicum familiarity with those countries. on 12/23/05 at 01:30:20, thebeast wrote:
??? on 12/23/05 at 01:30:20, thebeast wrote:
As I made apparent. on 12/23/05 at 01:30:20, thebeast wrote:
That is not a fact unless you consider a vast minority "a lot". on 12/23/05 at 01:30:20, thebeast wrote:
I have a hefty New England mortgage, a car payment, and a job where I put in at least 60 hours per week. But this discussion is not about me, and I don't understand the continued attempts to personally insult me in lieu of framing logical arguments. on 12/23/05 at 01:30:20, thebeast wrote:
I'm a realist. on 12/23/05 at 01:30:20, thebeast wrote:
Good luck stopping it. on 12/23/05 at 01:30:20, thebeast wrote:
Or what? They don't have to learn anything they don't want to learn. What they've already learned is thousands of years of tribal rule interrupted by short stints with totalitarian governments and colonial powers. on 12/23/05 at 01:30:20, thebeast wrote:
Based on what? The historical record shows the opposite with regard to places like Iraq as well as Iraq itself. on 12/23/05 at 01:30:20, thebeast wrote:
Not really. on 12/23/05 at 01:30:20, thebeast wrote:
Says who? Why? Who is going to make them get along? How? on 12/23/05 at 01:30:20, thebeast wrote:
Fine, but who is going to make them do that when they don't want to do so, especially since the Middle East and Central Asia are moving in the other direction--toward anarchy and/or theocracy? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by skepticzero on Dec 24th, 2005, 2:12am on 12/23/05 at 17:30:59, thebeast wrote:
You doubt it based on what? Feelings? It's a fact that women have fewer rights. The ruling body agreed to abridge women's rights at the behest of the Shiites, who find the idea of women having rights offensive to Islam. on 12/23/05 at 17:30:59, thebeast wrote:
Because Iraqi women had more rights three years ago under a horrible dictator than they do now, that paradigm is not comparable to that of a fledgling U.S. on 12/23/05 at 17:30:59, thebeast wrote:
Again, on what do you base your assertion that "they gonna have to adapt and learn to live with each other"? Who or what is going to make them learn to see things your way? on 12/23/05 at 17:30:59, thebeast wrote:
One can't defy history; one should learn from it. on 12/23/05 at 17:30:59, thebeast wrote:
You're making my point again with your "or more than likely get a bullet in the head" comment because they're going to opt for bullets in their heads rather than learning how to be Jeffersonian democrats. on 12/23/05 at 17:30:59, thebeast wrote:
That would require a functional military, which they don't have. It will be more like the old Afghan conflict--tribe against tribe with warlord chieftains driving it. Civil wars are not defined by 19th-century armies marching with shouldered rifles to face each other across battlefields. Vietnam was involved in a civil war during our military tenure there as well as previously during the French Indochinese campaign. Anyway, what's left of Iraqi civilization will break down, and the country will be full of fighting parties just as Afghanistan was and at least partially still is. on 12/23/05 at 17:30:59, thebeast wrote:
How about if our troops are applied toward fighting the actual War On Terror? Remember 9/11? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by skepticzero on Dec 24th, 2005, 4:50am on 12/23/05 at 17:43:40, thebeast wrote:
Laughable. A nation cannot retroactively change the reason that it initiated a war after the fact. One cannot change history. Neither FDR nor Truman ever attempted to claim that our reciprocal attack against Japan was not because of Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor but instead because Americans loved Japanese people and wanted to free them from Tojo. The reason that neither leader attempted such a lie is because the attack on Pearl Harbor actually happened, whereas the reason the Bush Administration has tried to retroactively change the initial reason we invaded Iraq is because their stockpiles of WMDs and links between al Qaeda and Iraq were falsehoods. And the Bush Administration's success at selling that nonsense speaks volumes about the American voters' ability to reason. on 12/23/05 at 17:43:40, thebeast wrote:
Yes it has per given conflict. Read up on WWII. on 12/23/05 at 17:43:40, thebeast wrote:
Info tailored to suiting his administration's policy agenda. on 12/23/05 at 17:43:40, thebeast wrote:
More like, they probably hoped it was true. Democrats like Senator Lieberman certainly had a longstanding Iraq agenda, and the Republican leadership must have seen the obvious benefits of invading Iraq for large donor corporations. on 12/23/05 at 17:43:40, thebeast wrote:
Not the Iraq War. The president repeatedly gave one easily-definable reason for a proposed invasion of Iraq, albeit one which even then looked dubious. on 12/23/05 at 17:43:40, thebeast wrote:
It's supposed to be. The president is not supposed to lie to either Congress or the American people. on 12/23/05 at 17:43:40, thebeast wrote:
You misheard him then. He never stated a second official justification to either the U.N. or Congress. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by skepticzero on Dec 24th, 2005, 4:56am on 12/23/05 at 17:43:40, thebeast wrote:
It sounds as if you're making the case the the U.S. should feel licensed to invade countries to secure a steady supply of oil. That is pretty much the definition of imperialism. on 12/23/05 at 17:43:40, thebeast wrote:
Rich like Saudi Arabia, the country that bred most of the 9/11 hijackers. What a great prospect. Terrific. on 12/23/05 at 17:43:40, thebeast wrote:
The president didn't say that to Congress when he was trying to sell the idea of invading Iraq. on 12/23/05 at 17:43:40, thebeast wrote:
Again. Not likely and illogical. There are surely plenty of terrorists who are cognizant of the fact that they do not have to engage U.S. forces in Iraq instead of attacking U.S. targets elsewhere. on 12/23/05 at 17:43:40, thebeast wrote:
Since day one of the invasion. While U.S. forces were taking Baghdad, some forces were assigned to guard the ministry of oil while the city was being looted. on 12/23/05 at 17:43:40, thebeast wrote:
Now we're at the crux of your argument--the America-can-do-no-wrong argument. So by your logic, U.S. soldiers sent into any conflict--no matter how absurd, misguided, or immoral--in which the U.S. engages is automatically dying for something, usually said to be our freedom, simply by virtue of the fact that the U.S. government sent him or her to die. That is exceedingly un-American. on 12/23/05 at 17:43:40, thebeast wrote:
The 2160+ who have been lost as of today were lost unnecessarily. That makes it very important. on 12/23/05 at 17:43:40, thebeast wrote:
Which were not given to Congress as the justification for invading Iraq prior to the start of the war. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by skepticzero on Dec 24th, 2005, 5:33am on 12/23/05 at 19:06:45, thebeast wrote:
Except that they legally have fewer rights and are now essentially property, just like much of the rest of the region. on 12/23/05 at 19:06:45, thebeast wrote:
With regard to Iran, I wouldn't call being the property of one's husband "equal" either. on 12/23/05 at 19:06:45, thebeast wrote:
Happening where? In Iraq women have fewer rights than they did under Saddam, and Iran just elected an Islamic extremist president who is issuing edicts almost weekly to put his country right back to 1979. on 12/23/05 at 19:06:45, thebeast wrote:
There's no need for them to lie about the United States, when the truth infuriates them enough. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by skepticzero on Dec 24th, 2005, 6:25am on 12/23/05 at 23:24:32, thebeast wrote:
Although when you looked at your map you logically assumed that Afghanistan is in Southwest Asia, the military and intelligence services refer to the area as "Central Asia". That's why Afghanistan is said to be nestled among the Central Asian republics and is said to be in Central Asia. Honestly, if I visualize a map, Afghanistan looks like it's in west Asia to me as well. Semantics aside, it's definitely not in the Middle East. on 12/23/05 at 23:24:32, thebeast wrote:
Without a doubt. Again, the policy makers of the Bush Administration had been trying to make the case for removing Saddam since the end of the Gulf War. Although you can choose not to believe that, your misfortune lies in the fact that they gave speeches supporting an Iraq invasion, published papers supporting an Iraq invasion, and lobbied both Congress and President Clinton in support of an Iraq invasion. To suggest that once they finally got into power in the executive that they would have changed faiths and not wanted to invade Iraq is ludicrous. on 12/23/05 at 23:24:32, thebeast wrote:
Take it up with the government. They love to call Afghanistan Central Asia. on 12/23/05 at 23:24:32, thebeast wrote:
Gee. Maybe it was the suggestion that I derive sexual arousal from reading up on government. Being that direct, it definitely wasn't a personal attack on someone else. on 12/23/05 at 23:24:32, thebeast wrote:
My comments about the uninformed state of Americans was within the context of the discussion and did not stoop to the low level of a fixation on the image of another man's erections in a discussion that has nothing to do with sex. on 12/23/05 at 23:24:32, thebeast wrote:
That "everywhere else" being? on 12/23/05 at 23:24:32, thebeast wrote:
Does this have any relevance to the discussion? Did I at any time say that I thougth that you are the Bush Administration? on 12/23/05 at 23:24:32, thebeast wrote:
Let's see. They've been able to publish their intent, train, actively recruit globally, and strike us a number of times between 1993 and 2002. In 2002 their combatant members were able to viciously repel multiple U.S. attacks in Afghanistan to such an extent that key members were able to escape to Pakistan despite being almost completely surrounded, even while their Talib hosts stopped fighting and ran. Currently their recruitment is up and they are even more ethnically diverse because they are recruiting more widely from places like East Asia. Thus they are more globally dispersed and nimble and they certainly have the manpower and knowledge to strike U.S. interests again. In addition, some members have been receiving combat training against genuine U.S. forces in Iraq as a portion of what you might call the insurgency. on 12/23/05 at 23:24:32, thebeast wrote:
They sure do. on 12/23/05 at 23:24:32, thebeast wrote:
It might be nice to think that, but in general it's not true, though some small businesses have undoubtedly gotten in over their heads in Iraq. Check the market data for some of the conglomerates. Your tax money has boosted their bottom lines. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by nOrKAy on Dec 24th, 2005, 6:29am WOW.WOW. Hmmmm, WOW. I needed to shake my head a little after reading all these informative, interesting, and absolutely impressive, cogent yet calm "debates". This is the longest reading I did of all the threads, in the forum. Man, you made me wear my thick eyeglasses. LOL. on 12/24/05 at 02:35:13, Jimbo wrote:
Awww, Jimbo. I don't see any reason for the moderators or administrator to close this. Don't worry, these posters are very smart and calm enough on how they carry their communications. on 12/24/05 at 02:35:13, Jimbo wrote:
But I know you will come back to read. Hahaha. Calm down while reading, bro. ;D |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by skepticzero on Dec 24th, 2005, 7:28am on 12/24/05 at 00:07:35, thebeast wrote:
I did not at any time suggest that he wasn't. Clinton was elected to office after U.S. forces were stationed in Saudi Arabia during George H.W. Bush's presidency. Clinton took office in January of 1993. Bin Laden was ejected from Saudi Arabia by the House of Saud and exiled to Sudan. Pressure on Sudan facilitated the exile of Bin Laden to Afghanistan in 1996, where he had participated in fighting the Soviets years before alongside Sheikh Abdullah Azzam and the CIA. There he was hosted by the Taliban who were busy fighting a civil war against Northern Alliance drug lords. on 12/24/05 at 00:07:35, thebeast wrote:
There was the attempt on U.S. troops in Yemen in 1992, most likely the killing of 18 U.S. soldiers in Somalia in 1993, the Khobar Towers bombing that killed 19 Americans, the destruction of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 following the fatwa calling for Muslims to kill Americans, the U.S.S. Cole bombing in 2000, and I believe some movie theatre bombings in the Philippines that killed Americans. And once again you've made my point, because if you look at the dates you'll see that the al Qaeda attacks started in 1992, after the Gulf War and permanent staging of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden did exactly as he said he would do. I don't know how anyone could suggest that Americans are more safe from al Qaeda in an era in which al Qaeda has actively blown up Americans compared to an era before al Qaeda even existed and was therefore not blowing up Americans. Put another way and even more simply: while al Qaeda did not exist and did not attack Americans, Americans were safer from al Qaeda than now since now al Qaeda does exist and has attacked Americans. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by thebeast on Dec 26th, 2005, 9:05am on 12/24/05 at 01:43:41, skepticzero wrote:
I deomonstrated my point but not yours. I might agree with you with some of the facts but my ideas of those facts are far from yours. on 12/24/05 at 01:43:41, skepticzero wrote:
Look whenever you type that only demonstrates my point about something I have written..to me that means you know me and that you and I agree on something. That just isnt true. I am not sure maybe you are not reading like you do read the FOIA web pages. on 12/24/05 at 01:43:41, skepticzero wrote:
What you are doing here is stereotyping americans. Anyone who does that... isnt aware of whats going on. on 12/24/05 at 01:43:41, skepticzero wrote:
Compared to what? A lot of people vote. Look...I have already said that not every american votes, thats thier choice. on 12/24/05 at 01:43:41, skepticzero wrote:
Are you saying that Americans are careless and not concerened because the choose not to vote? If you are how do you know this? Did you ask every single american the reason why he or she didnt vote? Or better yet...Do you vote on every single election or policy trying to get passed in your neck of the woods? I know I dont vote for everything that comes up. That dont make me careless or concerned. It makes it my choice nothing more or nothing less. on 12/24/05 at 01:43:41, skepticzero wrote:
When you type you should put the word "Some" in front of americans, because you are stereo typing again. Even so the ones who choose to watch tv or listen to the radio get the good and bad of the situation. on 12/24/05 at 01:43:41, skepticzero wrote:
Well maybe not for you, but everyone isnt you. Do you really want everyone to be the same as you? on 12/24/05 at 01:43:41, skepticzero wrote:
I refuse to comment on the few idiots that you choose to discuss. Focus on the majority. Or does the majority do this in your opinion? on 12/24/05 at 01:43:41, skepticzero wrote:
Who cares... you know I was talking about the Bush Administration. on 12/24/05 at 01:43:41, skepticzero wrote:
When did you get your draft card? Did the army break your door down and steal your shotgun? You dont really believe this do you? whats next for you? Schizophrenia maybe? on 12/24/05 at 01:43:41, skepticzero wrote:
Well if you think that I guess I can say if you cared you wouldnt be saying the troops in Iraq are dying for nothing. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by thebeast on Dec 26th, 2005, 10:13am on 12/24/05 at 01:43:41, skepticzero wrote:
You typed the following.... The U.S. is supposed to be a participatory democracy. It's up to the citizenry to be vigilant and stay on top of government so they'll have sound knowledge upon which to vote some politicians out and keep others. Currently, Americans rely on sound bites to be the basis of their judgment, and politicos play to that weakness. The last U.S. election was a montage of sound bites. The advocacy of non-participatory government might demonstrate one's affinity with political systems such as those in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Kuwait, Syria, Jordan, Yemen, and the U.A.E. In those countries, one does not have to be bothered with participating in the political process or even keeping abreast of it. Instead a person can merely sit back and let whatever is going to occur happen and hope it doesn't happen to him or her. Your comparing The United States and the people of the United States who choose not to vote to those countries and the people of those countries. The United States and the people of the United States have a choice...they dont...they would feel differently if they did have a choice...and yes guess what...not every single one of them would vote if they did have a choice. And you call yourself a realist???? on 12/24/05 at 01:43:41, skepticzero wrote:
Are you saying things never change? Things always change since the beginning of time. Once again you are more like a pessimist than a realist. on 12/24/05 at 01:43:41, skepticzero wrote:
Well I wouldnt call that many people who did vote a minority either. on 12/24/05 at 01:43:41, skepticzero wrote:
No your a pessimist. A realist would focus more on the positives of the situation. I am a realist. on 12/24/05 at 01:43:41, skepticzero wrote:
Well thanks for the good luck. Thats bout all I would expect or want from you..because when the going gets tuff you are the last guy I want in my foxhole defending my country. You would just sit there and whine and complain about how bad you have it instead of doing what is not only right but good. on 12/24/05 at 01:43:41, skepticzero wrote:
The majority wants it. We just got to get a handle on the bad over there...which we have to some extent. on 12/24/05 at 01:43:41, skepticzero wrote:
History tells the story about who you are where you came from, your culture and how you can learn from it. It doesnt fortell the future. on 12/24/05 at 01:43:41, skepticzero wrote:
Says the allied forces, thier own newly established government. Why for the good of themselves. Not gonna make anyone get along..they want it, its the radicals who dont want it and the Allied Forces and the newly formed Iraqi soldiers will take care of the radicals. on 12/24/05 at 01:43:41, skepticzero wrote:
They want a democracy. They dont know what exactly it means yet but when it gets going they will like it. Russia is a good example of that. Did you ever think Russia would ever be anything but a communist country? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by thebeast on Dec 26th, 2005, 11:25am on 12/24/05 at 02:12:29, skepticzero wrote:
Look I only know what I saw. I didnt see a whole lot of women but I saw a few. But I dont think you are getting my point so I will make it crystal clear so maybe you can understand. If you have crap and you cut half of the crap away...you still have crap. Same goes if I had some crap and put a pretty bow on it and wrapped the crap up and sent it to you for xmas..you get it and open it up and guess what? Its still crap. Do you understand my meaning now. So all the women in Iraq ever had was crap you can spruce it up or down makes no difference its still crap. on 12/24/05 at 01:43:41, skepticzero wrote:
Please refer to the above. on 12/24/05 at 01:43:41, skepticzero wrote:
Yes you can learn from history. How many centuries was Japan a blood thirsty country filled with shoguns and rulers fighting with each other. Like I said history does not fortell the future. It can give you and indication of where you need to head..point you in a direction. Why does it have to be a negative direction? on 12/24/05 at 01:43:41, skepticzero wrote:
The United States does not want a Jeffersonian Democratic Iraq. The United States and the Allied Nations want a Iraqi type of democracy. You already said the ruling body agreed to have a muslim type of democracy I dont see how that could be even close to what you are saying. When I say likely to get a bullet in the head I am talking about the terrorists and outlaws. on 12/24/05 at 01:43:41, skepticzero wrote:
I know what guerrilla warfare is and I was not speaking about those type of manuevers ... I was talking about magnitude and numbers involved. on 12/24/05 at 02:12:29, skepticzero wrote:
We are. You already said there were terrorists in Iraq who are training but I say there is more than that. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by thebeast on Dec 26th, 2005, 11:57am on 12/24/05 at 04:50:27, skepticzero wrote:
Look he said a war on terror. And like I said there is always more than one reason for any war. Take the Civil War here in America. What was the reason for the Civil War? A.to free the slaves B.To preserve the Union C.because the south was breaking the law...well I would choose B. but the fact is it was for all of the reasons listed. Its never one reason. Its usually the final straw..something happens kind of deal and then the President makes a statement. But like I said WMD, terrorists, Sadam, spreading deomcracy, creating a stable Iraq are all reasons. And you can still make a case that WW2 was about freedom...about our freedom from invasion of Japan. Or what about german occupied France...what about the French freedom? Look whenever we are involved freedom always has something to do with it. on 12/24/05 at 02:12:29, skepticzero wrote:
Even WWII had reasons..most notebly was the bombing of Pearl Harbor but I guess everyone forgets about Hitler in Europe. FDR wanted to war with Hitler so bad he could taste it. It took Pearl Harbor for him to get the backing of the people and congress for him to do it. Not a whole lot different in 911 when you think about it. on 12/24/05 at 02:12:29, skepticzero wrote:
Yeah Bush just took all that info and gathered in a huddle with all the other neoconservatives and talylored the info lol on 12/24/05 at 02:12:29, skepticzero wrote:
Who says its not true? Just because they didnt find anything doesnt make it true. He wanted them and he used them before and he wasnt gonna stop trying to get them, he wasnt gonna do any good for his country so y not nip it in the bud like what should of been done in 1991. on 12/24/05 at 02:12:29, skepticzero wrote:
He always said a war on terror. He never said who what or where specifically.[/quote] on 12/24/05 at 02:12:29, skepticzero wrote:
He didnt lie. Not about that. He had information he believed to be true and maybe it was false info maybe it wasnt. And a president isnt supposed to lie??? well every politician stretches the truth to his advantage but Bush didnt lie about this. on 12/24/05 at 02:12:29, skepticzero wrote:
Nope you must of missed what he said. Its a war on Terror. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by nOrKAy on Dec 26th, 2005, 4:20pm on 12/26/05 at 11:25:53, thebeast wrote:
??? If I think I am smart, I should act vigorously. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by wildheart41004 on Dec 26th, 2005, 8:19pm makes me feel whole lot more secure...God Bless America, God Bless The troops, God bless Bush, and yes Even God bless the treehugging democrat Liberals |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by thebeast on Dec 27th, 2005, 7:06pm on 12/26/05 at 16:20:02, nOrKAy wrote:
Kris..he is saying women have less rights legally...that maybe true...even if it is..its still the same. Sadam was not a religious man. He cared less about anyones rights including women. Sadam would have no problems with an Iraqi man beating his wife or raping any other woman. Sadam would have a problem if the muslim man didnt let Sadam beat up or rape the muslim mans wife. Iraqi is hard core muslim religion. So they pass laws that give women less rights...so what... they never had any to begin with due to the fact that they are in a hard core muslim country. So my analogy of crap is crap makes sense doesnt it? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by thebeast on Dec 27th, 2005, 9:48pm on 12/24/05 at 04:56:47, skepticzero wrote:
No I am not making that point. I am simply saying consumers have rights. America consumes it...why wouldnt we want the country we get it from to be stable and to be a prosperous country as well. They certainly were not accomplishing this with Sadam in charge. Let them govern themselves and reap the profits as a nation. I already said there was more than one reason we are in Iraq. Iraq has the ability to become a more stable and prosperous country. There is no loser here. on 12/24/05 at 04:56:47, skepticzero wrote:
There are bad apples in every country. on 12/24/05 at 04:56:47, skepticzero wrote:
He said lots of things. More than just WMD. on 12/24/05 at 04:56:47, skepticzero wrote:
Maybe so but it will be more difficult for them to do anything on U.S. soil. There are terrorists in Iraq. There is to much at stake for them not to be. on 12/24/05 at 04:56:47, skepticzero wrote:
Well the oil is a natural resource thats important for their country. Everything involved with it should be protected and the american forces cant be everywhere. Unless we send more forces. on 12/24/05 at 04:56:47, skepticzero wrote:
I never speak in right or wrong I speak for what is best. And for the most part I dont think the U.S. had done anything that was misguided or immoral. How could giving someone freedom be that way? Its our duty to spread democracy and freedom to anyone that wants it. on 12/24/05 at 04:56:47, skepticzero wrote:
I never said they werent important..I did say they didnt die for nothing..you said they die for nothing..to me that means you dont think thier death is important. on 12/24/05 at 04:56:47, skepticzero wrote:
Congress knew everything, they have commitees that know all this stuff. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by thebeast on Dec 27th, 2005, 10:40pm on 12/24/05 at 05:33:01, skepticzero wrote:
As far as Iraq is concerned refer to crap is crap. Now in Saudi Arabia women are speaking up about thier rights. More and more of them want to be treated as equals. The Saudi women are feeling this way for a number of reasons. Its relatively safe for them to speak out because their country is more modern and economy is fairly stable. Once Iraq gets to this point the same will happen. Its a process. A process that takes time. on 12/24/05 at 04:56:47, skepticzero wrote:
I dont think calling Americans the devil is hardly the truth. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by thebeast on Dec 28th, 2005, 12:37am on 12/24/05 at 06:25:25, skepticzero wrote:
Well I went to 2 websites..the CIA and the officail website of Afghanistan both refer to Afghanistan as southern or southwest asia. on 12/24/05 at 06:25:25, skepticzero wrote:
You forget I was there in 1991 and pretty much everyone I was with wanted to finish the job then, but we also knew that it wasnt the end. Something just had to happen for the U.S. to come back. Yes, Bush lobbied for it..but it took a lot of stuff to happen before congress gave the go ahead. on 12/24/05 at 06:25:25, skepticzero wrote:
If thats what you choose to think that is your choice. on 12/24/05 at 06:25:25, skepticzero wrote:
You chose to think of it that way not me. on 12/24/05 at 06:25:25, skepticzero wrote:
Why do I have to tell you everywhere else when both you and I know what I am talking about? on 12/24/05 at 06:25:25, skepticzero wrote:
Well you just proved my point there are terrorists in Iraq. Listen the main objective to to prevent anything on U.S. soil from happening. While I dont applaud any attack terrorists do anywhere..that is pretty much expected..but attacks on U.S. soil thats a different story. on 12/24/05 at 06:25:25, skepticzero wrote:
My tax dollars and your tax dollars are going towards the rebuilding of Iraq. This includes thier oil producing system that is pretty much sucks now. All the revenues from this will be given to the Iraqi Government and the people of Iraq. But after all the years of Sadam in charge, I am willing to bet put Iraq in a bad situation with a huge burden debt to the world. My tax money and everyones tax money is given to the rebuilding of Iraq. And as far is these corporations making money..I never said they were not making money. Do you think these corporations have all thier eggs in the Iraqi oil market? I highly doubt that. Of course they make money but right now in Iraq the oil wells are beset by equipment problems and saboteurs, are producing about 1.9 million barrels a day in net production, lower than the 2.6 million it was producing just before the 2003 U.S. led invasion. So its hard for me to believe with all the equipment and production problems there is anyone making an enormous amount of money. The market data you are thinking about is the bottom line for all of a corporations total revenue...not revenue for specifically Iraq. All of this is really not necessary..I am fully aware that one of the reasons we are there is because of the oil and I have said this time and time again. I am saying we are there for lots of reasons and I am saying oil is one of them. To think that oil is the only reason would be narrowminded. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by nOrKAy on Dec 28th, 2005, 5:17am on 12/27/05 at 19:06:52, thebeast wrote:
That's why Skepticzero said it's a fact that women have fewer rights in Iraq, whatever the reason. Anyway, I didn't mean to question your point there nor did say I disagreed with you. I just wanted to make sure, this discussion would always go smoothly, and I don't need to see exclamation marks to see how a statement is delivered. on 12/26/05 at 20:19:13, wildheart41004 wrote:
Oh, what about asking for blessings to everybody, and not just for the selected ones, or for those who we think good ones? I prefer to say; God bless the world with peace. ;D |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by wildheart41004 on Dec 28th, 2005, 6:40pm on 12/28/05 at 05:17:51, nOrKAy wrote:
I pray for peace everyday....but as long as man has free will, then there will never be peace..it's sad world it is |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by thebeast on Dec 28th, 2005, 9:39pm on 12/28/05 at 05:17:51, nOrKAy wrote:
Its not a fact that women have lesser rights due to the the ruling body agreed to abridge women's rights at the behest of the Shiites, who find the idea of women having rights offensive to Islam. The fact is Iraq has always been hardcore strict Islam and women have never had any rights. Before, during, and even after Sadam. All the vote did was put it on paper and thats pretty much it. What Skepticzero should of said is in the future thewomen who want more rights might have a more difficult time getting them..now that I will agree with. My crap to crap analogy was not intended to offend anyone. Its just common sense applied to a confusing topic. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by skepticzero on Dec 30th, 2005, 12:06am on 12/26/05 at 09:05:58, thebeast wrote:
Incorrect. To type that you've made my point means simply that you've made my point for me, albeit usually unwittingly while trying to refute my point. It is not by extension a claim that I know you. Pointing out that someone has demonstrated the very thing that another person has posted has nothing to do with knowing someone. on 12/26/05 at 09:05:58, thebeast wrote:
No I didn't. You didn't say "Bush Administration"; you said "neoconservative party". Just as the neocons are a subset of the Republican Party, the Bush Administration is a tiny subset of both the neocons and the Republican Party. The two phrases are far from equivalent. on 12/26/05 at 09:05:58, thebeast wrote:
Sounds like you're confusing the new American militarism with having a conscripted military. Militarism and statism are socio-political doctrines to which the U.S. has turned, probably at a minumum over the last 60 years. Americans now think of the military as a policy tool, which would have been sacrilege to the founders of this country. on 12/26/05 at 09:05:58, thebeast wrote:
But you would be wrong if you did. To advocate sacrificing U.S. troops for nothing is hardly demonstrative of being more caring than the advocation of their withdrawal so that they would not be killed in Iraq fighting an insurgency that did not exist until the U.S. invasion. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by skepticzero on Dec 30th, 2005, 12:57am on 12/26/05 at 10:13:21, thebeast wrote:
The point--you missed it again. Look up affinity perhaps. on 12/26/05 at 10:13:21, thebeast wrote:
More like a student of history. Arrogant, misguided neoconservative idealism has led us to the point at which a few people think that the U.S. could fundamentally change a culture that old in even a century's time. on 12/26/05 at 10:13:21, thebeast wrote:
Given your confusion regarding the definition of the word realist, you might want to revise your guess to "optimist". on 12/26/05 at 10:13:21, thebeast wrote:
I see we are back to the personal attacks in lieu of actually defending your point. But to break it down, your foxhole analogy is a dubious favorite of the ultra-right. In essense the analogy equates not supporting Bush policy (or whatever ultra-rightist endeavor du jour you are advocating) with a lack of will to defend the United States. The fundamental problem with your argument is that Bush Iraq policy has nothing to do with defending the United States. In addition, in this topic I have repeatedly called for a return to actually fighting the real War On Terror, which has much more to do with defending the United States. Remember 9/11? Terrorist attacks? They were not perpetrated by the Baathist regime in Iraq, so we should not have wasted our resources on Iraq. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by skepticzero on Dec 30th, 2005, 1:01am on 12/26/05 at 10:13:21, thebeast wrote:
So what is "right" and "good" was abandoning the real War On Terror to attack Iraq? Your language sounds almost religious in its piety. Even war against Japan was certainly much more calculated and necessary than "right" and "good". on 12/26/05 at 10:13:21, thebeast wrote:
History gives us numerous examples of how countries' peoples have reacted to various hardships and/or pinnacle events. We could bother to learn from the past. The Ahmad Chalabi fiasco is a great example of this. On a larger scale, so the the occupation of Iraq itself, which has historical precedent from which the administration could have learned. Democracy at the barrel of a gun is doomed to failure. on 12/26/05 at 10:13:21, thebeast wrote:
Not likely. The U.S. cannot effectively control how Iraqis think and who they hate. Neither U.S. forces nor the Iraqi government can purge the "radicals" from what we know as the moderates as they continue to fuse. on 12/26/05 at 10:13:21, thebeast wrote:
So they want a democracy, but they don't know what one is? That could not be more counterintuitive. Furthermore, they never asked for a democracy. They are tribalists. on 12/26/05 at 10:13:21, thebeast wrote:
Russia is not a democracy. Russia has calcified into a dictatorship. It has recently been rated on par with Egypt in with regard to freedom. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by thebeast on Jan 4th, 2006, 12:05am on 12/30/05 at 00:06:23, skepticzero wrote:
Thats funny. You are not reading because I havent made any point that is remotely even related to your point. on 12/30/05 at 00:06:23, skepticzero wrote:
Are these the same americans that you say dont read and dont care. If so again how would you know this? on 12/30/05 at 00:06:23, skepticzero wrote:
Do you think the American soldiers over there appreciate what you are doing? Look they are fighting terrorists and they are spreading freedom and democracy and making the world more safe. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by thebeast on Jan 4th, 2006, 12:27am on 12/30/05 at 01:01:29, skepticzero wrote:
They only ones who are abandoing the real war on terror are the people like you. As far as Japan goes to me it was not only best but good and right. Some circumstances which are best are not right and wrong but some circumstances are all three. You cant bottle every situation up and make it out to this is the way it should or shouldnt be. Every war has new objectives and circumstances. Pros and Cons. One thing is constant with every war The United States and its allies get involved in is freedom. Freedom from or for something. Freedom for you me and everyone else involved. on 12/30/05 at 00:06:23, skepticzero wrote:
How could any country who never had a democracy have a history of democracy? How long did it take for the Roman Empire to fall? Like I said someones history doesnt fortell the future. on 12/30/05 at 00:06:23, skepticzero wrote:
No one is gonna force anything. I just said that because its positive thinking. By the same token who says they wont accept a democracy? The terrorists and outlaws thats about it. Plain Joe Iraqi just wants peace and to be treated fairly. Maybe he isnt to thrilled about American armed forces being there now. But when he and she understands thier economy is getting better and thier kids getting a better education and no fear of having your head cut off just because you speak your mind, things are gonna change. on 12/30/05 at 00:06:23, skepticzero wrote:
Do you think the citizens of The United States knew before The American Revolution really understood and knew what a democracy was. Furthermore werent their lots of people still dedicated to the king of England as well? on 12/30/05 at 00:06:23, skepticzero wrote:
They are human beings. Once again you are speaking of the minority. on 12/30/05 at 00:06:23, skepticzero wrote:
Never said Russia was a democracy. I said did you ever think Russia would be anything but a communist state? Which now it isnt. Russia is classified as a federation and Egypt is classified as a republic type of government. Neither one of these is communism or dictatorships. What about all the tiny countries that seperated from Russia? What about all the countries that Russia once had power over or influence with? Russia is not the power they once were. The point that I was making is history doesnt fortell the future. The point is that its very possible for history to change ones future. I change you change...everyone changes..if you dont change and adapt you are likely to become extinct, outdated, unchallenged, and nowhere. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by skepticzero on Jan 8th, 2006, 6:55pm on 01/04/06 at 00:27:39, thebeast wrote:
Pointing out what the actual War On Terror is does not constitute abandonment of it. on 01/04/06 at 00:27:39, thebeast wrote:
More accurately of late, freedom has been a selling point for policy-generated wars like Vietnam. on 01/04/06 at 00:27:39, thebeast wrote:
Thousands of years less time than the Mesopotamians have existed as tribalists. on 01/04/06 at 00:27:39, thebeast wrote:
It's a very strong indicator of how that someone will react to a given situation. on 01/04/06 at 00:27:39, thebeast wrote:
They are being forced right now. on 01/04/06 at 00:27:39, thebeast wrote:
Your postive thinking won't make Iraqis abandon a six thousand year old social structure. on 01/04/06 at 00:27:39, thebeast wrote:
The Iraqi people will. They'll play at the elections, biding their time until the U.S. leaves. Each major sect will attempt to position itself to crush the other, just as history tells us. This will be exacerbated by the dominion that fundamentalism is gaining over the region. Democracy cannot trump militant religion in the Middle East any more than Communism could stay dominant over religion in Poland. on 01/04/06 at 00:27:39, thebeast wrote:
Which to Joe Iraqi means having the next dictator come from Joe Iraqi's ethnic group to avoid persecution. on 01/04/06 at 00:27:39, thebeast wrote:
That's the understatement of this century. Read an Iraqi newspaper--one that is not being paid to run U.S. propaganda. on 01/04/06 at 00:27:39, thebeast wrote:
They've been cutting off each others' heads for millennia. It's not likely to change. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by skepticzero on Jan 8th, 2006, 6:57pm on 01/04/06 at 00:27:39, thebeast wrote:
Not an accurate anology because democracy was already spreading among the European powers, having come about organically instead of having been foisted upon them by some superpower wanting to impose its will. Knowledge of French democratic principles was essentially rampant among European nation-states and their colonies. Furthermore, even the monarchies, as they existed, were hardly comparable to the monarchies and dictatorships that exist in the Middle East today. England, the progenitor of the U.S., had had a constitutional monarchy with a representative government in the form of a parliament long before the Revolutionary War started. It was hardly comparable to today's House of Saud or to Saddam Hussein's Iraq. on 01/04/06 at 00:27:39, thebeast wrote:
Not enough or we would be British subjects. on 01/04/06 at 00:27:39, thebeast wrote:
Based on whose information? on 01/04/06 at 00:27:39, thebeast wrote:
It was probably more predictable as a communist state. Now we have a bright and calculating dictator to deal with. on 01/04/06 at 00:27:39, thebeast wrote:
Egypt is not a dictatorship? A quick read of 20th-century Egyptian history should change your mind--unless you just choose to disregard the info since it is, after all, history. on 01/04/06 at 00:27:39, thebeast wrote:
They are dictatorships for the most part. No doubt the Russian intelligence services will plan a coup in Ukraine to ensure a friendly dictatorship there as well. Very recent history shows us that they have basically already tried, although, again, I guess you could choose to believe that Russia did not financially and via covert ops back Yanukovych against the mysteriously-poisoned Yushchenko. on 01/04/06 at 00:27:39, thebeast wrote:
Russia is still a huge military threat to countries that don't bend to it's will. Note how aware of this the Ukrainians have shown themselves to be. on 01/04/06 at 00:27:39, thebeast wrote:
It serves as a reliable guide for likely outcomes. on 01/04/06 at 00:27:39, thebeast wrote:
The Middle East has been nowhere for a long time. That isn't likely to change just because one might want it to do so. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Has the War on Terror made us more or less sec Post by kim on Jan 9th, 2006, 9:53am holy crap i've been away for so damn long and i cant catch up with everything that joel and zero wrote :o |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1freeworld Groups » Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.2! YaBB © 2000-2003. All Rights Reserved. |