 sj |
||
|
||
BS: There is no terrorist threat
|
|
|
Subject: BS: There is not terroist threat From: GUEST,MM Date: 19 Oct 04 - 04:34 PM "There is no terrorist threat in this country. This is a lie. This is the biggest lie we've been told." M Moore speaking at the University of Michigan's Power Center Oct 12 2003 MM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: Peace Date: 19 Oct 04 - 08:19 PM I would disagree with that statement. There IS a terrorist threat. It is clear and long-standing. And there will continue to be one as long as Bush is President. The terrorist threat has helped Bush and his agenda very much. I think that there will be an incident within the next week. I really hope I am wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: Amos Date: 19 Oct 04 - 08:31 PM There is a terrorist threat toward this country, but I feel it has been badly exacerbated by the mismanagement of the nations approach to terror. We once had a President who addressed the nations fear with one, great, memorable line: "We have nothing to fear but fear itself". This administration seems to have forgotten that, and keeps reminding us of things we should fear. Some folks refuse to be terrorized. I would like to believe I am among them. I know what fear is. But I don't want to be led around by it, not by OSama or Dubya or anyone else. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 19 Oct 04 - 09:17 PM Amos: Diligence and caution is what we need. not fear. Also we should not be over confident. You are the one that is saying the terrorist warnings cause fear. That is what is meant by the statement "We have nothing to fear but fear itself" If we are not fearful, which is exactly what the terrorists want, we can deal with the threat. If we waste time babbling against war we are lost. Let's get on with business and get those terrorists before they get us. Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: Rapparee Date: 19 Oct 04 - 09:49 PM There is not one, but several terrorist threats. Not all of them are from abroad. I will not, however, worry about them. I learned a long, long time ago that nothing is guaranteed, that there is no security, that life was never promised to be risk-free. Nothing I can do will prevent me from being caught in a terrorist attack if I happen to be there when one happens. I can try to avoid obvious danger zones, of course. Having a concealed carry permit I could go armed, but as my brother, who works for the Illinois State Police once said, "If I'm in a place where I need a gun I probably shouldn't be there in the first place." Besides, even a .458 Casull is no protection against a car bomb, GB or VX, radiation, blast, chemicals, or a hundred other things. Why worry about it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: Fishpicker Date: 19 Oct 04 - 09:49 PM Yes, lets deal with the terrorists before they get us, good idea! We can start by voting them out of office and stopping their assault on the constitution now! FP |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 19 Oct 04 - 09:51 PM It seems to me that the vague warnings -- terrorists may attack in some way at some place and time so raise the code another notch -- can do nothing to help stop them. They seem calculated to cause fear; there's no real information there. They certainly don't give you any basis for action. But there's a point to speaking against war. There have been useless wars started out of the fear of a non-existent imminent threat. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 19 Oct 04 - 10:21 PM Whining about the Patriot Act: "The American Civil Liberties Union is running an ad alleging that the USA Patriot Act allows authorities to search homes "without notifying us . . . treating us all like suspects." That's not exactly true. Actually, notice still has to be given to the subject of such a search, eventually. And far from treating us "all" like suspects, the Department of Justice reports seeking only 47 such "sneak-and-peek" warrants in the law's first 17 months. "Sneak-and-peek" searches are now easier to get, legal in all jurisdictions, and the law contains no practical limit on how long authorities can delay notifying the subject of a search. But contrary to the impression left by the ad, they aren't new: some federal courts allowed them prior to the USA Patriot Act." http://www.factcheck.org/article259.html They can sneak and peak all they want. I am willing to cooperate with a government agency that is here to protect me. I don't expect them to do a perfect job either. I just want them to do as good as they can and get the bad guys if they can. I saw a Muslim woman on TV whining because her husband had been arrested and had been held for 5 months. She said in bad english "this country give ne hard time. Her husband had an expired visa. Why would anybody find fault with this? Her husband was here illegaly and If this country too hard on her, why don't she leave? Evidently it is better than the country she came from. Either comply with our immigration laws or stay home. Brucie: I am glad you agree with me that There IS a terrorist threat. Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: Amos Date: 19 Oct 04 - 10:22 PM OG: The prosecution of the war has gone on a tangent, IMHO, which actually increases the threat of terrorist activity. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: GUEST Date: 19 Oct 04 - 11:20 PM "Actually, notice still has to be given to the subject of such a search, eventually." Eventually? What kind of notice is that? "And far from treating us "all" like suspects, the Department of Justice reports seeking only 47 such "sneak-and-peek" warrants in the law's first 17 months." Sneak-and-peek can be abused, and you can be sure that it will be. It's not that they HAVE treated us all like suspects, it's that they CAN; they possess the power, and somebody is bound to use it for his own ends. J. Edgar Hoover's spirit is alive and well and abroad in the land. "They can sneak and peak all they want. I am willing to cooperate with a government agency that is here to protect me. "I don't expect them to do a perfect job either. I just want them to do as good as they can and get the bad guys if they can." That is fear speaking. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 19 Oct 04 - 11:21 PM That last was me, of course clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: Peace Date: 19 Oct 04 - 11:54 PM OG: It may surprise you to find out that likely we agree on much more than just the terrorist thing. I am far left of center on many issues, and far to the right of many folks here on other issues. But, I do NOT trust your President. That makes much of the rest theoretical for me. IMO, he has a Neocon agenda, and IMO, that bodes NO good for this planet or the people on it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: Fishpicker Date: 19 Oct 04 - 11:59 PM First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. Pastor Martin Niemöller Just as timely today as it was then IMO. FP |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: GUEST Date: 20 Oct 04 - 12:02 AM Clint: That is not fear speaking it is being a good citizen. The fact that you are afraid the patriot act may be used on you unfairly is fear speaking. Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: Peace Date: 20 Oct 04 - 12:03 AM And, IMO, Clint is right to worry about that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: Sorcha Date: 20 Oct 04 - 12:09 AM Well, I live a very few miles from a major Air Force Base (Warren) and even fewer from a major missile site...and I refuse to be afraid or believe the crap coming out of Washington. If it happens, it happens. Where and when is not up to me. I could fall out of my granny rocking chair and break my neck too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: Ron Davies Date: 20 Oct 04 - 12:39 AM 1) Obviously there is a terrorist threat. It's also reasonable to aim to bring it down to the level of a nuisance, as Kerry was suggesting. Despite the patented Bushite smear tactics evident on this and many other threads, Kerry was not saying we can treat terrorism as a nuisance now---only that we should take steps so that it will eventually be just in the background, not an all-pervasive fear (as Bush is stoking right now, to ensure re-election.) The only question for any sensible person is how to get to that stage .In fact anybody with any sense will realize that as Bush himself said (then quickly retracted, lest he be accused of making sense), the war on terrorism will never be "won"----there will always be terrorism. That's why it was singularly stupid of him to declare "war on terrorism"---except that it does make it easier to dispense with trivia like freedom of speech----no criticism of the Commander in Chief in wartime---since the war on terror can never be "won" in the clear World War II sense, bye-bye to freedom of speech. How convenient for Bush. 2) I'd like to see the above quote about the "terroist" (sic) threat in context. Pardon my skepticism that some entity which signs itself GUEST MM is a reliable source. 3) If by some chance it is an accurate quote, I would like to point out that Kerry did not say it. Are you willing to ascribe all the drivel emanating from, say Rush Limbaugh, to Bush? Actually Bush provides an ample supply of drivel himself--he needs no assistance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: GUEST,SueB Date: 20 Oct 04 - 01:13 AM Here's a link to an article in the Guardian about a documentary to be aired in the UK starting Wednesday by Adam Curtis called The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear. Wish I could see it, but I'm on the wrong side of the pond. Here's an excerpt: "During the three years in which the "war on terror" has been waged, high-profile challenges to its assumptions have been rare. The sheer number of incidents and warnings connected or attributed to the war has left little room, it seems, for heretical thoughts. In this context, the central theme of The Power of Nightmares is riskily counter-intuitive and provocative. Much of the currently perceived threat from international terrorism, the series argues, "is a fantasy that has been exaggerated and distorted by politicians. It is a dark illusion that has spread unquestioned through governments around the world, the security services, and the international media." The series' explanation for this is even bolder: "In an age when all the grand ideas have lost credibility, fear of a phantom enemy is all the politicians have left to maintain their power." " And here's another excerpt: "The Power of Nightmares seeks to overturn much of what is widely believed about Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. The latter, it argues, is not an organised international network. It does not have members or a leader. It does not have "sleeper cells". It does not have an overall strategy. In fact, it barely exists at all, except as an idea about cleansing a corrupt world through religious violence. Curtis' evidence for these assertions is not easily dismissed. He tells the story of Islamism, or the desire to establish Islam as an unbreakable political framework, as half a century of mostly failed, short-lived revolutions and spectacular but politically ineffective terrorism. Curtis points out that al-Qaida did not even have a name until early 2001, when the American government decided to prosecute Bin Laden in his absence and had to use anti-Mafia laws that required the existence of a named criminal organisation." Something to think about? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: DougR Date: 20 Oct 04 - 01:17 AM brucie, brucie, brucie: you are correct that there is a terrorist threat. You are incorrect when you assume that if George Bush is no longer president the threat will disappear. That's not the kind of logic you usually espouse. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: GUEST,SueB Date: 20 Oct 04 - 10:16 AM Anybody in the UK going to watch The Power of Nightmares tonight? Anybody at all? The guy who made this is apparently very reputable - here's another blurb from the Guardian article: "So controversial is the tone of his series, that trailers for it were not broadcast last weekend because of the killing of Kenneth Bigley. At the BBC, Curtis freely admits, there are "anxieties". But there is also enthusiasm for the programmes, in part thanks to his reputation. Over the past dozen years, via similarly ambitious documentary series such as Pandora's Box, The Mayfair Set and The Century of the Self, Curtis has established himself as perhaps the most acclaimed maker of serious television programmes in Britain. His trademarks are long research, the revelatory use of archive footage, telling interviews, and smooth, insistent voiceovers concerned with the unnoticed deeper currents of recent history, narrated by Curtis himself in tones that combine traditional BBC authority with something more modern and sceptical: "I want to try to make people look at things they think they know about in a new way." " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: Amos Date: 20 Oct 04 - 10:45 AM Doug R: It is just possible that a LOT of our visions of the wide-spread and murderous terrorists are less substantive than Husseins weapons of mass destruction. Remember how solid those were before they vanished? I am not lessoning the importance of actual targets, and the Cole and similar attacks make it clear there is an Opfor out there, no mistake. But generalizing it and making it into a picture "everywhere" is just a disservice to rational minds and actually aids the enemy by promoting his power. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: Les from Hull Date: 20 Oct 04 - 10:47 AM I'll certainly watch it. It's on BBC2 at 9pm. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: GUEST,MM Date: 20 Oct 04 - 10:56 AM If you want to see some proof of this quote, click here. MM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: sledge Date: 20 Oct 04 - 12:13 PM Timothy McViegh showed that the terrorist dosn't need to be from overseas or of an islamic background to be a threat, where you have one McViegh isn't it possible to have another waiting in the wings. I think Moore goofed with this comment. Sledge |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: GUEST,Jon Date: 20 Oct 04 - 01:07 PM Most sites I found seem to refer back to an article written here Where he was talking about the contents of his book "Dude Where's My Country". Here is an extract from a review of the book I found which may put his statement in context. Moore turns to essay style writing as he explains that "THERE... IS... NO... TERRORIST... THREAT!" Statistically there are so many other ways that we are likely to die, that well there is no threat and but believing there is one does help us citizens to let the government dismantle our civil liberties. That said, it does not mean there are no terrorists |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: Wolfgang Date: 20 Oct 04 - 01:25 PM Moore writes (and films) propaganda, that's his style. Statistically speaking, nearly each single way to die is extremely unlikely. The sentence is technically true but meaningless. His art is to use technically true sentences in the appropriate context to make people come to conclusions he wants them to make. THERE IS NO THREAT FROM POLLUTION THERE IS NO THREAT FROM BURIED CHEMICALS THERE IS NO THREAT FROM UNSAFE CARS There is a large number of Moore type sentences, technically true (in one partuicular understanding of the word 'threat') but inviting wrong conclusions. I hate Moore's way of arguing even if I (quite often) happen to agree with his conclusions. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 20 Oct 04 - 01:41 PM OG: "That is not fear speaking it is being a good citizen. " As were the Good Germans in Hitler's era. "The fact that you are afraid the patriot act may be used on you unfairly is fear speaking." Not exactly fear. Caution, I think. I'm not likely to get caught in it, statistically speaking, but somebody's going to. If you're really an Old Guy you'll remember some of J Edgar Hoover's little tricks accomplished without the P. Act. And the act would have certainly helped Nixon manage his enemies list. Etcetera. Terrorists certainly exist, and they need to be watched out for. Actually, though, my life is in more danger from one of my patriotic neighbors with a flag on his pickup. Nonetheless I wouldn't want my rights violated by feds tracking down road-rage prone drivers, even if they do as good as they can and get the bad guys if they can. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: Stilly River Sage Date: 20 Oct 04 - 01:55 PM Getting Bush out of the White House will let a lot of other nations rest easier. They can't wait to see him out of there. Kerry is a rational individual who seeks the counsel of wise people from various parties and persuasions. He doesn't surround himself with only like-thinkers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: Metchosin Date: 20 Oct 04 - 02:06 PM but there is a decided threat of death at the hands of Morrocan taxi drivers. A friend recently returned from a month in Morocco where she was visiting her daughter, who works there. Initially, she was very apprehensive about her trip and their safety. Her conclusion was, despite the corruption and poverty, the scariest thing about the whole visit were the rides in taxis. At one point in their travels, her daughter offered a driver money to slow down and not pass on blind curves and the driver's response was to decline the money and hand her a kleenex. LOL She said the people, despite their poverty were incredibly kind and overwhelmingly hospitable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: DougR Date: 20 Oct 04 - 04:29 PM SRS: "Getting George Bush out of the White House will let a lot of other nations of the world rest easier." What's sad to me, is I think you really mean it. Is that to be the U. S. goal in world affairs if Kerry is elected? For the U. S. to be popular? To bring peace and serinity to other nations? The U. S. probably will never win any popularity contests. We shouldn't even try. That is not the business of government. Government is supposed to protect the people. If it is to do that it may, at times, have to make decisions that piss other people off. So be it, I say. Usually, if a country gets into trouble, who do they turn to for help? The Soviet Union? I don't think so. France? That's really funny. The U. S.? You betcha. We may not be well liked, but other countries don't hesitate to come to us for help in troubled times. DougR DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: Peace Date: 20 Oct 04 - 04:58 PM DougR: I agree that my remark is illogical. IMO, the biggest threat to the USA is its President and those who surround and advise him. Sorry, buddy, but I don't trust Bush. Of course, that's illogical too, because I don't trust anyone who would want to be President (or Prime Minister, etc). In Bush's case, he has messed up. His handling of darn near everything--foreign and domestic--has been poor. I am not assured that Kerry would be all that much better, but I do know this: Since few on Earth could be as inept as Dubya, logically I accept that Kerry will most likely be better. So, who to vote for would be obvious to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 20 Oct 04 - 05:42 PM DougR Bush and his followers do not seem to grasp the concept of "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind." Have you ever thought that bullying the rest of the world might not be the best way to protect our people? Bullies are resented, and if they're too big to fight head on they often get ambushed or sabotaged. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: Amos Date: 20 Oct 04 - 07:24 PM She said the people, despite their poverty were incredibly kind and overwhelmingly hospitable. I have always experienced them thus. Doug: I think you are altering the point to suit your own rhetoric. What SRS sais is that a change of regime here would let many other nations rest easier because he is a very dangerous loose cannon. He causes death in many ways. I guess we should just get used to being used as an instrument of his neurotic conduct, but, well, not in my name, pal. It is one thing to defend the world from genuine psychos when there is no other choice. It something else again to kill those who do not have to be killed because you enjoy playing with armies, even if incomeptently. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: GUEST Date: 20 Oct 04 - 09:33 PM DougR, as Clint said-that is exactly what is happening. Terrorism is their only way to fight back against a bully mentality. And it's been a bully mentality with Bush. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: dianavan Date: 20 Oct 04 - 10:44 PM If I watched all of the 'news' on t.v. I would be living in a constant state of fear. You can be afraid of robbers, rapists, car accidents, disease, terrorism, etc. You choose. What are the odds? Bush has obviously used 911 as a way to induce fear in America. He used 911 as an excuse to invade Iraq. He used 911 to shut down the borders and he'll use 911 to impose martial law if he has to. I would be furious if I were a New Yorker. I, however, am not immune to all the hype. When I heard the Blackwatch were being called upon to do the dirty work for the U.S., I thought to myself, God help Britain. d |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 21 Oct 04 - 01:49 AM Was Saddam a Bully? Who ousted Saddam? What people have lost sight of is that the insurgents are fighting to keep a democracy from taking root in Iraq. Al Quaeda is anti-democracy. They want everybody to adhere to an extreme version of Islam. They think the freedoms that come with democracy are evil. They want to kill anybody they consider evil. If you consider Bush as being evil, you are agreeing with the terrorists. Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 21 Oct 04 - 02:49 AM "If you consider Bush as being evil, you are agreeing with the terrorists." Nonsense. Bush and his buddies are no friends of freedom. Who was it that tried to get a favorable legal opinion of torture? The dam' Liberals? Who's been imprisoning people,including American citizens, without charges? That crap about disagreement with the President being the same as disloyalty to our country has nothing in common with American ideals but a good deal in common with the practices of Hitler and Stalin and I'm tired of it. If you preach unquestioning obedience to any national leader you are against freedom and democracy. You're wrapping your cheap totalitarian philosophy in my flag. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: GUEST,Jon Date: 21 Oct 04 - 03:16 AM Interesting program on BBC2 last night: In the past our politicians offered us dreams of a better world. Now they promise to protect us from nightmares. The most frightening of these is the threat of an international terror network. But just as the dreams weren't true, neither are these nightmares.The Power Of Nightmares |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: Wolfgang Date: 21 Oct 04 - 09:10 AM If you consider Bush as being evil, you are agreeing with the terrorists. (Old Guy) Clint has already said 'Nonsense' to that but I want to say a bit more. I take that sentence as an example for the low level of argumentation in Mudcat recurring every four years before and also shortly after the US election. And I mean both sides here, I could have taken an example from the other side as well. Old Guy, do you post such a sentence without any real thinking or do you do it against better knowledge for the sake of the effect? You are making use of the fact that the word 'agree' in this context can have very different senses. (1) Al Qaeda is on the record for wanting higher oil prices, I agree<(b> with that aim and have posted so in Mudcat. (2) I agree with that aim for completely different reasons and because I think that the consequences of higher energy costs will be good for the West in the long run. In that sense, I do not agree with them (3) Agreement with one of their aims for different reasons does not at all imply that I agree with other aims of them. (4) Even if I would agree with them on more aims than just higher oil prices (I don't as far as I know their aims) that does not imply at all that I would agree with their methods. So, in a verbatim sense and with a narrow meaning of 'agree' I agree with the opinion that Bush is a very bad choice as a president (though I'd not use the word 'evil' and I'd not be sure that all the terrorists agree with that assessment). In that sense I would respond to your statement with 'Yes, but so what?" In a broader sense that you seem to imply on purpose, I do not agree ('not agree' is a very weak expression for my feeling towards them) at all either with the terrorists' political aims nor with their methods. In that sense, I'd respond to your statement 'Nonsense' as Clint has. Sorry for singling out one sentence of you here, there are other offenders as well on both sides of the debate, but I just had to write something about the level of the debate here in the last weeks and I took the first example that I saw when I decided to write a post about it. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: Amos Date: 21 Oct 04 - 09:19 AM Was Saddam a Bully? Who ousted Saddam? What people have lost sight of is that the insurgents are fighting to keep a democracy from taking root in Iraq. Al Quaeda is anti-democracy. They want everybody to adhere to an extreme version of Islam. 1. Saddam was ousted by six billion dollars worth of mililtary, 1000 AMerican lives, 16,000 dead Iraqi mean women and children and a ruined infrastructure. 2. I don't know why you think we are not aware what the insurgents are fighting for. They are fighting to (a) get an occupying military force out of Iraq, where they live and (b) restore a power structure for the Baathists (some of them). I am pretty sure that if this country were occupied by a well equipped foreign military, you'd be in favor of getting thewm out no matter what nice ideas they had. 3. Are you identifying Al Qaeda with the insurgency in Iraq? When and how did they get involved? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 21 Oct 04 - 03:40 PM A think there was a particular person behind the ousting of Saddam. You are unaware that the average Iraqi Citizen is not an insurgent or there would be around 28 million insurgents. You are unaware that the a part of the insurgents are "pouring in from Syria" You are unaware that Al-Zaqarwi has stated he is part of Al Qaeda. America "occupied" Germany and Japan after WW2. Were the results OK with you? Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: GUEST,SueB Date: 21 Oct 04 - 04:14 PM Please, if you watched The Power of Nightmares last night, for the sake of those of us without access to BBC2, let us know your impressions. Plausible? Implausible? Dying to know... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: GUEST,Jon Date: 21 Oct 04 - 04:40 PM Sue, the first part seemed very plausible to me. That only took us up to the end of the Cold War. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 21 Oct 04 - 05:12 PM Just a couple of things. "A think there was a particular person behind the ousting of Saddam." 1. Getting rid of Saddam was not the primary push for the invasion. We never heard that justification until they began to see that WMDs were unlikely to be found. And you'll remember Bush saying not long before the invasion that even if Saddam stepped down he'd still invade. 2. In any case, I think there was a particular group behind the Iraq invasion rather than a person. There's evidence of war with Iraq being pushed by several members of the administration before 9/11, and even before there was a Bush administration. And once again, I'm not talking about a conspiracy; I'm talking about a consensus among those now called Neocons.. Of course, one particular person said "Bring 'em on." "America "occupied" Germany and Japan after WW2. Were the results OK with you?" The results were ok. But, as you know, it was not really the same kind of occupation. And Germany and Japan were not the same kind of countries as Iraq. And the world political situation was not the same. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: Amos Date: 21 Oct 04 - 05:15 PM I would be REALLY interested to know from Georgey Looney-boy Bush exactly when he conceived of the goal to invade Iraq, topple its government and invalidate all its existing oil-industry contracts in favor of new ones. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 21 Oct 04 - 05:22 PM Thanks, Wolfgang for answering the accusation "If you consider Bush as being evil, you are agreeing with the terrorists" better than I did. I lost my temper.That assertion really pushes my button for some reason Well, the reason's because it's ignorant, vicious and manipulative, but that should be reason to ignore it rather than letting myself be sucked in. I'll work on it. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: GUEST,petr Date: 21 Oct 04 - 07:33 PM apparently Bush's approval ratings go up whenever they raise the threat level(an observation not lost on Karl ROve). Betcha theyll be raising it in the next week or so. a nyorker cartoon: Reporter at a state dept press conference. What do you say to the allegation that you are just trying to scare people. (the speaker behind the podium is holding a flashlight to his chin). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: jaze Date: 21 Oct 04 - 09:25 PM There are 130,000 american soldiers there not to mention "the coalition". Why the fuck aren't they blocking the border to Syria if that's where the insurgents are coming from? The greatest military in the world and they can't block one border? Why not? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: beardedbruce Date: 21 Oct 04 - 09:30 PM Jaze: The US cannot even control access to it's own borders- Why do you think we can control the borders of a country as large as Iraq? Let me see- if we withdraw from all the internal points, and put people along the border..... Nope- they would not even be able to see each other, much less the traffic in and out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 21 Oct 04 - 09:36 PM Clint: Yeah, the difference is there was no "get elected at any cost" Democratic candidate seeking power. Old Guy |
