I just have to know what you guys think.
The main tone of the republican platform is that they will save us from the enemy. I just don't get where this eminent attack is coming from. Who out there actually poses a threat?
Printable View
I just have to know what you guys think.
The main tone of the republican platform is that they will save us from the enemy. I just don't get where this eminent attack is coming from. Who out there actually poses a threat?
canada has been making some rumbling noises.
Not in the sense those people are talking about; however I do believe an attack is coming.
I'm just tired of waiting on it.
I always thought those Badgers were up to something :evilbadger:
Not sure what you mean. Do you think an army of another country or a group of crazies are preparing?Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbick
Terrorist attacks haven't really hit the US soil basically because of our friendly neighbors and our isolation. But in places like the UK, Indonesia, Egypt, et al... it's just a hop, skip and a jump to the next country to cause some mayhem where the tourists are located.
Our geographical isolation will only last so long. And hell, we have enough crazy groups from within the US to supply use with enough worries.
Nah, no attack. Not yet anyway. The aliens still have a good few lightyears to traverse.
how can anybody attack us? we're number 1 in every category! :rolleyes:
If you stopped attacking other people, maybe they'd stop attacking you.
I am aware Britain is partly to blame here, but I didn't want the war. I'm not sure who did.
@gerbick
So in other words, American soil is in no danger aside from a handful of crazy people.
It's the governments responsibility as outlined by the constitution to police against crime within our borders without the need to declare "war on terrorism". That's like declaring war on anger. Nothing is different in the world today than any time in history and this is just a bunch of bullsh*t fear mongering with the sole purpose of scaring us in to handing over more power.
Our tourists are only in danger due to our self centered foreign policies. Stomping around in land that isn't ours pisses people off, not our freedom.
Heightened intelligence, strategic deployments and above all diplomacy will reduce the likely-hood to a minimum. Not casting the first stone. McCain's stance is our biggest threat.
no, no. It's down to just the law of averages by now. We should have been attacked. Just like... Miami has somehow not been hit directly by a hurricane. A few misses, close calls... that luck can't continue forever.
As it stands, the "war on terror" is nothing but rank fear-mongering at its worse. It's as bad as the cold war... replace Communism/Commies with Fundamentalism/Khomeini now. Hell, it's almost the same amount of syllables.
Anyway, I don't think my point is that we need the government to protect us. I do, however, think that we're overdue for another attack.
Not that I want it to happen, I really don't. But hey... our isolation is only geological. And once more, I don't want the US government to take on a "world police" stance at all. We suck at it. I'd rather use true diplomacy and the idea that "We're just going to have to agree that we're going to be different..."
That is sorta the mentality of our prior generations, imho. And it worked. This "you're with us, or against us" mentality... it might have worked in the Wild West (US) or in the playground, but not out in the world.
I agree with "law of averages" to an extent. The more intelligent a species, the more likely its influences will contradict the numbers. If our course remains unaltered, you bet its a matter of time.
I do think the government should protect us (its one of the 3 things it supposed to do) but only in the face of a real threat and this administration has been caught lying about pretty much everything from day 1.
We're saying the same thing. Sh*t happens and life can't be lived in fear of it. It's divisive and breeds hate. Acceptance and preparation are the only proven guards against the future.
I just wanted to highlight that the republicon rhetoric is not just kinda bad, or questionable viewed from the left. It's really fk'n dangerous and an insult to everything this country has stood for. I can't for the life of me figure out how anyone would not want to lynch the party let alone vote for it.
The aggressive lying at the RNC is just too much for me and I had to see if any of their drones actually existed.
In an edit... my statement was closer to:
The government shouldn't go outside of our borders to protect us...
But yes. We're basically saying the same thing. I'm just tired of waiting on another attack, basically.
Heh, vote for McCain then :)
No thanks. A bunch of (real) empty rhetoric without mentioning what policies will be in place, should be in place, and no plans outside of making your party/people look better by only attacking, presenting half-truths, and really not saying anything in an arena that lacked not only participants but also lacked variety... seriously. I've seen more varied crowds at a clan rally.
This week hardens the division between people that are "content" with the status quo and are ultimately blind to the rest of the world; or those that are not content with how things are presently ran and want to actually do something other than breath out divisive mantras and lack true substance.
But I don't want nice, flowery poetry either. But what I'm witnessing at the RNC, that's just an insulting show of empty verbiage that creates more fear than unity.
Guess the staunch republicans are happy now. They got grandmas thinking that Obama|Biden looks too closely to Osama Bin Laden... and that McCain|Palin will deliver that ever-aggressive happiness that makes their night that much safer while sacrificing the younger generation while the older generation dies a sleepy happiness.
Soon enough, not only the dollar will be the weakened thing in the US. The sheer lack of forward thinking sucks. It shows the most limited capacity for thinking. And to pull a freshmeat politician to that level of the government and state that kind of stuff without mentioning economic policy other than "drill baby drill" and other ignorant terms...
Seriously. Please bring on the attack. Maybe that reality will make people think twice for a limp wristed sabre rattler.
I literally could not have said it better.
However all I was saying is, if you want another attack, elect McCain.
No one at the moment thanks to the current administration.Quote:
Originally Posted by jAQUAN
Just giving credit where credit is due.
ok back to my cave.
Coming from someone who spent most of his life in NYC (Wall St on 9/11 and every day after for the next several years) attack fear is always going to be there. I've not spent my days looking over my shoulder, but have to say that I've always felt that the best defense is a good offense, so my fears have certainly been assuaged in the last few years.
I'm not going to turn this into a pro-war or con-war issue, but I will say that I can't imagine that either candidate would not do what they think is their best job in trying to avert another day like that. At this point, the money being spent abroad probably could find at least somewhat of a better usage in our own borders. Keep in mind that this is a purely economic statement, you anti-war mongers!
There's no proof that it wasn't a purely random event. They can no more claim they've prevented another than one could prove it was a false-flag event.Quote:
Originally Posted by admedia
I'm not anti-war. It sucks but I have no problem with kicking the sh*t out of anyone who actually threatens our freedom. Obama made it clear during is speech that he doesn't either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama
If there is a terrorist attack in the U.S. it will most likely come from the Klan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama
Maybe he meant Ted Kennedy? JFK sounded more like Bush than Obama's current party.Quote:
Originally Posted by JFK
Well, there are a lot more people that hate us now because of the Bush policies, unprovoked invasion, and torture of prisoners, which has helped to turn ordinary citizens and families into new generations of terrorists.
Our chances of getting attacked are only growing the longer we continue to piss off the rest of the world.
McCain getting elected would just further compound the odds.
Just giving credit where credit is due.
Oh yeah, while we're giving credit, I think we shouldn't forget to thank the current administration for the 9/11 attack that happened long after they took office because they deliberately ignored the mountain of intelligence and warnings leading up to the attack.
Good job protecting us, Republicans. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
:rolleyes:
Clinton felt that Osama was worth launching missiles at. But, couldn't otherwise capture or kill him even though journalists were able to get personal interviews. Yet, you put 9/11 on the Republicans.
Amusing.
Are you claiming that 9/11 didn't happen on the Republican's watch after 9 months of warnings and intelligence briefs?Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
Confusing.
:confused:
Clinton probably didn't have an aggressive enough foreign policy. Hard to say since it was a pre-911 world and we were *****ing about anyone who wanted to increase military spending.
Didn't Bin Laden get patched up at one of our bases and when asked, Clinton said to let him go? He definitely dropped the ball if that's true.
Sounds like you just supported the fact that a Democrat would actually defend his country.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
:cap:
i'm only afraid of attacks from the killer tomato kind.
Actually LR... we're going to have to disagree here somewhat. The Clinton administration did bypass getting/killing Bin Laden in Sudan. This is somewhat indicative of what really happened... some stretch is here and there. But the intel on Bin Laden at the time was a bit lacking... almost until the end of the aforementioned information.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
Or something like that.
Depends on what you mean by aggressive.
Ever wonder why WMD's were never found? Clintion and the U.N. put sanctions on Iraq. and went inspecting.
The break down of inspections at the end was due to the import sanctions not beling lifted 10 years after the war. Even then Clinton got Saddam Hussien to restart the inspections.
Clinton was the one who ended the Bosnian war. Not the U.N. He did it by fighting smart and negotiating smart.
As far as the U.S. hospital story,,, I think it's an urban myth. I've only read that story in fringe media.
There is another story about missed opporitunity here -
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/
Nope. But, I'm confident that you can resolve your confusion by re-reading.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
:D
Absolutely. Many Democrats are well-intentioned. In fact, if they, as a party, held the positions of JFK, I might consider voting for one. But, they have gone far left of where they were in those days. Whether they have good intentions or not, I disagree with their proposed solutions to our current problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbick
It might surprise you, but, No, we're not.Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbick
I'm under no illusions about Clinton's failures to take out Bin Laden early on, or the fact that by the time he did take Bin Laden seriously enough he was way too tied up by the Repub impeachment scandal that shut down our gubment and tied his hands up so completely that we may as well have not had a President for the last two years of his presidency.
(Yeah, I blame both Clintons and the entire obstructionist Repub congress for every bit of BS that got spoonfed to us by the mainstream republican-owned media to cover every bit of political and corporate scandal that was the norn... and still is...)
Clinton had the oppurtunity to cement the accomplishments and benefits to the American public at the end of his presidency if only he could keep his d*** in his pants, and been successful at taking out Bin Laden when he had the chance.
Oh, whew... for a minute I thought you weren't admitting that 9/11 was solely and completely a failure by the republican party and George Bush for ingnoring explicit and comprehensive warnings and intelligence breifings detailing that Bin Laden wanted to crash planes into our buildings.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
(52 warnings to the FAA alone.)
I mean...., if I'm the Maint Super of a building and am retiring, and I tell the new Maint Super that the plumbing is disintegrating and collapsing in the walls and that if it's not fixed there will soon be s*** all over the first floor.... well then, I expect that the next Super will inspect and repair the plumbing....
....or at least give the residents the warning that "Hey, your apt. is about to be flooded with s***
Unfortunately the Bush administration didn't do either.
They heard the warnings and brushed them off.
McCain is so entrenched in this s*** that electing him would be like hiring the perv who raped your 3 year old son as your babysitter next weekend when you go out of town.
Ah, ok. I probably misread your original intent then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
You're still confused. Try again!Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
Your "sh*t on the floor" story is cute. Except, it leaves out an important detail. The sh*t was leaking onto the floor well into the Clinton administration. Or, did you forget about the USS Cole?
I think the analogy works better to say that the first Supervisor neglected to do anything effective to fix the leak because he was more worried about his personal image than the American people. As a result, instead of taking care of the problem when it would have been much easier to do, it was allowed to grow into a problem that was much more costly to Americans in terms of human lives and economy. Thanks Democrats! We're happy that Bill maintained his good standing with the press!
[I know that Democrats operate on a different "pay grade" when it comes to difficult decisions. But, I think it's pretty sad if their bar is set so low that it's excusable to be thrown off of stopping terrorists because of bad press.]
haha. This might be entertaining.
That the eternal truth...Quote:
If you stopped attacking other people, maybe they'd stop attacking you.
Stop meddling in other people's affairs and policies...
It's not as if 9/11 happened the day after the Republicans took office.
You can't blame your predecessor for something like this if it was over a year ago.
"S*** someone got shot."
"Why didn't you close the arms cabinet?"
"Don't blame me. Bill unlocked it before he left last year!"
In hindsight, Bush should have done things differently to prevent 9/11. However, it makes no sense to blame only his administration for failing to do so when the first Al-Qaeda attack against Americans occured almost 3 years (perhaps earlier considering other attacks) before he even took office.
If it's really necessary to view it in partisan terms, the Democrats had 28 months to do something about it and the Republicans had 9 (not over a year).
I truly hate to nitpick; however your timeline needs to be expanded. You can go back to Reagan (Iran Contra scandal) and trace money (and policies) back that funded Al Qaeda/Bin Laden either directly or indirectly.
So that's... two terms of Reagan (R), Bush Sr. (R), two terms of Bill Clinton (D), and then two terms for Bush (R).