Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 07-20-2004, 10:58 AM   #1 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
What is most frustrating to me.

This is my rant. This has come to really drive me this election cycle.

America has always been under attack, since our earliest days as a nation. But until now I believe we have done a good job of focusing on our enemies, of actually paying attention to those who we know are targeting us.
September 11th Al Qaeda committed an act of War on America. They have made it clear that they will attempt to attack us again. One of their primary goals is to destroy America. In this space of time they have also attacked others.
I think this nation did a commendable and awesome job of taking the war directly to them. And we did in a quick, no-nonsense manner. It was a damned good start and I would have proudly served my country there if I was needed.

But the administration proved to have a short attention span. We wandered away after the initial work was done until Iraq caught Bush's eye and we became embroiled in that.

The most frustrating thing to me is that there is a sizable force of Al Qaeda still roaming that region, there was virtually nothing in Iraq. And least of all there was nothing state sponsored anti-american going on in Iraq.
The underground activities that were going on in Iraq were leagues below even insignificant to the threat that still exists against us in Afghanistan/Pakistan. There are more Al Qaeda operations going on in the North American continent than the minor force that was in Iraq. Our enemy is not there.

Our troops have been in Iraq going on a year and a half very soon. 170,000 troops in Iraq. 17,000 in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Think what that influx of forces could have done to the Taliban and Al Q had we positioned them there rather than wasting them in Iraq. I believe we would have completely destroyed them there, scattered any remaining cowards. Destroyed Al Qaeda as a force.
Our ports are still completely neglected and our first responders have been forgotten past the initial flag waving.
That's just not right. In fact, it's so far from not right to me it's criminal.
Now we have high administration officials and congresspeople openly discussing the possibilities of a terrorist strike that could be coming set to disrupt our election process this november and how we would deal with reorganizing or continuing the election process in it's wake.

It makes me want to tear my hair out in frustration when I see the problems we face so readily obvious. Iraq wasn't our threat, never was. The Afghan/Pakistani region is where it's all at and we walked away from it leaving what amounts only to a minor security force to keep the new government from being overrun.

I don't hate Bush as a human being. I hate his administration and what it stands for. But, if we are attacked during our election, or.. hell, a year after the election without taking concrete steps to:
1. actually combat our enemies.
2. Plug our glaring port security hole
3. Fund first responders.

I will have no choice but to personally blame him for the murders of americans and a betrayal of the entire country. I will hate him and damn him for it. I will have no respect for him, no matter the office he holds.

His first job is to protect us, he hasn't shown he has the capacity to do that. He has shown he can wage war, but not provide for the security of the nation.
Quote:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States."
That's the oath of office of the President of the United States. I find him not only lacking but being negligent in his duty.
George W Bush does not deserve to hold the office of the Presidency.
I fear for our security under such gross mismanagement.

This "essay" was sparked by a conversation with a local wounded Vet, Chris Johnson, a family friend of my wifes. He lost his arm in a firefight June 20th. He's in Walter Reed right now. The essence of how he feels is he does not regret his service, or sacrifice. He just wishes it was for a better cause.

This is how I feel, it is not a flame, not meant to be destructive. I love my country and want to see us prosper long after those of us here are long gone. As such this is what drives me to hold the positions I do regarding Bush so militantly. I don't trust him with America.
Superbelt is offline  
Old 07-20-2004, 11:51 AM   #2 (permalink)
42, baby!
 
Dragonlich's Avatar
 
Location: The Netherlands
Some thoughts:

I agree with your sentiment, but would like you to look beyond the immediate threat.

1) Al-Qaida wasn't only situated in Afghanistan, it's world-wide. That means that your statement that the US could've wiped out AQ by putting in more troops is simply incorrect.

2) Afghanistan basically cannot be subjugated. It's been tried for ages, and nobody has been able to do it so far. What makes you think the US is any different? Sending in hundreds of thousands of troops isn't going to change the situation one bit.

3) Given that AQ is situated all over the world, you cannot hit them all. You can, however, try and stop much of the support they get. Only local governments can really stop these criminals, and some of them need to be persuaded to do that. Attacking Iraq was one way of "persuading" rogue nations to stop supporting AQ. That doesn't mean that Iraq was necessarily doing that, mind you. Invading Iraq has shown hostile countries that the US *will* strike back (in spite of international opposition). If you're the leader of Syria, I'd say you'd be thinking twice about supporting AQ activities today - if the US finds out, you're history.

4) All of it boils down to this: you *cannot* "actually combat our enemies", because those enemies don't play by the rules. They don't belong to any one country, they're not part of a government, they're not wearing any official uniform, and you simply can't find them. They blend into the innocent population worldwide. Direct military force isn't going to work. Intelligence isn't going to work without local (official) support. What was Bush supposed to do? Who do you attack? Who is the enemy?

/counter-rant
Dragonlich is offline  
Old 07-20-2004, 11:58 AM   #3 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Seaver's Avatar
 
Location: Fort Worth, TX
It has been working. Saudi Arabia is finally taking steps to counter terrorism, Libya (very strong terrorist supporter in the past) has suddenly 180'd.

Will we be attacked? Sure. But they aren't going to come from Afghanistan, most of the well trained cells exited to Pakistan immediately after 9/11, and are believed to be in the cities in S/E Asia atm. So where does that leave us? Going to war with half the world? No. You attack very well known regiems that scare the rest of them into line.

And while a couple thousand more in Afghanistan would have definately helped, going in with 170k would have ended like when the Russians did in the 80's, a complete disaster.
Seaver is offline  
Old 07-20-2004, 01:03 PM   #4 (permalink)
Huggles, sir?
 
seretogis's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle
Good responses regarding Al'Qaeda, Dragon and Seaver.

As far as Iraq goes, I think that it is more than just its purported ties to AQ or 9/11 or terrorism support in general that made it deserving of invasion -- it's the fact that we helped Iraq become a gas-happy dictatorship. Iraq was our mess and we had to clean it up at one point or another. To do so at a time which could be seen as the USA's weakest was a good plan and I would support it regardless of who was in office. That said, let's keep our troops out of places they don't need to be.
__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames
seretogis is offline  
Old 07-20-2004, 02:11 PM   #5 (permalink)
Dubya
 
Location: VA
hooah superbelt.
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."
Sparhawk is offline  
Old 07-20-2004, 05:35 PM   #6 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
The leadership and all the structure (as it were) that Al Qaeda had was situated in the Afghan/Paki region. A continued effort to shut down the borders and continued presure to the present day would have, I believe destroyed the life of Al Qaeda. I know they and their supporters are spread around the world. If we can kill off the generals and lieutenants, something we had a chance to do, the remaining cells would have been more or less aimless, less effective and alltogether weaker. A secondary leadership may have sprung up or they may have integrated with another terrorist organization.
That is when we once again show them that there is nowhere they can hide that we won't come after them to kill them. Make them afraid of organizing again. Put the fear of American into any country that would try to once again harbor them.
That's what I'm saying. We let up on the real terrorists, and we wen't after a lame duck dictator who was no threat.
Killers of americans 17000 troops remaining, more or less forgotten
Iraq 170,000 troops, a priority?
That's wrong. That's inexcusable and treasonous to real american interest and security. That's why I'm angry and am learning to hate.
Superbelt is offline  
Old 07-20-2004, 06:00 PM   #7 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Seaver's Avatar
 
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Yes it was a horrible military blunder to leave the back door wide open like that. I honestly believe that Bush did what his father did in Iraq and do what his generals suggest. In the Gulf the prefered thinking of the day was to stack up so much firepower to completely overwhelm the enemy. That lead to the massacre on the highway and the US took massive heat. So the military thinking went more to special forces using native armies. Well to be honest the Generals didnt think the lines would so overwhelm the enemy with such few Americans and undertrained allies. So the lines disintegrated and before they knew it AQ/Taliban were in full retreat accross a border they had yet to close.

Honestly I dont know if it's the administration or the generals to blame, but you're right that it was a huge blunder.
Seaver is offline  
Old 07-20-2004, 06:02 PM   #8 (permalink)
Boo
Leave me alone!
 
Boo's Avatar
 
Location: Alaska, USA
IMO - Bush made decisions based on the intelligence provided and with the support of his administration. Holding him personally responsible is acceptable based on his position. Holding him wholly responsible is another matter. Managers, leaders and governors rely on the information provided to them. Crap in equals crap out (just like a computer). I ask where the intelligence community got derailed, underfunded and/or mismanaged at agency level.

My personal grievance (not to be a threadjack) is day one of the invasion of Iraq. I don't support or believe that my constitution supports assassination of world leaders. The game plan should not have included all the attempts assassination.

Do you believe that Bush would have been a "bad president" under different times?
__________________
Back button again, I must be getting old.
Boo is offline  
Old 07-20-2004, 06:15 PM   #9 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
Yeah there are others I blame and group with him. They were part and parcel with the whole f-ed up situation I just described. But as boss, it ultimately fell on his head to make decisions and to reallocate our resources elsewhere. That is why he can get the WHOLE blame, others can share in it but I hold him fully responsible.
And the whole Iraq situation really is only one part of my anger. I let out a general WTF!!! to the Congress as a whole for not taking it upon themselves to get a unanimous vote of whatever it takes to fix our borders and fund our police and firemen.

And yes, I believe Bush is a bad president overall, under different times even. If he can't make decisions on such an obvious course, how can I think he can do the same job at any other time when things become more aimless?
Superbelt is offline  
Old 07-21-2004, 12:38 PM   #10 (permalink)
Psycho
 
nicely written, superbelt. thats sums up my anger at the war in Iraq very well.
thank you
boatin is offline  
Old 07-22-2004, 03:46 AM   #11 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
Some figures:
The Coast Guard requested 7.5 billion for key port security upgrades. The Whitehouse allowed only $45 million this year.

The transportation security administration says that there is a 35% to 65% chance that terrorists will try to plant a bomb in the cargo of a US passenger airplane. The admin only gives enough funding to allow 5% of air cargo to be screened.

They are both absolutely scary in the ignoring of the very real threats, and the relative cheapness of their securement.
This nation spent itself into massive deficits on all kinds of bullshit pork this year and we can't give 7.5 billion to upgrade our port security? Something Necessary? To the federal government that's piddling change that can be thrown around at will. It should be one of our top priorities.
Again, Bush can requisition 85 billion to continue a war in Iraq that was obvious to the world at that time never posed any threat to us, but not 7.5 billion to do what is necessary to secure one of the weakest points in our borders.

I really am glad to hear from some of the members who are moderate to right of me here in some form of agreement.

This stuff isn't disputable.

1) Al Q in the Afghan region was and remains a big threat to our security.
2) Iraq was not a threat. At least we can agree they were nowhere near the scale that #1 is.
3) Our ports, airline screening and border security are still horribly underfunded and since 9/11 have been inexplicably ignored and downplayed by the administration.
4) Our first responders, the ones who did such an amazing job rescuing people on 9/11 are being ignored. Underfunding has forced several of the fire stations in NY who were an integral part of the rescue effort to shut down since.

Knowing all of that, and seeing that Bush is taking not one step to correct any one of them, how does anyone here explain their support for his Reelection?
Superbelt is offline  
Old 07-22-2004, 04:38 AM   #12 (permalink)
Insane
 
I agree with Superbelt on all but one of his issues. The REAL threat has yet to reveal itself. The terrorist organization myth is very flimsy. You don't destory a people w/ terrorism you kill them at war. These masked men are only pawns of the Ultra-Elite rich factions who have and always will initiate World Wars. People as ourselves are the cogs in the universal wheel soon to be slaves to wartime debt. The USA has to find a way to operate without playing Universal Policemen.
Bookman is offline  
Old 07-22-2004, 04:49 AM   #13 (permalink)
Tone.
 
shakran's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Boo


Do you believe that Bush would have been a "bad president" under different times?

Yes. The man is an ignoramus who is proud of and brags about his ignorance ("I don't read newspapers. I don't watch the news.") There is no way someone so appallingly uninformed can possibly execute the duties of the president.

He just wouldn't have had the opportunity to plunge us into a horrible situation from which it will take decades to extract ourselves.

Quote:
Originally posted by Seaver
most of the well trained cells exited to Pakistan immediately after 9/11
Then why didn't we go there? Instead we went to Iraq. There's no logical reason for it.
shakran is offline  
Old 07-22-2004, 05:22 AM   #14 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
Al Qaeda is only one group it is not the only threat to America. Al Qaeda's success on 9/11 has only encouraged other groups to attempt attacks of similar or greater magnitude.

The first step toward combatting these groups in the short run is to deny them as much state sponsorship as possible. Toward that end, I think it was impossible to allow Saddam's government to continue thumbing their noses at the world and the US in particular with regard to sanctions. Removing the Taliban doesn't exactly say much to other nations when Iraq continued to openly sponsor terrorist acts and violate UN resolutions imposed to limit their military and economic capabilities.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 07-22-2004, 05:36 AM   #15 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
Sorry onetime, you're wrong. You can't tell me you feel safer today having redirected our attention away from Al Qaeda and on Saddam. Al Qaeda is not the only threat, but their are the prime threat that no other group comes even close to matching in ability, structure and intent to damage us.
Who was Saddam funding? The only terrorist organization he was into was Hamas, who has a singular focus of killing Israel, not us.
Bush has to be responsible for our own security first.
Saddam was on the very low end of state sponsorship. Especially in anti-american interest.
Saudi was much higher, and as John Stewart said last night, Pakistan sold mushroom clouds to everyone BUT Iraq.
Removing the Taliban and hunting them to extinction, while at the same time making Al Qaeda a ghost of it's former self, leaving only aimless individual cells around the world would send a very strong message. Especially to those we want to send a message to, notably those who would plan, fund and carryout missions to kill americans.

The only thing Iraq showed the world is that once we want to destroy you, the world doesn't have the ability to stop us. It made the world fear us though. It did nothing to real terrorists. If anything it showed the terrorists we don't have the attention span or will to enter into a true longterm search and destroy of terrorists who have actually killed americans.

Tell me you feel better knowing that Osama, Ayman Zawahiri (the true brains behind Al Qaeda) and Sheik Omar are still out there planning revenge than if we had Saddam and his obvious impotence.

Cause I sure as hell don't. I was never afraid of Saddam, and the war has proven to me that I was right.

Last edited by Superbelt; 07-22-2004 at 05:40 AM..
Superbelt is offline  
Old 07-22-2004, 06:05 AM   #16 (permalink)
Tilted
 
I think many consider all warfare as some conventional exercise, which this one isn't. To eliminate terrorism we have to destabilize state sponsors, without money they are simply thugs with guns stuck in the Middle East.

Iraq was a sponsor as they paid the PLO, Islamic Jihad and others blood money for their actions. They are now removed from the table. Libya another terrorism sponsor has turned in their terrorists, paid restitution for their acts and gave up all their WMD. Afghanistan and more accurately the Taliban are no longer in power. They still have AQ hiding out but they no longer have a government to hide behind or gain support. Saudi Arabia is now cracking down hard not only on terrorists but they have warned the Mullahs they are responsible for inciting violence. It’s not stopping preaching Wuabism but simply reigning in the most violent ones. This was brought about AQ losing ground all over the ME causing them to turn on Saudi's something they haven't done in the past. The Royal family now recognizes them as a threat to be dealt with. Selfish, yes but it at least gets the job done. More moderate states like Jordan, Egypt and Kuwait no longer have to feel isolated as the rest of the ME is turning against these militants. By invading Iraq we have separated the worst offenders in the region. Iran is isolated and I believe we are actively funding groups to undermine the Clerics power. A Democratic Iraq right next store with its Western ideals is an unstabilizing threat to them. It’s hard for people in Iran to live under oppressive Islamic law when right next door they have Internet access, satellite TV and personal freedom. That leaves Syria the last holdout Bathist regime. If Iran falls next they will truly be isolated and will hopefully collapse by themselves. With Syria and Iran gone the PLO issue will also IMO be solved. The militants will not get the money for machine guns and rpgs so hopefully cooler heads will prevail.

Removing two key countries in the war on terror brought all this about. If we only went into Afghanistan Iraq would be their waiting yet again to strike somewhere and still be funding terrorism. I believe this is a just strategy. We simply cannot defend the borders and keep the level of freedom we have now. Relying on simply spending money to defend our borders is a pipe dream. It simply cannot prevent a determined attacker. You could never scan every container, cargo hold, train, airliner or border to stop them. Only by eliminating the state sponsors and going after them in the ME can they be deflected from their main task. The height of the Soviet Union had probably the most paranoid and lethal defenses of any state yet they still had terrorism, drug smuggling etc. and look what freedoms they surrendered for that. Look what AQ has been reduced t lately. Beheading truck drivers and blowing car bombs in markets. A few years ago they were able to attack our cities and even our naval ships. There resources are drying up. They may be able to recruit some goons and give them guns but they are now the hunted instead of the hunters. Every person they talk to may turn them in for the millions. Every holdout may have the door kicked in. Every cell phone call could cause a boomb to drop on them. Already you can see in Iraq citizens forming militias actively hunting down these foreign terrorists. They are stuck so far in the ME killing fellow Arabs who may see them in different light very soon.
cosmoknight is offline  
Old 07-22-2004, 07:02 AM   #17 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
Ok, to refute. Libya has been in talks with the US State Dept and victims groups to allocate restitution for their past deeds to the families. Libya has been on track to dismantle and open up since before 9/11. Big Q even made a statement of sorrow for our losses and condemned the killers after 9/11. Iraq did nothing to that. It was circumstance.

SA is doing the same thing they have been doing for the past 30+ years. They make token gestures occasionally to appear to be our friend. But it's all superficial and that's all it will ever be while we continue to protect that corrupt dictatorship from its own people. Without us, SA would fall.

Syria, it provides a safe haven for anti israeli groups, but has not supported or taken part in any terrorism itself since 1986. In their view these groups are exiled Palestinians trying to get their country back. Their stated goal is for an independent Palestinian State. Once that happens Syria will cease to be on any kind of Terrorism list. It's all dependent on Israel's feet dragging and land grabs.

Iraq War II showed Saddam had no intent and no weapons. We have found nothing militarially or terroristic significant.

Relying on spending money to defend our borders is a pipe dream? So we should not bother? The Coast Guard seems to think we could use a bit of money to upgrade our port defenses, but Bush gave them less than he gave the National Endowment for the Arts. It CAN prevent a determined attacker. Currently a nuclear device could be easily passed through in one of our ports. We don't have more than spot duty along our huge border with devices that can sniff those materials out. The proper level of funding means we can absolutely shut down every avenue Al Qaeda could use to smuggle a bomb in. We have the technology, It can be used to scan every container. Bush just chooses not to implement it.

Madrid and it's 2000 victims would beg to differ with you assessment of Al Qaeda's current strength.
There have been about a dozen major attacks by them since 9/11.
I also think car bombs in markets and beheading truck drivers and soldiers is quite a bit scary and fits the definition of the daily activities of a terrorist organization that still has an active, effective leadership. Not every day can be their Madrid and NYC

Last edited by Superbelt; 07-22-2004 at 07:05 AM..
Superbelt is offline  
Old 07-22-2004, 08:10 AM   #18 (permalink)
WoW or Class...
 
BigGov's Avatar
 
Location: UWW
Quote:
Originally posted by shakran
Yes. The man is an ignoramus who is proud of and brags about his ignorance ("I don't read newspapers. I don't watch the news.") There is no way someone so appallingly uninformed can possibly execute the duties of the president.
He doesn't HAVE to read the newspapers, or watch the news. He gets his news straight from the sources, where the newspapers and news shows get *their* news.

Bush has far more information available to him than any of us.
__________________
One day an Englishman, a Scotsman, and an Irishman walked into a pub together. They each bought a pint of Guinness. Just as they were about to enjoy their creamy beverage, three flies landed in each of their pints. The Englishman pushed his beer away in disgust. The Scotsman fished the fly out of his beer and continued drinking it, as if nothing had happened. The Irishman, too, picked the fly out of his drink but then held it out over the beer and yelled "SPIT IT OUT, SPIT IT OUT, YOU BASTARD!"
BigGov is offline  
Old 07-22-2004, 08:19 AM   #19 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
That's not the point. It's staying in touch with america by paying attention to the news. Getting a different point of view rather than just what his staff feeds him.
It's a powerful man (or woman) who can control the flow of information to his superior.
Superbelt is offline  
Old 07-22-2004, 08:47 AM   #20 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
i have to say that while i am sympathetic to your position, superbelt,i dont share the concern with security that you outline--by which i mean that my objections to the bush administration do not run out along the same lines.

i think that the security problems will not diminish unless there is a serious rethinking of both the way the states functions in a globalising capitalist economy (a recognition of the effects of that process at least--hell even robert macnamara talked about empathy with the enemy as being fundamental to a coherent response--see fog of war if you havent--interesting interview with the subject, bad film about him) and of american foreign policy.

because i do not accept the idea that the states acquires adversaries without cause. i do not accept the fiction that adveraries are irrational or jealous---the americans are either complicit or associated with the political reasons that animate its enemies. to think otherwise is to blind yourself.

the problems with the bush folk is that their ideological frame is so limited and limiting that an infinite amount of information would not matter in the way that i think it should for the development of coherent policies.

for example---neocons have nothing coherent to say about capitalism in part because they fixate on the hallucination of free markets, so the entire logic of their position would lead them to see only a narrow band of data as relevant.

that alone makes them a menace.

another way of saying the same thing: i do not understand why thinking about the present situation should be restricted to turning in circles about tactics for dealing with a security problem that is taken as given in advance and without remedy as to cause.

i just dont get it.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 07-22-2004, 09:02 AM   #21 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
I agree that the long term goal is to learn how not to piss off the rest of the world to the point where large segments want to kill us. But the short term goal is to secure our borders against those who are already against us. And it can be done now. Even if we pull out of the Middle East entirely today I don't see Al Qaeda softening on us.
I actually don't see us -ever- attaining the long term goal of improving our foreign policy enough to resist the creation of enemies. As long as we are world leaders, which I sincerely hope we can always maintain, we will be selfish enough to impose our interests on others.

As most everyone on this board knows, I have a vast array of problems with the Bush Admin and the way they are running this country. This is just the most pressing concern, something that is just a basic part of his job that he is failing at. And also something I think I can use to get some understanding out of Bush supporters on this board.
I have seen too many people throw their support to him based entirely on national security issues and that just amazes me because of the obviousness of his failure at it.
Superbelt is offline  
Old 07-22-2004, 09:32 AM   #22 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
agreed, sir.

and with that i turn to continue my afternoon stroll.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 07-22-2004, 10:41 AM   #23 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Seaver's Avatar
 
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Look, the 9/11 comission, the two UN comissions, and even Putin's intelligence all agreed that the information all pointed at WMD's. Bush didnt lie, the information that everyone used was wrong. He did what he, and everyone else thought was right to do against an immanent threat.

Now Superbelt we have differing views on how to protect America, the passive and the pro-active. You want to protect America by stepping up the borders and shipyards. I want to protect America by denying them save harbor.

Why? There is no way we can keep the America we have and protect our borders to the extent we need to ensure nothing gets accross. Searching every container of every ship would cost trillions, and slow down trade to a stand still. This would in turn kill our economy.

So we stop the terrorists from their government support. It worked in Afghanistan (largest terrrorist supporter). Iraq DID support terrorists, Islamic Jihad/Mujahadinn/Hamas/etc. Libya did support them now are trying to be buddy buddy with us cause they're shaking in their boots. Saudi Arabia is cutting down now on terrorists, not the gestures of the past I believe, and it will show when their animity offer runs out.

Syria you are correct that they havent supported Terrorists since the Black September episode.
Seaver is offline  
Old 07-22-2004, 11:10 AM   #24 (permalink)
Tilted
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Superbelt
Ok, to refute. Libya has been in talks with the US State Dept and victims groups to allocate restitution for their past deeds to the families. Libya has been on track to dismantle and open up since before 9/11. Big Q even made a statement of sorrow for our losses and condemned the killers after 9/11. Iraq did nothing to that. It was circumstance.

Except he never went a head with those plans merely lip service until after he saw Saddam fall. He also realized he was on the short list of trouble makers in the MId East. He really started opening up after we intercepted a ship with spare parts for his WMD program. Knowing the jig was up he ammended his ways.

SA is doing the same thing they have been doing for the past 30+ years. They make token gestures occasionally to appear to be our friend. But it's all superficial and that's all it will ever be while we continue to protect that corrupt dictatorship from its own people. Without us, SA would fall.

True but SA leadership was never really a target before, now they are. It was ok to make some statements condeming attacks because they needed our techs now they are being targeted as Western puppets. Their goal is hardly noble I won't debate that they merely want to keep their money flowing from the west. AQ is trying to stop that so they have to go.

Syria, it provides a safe haven for anti israeli groups, but has not supported or taken part in any terrorism itself since 1986. In their view these groups are exiled Palestinians trying to get their country back. Their stated goal is for an independent Palestinian State. Once that happens Syria will cease to be on any kind of Terrorism list. It's all dependent on Israel's feet dragging and land grabs.

I think many Lebanese would not have that same view. Several diffent groups view them as oppressors and have numerous members executed by them like the Christians etc.
http://www.lgic.org/en/help_syria_terrorism.php


Iraq War II showed Saddam had no intent and no weapons. We have found nothing militarially or terroristic significant.

Saddam did besides the minor amount of WMD to have several banned systems from SA2 motors to lab equipment. All of which is do out in a report in September.

Relying on spending money to defend our borders is a pipe dream? So we should not bother? The Coast Guard seems to think we could use a bit of money to upgrade our port defenses, but Bush gave them less than he gave the National Endowment for the Arts. It CAN prevent a determined attacker. Currently a nuclear device could be easily passed through in one of our ports. We don't have more than spot duty along our huge border with devices that can sniff those materials out. The proper level of funding means we can absolutely shut down every avenue Al Qaeda could use to smuggle a bomb in. We have the technology, It can be used to scan every container. Bush just chooses not to implement it.

I am all for securing the borders but that means stopping the inflow of illegal immigrants as well, something neither side wants to do for political reasons. Searching all containers for WMD would delay shipping and ruin the economy. Its easier to search for radiation but not for Sarin or VX or any other chemicals. Sniffing each container on a ship that has hundreds of them on board takes time and when you have 10 more ships waiting for that berth just in one day it adds up. The better scenerio is to stop them over seas.

Madrid and it's 2000 victims would beg to differ with you assessment of Al Qaeda's current strength.
There have been about a dozen major attacks by them since 9/11.

Spain was a soft target. First they had a organized Muslim terror group to help their activities. Second their screening was lax, try leaving back packs unattended in NY and see what happens. Thirdly it was closer to home, less expense and logistics.

I also think car bombs in markets and beheading truck drivers and soldiers is quite a bit scary and fits the definition of the daily activities of a terrorist organization that still has an active, effective leadership. Not every day can be their Madrid and NYC
Scary yes it is. Training someone to fly an airplane versus training some thug how to make a crappy video tape and cut someones head off are vastly different. AQ is not that well organized anymore as it leadership has been decimated. It can be replaced at local levels but not with the same level of communication it had before. It simply doesn't have to many safe havens left to set up HQ's. Regionally they can but they are restricted to that region. Some of those may be better funded and will try and hit us again but their level of cooperation between them is greatly reduced.
cosmoknight is offline  
Old 07-22-2004, 11:10 AM   #25 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
:You don't have to search every container. There are scanners that can be purchased that can pick up on radioactive signals. We aren't even doing that. We Can do that TODAY, and we aren't. fuckin' a.
The Coast Guard seems to think it could use 7.5 billion dollars to improve our border security. Why isn't that a priority to you?
The Republican Majority has denied attempts to fund our ports.

We need what Portland has, nation wide. Current funding can't support that

I gotta say you guys are making extremely weak arguments. You guys say it is impossible to protect our borders like we need to, but you completely sidestep the fact that we are barely protecting our borders at ALL!
CIA analysis and every independent national security outfit continue to say our port security is a glaring weakness and wmd's passing through them are a very real, almost inevitable reality.
We have to do something, it's better than sticking our thumbs up our asses and waiting for another attack so we can all cry about how we weren't prepared.

C'mon. Respond to this, specifically:

Coast Guard requisitions 7.5 billion for key upgrades to our port security.
Bush gives us $45 million.
That's just sick. It makes me want to break something thinking of how inept it is and how people can continue to justify his national security creds in its face.
Superbelt is offline  
Old 07-22-2004, 11:24 AM   #26 (permalink)
Tilted
 
We have never protected our borders SB it called a free society. We allow millions to come and go across the border and do nothing. We never had to protect our borders during war time very much at all. You can't stop bank robberies by having more guards they will simply find another way. Same as in our border. If someone wants to bring a nuke with them to port by the time we detect it will probably be to late. Shielding nukes from scanners is not really that hard same for chemicals. A container would hardly get the same amount of searching that the average person would get going on an airliner and they can still snaek things on board. If you wait till your enemy is at your front door you already lost.
cosmoknight is offline  
Old 07-22-2004, 01:41 PM   #27 (permalink)
Dubya
 
Location: VA
There is flawed reasoning in saying that because we are engaging terrorists overseas, they are unable to attack us here in the states. This isn't a football game, this is our nation's security, and offense isn't always the best defense.
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."
Sparhawk is offline  
Old 07-22-2004, 02:23 PM   #28 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Location: Allen, TX
No defense can be absolute, but no building defenses is absolute folly.

Defenses, from castles to armor to security checkpoints, don't prevent attacks or even successful attacks. What they do is increase the cost to the enemy of making a successful attack, in time, planning, people, material, cash, training, and all other manners.

Relating to terrorism, when increase our national defenses within our borders, we make it harder for terrorists to succeed. If determined, they still have ways, but these ways take more planning, more cunning, more training, more financial support, more transactions, more coordination, etc. All of these are things that increase the chances that our intelligence folks will be able to pick up on and track plans prior to execution and give our military and law enforcement agents more substantial ways to attack these organizations.
__________________
"Don't tell me we're so blind we cannot see that this is my land! I can't pretend that it's nothing to do with me.
And this is your land, you can't close your eyes to this hypocracy.
Yes this is my land, I won't pretend that it's nothing to do with me.
'Cause this is our land, we can't close our eyes to the things we don't wanna see."

- DTH
jb2000 is offline  
Old 07-22-2004, 02:36 PM   #29 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Location: Allen, TX
Did attacking Iraq enhance our position in the war on terror?

No.

It made a lot of Americans feel better, like we were doing something, at the beginning, but this sentiment has obviously run its course and petered out.

It did give the American military the chance to demonstrate its might, but its might was hardly in doubt anyway. What it did do was expose its weaknesses to terrorist style attacks.

It did bring about the end to Saddam Hussein, #2 behind the Saudi Royal Family on the Osama bin-Laden most wanted list.

It did demonstrate US willingness to go it alone, giving hope to those out there that would seek to manipulate events to drive a wedge between the US and her allies.

It did make Iraq a central stage for terrorism, giving terrorists a convenient and cheap way to engage and kill large numbers of American soldiers, something they didn't have before the invasion.

Did these make our position in the war better? And if not, then how did they make us safer, when the only way to make us safer to is to put terrorism on the decline?
__________________
"Don't tell me we're so blind we cannot see that this is my land! I can't pretend that it's nothing to do with me.
And this is your land, you can't close your eyes to this hypocracy.
Yes this is my land, I won't pretend that it's nothing to do with me.
'Cause this is our land, we can't close our eyes to the things we don't wanna see."

- DTH
jb2000 is offline  
Old 07-23-2004, 01:27 AM   #30 (permalink)
Tilted
 
Location: Blacksburg, VA
It doesn't really matter that the leadership of AQ was in Afganistan. Terrorist orginazations are orginized into cells that can opperate on their own if the command structure is destroyed. Every cell is dangerous and every cell must be hunted. Even if there was only one cell opperaiting in Iraq, and I think its safe to say there was at least one. That one cell is a real enough threat that if the goverment will not alow us to conduct an investigation that government must be removed.

I think it is also important to recognize that the pressident acted on information he thought to be correct. Even the damn Russians came to us and said Iraq is planing attacks against the United States. Try and dig way deep all the way past all the partisian stuff, and ask yourself if your top analists as well as your friend's top analists are telling you there is a threat and that hundreds, thousands, mabie even hundreds of thousands of people may die if you do nothing. What call do you make? I bet if you let yourself fogget your political leanings just for a little while, your coclusion would be invade.

I agree with you 150% on the port security. More could most deffinatly be done.
VTBrian is offline  
 

Tags
frustrating

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:22 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360