Hypocrisy

[akhalteke]

These things would seem a little more important if you took note of the cultural norms in Iraq. What do you think their ideas on abortion are? Capitol punishment? Have you thought about the religious (and in turn social) consequences of such activities? I have no idea what the diplomats are doing in Iraq. They don't discuss it (as well they shouldn't) the only information we get about it is from speculation of interested (and therefore biased) parties.

 

Huh? Are you saying that rather than actually having seasoned staff and diplomats who had the knowledge and experience to address the needed political and agency structure that hiring neophytes was a good thing? What a joke. This is one of the many flawed thought processes that lead to the inevitable failures in Iraq, the continued flushing of billions of tax dollars, and the misconstrued logic that got us there in the first place. So rather than get some staff that say, actually know something about restoring public works, it's better to hire right-wingers with no experience but believe that abortion is murder because it supposedly aligns with local traditions? Too rich.

 

Hmm. You are right. It is much better to hire lesbian liberal no bra wearing jews to head up the reconstruction. I am sure that would be the ticket. I am using hyperbole but you must understand that these are not cultural "suggestions" but rather written in stone and blood mandates that must be upheld.

 

Again, I am not suggesting this is the rationale they are using. Just suggesting that perhaps you all not be so quick to judge and quick to assume the worst and most unlikely and cumbersome of answers to possibly simple quesitons.

[TheJiggler]

 

So what sources would you rather use? The Stranger? We have had no attacks on American soil since the invasion. All we have to go on is what the intelligence community tells us.

 

Again, this seems oddly like a conspiacy theorists wet dream on this board. There are problems within the intelligence community, but that doesn't suggest a whitewash conspiracy (which would be necessary to accomplish what you are suggesting.)

 

By this logic we MUST blame 9/11 on Bush. There were no foreign attacks under Clinton, hence Clinton made us MUCH safer than Bush? Right?

[kevbone]

but I am not going to assume that every person in the government is in some grand conspiracy like you.

 

 

I dont think every person in the government is in some grand conspiracy. Just the top 5.

[kevbone]

 

By this logic we MUST blame 9/11 on Bush. There were no foreign attacks under Clinton, hence Clinton made us MUCH safer than Bush? Right?

 

 

Damn.....Scott....how does it feel to be bitch slapped?

[akhalteke]

but I am not going to assume that every person in the government is in some grand conspiracy like you.

 

 

I dont think every person in the government is in some grand conspiracy. Just the top 5.

 

Cause this is really possible. Why don't you do a little research how the government is structured, write a report and get it to me in the morning. I want it by 0500 my time, so better get busy writing kiddo!

[akhalteke]

 

So what sources would you rather use? The Stranger? We have had no attacks on American soil since the invasion. All we have to go on is what the intelligence community tells us.

 

Again, this seems oddly like a conspiacy theorists wet dream on this board. There are problems within the intelligence community, but that doesn't suggest a whitewash conspiracy (which would be necessary to accomplish what you are suggesting.)

 

By this logic we MUST blame 9/11 on Bush. There were no foreign attacks under Clinton, hence Clinton made us MUCH safer than Bush? Right?

 

My logic? My suggestion was to trust in the intelligence community rather than assume they are part of a conspiracy theory. You might want to do some research about attacks on foreign soil during Clinton's presidency again. Remember, not all US soil is in the U.S.A.

[akhalteke]

 

By this logic we MUST blame 9/11 on Bush. There were no foreign attacks under Clinton, hence Clinton made us MUCH safer than Bush? Right?

 

 

Damn.....Scott....how does it feel to be bitch slapped?

 

I wouldn't know.

[TheJiggler]

 

So what sources would you rather use? The Stranger? We have had no attacks on American soil since the invasion. All we have to go on is what the intelligence community tells us.

 

Again, this seems oddly like a conspiacy theorists wet dream on this board. There are problems within the intelligence community, but that doesn't suggest a whitewash conspiracy (which would be necessary to accomplish what you are suggesting.)

 

By this logic we MUST blame 9/11 on Bush. There were no foreign attacks under Clinton, hence Clinton made us MUCH safer than Bush? Right?

 

My logic? My suggestion was to trust in the intelligence community rather than assume they are part of a conspiracy theory. You might want to do some research about attacks on foreign soil during Clinton's presidency again. Remember, not all US soil is in the U.S.A.

 

Touche! This is a fair point. Although it totally invlidate your point too (See Belgrade, Baghdad, Damascus, Sana'a) and thats only in the last year!

 

Would that be the same Intelligence community that:

1) Missed the fall of the USSR

2) Missed 9/11

3) Claimed linking Saddam with 9/11 would be a slam dunk

4) Was certain there were WMD

 

Why on earth would I trust them? Except of course that that kinda pay my salary.

[akhalteke]

Because despite the glaring missteps, they are the only ones who have any even quasi-factual data about what is going on.

 

I agree, there needs to be more than the current band-aid that is holding it together, but it sure is better than embracing mindsets that assume that the conspiracy theories are true. I hear the one about GWB firing missiles at the twin towers all the time. C'mon people.

 

I, of all people, should distrust the intel community but despite my misgivings and apprehensions, I still have not found a better way and will continue to anticipate at very least a restructuring of the current system.

 

People like Kev would rather run around in foil hats and sew his own butt-hole shut to prevent the aliensfrom entering either his butt-hole or his mind.

 

Kev: they don't want to be there anymore than the other six people in there do.

[Bug]

Who knows if we are safer form terror. It certainly seems so. These are questions which have answers that belong only to the intelligence community. Agruing about them or the lack of their existence is as futile as me trying to convince you that I am not brainwashed.

 

Lame. Clearly we SHOULD be concerned about whether our government's actions are making us safer or not, and we SHOULD NOT rely upon the "intelligence community" to tell us the answers.

 

 

 

Has there been a terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11?

 

What was the pattern of terrorism on US soil before 911?

Has there been any real change?

911 was preventable by many accounts but there were mistakes made by both the Clinton and Bush administrations' handling of information. Perhaps things have tightened up but did they have to include loss of liberties or would truely objective adherence to existing policies have sufficed?

And if we are really chasing terrorists outside the US, find Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan and present the bastard's head to the world. But "NO", there are mitigating circumstances that prevent us from entering Pakistan. Bullshit! What did Bush say when we entered Afganistan, "We will pursue these terrorists anywhere they go and regard there hosts as part of the problem" or something like that. Another lie made up by a good propogandist. It serverd a purpose, to persuade the public, but was never intended to have any real truth associated with regard to any country outside the oil states. Terrorists still play hopscotch in Pakistan while we get bombed in Afgahnistan and Iraq. Terrorism and terrorists outside our borders matter little to this administration other than to be used as a mechanism for social control.

Follow the money.

[akhalteke]

Who knows if we are safer form terror. It certainly seems so. These are questions which have answers that belong only to the intelligence community. Agruing about them or the lack of their existence is as futile as me trying to convince you that I am not brainwashed.

 

Lame. Clearly we SHOULD be concerned about whether our government's actions are making us safer or not, and we SHOULD NOT rely upon the "intelligence community" to tell us the answers.

 

 

 

Has there been a terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11?

 

What was the pattern of terrorism on US soil before 911?

Has there been any real change?

911 was preventable by many accounts but there were mistakes made by both the Clinton and Bush administrations' handling of information. Perhaps things have tightened up but did they have to include loss of liberties or would truely objective adherence to existing policies have sufficed?

And if we are really chasing terrorists outside the US, find Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan and present the bastard's head to the world. But "NO", there are mitigating circumstances that prevent us from entering Pakistan. Bullshit! What did Bush say when we entered Afganistan, "We will pursue these terrorists anywhere they go and regard there hosts as part of the problem" or something like that. Another lie made up by a good propogandist. It serverd a purpose, to persuade the public, but was never intended to have any real truth associated with regard to any country outside the oil states. Terrorists still play hopscotch in Pakistan while we get bombed in Afgahnistan and Iraq. Terrorism and terrorists outside our borders matter little to this administration other than to be used as a mechanism for social control.

Follow the money.

 

1 every 7-10 years.

 

It hasn't been 10 years yet.

[akhalteke]

Should we invade Pakistan then? Huh. You guys are confusing as hell. Make up your minds.

[akhalteke]

Give you a hint Bug. Terrorists will be based wherever we are not. They will stage and attack us but will never keep their command and control centers anywhere near the fighting. They used to be in Afghanistan. Where are they now? Pakistan (among other places). If you want to destroy every country that houses terrorists, you will end up chasing them throughout the World and leave a wake of destruction in your wake.

 

What is the solution? Damned if I know, but neither do you. Any of you.

[kevbone]

 

People like Kev would rather run around in foil hats and sew his own butt-hole shut to prevent the aliensfrom entering either his butt-hole or his mind.

 

Tin foil hats? What are you talking about? What is your facination with my butt?

 

 

[pigchampion]

i use a tin foil condom for when women alienate me.

[mattp]

Give you a hint Bug. Terrorists will be based wherever we are not. They will stage and attack us but will never keep their command and control centers anywhere near the fighting. They used to be in Afghanistan. Where are they now? Pakistan (among other places). If you want to destroy every country that houses terrorists, you will end up chasing them throughout the World and leave a wake of destruction in your wake.

 

What is the solution? Damned if I know, but neither do you. Any of you.

 

That's the point, Akhalteke. We cannot "win the war on terrorism" through military action. All this rah rah rah we have to take the fight to the terrorists so they don't bring it here is straight up crap. The closely associated "we have to fight to a win in Iraq or the terrorists are going to come get us" is propaganda intended to sidetrack any national dialogue about what our goals may be and what the prospects of accomplishing any of them really are. Maybe there's hope for you yet.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

That's the point, Akhalteke. We cannot "win the war on terrorism" through military action. All this rah rah rah we have to take the fight to the terrorists so they don't bring it here is straight up crap. The closely associated "we have to fight to a win in Iraq or the terrorists are going to come get us" is propaganda intended to sidetrack any national dialogue about what our goals may be and what the prospects of accomplishing any of them really are. Maybe there's hope for you yet.

 

Typical liberal mentality:

 

1) We "can't" - mindset of failure,

2) "we need a dialogue" = replace any action with endless "talk" about doing something.

 

 

[TheJiggler]

That's the point, Akhalteke. We cannot "win the war on terrorism" through military action. All this rah rah rah we have to take the fight to the terrorists so they don't bring it here is straight up crap. The closely associated "we have to fight to a win in Iraq or the terrorists are going to come get us" is propaganda intended to sidetrack any national dialogue about what our goals may be and what the prospects of accomplishing any of them really are. Maybe there's hope for you yet.

 

Typical liberal mentality:

 

1) We "can't" - mindset of failure,

2) "we need a dialogue" = replace any action with endless "talk" about doing something.

 

 

I see. So Bush is a liberal . .

"I don't think you can win it"

 

 

[Bug]

Should we invade Pakistan then? Huh. You guys are confusing as hell. Make up your minds.

Mine is made up.

We should not say we are going to do something we have no intention of doing and we should not start something we have no idea how to finish.

 

Invade Pakistan? No. Joint venture crammed down the crooked bastard's throat, yes.

 

Maybe you are just playing with words but your posts seemed to strive for some sense of real discourse for awhile so I caution you, just because there are several of us who do not agree with you does not mean you should treat us the way you treat Kevbone.

If you want to have some real discourse then ignore those you don't respect and keep your dander down. Otherwise, you are just an ankle biter.

Sure you can come back and beat me up but you will still just be a mean dog with no substance to your arguements.

[billcoe]

Invade Pakistan? No. Joint venture crammed down the crooked bastard's throat, yes.

 

Crooked Bastard? Musharraf is gone now, I highly suspect that he will be facing charges of treason soon I suspect. It's a crazy world over there, we have our enemies close to pinned in that country...no need to "Invade", think how counterprodutive that would be on the secular Pakis. The charge earlier that the Bush admin chose cronies and lackies rather than the best and brightest for the jobs is indefensible and although probably legal, highly upsetting and angering if true. I suspect that there is probably another side, which we haven't heard from yet. I'm not saying that to apologize for those actions which, if true (most likely are too), are complete and utter bullshit for many many reasons.

 

Regards to all, thanks for the civil discourse, theres a shitload of things I don't know and I've learned something new.

 

Link to former President Musharraf status story

[Bug]

Give you a hint Bug. Terrorists will be based wherever we are not. They will stage and attack us but will never keep their command and control centers anywhere near the fighting. They used to be in Afghanistan. Where are they now? Pakistan (among other places). If you want to destroy every country that houses terrorists, you will end up chasing them throughout the World and leave a wake of destruction in your wake.

 

What is the solution? Damned if I know, but neither do you. Any of you.

Speak for yourself. You know nothing about me. Shove your hints up your ass. I will debate you until it is clear your brawn overpowers your ability to reason.

 

We are currently chasing terrorists into the most valuable countries we NEED alliances with. Once there we are alienating them with corrupt practices and brute force.

If we are not going to chase them everywhere, and we definately should not, then we should not say we are going to, which GW did say.

My "solution"? in hostile territory find them and hit them and get the hell out.

In allied territory, joint operations or tactical deployments.

"Fight fire with fire".

Fast and light.

That has been the strategy being developed for the last 30 years. Why it keeps getting left behind in favor of huge deployments makes no sense to me.

We cannot control the governments of the world.

We cannot be the policemen of the world.

But we can pour much more money into intelligence and covert operations and surgically hit targets thereby minimizing "collateral damage". Reagan's attack on Tripoli is one such example. I did not like the man or the president but that strike was very effective and we didn't have to occupy anybody to acheive a high degree of success.

Saddam was harder to find but we gutted our intelligence operations in Iraq under Carter and that kind of intelligence take decades to build. Decades we will now spend "rebuilding" Iraq with questionable long term success.

It is NOT rocket science. It takes consistency. The roots of our failures abroad are in the polarity of our politics at home.

[JosephH]

Really an incredible amount of misconception and 'need to make ourselves feel good' delusion on display here.

 

Mattp is actually, and factually, correct - there is no "war on terrorism" - winnable or otherwise - any more than there is a "war on drugs" or "war on illegal immigration". All are simply feel-good anthems and labels for systemic problems we refuse to deal with in any effective way - i.e., that might make us wince slightly. Terrorism, like drug use, is rooted in environmental conditions and normal human responses to them. Our nation was born of terrorism fueled by Britian's failure to recognize or address the root causes of our discontent. Militant Islam similarly feeds off, and is nurtured by, the discontent and displeasure of broad tracts of the population in the ME.

 

This is, and will remain, the "new normal" in a media-saturated world only too capable of illustrating the sharp disparity and divide between the most and least fortunate among us. Selling the idea that it is a "war" is as sad pandering which precludes any rationale approach to alleviating the worst of the conditions which breed terrorism - it is a bankrupt mentality and a non-starter to boot. The requisite approach is addressing the conditions which breed terrorism, respond ruthlessly with overwhelming might when you must resort to military action, and continue to loopback with infrastructure and economic improvements which alleviate the original conditions.

 

It isn't rocket science, except to the incompetent simps in the administration whose performance to date has broadly emboldened our enemies, large and small alike. Again, if Hu Jintao, Ahmadinejad, and OBL sat down on 9/10 and tried to hammer out a script for what would happen to the U.S. over the next seven years they couldn't have done half as well as the aftermath which has followed a commanding peformance of squandering and pillaging by W, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, and their cast of robotic minions.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

It isn't rocket science, except to the incompetent simps in the administration whose performance to date has broadly emboldened our enemies, large and small alike.

 

That's complete and total bullshit.

We have not emboldened any of our enemies - we've scared the shit out of them.

 

 

[TheJiggler]

It isn't rocket science, except to the incompetent simps in the administration whose performance to date has broadly emboldened our enemies, large and small alike.

 

That's complete and total bullshit.

We have not emboldened any of our enemies - we've scared the shit out of them.

Tell that to Iran, Russia, Sudan, Syria . . . . .

 

+1 for Libya though! That was worth a trillion $$!

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Tell that to Iran, Russia, Sudan, Syria . . . . .

 

EXACTLY. They are acting not out of a feeling of "boldness" but out of fear that they are next, a position of inferiority not security.

 

This situation may not be desirable, but it doesn't change the fact that saying our enemies are "emboldened" is bullshit.