# This time it's London...



## JimG. (Jul 7, 2005)

They didn't even get a whole day to celebrate winning the 2012 Olympics. Al Qaida has blown up a number of mass transit locations...just saw a pic of a double decker bus with the whole top blown off. So far, 2 confirmed dead but over a thousand injured.

It seems obvious that the mess created in Iraq has done little to stop these murderers.


----------



## Greg (Jul 7, 2005)

JimG. said:
			
		

> It seems obvious that the mess created in Iraq has done little to stop these murderers.


:roll: Here we go...this was Bush's fault, right? Let's put this in perspective. Nothing we did could ever justify 9/11. For me, this situation should strengthen our resolve to destroy these barbarians.

In any event, take a look at this thread on Snowheads:

http://snowheads.com/ski-forum/viewtopic.php?t=7430

That's a forum similar to AZ based out of the UK.


----------



## awf170 (Jul 7, 2005)

i heard 45 dead... that might of been just estamated though, 1000 estamated injured


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 7, 2005)

Greg said:
			
		

> JimG. said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah really...like this wouldn't have happened if "we" had stayed out of Iraq right?

These are religious zealots that are blinded by their beliefs...we cannot stop them because we do not think like them. They are insane..

M


----------



## Greg (Jul 7, 2005)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> Yeah really...like this wouldn't have happened if "we" had stayed out of Iraq right?


Perfectly said.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 7, 2005)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> Greg said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Whoa! You both mis-read me. I'm not a political animal and I'm not saying that staying out of Iraq would have stopped this. 

All I said was that going there didn't stop it...I'm not blaming Bush, but it is clearly another political hit for that policy.

Can't you guys see that?


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 7, 2005)

Jim its cool...I wasn't trying to attack really, just saying that either way this wouldve most likely happened. Iraq or not, and I firmly believe we needed to take care of Iraq also, so...


What I really wonder here is does it have anything at all to do with the olympic committee decision, and if so would this have happened in whatever host city was chosen? 

Probably reaching but....it was a thought I had..

M


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 7, 2005)

Politics aside.  This is a horrible incident that has struck us all.  Stay tuned for details...but I am not liking the hype ("London Under Attack").  This is why we should all stand together on an international level...

My thoughts and prayers go to the families affected.  

On a more personal note, I was in London in January 2002 and rode the line that was bombed (I changed trains in Kings Cross) and I can tell you that the Brits have A LOT of CCTV cameras  on the lines and great police/intelligence agencies that have dealt with the IRA so they WILL find who was responsible and those folks are going to get their a$$es handed to them.


----------



## Greg (Jul 7, 2005)

JimG. said:
			
		

> All I said was that going there didn't stop it...I'm not blaming Bush, but it is clearly another political hit for that policy.
> 
> Can't you guys see that?


Going there wasn't meant to stop it. And, yes - perhaps this will lead to further criticism of the administration's foreign policy. It'll be interesting to see which lib points that out first. I watched Tony Blair this morning and he looked as pissed as he did visibly shaken and upset. I think you're going to find that he's going stand firmer with the Bush administration now more than ever...



			
				SkiDog said:
			
		

> What I really wonder here is does it have anything at all to do with the olympic committee decision, and if so would this have happened in whatever host city was chosen?


Interesting theory. Besides NYC, what other cities were under consideration?


----------



## bvibert (Jul 7, 2005)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> What I really wonder here is does it have anything at all to do with the olympic committee decision, and if so would this have happened in whatever host city was chosen?
> 
> Probably reaching but....it was a thought I had..
> 
> M



I was wondering if there was some connection there also...


----------



## JimG. (Jul 7, 2005)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> These are religious zealots that are blinded by their beliefs...we cannot stop them because we do not think like them. They are insane..
> M





			
				Greg said:
			
		

> :roll: Here we go...this was Bush's fault, right? Let's put this in perspective. Nothing we did could ever justify 9/11. For me, this situation should strengthen our resolve to destroy these barbarians.



Sorry I offended any political sensibilities here, I was just stating a fact-the war in Iraq has done nothing to stop Al Qaida. I'm not blaming Bush.

Here's another fact...as much as I agree that we ought to find these murderers and punish them, how can we ever hope to do so by proudly declaring we don't think like them? That's the whole problem here! These killers couldn't do what they do if they didn't immerse themselve in western culture and learn just how we think. We have to do the same and learn to think like them. Hell, we might even understand why they hate us so much.

Know your enemy.


----------



## bvibert (Jul 7, 2005)

Greg said:
			
		

> Interesting theory. Besides NYC, what other cities were under consideration?



Paris, Madrid, and Moscow


----------



## dmc (Jul 7, 2005)

It was because of the G8 Summit...  Not the Olympics...


----------



## JimG. (Jul 7, 2005)

Greg said:
			
		

> Going there wasn't meant to stop it. And, yes - perhaps this will lead to further criticism of the administration's foreign policy. It'll be interesting to see which lib points that out first. I watched Tony Blair this morning and he looked as pissed as he did visibly shaken and upset. I think you're going to find that he's going stand firmer with the Bush administration now more than ever...



Poor choice of words on my part..."slowed" rather than "stopped" would have been better. I also agree with the comment about Blair standing firm beside Bush. Brits don't take kindly to these types of sneak attacks.


----------



## bvibert (Jul 7, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> It was because of the G8 Summit...  Not the Olympics...



That was the other thing I was wondering, wasn't that being held in Scotland though?


----------



## Greg (Jul 7, 2005)

JimG. said:
			
		

> Greg said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I didn't mean to come off so abrasive. I probably read deeper into your comment than necessary. I guess I was just put off by the mention of Iraq being in the very first post on this topic. No harm, no foul though.



			
				JimG. said:
			
		

> Here's another fact...as much as I agree that we ought to find these murderers and punish them, how can we ever hope to do so by proudly declaring we don't think like them? That's the whole problem here! These killers couldn't do what they do if they didn't immerse themselve in western culture and learn just how we think. We have to do the same and learn to think like them. Hell, we might even understand why they hate us so much.
> 
> Know your enemy.


I know where you're coming from, but I think we're too late here. It's also not human nature to be this intellectual. If someone punches you in the nose, do you stop to figure out why he did it, or do you just pop him one back? I'm not saying it's the best response, but simply the most common one. In any event, we're beyond the point of reasoning with them. And I really don't care what causes their hate - there's no justification for killing the innocent.


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 7, 2005)

notice too that it seems they are "using" trains and basic public transport to carry out their attacks as its impossible to control all the people using these services...

G8? Also a good theory....

I also strongly argee that Blair will have even stronger resolve and stand even more firmly behind the Bush administration on these matter..maybe the rest of the world will follow suit. I hope it doesnt take an attack in each "big" city for these rest of the world to come around on this..We must fight this like we've never fought before. It doesnt matter to me why they are doing this, there is no justification in my opinion. no matter what they think of "US"..

M


----------



## JimG. (Jul 7, 2005)

bvibert said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What would they blow up in Scotland that would have the media hype of London? These guys feed on attention and hysteria.

In this case, London was the best target for their purposes.


----------



## dmc (Jul 7, 2005)

bvibert said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It is... BUT Scotland is esentially England since they dissemboweled Braveheart...

My opinion is...
Killing terrorists in Iraq wil never quell the tide of those who want to kill us on our own soil..  The "Iraq war" only creates a place where they can train and in the process kills countless civilians that have nothing to do with our battles...

They've got enough things to be pissed off about that when one dies 2 take the place...


----------



## JimG. (Jul 7, 2005)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> I also strongly argee that Blair will have even stronger resolve and stand even more firmly behind the Bush administration on these matter..maybe the rest of the world will follow suit. I hope it doesnt take an attack in each "big" city for these rest of the world to come around on this.



When they did this in Madrid the population voted the government out of office and Spain withdrew their troops. Not every country wants to be a target, and in many cases these attacks will discourage any participation.


----------



## dmc (Jul 7, 2005)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> I also strongly argee that Blair will have even stronger resolve and stand even more firmly behind the Bush administration on these matter..maybe the rest of the world will follow suit.



How will they follow suit?
Join us in a pointless war in Iraq?  That does nothing but add fuel to their fire, train new terrorists and kill innocent civilians?

I was raised to not push my problems off on other people...  The civilians in Iraq are taking a beating in the name of 911...  
It's not fair...


----------



## Greg (Jul 7, 2005)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> ...maybe the rest of the world will follow suit. I hope it doesnt take an attack in each "big" city for these rest of the world to come around on this.


Let's revisit the Olympics theory again. What if Paris got it? Imagine if they hit there?


----------



## dmc (Jul 7, 2005)

Greg said:
			
		

> SkiDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why would they attack Paris?
They like the French...  They opposed the war in Iraq..


----------



## bvibert (Jul 7, 2005)

JimG. said:
			
		

> What would they blow up in Scotland that would have the media hype of London? These guys feed on attention and hysteria.
> 
> In this case, London was the best target for their purposes.





			
				dmc said:
			
		

> It is... BUT Scotland is esentially England since they dissemboweled Braveheart...



Good points, I was kinda thinking the same thing after I posted...


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 7, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> SkiDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They had is soo good before right? Iraq was sa nice place to live pre 9/11? I think not.

Follow suit, to me, would be not attacking the current administration for something they really have no control over. This most likley would've happened iraq war or not.

M


----------



## bvibert (Jul 7, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> Greg said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Exactly, I doubt they would have hit Paris if they had been picked... But who knows...


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 7, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> Greg said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow this really all revolves around the iraq war to you huh? Thats interesting...I don't think we were at war with Iraq when they took down the towers...so how do you explain that one away?

You do also know that even during the Clinton Administration we were dropping bombs on Iraq and flying daily sorties. Iraq has been a problem for more than a decade, no matter if its Clinton, or Bush..Iraq needed to be dealt with.

M


----------



## dmc (Jul 7, 2005)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> They had is soo good before right? Iraq was sa nice place to live pre 9/11? I think not.
> 
> Follow suit, to me, would be not attacking the current administration for something they really have no control over. This most likley would've happened iraq war or not.
> 
> M



It doesnt matter what Iraq was like before we went in...  At least they had electricity and water during Samdams rule...

The fact is - civilians are getting killed every day and we justify it by saying "It's better we fight them there then here"....

It's just not fair to them... No wonder why they hate us...  These people just want the basics and they can't even send kids to school without worrying about them getting killed...
It's not fair...


----------



## JimG. (Jul 7, 2005)

Greg said:
			
		

> I probably read deeper into your comment than necessary. I guess I was just put off by the mention of Iraq being in the very first post on this topic. No harm, no foul though.





			
				Greg said:
			
		

> I know where you're coming from, but I think we're too late here. It's also not human nature to be this intellectual. If someone punches you in the nose, do you stop to figure out why he did it, or do you just pop him one back? I'm not saying it's the best response, but simply the most common one. In any event, we're beyond the point of reasoning with them. And I really don't care what causes their hate - there's no justification for killing the innocent.



I am not political and thus there is no political depth to my commentary. I try to stick to facts as much as possible...unfortunately, you're not the only one who gets annoyed by this occasionally.

I agree in theory about the intellectual versus emotional response. Scary to admit how close to being wild animals we are, isn't it? I understand why you wouldn't care what causes their hate, they've done horrible things. I cling to the hope that it is never too late to foster some kind of intellectual dialogue though. Otherwise, we are doomed to perpetual killing.


----------



## dmc (Jul 7, 2005)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> Wow this really all revolves around the iraq war to you huh? Thats interesting...I don't think we were at war with Iraq when they took down the towers...so how do you explain that one away?
> 
> You do also know that even during the Clinton Administration we were dropping bombs on Iraq and flying daily sorties. Iraq has been a problem for more than a decade, no matter if its Clinton, or Bush..Iraq needed to be dealt with.
> 
> M



Great - now I can't debate you cause you played the "Clinton Card"....
How about whats happening now...???

Iraq has NOTHING to do with 911 - I don't care what Rush Limbaugh says...
The French did not support the war in Iraq which infuriated 80% of the world ..


----------



## Greg (Jul 7, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> Why would they attack Paris?
> They like the French...  They opposed the war in Iraq..


I was being facetious. And let's get off the Iraq thing. That's just a convenient excuse.


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 7, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> SkiDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Most of them werent allowed to go to school when Saddam was in power, so IMO its better that they have a chance to go to school even if it is a risk to get there..As for running water and whatnot, thats also debatable, the poor severly suffered there diring Saddams rule. What say you about the mass graves and mass executuions? Should this be allowed? Genocide?

Also "they" dont all hate us..things are seriously imporving over there, mostly from the North down. It will all take time. 

None of this is meant to provoke by the by..just keeping things going

M


----------



## Greg (Jul 7, 2005)

JimG. said:
			
		

> Otherwise, we are doomed to perpetual killing.


Newsflash: We are. It's unfortunate, but true.


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 7, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> Great - now I can't debate you cause you played the "Clinton Card"....
> How about whats happening now...???
> 
> Iraq has NOTHING to do with 911 - I don't care what Rush Limbaugh says...
> The French did not support the war in Iraq which infuriated 80% of the world ..



The French have always done that though...theyd be speaking german if it wasnt for the U.S. so...who cares ...the French wouldn't have helped really anyway...they're hardly a "super power" IMO..

M


----------



## dmc (Jul 7, 2005)

JimG. said:
			
		

> I cling to the hope that it is never too late to foster some kind of intellectual dialogue though. Otherwise, we are doomed to perpetual killig.



NICE!!!
It would certainly make a better world for your boys...


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 7, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> Great - now I can't debate you cause you played the "Clinton Card"....
> How about whats happening now...???
> 
> Iraq has NOTHING to do with 911 - I don't care what Rush Limbaugh says...
> The French did not support the war in Iraq which infuriated 80% of the world ..



Whats happening now, shouldve happened 10 years ago, thats my point...this guy has been a probelm for a LONG LONG time...Every administration for the last decade or so has had to deal with his cra* in one way or another.

M


----------



## dmc (Jul 7, 2005)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you want we can start a discussion about the Crusades...  Where this whole problems started...


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 7, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> SkiDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Good one...   

We could but i'd have to do some serious "brushing up" on the crusades...

M

M


----------



## JimG. (Jul 7, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> NICE!!!
> It would certainly make a better world for your boys...



I'm guessing you're joking around with me...if you re-read what I wrote I hope you see I'm against a future of perpetual killing.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 7, 2005)

Greg said:
			
		

> JimG. said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Greg, are you really this cynical? Wouldn't you want to at least take a stand and try to stop it for the sake of your daughter?


----------



## JimG. (Jul 7, 2005)

JimG. said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Just re-read your post and realized you're being positive...I'm getting too worked up over this, I'm gonna get some work done.


----------



## Greg (Jul 7, 2005)

JimG. said:
			
		

> Greg said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My point is it's simply human nature. I don't know that there is anyone/anything that can change that. I'm trying to guide my daughter to become an honest, respectful and generally good little person. Quite frankly I'd rather direct my energy towards her than at some dream of transforming the entire human race...


----------



## blacknblue (Jul 7, 2005)

My co-worker's sister-in-law was in the train just behind the one that got blown up.  If she had been five minutes earlier going to work, she would have been on that train.


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 7, 2005)

blacknblue said:
			
		

> My co-worker's sister-in-law was in the train just behind the one that got blown up.  If she had been five minutes earlier going to work, she would have been on that train.



Theres something to be said about being on time..

Thankfully she's ok...

M


----------



## blacknblue (Jul 7, 2005)

Greg said:
			
		

> JimG. said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Greg, I'm with you on this.  I don't think it's cynical--just realistic.  This didn't start with Bush's invasion of Iraq or even the Crusades.  This has been the consistent behavior of the human race for the extent of recorded history.


----------



## dmc (Jul 7, 2005)

JimG. said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No I was serious...  And I agree with you...
The killing will never stop unless we can try and get along somehow..
Kill one and 2 tkae the place... It's perpetual..


----------



## Greg (Jul 7, 2005)

*U.S. Hikes Terror Level for Transit*


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 7, 2005)

I'm not so sure you can seperate Iraq from any terrorist bombings since the US invaded. The Madrid bombings were a direct result of Spain's support of US policy, and considering the results of the election immediately following, you'd be hardpressed to come up with any other reason for it. I would tend to think the London bombings are also related to Britain's involvement in Iraq, with a healthy dose of G8 thrown in.

9/11, obviously, didn't have anything to do with Iraq, but Iraq is certainly a result of 9/11. You can't say Madrid had nothing to do with Iraq because 9/11 happened first. The simple fact is, as reported by the US State Department, incidences of worldwide terror attacks has increased signifigantly since the US led invasion of Iraq.  Clearly the invasion hasn't helped to silence terrorists anywhere, and there's some evidence it has contributed to the rise in attacks.
No one will argue that Saddam was a nice guy, and most will agree that the world is better off without him in power. The problems most "liberals" have are with the methods used to remove him, and the multiplicity of reasons given for it.

That said, I think we can all agree the attacks on London (and Madrid, and everywhere else) are horrible things, and our hearts go out to the victims.


----------



## dmc (Jul 7, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> The problems most "liberals" have are with the methods used to remove him, and the multiplicity of reasons given for it.



Any death - be it American, English or Iraqi is horrible...

My problem with the Iraq war is we we're misslead into rushing into this thing..  I supported the war initially based upon WMDs...  
We did not need to rush into this war... We had Sadam contained...
We should've finished cleaning up the Taliban and Al Quiada in Afgahnistan and Pakistan before taking resources to Iraq..  
We should've had many more troops to seal off the boarders and seal up the munitions dumps, etc...
We should've forseen the insurgency - Powell and Bush Sr. did... But Rove,Cheney and Bush did not...
We should've sent our guys over these with better armour on thier trucks and hum-vs...

We should've followed the Powell Docterine...  Instead we watch GWB politically emasculate him...

Lots of should've(s).... I know...


----------



## JimG. (Jul 7, 2005)

Greg said:
			
		

> I'm trying to guide my daughter to become an honest, respectful and generally good little person. Quite frankly I'd rather direct my energy towards her than at some dream of transforming the entire human race...



And by doing so you are making a difference in our future. You can't change other people, but you can change yourself and your children by how you raise them. 

So you aren't that cynical or you wouldn't bother to teach her right.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 7, 2005)

blacknblue said:
			
		

> Greg, I'm with you on this.  I don't think it's cynical--just realistic.  This didn't start with Bush's invasion of Iraq or even the Crusades.  This has been the consistent behavior of the human race for the extent of recorded history.



And those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. We've done a crappy job of learning up to this point. Doesn't mean we'll never learn. I know I won't change anybody else, but I sure can control how I think and react and teach my children the same. Lots of little baby steps go a long way.

Now I sound like some 12 step program :lol: !


----------



## loafer89 (Jul 7, 2005)

*Tettorist are not born that way*

My sister lives in London with her two boys and her husband her sons are 1 and 2 years old my son is 5 and we live in New York and this is the world they will grow-up in. It sucks pure and simple. There is a very simple formula for making terrorist take someone who has nothing not enough food no light no power no hope take them to a camp feed them cothes them give the a warp version relegon tell them the only way to have a better life is in the next one. In this country we have the KKK, Skinheads, and a host of other racially motavated group that as main stream American we are digusted by. That is what main stream Muslims feel about this fringe group. Most Muslims ignored them figuring they go away. Lets be realalitic how often do you think about the KKK. The only way to stop terrorism is though education  there and ours. 
PS This is loafer wife again can't figure out how to get under my own name sorry


----------



## Greg (Jul 7, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> My problem with the Iraq war is we we're misslead into rushing into this thing..  I supported the war initially based upon WMDs...
> We did not need to rush into this war... We had Sadam contained...
> We should've finished cleaning up the Taliban and Al Quiada in Afgahnistan and Pakistan before taking resources to Iraq..
> We should've had many more troops to seal off the boarders and seal up the munitions dumps, etc...
> ...


We already have an *8 page discussion* on the war. Please continue this topic in that thread.


----------



## pizza (Jul 7, 2005)

Greg said:
			
		

> We already have an *8 page discussion* on the war. Please continue this topic in that thread.



Who the heck do you think you are? The owner of the board? If you want to boss people around, why don't you go start your own board someplace, mmmkay??

/sorry. i couldn't resist.
//i'm in a goofy mood today.
///seriously, those london bombings sucked. godspeed.
////i like slashes.


----------



## Greg (Jul 7, 2005)

pizza said:
			
		

> Greg said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks. We probably needed to lighten the tone here a bit.

In any event, my thoughts go out to those affected today. As Americans this definitely hits too close to home. It's one F'ed up world we live in...


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 7, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> I'm not so sure you can seperate Iraq from any terrorist bombings since the US invaded. The Madrid bombings were a direct result of Spain's support of US policy, and considering the results of the election immediately following, you'd be hardpressed to come up with any other reason for it. I would tend to think the London bombings are also related to Britain's involvement in Iraq, with a healthy dose of G8 thrown in.
> 
> 9/11, obviously, didn't have anything to do with Iraq, but Iraq is certainly a result of 9/11. You can't say Madrid had nothing to do with Iraq because 9/11 happened first. The simple fact is, as reported by the US State Department, incidences of worldwide terror attacks has increased signifigantly since the US led invasion of Iraq.  Clearly the invasion hasn't helped to silence terrorists anywhere, and there's some evidence it has contributed to the rise in attacks.
> No one will argue that Saddam was a nice guy, and most will agree that the world is better off without him in power. The problems most "liberals" have are with the methods used to remove him, and the multiplicity of reasons given for it.
> ...



The question I would ask is. Do you think the terrorist attacks would have increased after 9/11 no matter whether we went into Iraq or not? I think they would've. It was only a matter of time. 

Obviously Iraq is a seprate issue from Al Queda, but both were/are problems that needed to be dealt with one way or the other..timing and motives may have been off, but either way both issues needed to be addressed.

M


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 7, 2005)

Greg said:
			
		

> In any event, my thoughts go out to those affected today. As Americans this definitely hits too close to home. It's one F'ed up world we live in...



As _human beings _ this definitely hits too close to home. Sign o' the times, I'm afraid. Do right by your neighborhood, and hope that karma pays attention.


----------



## Greg (Jul 7, 2005)

Here's the quote on that Islamist Web site:



			
				Scumbags said:
			
		

> In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate, may peace be upon the cheerful one and undaunted fighter, Prophet Muhammad, God's peace be upon him.
> 
> Nation of Islam and Arab nation: Rejoice for it is time to take revenge against the British Zionist Crusader government in retaliation for the massacres Britain is committing in Iraq and Afghanistan. The heroic mujahideen have carried out a blessed raid in London. Britain is now burning with fear, terror and panic in its northern, southern, eastern, and western quarters.
> 
> ...


Notice this statement:



> "We continue to warn the governments of Denmark and Italy and all the Crusader governments that they will be punished in the same way if they do not withdraw their troops from Iraq and *Afghanistan*."



So it's not just in response to Iraq. Should we all withdraw from Afghanistan too?


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 7, 2005)

I don't think terrorist attacks would have increased without Iraq, *skidog*, at least not on the level we've seen. Part of the motivation for the 9/11 attacks was US presence in Saudi Arabia (Mecca, and all that), so that factor has been in place for quite some time (I have no problem with the motivation for the Gulf War, though it could have been prosecuted a bit more fully). I think the 9/11 attack was the successful conclusion to a series of attempts, and a much needed (to them) boost to al Qaeda's credibility (and hence bin Laden's ability to continue with his lunacy), and achieved the goal of goading the US into doing something that would allow al Qaeda to continue recruiting and bombing. The US played along, and we're seeing the results. I'm not saying we should have done nothing- Afghanistan started out as a good move and had the potential to be very effective. Branching off into Iraq is, I think, what al Qaeda was hoping for, since there was no love lost between Hussein and bin Laden, anyway, and Iraq has turned into a breeding ground for new terrorists.
So, I don't think al Qaeda and Iraq are seperate issues at all. Iraq is now feeding al Qaeda with fresh troops adn traing grounds, as well as a rallying point and war cry. The al Qaeda group claiming responsibility for London says they did it in retaliation to Britain's actions in Iraq. Iraq and al Qaeda are now inextricably linked.


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 7, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> I don't think terrorist attacks would have increased without Iraq, *skidog*, at least not on the level we've seen. Part of the motivation for the 9/11 attacks was US presence in Saudi Arabia (Mecca, and all that), so that factor has been in place for quite some time (I have no problem with the motivation for the Gulf War, though it could have been prosecuted a bit more fully). I think the 9/11 attack was the successful conclusion to a series of attempts, and a much needed (to them) boost to al Qaeda's credibility (and hence bin Laden's ability to continue with his lunacy), and achieved the goal of goading the US into doing something that would allow al Qaeda to continue recruiting and bombing. The US played along, and we're seeing the results. I'm not saying we should have done nothing- Afghanistan started out as a good move and had the potential to be very effective. Branching off into Iraq is, I think, what al Qaeda was hoping for, since there was no love lost between Hussein and bin Laden, anyway, and Iraq has turned into a breeding ground for new terrorists.
> So, I don't think al Qaeda and Iraq are seperate issues at all. Iraq is now feeding al Qaeda with fresh troops adn traing grounds, as well as a rallying point and war cry. The al Qaeda group claiming responsibility for London says they did it in retaliation to Britain's actions in Iraq. Iraq and al Qaeda are now inextricably linked.



point taken...dont know that I fully agree, but I can see the perspective. 

M


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 7, 2005)

My next thought would be. Do we let these terrorists dictate where and when we are allowed to be involved (based on reports that the attack is directly related to the involvement in iraq/afghanitan)? Are they the ones giving the orders now? I think we (the global community) should strenghten our resolve to rid the world of these "crazies". Threatening our citites with continued attacks should only make us want to stop it more, not back away..We back away..THEY WIN..

M


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 7, 2005)

Fully agree with your sentiment there. The question, then, is "How?" Clearly, invading countries willy-nilly (just wanted to say that) isn't very effective. There is something to be said for an isolationist approach- isolating them, not us. There is a huge anti-Western sentiment in the Middle East- most countries don't want us meddling in their affairs. Fine by me. Only two real reasons to be involved anywhere- Humanitarian and economic. We can do without the oil, if only we would. Our humanitarian efforts don't seem to be appreciated. So, why bother? In a way, maybe the terrorists win if we pull out of the ME entirely. We win, too- save money, lives, the environment Let them sort it out on their own.


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 7, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> Fully agree with your sentiment there. The question, then, is "How?" Clearly, invading countries willy-nilly (just wanted to say that) isn't very effective. There is something to be said for an isolationist approach- isolating them, not us. There is a huge anti-Western sentiment in the Middle East- most countries don't want us meddling in their affairs. Fine by me. Only two real reasons to be involved anywhere- Humanitarian and economic. We can do without the oil, if only we would. Our humanitarian efforts don't seem to be appreciated. So, why bother? In a way, maybe the terrorists win if we pull out of the ME entirely. We win, too- save money, lives, the environment Let them sort it out on their own.



Good points again...How is the real quesiton..and I totally agree invading "willy nilly" (it is funny)..is not right. 

I for a long time have been a believer in "lets not get involved" but sometimes its necessary. I don't know why the humaitarian efforts are so often overlooked and underappreciated? we do spend a ton of cash taking care of what others should be taking care of themselves...

Eh its all a big mess and we are living in a very scary time, but look Isreal has been living with this for longer than I can think...I just hope we don't get to the point where car bombs are going off in our streets everyday..

M


----------



## pizza (Jul 7, 2005)

"Our values will long outlast their's."

video of Blair's remarks:
http://thepoliticalteen.com/video/tbspeak.wmv

It's good.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 7, 2005)

Greg said:
			
		

> So it's not just in response to Iraq. Should we all withdraw from Afghanistan too?



We can't; that's what Bin Laden said would happen if Al Qaida drew blood and killed a few troops. That's what he said when we withdrew from Somalia too, that we did so because Americans don't have the stomach for a fight. 

I hope folks here paid attention to what loafer89's wife wrote...these terrorists are a crazy minority (special interest group?) whose insanity now colors an entire ethnic group. We need to stay in these places, but reach out in a useful way (to them, not us) to make the silent majority there (95% of the population I'll bet) realize we're not the enemy.

Intolerance and overall hatred without understanding only lowers us to their level; we can't win down there because they have more experience.


----------



## Stephen (Jul 7, 2005)

Dammit... a beautiful flame fest and I can't even get a word in edgewise!

London bombings... I don't believe Al Queida is good enough to have teams roving around waiting to bomb whatever city was chosen. If they were ready to hit all the cities, why not hit them all? There's another reason why this happened. Maybe the G8. Maybe something historical with the date? Maybe the IRA got bored with politics?

Paris has a paper trail to Baghdad.

Islamists not only believe all "infidels" should be killed, they also believe that if you aren't the right type of Muslim (ie, Sunnis need not apply) you should be killed as well. As wrong as our crusades were, the Islamic terrorists are on their own crusade, and there is NO justification allowed, period.

At this point, we're not even sure it WAS al queida (even though one group may have claimed responsibility). Let's not make an Oklahoma City mistake again by projecting the blame before it is due.

However, Al Queda has reason to believe a people will turn against it's government if bombed... it worked in Spain. And the reward for Spain's withdrawl? An encouraged terrorist network that may try to bomb other countries out of the war.

Finally, what's the reason for U.S. casualties? Liberals. Plain and simple. If we could fight this war as a war is supposed to be fought (the purpose of war is to kill people and break things for an ultimate goal, remember...), there need not be one US soldier put in harms way. However, liberals are demanding a "sensitve" war. Requiring precision bombing and boots on the ground.

I for one would be happy to see boots replaced with bombs instead. Tikrit and Fallujah shouldn't even exist on a map anymore, in my opinion.

-Stephen


----------



## SilentCal (Jul 7, 2005)

Personally I think it has to do with the G8 summit and not the Olympics.   Paris was heavily favored to win and London just pulled an upset.  I think the terrorists believed that most of the English security forces would concentrate on the G8 summit in Scotland and leave the rest of the country out on a limb.  It would be a perfect way to draw attention to their cause by having an attack so close to this important summit. Hopefully Trailboss's theory proves correct with the video survielance and they catch the bastards.   I'm not sure if they ever found anything evidence-wise on the Madrid bombings on tape.  Don't really care to comment on whose fault this is.   These knuckleheads have already won since we are pointing the fingers at each other and battling between us rather than against them.


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 7, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> Dammit... a beautiful flame fest and I can't even get a word in edgewise!
> 
> London bombings... I don't believe Al Queida is good enough to have teams roving around waiting to bomb whatever city was chosen. If they were ready to hit all the cities, why not hit them all? There's another reason why this happened. Maybe the G8. Maybe something historical with the date? Maybe the IRA got bored with politics?
> 
> ...



Wow I like all of the above....war sucks, but its war...let us fight it the "right" way...we have the artillery to be nowhere near there...why not use it? 

Less lives lost...ultimate goal acheived in a relatively short period of time...

survival of the fittest if you will.

M


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 7, 2005)

You can't take over a country from the air. Period.


----------



## DJAK (Jul 7, 2005)

Regardless of which side of the Iraq fence you reside on, it seems pretty simple.

We got put our "thing" into a Iraq without a condom and got her pregnant. One night stand syle, rather than after dating her for a while. Had we dated for a while we might have decided otherwise or at least had some help.

Now that we got Iraq pregnant and the whole world knows that we're the father, we're morally bound to pay the alimony until they are 18. Even then we may still have to pay for our poor foresight and parenting skills.

In war and in life, don't hop into bed on the first night, and if your gonna, do it covertly so know one knows you did it.

Thats not pc i know, but you could make GW out to be the drunk teen on this one in so many ways.

He may learn his lesson, but who's paying his tuition to be a drunken frat boy on the world stage?


----------



## dmc (Jul 7, 2005)

Greg said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow...  Sorry...  I was just going along with the discussion...

I obviously don't have the system down here...
I'll back off unitl I can figure out how to debate one issue in one thread...  Even if those issues have to do with each other...


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 7, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> You can't take over a country from the air. Period.



Not completely, but you can surely minimize the risk to ground troops with massive air strike prior to ground troops...essentially knock them WAY down..then send the ground troops in to kick them while they are still "down"

M


----------



## blacknblue (Jul 7, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> However, Al Queda has reason to believe a people will turn against it's government if bombed... it worked in Spain. And the reward for Spain's withdrawl? An encouraged terrorist network that may try to bomb other countries out of the war.
> 
> -Stephen


I think this is exactly right, and something I (and many others) predicted after the Spanish elections.  The fact that Spain backed out of Iraq _on the basis of the terrorist bombings_ in Madrid only encouraged them to attack again.  Of course they are going to try to scare others away.  The Spaniards are at least partially to blame for encouraging this terrorist behavior in London.
If Spain had withdrawn for other reasons, that would be fine.  But b/c they backed out b/c the terrorists hit them back, now we can expect terrorists doing the same in Italy and Denmark, too.


----------



## dmc (Jul 7, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> Finally, what's the reason for U.S. casualties? Liberals. Plain and simple.



How dare you say something like that...

You disgust me...  Frigging disgusting...

Later for this conversation...

Greg getting on me for posting in the wrong thread now you accusssing ME of dead soldiers...

Disgusting...
Enjoy your summer...  Hope you don't get drafted...


----------



## Greg (Jul 7, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> Greg said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It just seemed to me that we've been through the circular Iraq discussion more than once. You reiterated arguments you made in that other thread. I guess my point was to keep the Iraq debate separate, but I guess there are parallels with today's events. Carry on...


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 7, 2005)

OK, let's keep on the topic of the bombing, please....


----------



## Greg (Jul 7, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> Dammit... a beautiful flame fest and I can't even get a word in edgewise!
> 
> London bombings... I don't believe Al Queida is good enough to have teams roving around waiting to bomb whatever city was chosen. If they were ready to hit all the cities, why not hit them all? There's another reason why this happened. Maybe the G8. Maybe something historical with the date? Maybe the IRA got bored with politics?
> 
> ...


Wow. Easy there, Stephen. This thread was not at all a "beautiful flame fest", but now you're baiting here. Let's show some restraint, please.


----------



## Stephen (Jul 7, 2005)

Greg said:
			
		

> Wow. Easy there, Stephen. This thread was not at all a "beautiful flame fest", but now you're baiting here. Let's show some restraint, please.



Greg,

My intent wasn't to bait, but to try and tie the many ideas together. I tried to hit them all in one post as opposed to quoting each and every post in separate replies.

To sum up the bombing points:

-We don't know who did it yet.

-I don't think it's tied to the Olympics

-IF it is Al Qeida, then it's probably rooted in their successful campaign in Spain.


-Stephen


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 7, 2005)

I think it's a bit specious to blame the London bombings on Spain, *blacknblue*. I think Spain was about to pull out, anyway- there was certainly public support for it- but the gov't was looking for a decent way to exit. The voters certainly gave it to them. Yeah, the terrorists claim a victory there, but in reality all they did was hasten what was going to happen anyway. 

To get back to Iraq briefly, what, exactly, could have been bombed, *Stephen/b] and skidog? A very small percentage of US troops were killed by the Iraqi military- they were pretty well dismantled. The rest have come from insurgents. What would you bomb? Every garage, kitchen, and basement in the entire country?

Back to London, I can't wait to see what kind of footage those CCTV cameras get.*


----------



## pizza (Jul 7, 2005)

I can understand the reasoning behind Stephen's comment about liberals, but it's overly simplistic and written not to cause people to think, but rather to make people angry. That's not cool.

So lets analyze that statement and see what we can come up with.

* Rules of warfare have changed in the last century, and yes, those of the liberal persuasion have caused this.
* They have been changed to minimize casualties and long-term damage.
* Had we been fighting by the rules of a century ago, this war would be over.

Fair enough.
Now here's why that comment is oversimplified:

* But methods of warfare have also changed in the last century.
* If we were to apply modern rules of warfare to modern methods, the result would be disaster on both sides.
* Civilian casualties would be incredible. Millions dead. There's a word for that: evil.
* Our intention is to create a stable friendly Iraq. Working this way would be contrary to our intention.
* The sheer number of civilian casualties would skew historical perspective: We would go down in history as mass-murderers as some other historical figures have.

Would you rather have that, or have 2000 Americans dead? Most of us would have neither, but if you would be forced to choose one, I would hope we'd all choose the latter.

So while I am most certainly NOT a liberal, I do recognize the importance of their influence in modern America.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 7, 2005)

Mass Transit systems in US are on Code Orange alert.


----------



## Tyrolean_skier (Jul 7, 2005)

Greg said:
			
		

> JimG. said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I believe the other cities in the running were: New York, Paris, Madrid, Moscow.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 7, 2005)

pizza said:
			
		

> I can understand the reasoning behind Stephen's comment about liberals, but it's overly simplistic and written not to cause people to think, but rather to make people angry. That's not cool.
> 
> So lets analyze that statement and see what we can come up with.
> 
> ...



Thank you Steve! I'm a little shocked at the bloodthirsty tone of a few of the last posts.

I did truly enjoy what DJAK wrote though, but he forgot the drunken frat boys Rumsfeld and Cheney.


----------



## dmc (Jul 7, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> My intent wasn't to bait, but to try and tie the many ideas together. I tried to hit them all in one post as opposed to quoting each and every post in separate replies.



BS - I know it's me against the moderators here...

BUT - your accusation towards Liberals made me sick to my stomache...


> Finally, what's the reason for U.S. casualties? Liberals. Plain and simple.



You know,....  The last thing I want is to see people maimed...  I worked for Walter Reed Army Hospital when this war broke out and I almost cried every damn day when I saw those poor kids with their arms and legs blown off...

It's too bad that all the conservatives that support this "war" don't enlist instead of being chicken hawks..


----------



## Stephen (Jul 7, 2005)

Again... with the chicken hawk. 

IF I can't have an opinion on the war because I didn't enlist, that's like saying you can't have an opinion on conservatives because you didn't vote for Bush. Nice try. 

But that's not what this thread is about....

The bombing, other than scaring the public didn't accomplish much. Which I am greatful for. I think you'll find the Brits recover better than we do from it. While it has been a while, they've had regular terrorist acts like this in thier recent history.

Our prayers are with the victims.

-Stephen

P.S. dmc, it's NOT you vs. the moderators. Greg disagrees strongly with my post and has posted as such.


----------



## dmc (Jul 7, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> Again... with the chicken hawk.
> 
> IF I can't have an opinion on the war because I didn't enlist, that's like saying you can't have an opinion on conservatives because you didn't vote for Bush. Nice try.



Right - and I'm responsible for the deaths of 1700 people...  Don't whitewash that horrible generalization...  I expect an apology from you my esteemed moderator...

So I can't be against the war and be an American...

You make me sick...


----------



## dmc (Jul 7, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> P.S. dmc, it's NOT you vs. the moderators. Greg disagrees strongly with my post and has posted as such.



PS:  Whats between Greg and I is between Greg and I...  You had me so upset with your accusation - i didnt read Gregs post...

PSS: Quit adding to your posts after you submit them..  It's annoying...


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 7, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> I think it's a bit specious to blame the London bombings on Spain, *blacknblue*. I think Spain was about to pull out, anyway- there was certainly public support for it- but the gov't was looking for a decent way to exit. The voters certainly gave it to them. Yeah, the terrorists claim a victory there, but in reality all they did was hasten what was going to happen anyway.
> 
> To get back to Iraq briefly, what, exactly, could have been bombed, *Stephen/b] and skidog? A very small percentage of US troops were killed by the Iraqi military- they were pretty well dismantled. The rest have come from insurgents. What would you bomb? Every garage, kitchen, and basement in the entire country?
> 
> Back to London, I can't wait to see what kind of footage those CCTV cameras get.*


*

two words come to my mind......PARKING LOT.

sorry its how I feel.

M*


----------



## dmc (Jul 7, 2005)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> two words come to my mind......PARKING LOT.
> 
> sorry its how I feel.
> 
> M



Wow.... I pray you never have where you live turned into a parking lot....

Do you have NO compassion for the innocent?


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 7, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



dude war aint fun...noone here said it was...but its a fact of life...name one war that EVERYONE agreed with? 

I think you'll be hard pressed to find one...noone wants their sons and daughters heading off to die, but its all part of being one of the most powerful countries in the world.

M


----------



## JimG. (Jul 7, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> The bombing, other than scaring the public didn't accomplish much.



Tell that to the relatives of the people who were killed; I'm sure they think otherwise. The comment seems particularly coarse coming from a "pro-life" conservative.

Also, I think your concept of "accomplish" is a little different from the terrorists. Americans like their bombings to take out whole neighborhoods, not some stinking bus. Terrorists don't care about that...they want the attention the media gives them and the terror and fear these acts cause for the citizenry. In these regards, they were once again quite successful.

Participating in these discussions makes me realize more and more that I have no use for the 2 party system.


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 7, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> SkiDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think we could easily "remove" the innocent...

oh and I pray I never have a liberal like yourself making any decisions for the United States...

We'd be a bunch of sniveling babies if that happened..

M


----------



## dmc (Jul 7, 2005)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> dude war aint fun...noone here said it was...but its a fact of life...name one war that EVERYONE agreed with?
> 
> I think you'll be hard pressed to find one...noone wants their sons and daughters heading off to die, but its all part of being one of the most powerful countries in the world.
> 
> M



What about going into Afgahnistan to get the REAL terrorists??  I think everyone - including myself - was pretty psyched to go in these and dismantle the Taliban and get Osama...


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 7, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> BS - I know it's me against the moderators here...



I would not say that.  As moderators, the opinions we express are our OWN and NOT that of AZ or the other moderators.  Folks can express their feelings/opinions in here and we are here to make sure that things remain civil.  

Again, one last time, PLEASE keep this conversation on the topic of the bombing and DO NOT flame each other.


----------



## dmc (Jul 7, 2005)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> oh and I pray I never have a liberal like yourself making any decisions for the United States...
> 
> We'd be a bunch of sniveling babies if that happened..



Nice...  A snivleing baby huh...  You don't know anything about me...  

I'm against..... nevermind... check the other thread..  

That comment was ALMOST as lame as Stephens about Liberals...
Why didnt you sign up for the war??

You guys are really pushing it today..


----------



## pizza (Jul 7, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> What about going into Afgahnistan to get the REAL terrorists??  I think everyone - including myself - was pretty psyched to go in these and dismantle the Taliban and get Osama...



That was my idea towards Iraq..
I still think that Saddam Hussein was a threat and getting him out was a worthy goal.

I'm not sure what we've been accomplishing there lately though.


----------



## dmc (Jul 7, 2005)

thetrailboss said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



JEEEZE!!!! I already talked to Greg and apologized..


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 7, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> SkiDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Maybe everyone HERE in the US, but not worldwide...

but I do belive that the liberal views, while I may agree partly with some of them, are weakening the society as a whole...

I am sorry if I came off as offensive, I meant no attack....please accept my apology..im really miffed about where this counrty is headed as it seems you are too, but for different reasons...

Thats why we have freedom of speech and can think for ourselves...least we STILL HAVE THAT..

M


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 7, 2005)

pizza said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow I sooo agree...Iraq had been a "thorn" in america side for many many years..

M


----------



## dmc (Jul 7, 2005)

Darn...  I was going to reply to Stephens vapid post but it got deleted...  
Moderator - moderating himself...  cool...

Today has been a tough day for me...
As much as we want to think that terrorists wont change the way we live... My Fiance' and I bought a house away from NYC so we wouldnt get blown up...  To call her this morning while she was going onto a subway just upset me...  In a couple more months she'll join me here but until then I still fear for her...

I never want to witness what I saw on 911 again..  And I worry about it all the time still to this day...


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 7, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> To call her this morning while she was going onto a subway just upset me...  In a couple more months she'll join me here but until then I still fear for her...
> 
> I never want to witness what I saw on 911 again..  And I worry about it all the time still to this day...



I have not been into NYC since....just depresses me on a whole different level than I have ever experienced...

Get her out of there man...SOON...

M


----------



## dmc (Jul 7, 2005)

pizza said:
			
		

> That was my idea towards Iraq..
> I still think that Saddam Hussein was a threat and getting him out was a worthy goal.
> 
> I'm not sure what we've been accomplishing there lately though.



Your right... But we had him contained..
We could've waited instead of rushing to war..


----------



## pizza (Jul 7, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> Your right... But we had him contained..
> We could've waited instead of rushing to war..



There's the difference. I didn't see it as rushing in.  I thought we were pretty patient with the U.N. and with Iraq itself.

But that was just my perspective..


----------



## JimG. (Jul 7, 2005)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> but I do belive that the liberal views, while I may agree partly with some of them, are weakening the society as a whole...



Special interests, be they conservative or liberal, weaken American society as a whole because the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many. As long as concerned citizens (like EVERYONE who has posted here today) fight amongst ourselves over the merits of these special interests, real issues and policy decisions suffer.

So, while we sit here and disparage each other and ignore our common interests and goals, those special interests wind up the winners by default.

I really do apologize to anyone I've offended here today...it isn't my style and I wouldn't want anyone to stop contributing as a result. This has become one of the only places I can express my views and feel I'll get an intelligent if not sympathetic response.


----------



## dmc (Jul 7, 2005)

pizza said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Rushing in not in the context of tht UN...
More from the context of finishing in Afgahnistan first..
If we could've had more resources we could've sealed off the boarders of Iraq and quelled any terrorists that wanted to enter the country to kill our guys...

I think getting Osama was a higher priority...


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 7, 2005)

JimG. said:
			
		

> SkiDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree and also apologize (again) if I offended anyone...sometimes I type and then think...its a fault...HA...

M


----------



## dmc (Jul 7, 2005)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> I agree and also apologize (again) if I offended anyone...sometimes I type and then think...its a fault...HA...
> 
> M



YOU don't need to apologize...

Stephen on the other hand with his remark about liberals... Still makes me really mad...

Abusive comment...  Totally out of line...


----------



## pizza (Jul 7, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> Rushing in not in the context of tht UN...
> More from the context of finishing in Afgahnistan first..
> If we could've had more resources we could've sealed off the boarders of Iraq and quelled any terrorists that wanted to enter the country to kill our guys...
> 
> I think getting Osama was a higher priority...



I see. 

Interesting. I'll have to think about that.


----------



## ALLSKIING (Jul 7, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> Darn...  I was going to reply to Stephens vapid post but it got deleted...
> Moderator - moderating himself...  cool...
> 
> Today has been a tough day for me...
> ...


Its the way the world is now and has been for awhile in other places. As much as I hate to say it attacks are going to happen...BUT your chance of getting hurt or killed in a car accident is MUCH greater then getting hurt or killed by an attack.


----------



## Greg (Jul 7, 2005)

ALLSKIING said:
			
		

> BUT your chance of getting hurt or killed in a car accident is MUCH greater then getting hurt or killed by an attack.


Maybe, but inherent day to day risks are things I'm willing to accept. Some whacko ideology that results in the loss of innocent life is not...

In any event, I hope we're all through with the mudslinging for today. Suffice it to say, that today was a bad day and most of us let our emotions take over, but one more flame and this baby is locked.


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 7, 2005)

Interesting- Merrill Lynch just came out with their "Terrorism Impact Update", showing the effect terrorist attacks have on the financial markets. Two things struck me looking at it- the frequency of attacks is increasing, and the reaction of the broad markets is getting tamer. Even the markets, prone to freaking out at the least provocation, are taking terrorism in stride. Business goes on, I guess...

Can't find a link to it online, but if anyone's interested, PM me, and I'll email it to you.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 7, 2005)

Greg said:
			
		

> Suffice it to say, that today was a bad day and most of us let our emotions take over, but one more flame and this baby is locked.



Sometimes that happens. It proves we're all human and this type of event certainly causes emotional responses. These flames were nothing compared to the bonfires I've seen on other sites.

Really a good group.


----------



## Stephen (Jul 7, 2005)

ABC News is reporting that two more devices were found unexploded:

http://abcnews.go.com/


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 7, 2005)

Interesting article from BussinessWeek:
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jul2005/nf2005077_3472_db039.htm

And I swear, I didn't read it before posting earlier.


----------



## ChileMass (Jul 7, 2005)

I don't have anything else to add to this other than I wish we as civilized westerners would pull together in solidarity against assholes with bombs, whether they're from Afghanistan, Iraq, OK City or wherever.  The Brits pulled for us after 9/11, and we should do the same for them today.  

Democratic civilization is worth defending - and that's a fact.  The rest of it is style points.  Forget complaining about whose style is best in putting out the fire, and help put out the fire.  If someone comes over here and bombs a major American city or a grade school or poisons a well, we're going to be sorry we stood around bitching each other out and not doing something about the problem.


----------



## BeanoNYC (Jul 7, 2005)

I'm quite sad about todays events.  London is a great city (I even got engaged there) and I was happy to see them win the bid for the Olymipics.  I'm hoping the best for the victims and their families.


----------



## SilentCal (Jul 7, 2005)

I agree with CHILE!!!!!!  Everyone needs to chill out and have a  :beer:    


 :argue:   <----- doing this between us lets them know they won



 :flag:


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 8, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> Interesting- Merrill Lynch just came out with their "Terrorism Impact Update", showing the effect terrorist attacks have on the financial markets. Two things struck me looking at it- the frequency of attacks is increasing, and the reaction of the broad markets is getting tamer. Even the markets, prone to freaking out at the least provocation, are taking terrorism in stride. Business goes on, I guess...
> 
> Can't find a link to it online, but if anyone's interested, PM me, and I'll email it to you.



Something on the news this morning regarding exactly this. They pointed out that if the terrorists think they are going to effect our economy with these type things that they have another thing coming. 

I hope, though, that we are not "de-sensitizing" ourselves to these type attacks, and remain diligent in removing the individuals responsible.

M


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 8, 2005)

something struck me this morning (also on the news) regarding the size of the devices. They are saying the devices contained only 10lbs of high explosives. 

now we're talking about a subway system with thousands of people everyday traveling its trains. Most of these people will have backpacks or breifcases. Those "packs" can all EASILY hold 10lbs of explosives. How can we ever hope to stop this? Seems an impossibility to me, its just to hard to monitor and too easy to bring things in..

This personally scares me. It's one thing for "them" to have brought in explosives over days and assembled a bomb, but for them to just be able to walk in, essentially on a moments notice and detonate something so destructive is really bad.

Why can't we control the ability to obtain these explosives? Is it becasue of the Cold War ending and those less fortunate countries needing to sell of munitions to the higest bidder? Can't they see where this stuff will go? Even if its a black market thing these black marketeers must fear that these devices could effect someone in their family?

Man I just don't get how these people think..thats why its so impossible to win or stop them.

As the wise man Bob Marley onces sang One Love, One Heart, Lets join together and it will be alright....

If only it were that easy..

sorry for the rant.

M


----------



## smitty77 (Jul 8, 2005)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> Those "packs" can all EASILY hold 10lbs of explosives. How can we ever hope to stop this? Seems an impossibility to me, its just to hard to monitor and too easy to bring things in..


You never will stop them (see also:  Greg's comment on perpetual killing).  I don't know if there is an answer to the problem, especially when they enemy is a coward and won't stand up for a fair fight and doesn't play by the "rules".   :x 

It was a sad day in the city of London.    

Smitty


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 8, 2005)

The only way to stop them is the institution of a police state. I'm willing to risk it rather than give up any freedoms. As Benjamin Franklin once said, "Those who are willing to lose a measure of freedom to gain a modicum of safety deserve neither."


----------



## JimG. (Jul 8, 2005)

ChileMass said:
			
		

> I don't have anything else to add to this other than I wish we as civilized westerners would pull together in solidarity against assholes with bombs, whether they're from Afghanistan, Iraq, OK City or wherever.  The Brits pulled for us after 9/11, and we should do the same for them today.
> 
> Democratic civilization is worth defending - and that's a fact.  The rest of it is style points.  Forget complaining about whose style is best in putting out the fire, and help put out the fire.  If someone comes over here and bombs a major American city or a grade school or poisons a well, we're going to be sorry we stood around bitching each other out and not doing something about the problem.



In a nutshell :idea:


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 8, 2005)

An interesting bit on the eventual collapse of al Qaeda-type movements, from a business perspective. From today's Bridgewater Daily Observations (www.bwater.com) (a well respected investment firm- smart bunch of people over there):

It is ironic that these acts of Arab militants (supposedly al-Qaeda) against western capitalism are occurring even as the business climate within the Middle East becomes increasingly capitalist.  I just returned from a trip to the Middle East and it was very clear to me and everyone who lives there that this part of the world is experiencing a marked increase in economic vibrancy.  One manifestation is the recent surge in equity prices in Middle Eastern countries, ranging from 36% in Bahrain to 195% in the United Arab Emirates.
While some of these gains are certainly due to rising oil prices, they are also due to other forces.  For example, there have been generational changes in leadership in Jordan, Abu Dhabi, Syria, and Bahrain.  Many of the Middle Eastern leaders are U.S. educated and are creating a more open business climate.  They are changing laws to allow more free exchange of property and more investment from foreigners.  This is supporting a boom in real estate markets.  Dubai is trying to position itself as the business hub of the Middle East, and as part of this push is building the world’s largest airport expansion, the world’s tallest building (160 floors!), and, based on a hand count, over 70 high rise apartment buildings where only eighteen months ago we observed nothing but desert flatlands.  One of the locals said that 25% of the world’s cranes are now at work in Dubai (we didn’t check that one, but you get the drift).  Ironically, when I asked what the catalyst of this business boom was, many said that it was 9/11.  Because of 9/11, Arabs are hassled everywhere they go.  And they can’t move money without signing all kinds of forms.  As a result, Arabs who could afford to take vacations anywhere in the world now take their family vacations within the Middle East, singing the praises of places like Beirut and Syria as super vacation destinations.  And they are leaving increasing amounts of their money in Arab banks, pushing bank profits up substantially.  Dubai hotels that were discounting rooms by 50% two years ago are now packed.  U.S. policies have also encouraged an opening of the business climate.  For example, the U.S. has granted Jordan unique status as a mini free-trade zone.  While imported woven goods made outside of NAFTA carry a 27% tariff, there is no tariff if they are made in Jordan.  As a result, U.S. imports from Jordan have skyrocketed.
We try to stay clear of political issues, since we don’t know much about them and they don’t matter much for what we do.  But it does seem clear that the increasingly open and vibrant economic climate in the Middle East will, over time, help to overwhelm the activities of blatantly violent groups like al-Qaeda.


_Note:  These views are for indication purposes only.  They represent our outright views and positions in these specific markets, but not all markets that Bridgewater trades.  Excluded are interest rate differentials, currency cross-rates, and relative equity markets, among others.  As a result, these views will not reconcile to actual positions held for client accounts. _


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 8, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> An interesting bit on the eventual collapse of al Qaeda-type movements, from a business perspective. From today's Bridgewater Daily Observations (www.bwater.com) (a well respected investment firm- smart bunch of people over there):
> 
> It is ironic that these acts of Arab militants (supposedly al-Qaeda) against western capitalism are occurring even as the business climate within the Middle East becomes increasingly capitalist.  I just returned from a trip to the Middle East and it was very clear to me and everyone who lives there that this part of the world is experiencing a marked increase in economic vibrancy.  One manifestation is the recent surge in equity prices in Middle Eastern countries, ranging from 36% in Bahrain to 195% in the United Arab Emirates.
> While some of these gains are certainly due to rising oil prices, they are also due to other forces.  For example, there have been generational changes in leadership in Jordan, Abu Dhabi, Syria, and Bahrain.  Many of the Middle Eastern leaders are U.S. educated and are creating a more open business climate.  They are changing laws to allow more free exchange of property and more investment from foreigners.  This is supporting a boom in real estate markets.  Dubai is trying to position itself as the business hub of the Middle East, and as part of this push is building the world’s largest airport expansion, the world’s tallest building (160 floors!), and, based on a hand count, over 70 high rise apartment buildings where only eighteen months ago we observed nothing but desert flatlands.  One of the locals said that 25% of the world’s cranes are now at work in Dubai (we didn’t check that one, but you get the drift).  Ironically, when I asked what the catalyst of this business boom was, many said that it was 9/11.  Because of 9/11, Arabs are hassled everywhere they go.  And they can’t move money without signing all kinds of forms.  As a result, Arabs who could afford to take vacations anywhere in the world now take their family vacations within the Middle East, singing the praises of places like Beirut and Syria as super vacation destinations.  And they are leaving increasing amounts of their money in Arab banks, pushing bank profits up substantially.  Dubai hotels that were discounting rooms by 50% two years ago are now packed.  U.S. policies have also encouraged an opening of the business climate.  For example, the U.S. has granted Jordan unique status as a mini free-trade zone.  While imported woven goods made outside of NAFTA carry a 27% tariff, there is no tariff if they are made in Jordan.  As a result, U.S. imports from Jordan have skyrocketed.
> ...



To me that right there should put any naysayer about our involvement in the Middle East to rest.

things will change, soon even the people that may once have been "suicide bombers" will "see the light" and hopefully change their ways. It will take time, but it WILL happen..we are slowly removing the bad elements, so again..its only a matter of time.

M


----------



## JimG. (Jul 8, 2005)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> To me that right there should put any naysayer about our involvement in the Middle East to rest.
> 
> things will change, soon even the people that may once have been "suicide bombers" will "see the light" and hopefully change their ways. It will take time, but it WILL happen..we are slowly removing the bad elements, so again..its only a matter of time.
> M



I agree, and remember that seeing the light is a 2- way street. The muslim world will accept us to the same degree we respect and accept them.


----------



## hammer (Jul 8, 2005)

Just curious...which topic had the most activity in a day?

It seems that this topic's been very active since it was started.


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 8, 2005)

JimG. said:
			
		

> SkiDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Very true..

M


----------



## ChileMass (Jul 8, 2005)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> now we're talking about a subway system with thousands of people everyday traveling its trains. Most of these people will have backpacks or breifcases. Those "packs" can all EASILY hold 10lbs of explosives. How can we ever hope to stop this? Seems an impossibility to me, its just to hard to monitor and too easy to bring things in..
> 
> This personally scares me. It's one thing for "them" to have brought in explosives over days and assembled a bomb, but for them to just be able to walk in, essentially on a moments notice and detonate something so destructive is really bad.



This is why it's imperative we stop these bombing maniacs NOW in Iraq or wherever else they are.  I'm personally amazed there hasn't been a slew of bombings here in the US. It's impossible to police terrorists with a backpack full of plastic explosives - just ask the Israelis.  

I will fully grant anyone who believes W's motives for war were less than perfect - you might have some of it right.  But this isn't Vietnam where you had draftees getting killed or Watergate where the politicians in the White House were soon-to-be-convicted criminals.  There's a hangover effect from both of those terrible eras that still infects the media and much of America.  We need to get beyond questioning our own motives and military repsonses because WE are the ones attacked in this scenario.  

Even if Saddam Hussein had nothihng to do with 9/11 (I personally do believe the various Islamic terrorist groups are inter-related or at least somewhat mutually supportive), he was a huge threat to western interests in the Middle East.  The Israelis bombed an Iraqi nuke plant 25 years ago they suspected of making weapons-grade uranium, and he was well-known for mass-murder and torture. The UN decided he had to go.  The US took it upon ourselves to do the job probably no more than 6 months earlier than the UN would have given the "go" order anyway.  Get over the Vietnam-style complaints about this war.  It is justified by the fact that Iraqis are free, democracy is rising in the region (Lebanon, Egypt, former Soviet republics, elsewhere), and we have the opportunity to take out a lot of the terrorists who want to fight us.  If they're stupid enough to go toe-to-toe with a Bradley tank full of US Marines, go for it.  Maybe we can take them all out.  

This isn't a fight about whether Iraq had WMDs, it's about whether we as free western democracies still feel that our way of life is worth fighting for.  Democracy has been proven to be the preferred method of government time and time again.  Ask the Chinese or the Russians if they'd like to go back 20 years.  Iraq is no different.  I do not feel badly at all in saying that we a helping these people walk independently into the modern world.


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 8, 2005)

Interesting, though, that part of the catalyst is world opinion keeping the super rich Arabs at home and financial watchdogs making them keep their money in the Middle East. Guns, bombs and soldiers aren't doing it.


----------



## Stephen (Jul 8, 2005)

ChileMass said:
			
		

> I'm personally amazed there hasn't been a slew of bombings here in the US. It's impossible to police terrorists with a backpack full of plastic explosives - just ask the Israelis.



Their goal now is to turn our allies against us... divide and conquer as it will. It worked in Spain. they are even saying that the types of bombs and timers used resemble the ones in Madrid.

Their goal is to sour our relationships with other countries.

-Stephen


----------



## dmc (Jul 8, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> Their goal is to sour our relationships with other countries.



Well then they ARE pretty stupid...
Cause thats already happened a couple years ago...


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 8, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I disagree..only the weak have faltered...what real help are spain and france anyway? 

M


----------



## JimG. (Jul 8, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> Interesting, though, that part of the catalyst is world opinion keeping the super rich Arabs at home and financial watchdogs making them keep their money in the Middle East. Guns, bombs and soldiers aren't doing it.



Continuing this thought, with oil prices as they are and so much money being concentrated in the Middle East, these folks are just doing what's comfortable for them. Why fight to spend your money in places you are a suspect when you can just build those leisure facilities with your wealth and stay home? 

As much as it "helps" keep muslims away from us, it hurts our economy just as badly...we pay more for oil and get no investment in return. In a way it reminds me of WWII and the Japanese; we imprisoned thousands out of blind suspicion. In the 80's and 90's they owned a large part of America. Scary!


----------



## dmc (Jul 8, 2005)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So only France and Spain are mad at the US...

I didn't get the memo... Sorry...

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/nation/11974794.htm
http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/5473547.html
http://www.detnews.com/2005/nation/0507/05/0nati-236534.htm


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 8, 2005)

I simply can't agree, *Skidog, Chilemass, and Stephen*. Mostly because the end does not justify the means. Sure, Saddam was a bad guy who needed to be dealt with. Did it have to be done by lying to the American public, circumventing the UN, allienating most of the world, and spending $80 billion a year? I don't think so.


----------



## dmc (Jul 8, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> I simply can't agree, *Skidog, Chilemass, and Stephen*. Mostly because the end does not justify the means. Sure, Saddam was a bad guy who needed to be dealt with. Did it have to be done by lying to the American public, circumventing the UN, allienating most of the world, and spending $80 billion a year? I don't think so.



As well as making the Iraqi peoples life a living hell when we blast through their towns looking for insurgents that should've NEVER made it across the boarder to begin with.....

wow... that was a long sentence..


----------



## Greg (Jul 8, 2005)

We all seem much calmer today. Thank you, everyone.


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 8, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> I simply can't agree, *Skidog, Chilemass, and Stephen*. Mostly because the end does not justify the means. Sure, Saddam was a bad guy who needed to be dealt with. Did it have to be done by lying to the American public, circumventing the UN, allienating most of the world, and spending $80 billion a year? I don't think so.



If I remember correctly didnt saddam circumvent the UN insepctors?

M


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 8, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> SkiDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



don't be silly its not only them, but its hardly "everyone"..and in the end...they'll all come around.

Mark my words.

M


----------



## dmc (Jul 8, 2005)

Greg said:
			
		

> We all seem much calmer today. Thank you, everyone.



As long as I don't get falsely accused or maiming US soldiers... I'm cool...


----------



## JimG. (Jul 8, 2005)

Greg said:
			
		

> We all seem much calmer today. Thank you, everyone.



 :lol: Seriously, a day makes some difference. I keep telling my boss that the best way to grow a business is to allow constructive confrontation.


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 8, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> ctenidae said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I guess we shouldve just let saddam stay in power and wait until he actually "attacked" us right? Lets not try to avoid that by getting there first or anything.? 

Seems like thats what you want, please tell me i'm wrong?

M


----------



## dmc (Jul 8, 2005)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> I guess we shouldve just let saddam stay in power and wait until he actually "attacked" us right? Lets not try to avoid that by getting there first or anything.?
> 
> Seems like thats what you want, please tell me i'm wrong?
> 
> M



Your wrong...

And actually I'm appalled that you say such a thing to prove a point against me..
I can't even begin to defend myself I'm so pissed at your comment....


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 8, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> SkiDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Im just trying to get a handle on where you're coming from...while I agree that the "motives" may have been less than admirable the problem DID exist and needed to be dealt with..

thats just how I see it...I wasn't trying to make you angry..again...no offense meant...

M


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 8, 2005)

some humor for those who disagree with the iraq war..

http://www.museumofconceptualart.com/un_proof/

M


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 8, 2005)

First off, just because Saddam played games with the UN doesn't make it okay for us to do so, as well, unless we're of the same moral and ethical quality? I think the US is better than that. Sorry to say, but it's sort of a Republican theme lately- "What we did isn't so bad- just look at what Clinton did!"

Second, I find it extremely unlikely (as does the rest of the Middle East, Israel included) that Saddam could ever have attacked the US or directly threatened our interests. There is no evidence he had any WMD since what, 1995? or that he had any capability to strike the US, or that he had any terrorist networks, or that any relationship other than mutual disgust and hatred existed between him and bin Laden. Does that mean we should have left him there? No, but as was said before, the UN would have authorized force "within six months, anyway". Why did we have to jump the gun and go it cowboy-style?

So, yeah, *SkiDog*, you're wrong.


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 8, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> SkiDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I mean what "motives" would have made this extraction of Saddam "ok"?

M


----------



## dmc (Jul 8, 2005)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Apparently I let everyone know where I'm coming from in another thread... 
But I'll quote myslef from this thread - apologies to the moderators - I tried to link to it but couldnt figure out how..



> Any death - be it American, English or Iraqi is horrible...
> 
> My problem with the Iraq war is we we're misslead into rushing into this thing.. I supported the war initially based upon WMDs...
> We did not need to rush into this war... We had Sadam contained...
> ...


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 8, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> First off, just because Saddam played games with the UN doesn't make it okay for us to do so, as well, unless we're of the same moral and ethical quality? I think the US is better than that. Sorry to say, but it's sort of a Republican theme lately- "What we did isn't so bad- just look at what Clinton did!"
> 
> Second, I find it extremely unlikely (as does the rest of the Middle East, Israel included) that Saddam could ever have attacked the US or directly threatened our interests. There is no evidence he had any WMD since what, 1995? or that he had any capability to strike the US, or that he had any terrorist networks, or that any relationship other than mutual disgust and hatred existed between him and bin Laden. Does that mean we should have left him there? No, but as was said before, the UN would have authorized force "within six months, anyway". Why did we have to jump the gun and go it cowboy-style?
> 
> So, yeah, *SkiDog*, you're wrong.



I wsnt trying to be "right" just posing more questions...and I see yer point...gung ho might not have been the way to go...but I think you agree that there was a problem with Saddam one way or the other?

M


----------



## JimG. (Jul 8, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> SkiDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



(Ignore mom's advice to stay out of fights)

This is what partisan politics does to us; it makes us blind to our similarities in the name of a political party.

SkiDog: Saddam was a bad man and he was up to something even if we can't prove it. He was a threat to us and we're better off without him. 

dmc: Yeah, he was a bad man, but our biggest threat was bin Laden and his gang. We had them trapped in Afghanistan but we dropped the ball to go Saddam hunting. Now those terrorists we let off the hook are using our troops as target practice so they can go bomb some more cities. We've created a self-fulfilled prophesy.

Well, you're both right. Doesn't matter because the mess is there, whoever created it for whatever reason. 

Let's fix it.


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 8, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> Apparently I let everyone know where I'm coming from in another thread...
> But I'll quote myslef from this thread - apologies to the moderators - I tried to link to it but couldnt figure out how..



Again I apologize..no offense was meant...I see where your coming from just dont fully agree..

M


----------



## dmc (Jul 8, 2005)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> I mean what "motives" would have made this extraction of Saddam "ok"?
> 
> M



Who's motives?  

If he had WMD's I would STILL be suporting this war..
Cause there's a direct threat to us and our allies...

If the DID help in 911 I would STILL be suporting this war..

I feel terrible for the civilians that died under his rule..  But we had the Kurds protected..And there's other murderors around the world - and I'm uncomfortable with the US going in and rotecting EVERY person in the world thats being oppressed..

Fact is... Civilians are dying every day in Iraq in the crossfire between the US and the insurgents..
And that makes me sad...

I know good stuff is happening over there but the deaths of innocents is something I just can't get over..


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 8, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> SkiDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Deaths of innocents are always hard I agree...I also STRONGLY agree that we shouldn't feel (the US) that we need to "police" the world..

We do agree on some points, just not all...I guess thats what debate is about.. 

No harm meant...to me this is compelling conversation and has in some ways opened my eyes and some valid points have been brought up in this thread by many individuals, yourself included..

Please keep them coming..

M


----------



## JimG. (Jul 8, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> Fact is... Civilians are dying every day in Iraq in the crossfire between the US and the insurgents..
> And that makes me sad...
> 
> I know good stuff is happening over there but the deaths of innocents is something I just can't get over..



And these are the people who matter most. Their lives were hell under Saddam, and their lives are still hell now. They can't even go outside without the fear of being killed.

Nothing has really changed for them. In that light, why should they support us (I say this knowing that many do support us)?


----------



## dmc (Jul 8, 2005)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> Deaths of innocents are always hard I agree...I also STRONGLY agree that we shouldn't feel (the US) that we need to "police" the world..



Without WMDs and the 911 conspiracy the only thing left is us policing Iraq...  
At the cost of thousands of lives, billions of dollars, lower popularity and cooperation amongst the world, a divide homefront and the maiming of thousands of our great soldiers....

I'm just not down with the whole deal anymore..
And frankly - I'm really mad...

You support Colin Powell??  Check out the Powell docterine:
"military action should be used only as a last resort and only if there is a clear risk to national security by the intended target; the force, when used, should be overwhelming and disproportionate to the force used by the enemy; there must be strong support for the campaign by the general public; and there must be a clear exit strategy from the conflict in which the military is engaged. "


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 8, 2005)

JimG. said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Maybe because they know it usually gets worse before it gets better, but it DOES get better...like I mentioned earlier the NORTH of Iraq is beginning to THRIVE..

Give it some time.

M


----------



## ChileMass (Jul 8, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> ctenidae said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



OK - here we go.  But before I get into this, I just want to say that I enjoy reading posts from ctenidae and dmc very much on all topics, especially the ski/hiking topics...... 

But - you guys have it all wrong.  You are dealing with symptoms of the problem and tactical solutions to a much bigger problem.  The question is - when are we justified in standing up for democracy?  At what point do we take the lead in defending the most successful type of government in history?  Everyone want freedom and democracy, and this isn't just a re-hash of the old line "inside every gook is an American trying to get out".  Ask the Russians or the Chileans or the Afghans if they were better off under dictator rule.  

This is a values question, not a political one.  So what if W went in 6 months prior to the UN actually giving him the green light?  Don't you believe that the elected government - yes those awful guys Cheney and Rumsfeld - know what they were doing in going ahead before the UN formally approved it?  They knew the UN would approve it, they knew a number of our historic allies *could not *support it (France has an Islamic population six times greater than ours in a country of 2/3 fewer people), and they knew we would largely wind up fighting it by ourselves anyway.  As we saw yesterday and in Madrid, Europe is amuch easier target to hit than the US.  The Euro politicians should thank us for fighting their battle and saving their political skins, but instead they bitch us out - ridiculous.   The US went into Iraq when it was militarily most advantageous to do it.  The US and Britain prove once again that we are willing to stand up to bullies and terrorists when others shrink from it. 

As far as sealing off the Iraqi border - its impossible.  Not only is the country larger than California and some of the harshest desert in the world, but Iraq shares a border with Iran and Syria, who would never have allowed US or even Allied troops to assemble along their borders.  There would have been another shooting war for sure, especially with Iran. Plus - you think we have too many troops there now, if we tried to seal off the Iraqi border it would take 4 times as many troops, all of whom would be in harm's way.  

There's a lot to consider in the US' unilateral decision to attack:  does the US wait for the UN's approval before we take action, not only on this war but in any situation?  There a whole bunch of countries out there who would like nothing more than to see the US become cowed by the UN and wait for its approval before we do anything on any issue.  Is this what we want?  To have the US interests held up because Peru or Andorra or North Korea hsa a problem with something vital to us?  To diminish the prestige and power of the US is to increase the power and prestige of the Europeans, the Russinas, the Chinese, etc.  Do we hesitate and wait for the approval and cooperation from the French and Germans?  W and his boys know who they can count on and who they cannot before they take action.  These guys are professionals.  I voted for them.  I trust their judgement to carry out the necessary work of defending the interests of my country and my family, because they are all inter-related.  

When 9/11 happened, a lot of people lost their jobs (including me - 11 months, thanks) because the international economy is dependent on stability.  We are still recovering economically from it, and I don't want to go through that again.  If a bomb goes off on Wall Street, my kids are going to have a harder time going to college because it's tough for Dad to pay for college when he's been out of work or had a lower-paying job since the economy went into the crapper.  Is that bringing the war close enough to home?  You betcha, and it scares the shit out of me when I see those bombs going off in London.  W and his cabinet may have rushed to war - I can't disagree there's probably some evidence to support your position.  But you are requiring then to be perfect whereas war always makes a mess and people get killed.  Let's do the job, kill every single one of those reactionary fanatical Islamic terrorist bastards that would undermine our wonderful society and get back to peace and prosperity, which is what we all want.


----------



## dmc (Jul 8, 2005)

JimG. said:
			
		

> And these are the people who matter most. Their lives were hell under Saddam, and their lives are still hell now. They can't even go outside without the fear of being killed.
> 
> Nothing has really changed for them. In that light, why should they support us (I say this knowing that many do support us)?



I hate to say this... But with Sadam at least they had water, electricity and transportation...  For some people - thats all they need to raise their kids and live their lives..


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 8, 2005)

I agree with you, Jim, but the problem is, who gets to make the plan for fixing the problem? We can't even agree on what the problem is, much less how to fix it. I think teh current administration helped to, if not create, certainly exacerbate the problem, and has no clue what to do next. I further believe the steps they've taken so far have been utterly wrong, and, not to put too fine a point on it, disgraceful.

So, my suggestions for fizxing the terrorist problem: Stop bullying countries (calling the French, Spanish, Germans and Russians names doesn't help things much), work towards better mutual respect and understanding with the countries that are the breeding grounds for terrorists, prosecute individual terrorist groups with the long end of a large gun (with the cooperation of the host country), and strike a abalance between domestic security and Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms (leaning towards the freedoms).


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 8, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> SkiDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Im not totally happy about our "boys" being over there dying either, but still think we NEED to be there. 

I just dont want you to be "mad" at me...it was never my intention..

M


----------



## JimG. (Jul 8, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> I hate to say this... But with Sadam at least they had water, electricity and transportation...  For some people - thats all they need to raise their kids and live their lives..



I'm going to show Claudia this quote...she has said exactly this many times.


----------



## dmc (Jul 8, 2005)

ChileMass said:
			
		

> The question is - when are we justified in standing up for democracy?  At what point do we take the lead in defending the most successful type of government in history?  Everyone want freedom and democracy, and this isn't just a re-hash of the old line "inside every gook is an American trying to get out".



Thats a pretty cocky statement..
I'm not sure our version of democracy is for everyone..   I agreed it's awesome..  But...
You know that Iraq will imediatly go into a civil war as soon as we leave..
It's going to be divided into three countries and don't see any problem with that...

I just don't know if democracy will work for every person in the world... Especially trabla based societies...


----------



## dmc (Jul 8, 2005)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> the NORTH of Iraq is beginning to THRIVE..



It was thriving before we went into Iraq...  We protected the Kurds - they esectially had their own country free from Sadams rule - us "liberating" Iraq was THE worst thing we could have done to them..

Now they are at the mercy of the stronger groups uin the country..


----------



## smitty77 (Jul 8, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> As well as making the Iraqi peoples life a living hell when we blast through their towns looking for insurgents that should've NEVER made it across the boarder to begin with.....


Who's to say these insurgent groups weren't there to begin with?  I don't believe they ALL just marched over the border overnight, they're too organized and know the cities too well for that.  I believe this network was well established before 9/11.  If you get rid of a nest of wasps in the attic and then find you have termites in the basement, it doesn't necessarily mean the termites moved in to fill the void.  They were most likely there under the surface, and were only discovered once the main pest was removed.



			
				dmc said:
			
		

> If he had WMD's I would STILL be suporting this war..
> Cause there's a direct threat to us and our allies...



He had WMDs, and he moved them to Saudi Arabia before the UN inspectors pulled out.  If you think Saddam was just sitting in his palace playing solitaire for ten years crippled by UN sanctions, you're a fool.  I believe he was gearing up for a retaliation with Al Qaeda using biological weapons, using Bin Laden's foot soldiers to come over here and spread it.  Am I the only one who believes those outbreaks of the Norwalk virus on cruise ships was a test by terrorists to see how far they could spread a disease?



			
				dmc said:
			
		

> Fact is... Civilians are dying every day in Iraq in the crossfire between the US and the insurgents..
> And that makes me sad...


Like it was such a paradise before...  I'm sure the daily death tolls of Iraqi civilians before and after invasion are not much different.


----------



## dmc (Jul 8, 2005)

JimG. said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's true..  Lots of the people in the world don't need the internet, air conditioning, cars, McDonalds,Ski trips, etc...

They just need the basics...  Food, Shelter and to walk the streets without getting blown up...


----------



## dmc (Jul 8, 2005)

smitty77 said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



All your points are hearsay...  Sorry..
Trying to deal in fact here...


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 8, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> SkiDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I dont think thats the whole story...maybe MORE thriving than other places in Iraq, but "thriving" might be considered a relative term.

Either way..I think in the long run (and this will be YEARS not months or days) thinkgs will be much better off for all Iraqis.

M


----------



## ChileMass (Jul 8, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> ChileMass said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There are examples such as Jordan, where a consitutional monarchy reports to an elected parliament, more in the British style.  Nothing wrong with that at all and a good precedent for other Islamic countries to follow.  

We need their oil, they need our technology, medicine and democratic institutions.  Our interests are inter-related.  We need to help the region enter the 21st century.


----------



## dmc (Jul 8, 2005)

smitty77 said:
			
		

> Like it was such a paradise before...  I'm sure the daily death tolls of Iraqi civilians before and after invasion are not much different.



Some say it was...
We had the Kurds protected..
Bagdahd was a thriving city with comerce and infarstructure...


----------



## dmc (Jul 8, 2005)

ChileMass said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why do they need to enter the 21st century?
Why do they need our democratic institutions?
Why can't they just select the kind of government they want?

what gives us the right to ordain what they need to do?


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 8, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> All your points are hearsay...  Sorry..
> Trying to deal in fact here...



Its not all heresay....we didnt have UN sanctions and inspectors for nothing did we? do you belive its all made up? 

He certianly wasn't sitting there twidling his thumbs that I know..

I think some tend to bend their perceptions of "fact" to suit their argument..

M


----------



## dmc (Jul 8, 2005)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A lot of what he said was hearsay.. Tin Foil hat stuff...  And thats cool... I'm down with conspiracy theories...


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 8, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> smitty77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"some"? I would venture to say FEW is a better term here...

And we'll never know the real death tolls on iraqis becasue Saddam was a mass murderer..

M

M


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 8, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> SkiDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am too...I dig that stuff  

yer right though some of the stuff was tinfoil, but you can't deny that guy had something going on over there when the inspectors were trying to inspect...he wasnt keeping them out for nothing..he was biding time.

M


----------



## JimG. (Jul 8, 2005)

ChileMass said:
			
		

> OK - here we go.  But before I get into this, I just want to say that I enjoy reading posts from ctenidae and dmc very much on all topics, especially the ski/hiking topics......
> 
> But - you guys have it all wrong.  You are dealing with symptoms of the problem and tactical solutions to a much bigger problem.  The question is - when are we justified in standing up for democracy?  At what point do we take the lead in defending the most successful type of government in history?  Everyone want freedom and democracy, and this isn't just a re-hash of the old line "inside every gook is an American trying to get out".  Ask the Russians or the Chileans or the Afghans if they were better off under dictator rule.
> 
> ...



And I agree with alot of this (but I'll admit I don't like Rummy or Cheney, they just remind me too much of characters from "Dr. Strangelove"). I just don't agree we should have taken resources from Afghanistan to go get Saddam. 

Don't care too much what countries who would have opposed us think, they all had special interests in Iraq or in their own political arenas and we know how I feel about special interests. Then again, I didn't see the need to totally alienate them either; we as Americans don't like being dictated to, why should they?

Powell had it right, the first Gulf war is a testament to that. You want to tell me we should have taken Saddam then, I agree. 

Since these terrorists are still killing and blowing things up, it seems they are they only ones who have benefitted so far. Was that our goal?


----------



## ChileMass (Jul 8, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> smitty77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



C'mon dmc - Saddam used to regularly send his MIG jets up to the north to bomb the Kurds when they got out of line.  The only reason they were protected from 1997-2003 is because the US instituted the north (and south) "no-fly" zones after the first war, and we still had to go after Saddam's jets every so often when they were trying to bomb his internal enemies.  

And speaking of which - Baghdad was a thriving city of commerce and infrastructure only for the Baathist Sunnis who made up about 10% of the population.  Under Saddam, if you were against the Baathists you got tortured and killed.  There is documented evidence of his ruling party and army killing tens of thousands of political opponents.


----------



## dmc (Jul 8, 2005)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> And we'll never know the real death tolls on iraqis becasue Saddam was a mass murderer..



Maybe not... BUT his main target - The Kurds and Shiites were protected by us...  We did not need to rush in there..


----------



## dmc (Jul 8, 2005)

ChileMass said:
			
		

> C'mon dmc - Saddam used to regularly send his MIG jets up to the north to bomb the Kurds when they got out of line.  The only reason they were protected from 1997-2003 is because the US instituted the north (and south) "no-fly" zones after the first war, and we still had to go after Saddam's jets every so often when they were trying to bomb his internal enemies.



thats exaclty what I was saying..
We had them protected... What was the rush?


----------



## dmc (Jul 8, 2005)

JimG. said:
			
		

> Since these terrorists are still killing and blowing things up, it seems they are they only ones who have benefitted so far. Was that our goal?



Another oil source to feed our SUVs?


----------



## JimG. (Jul 8, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> JimG. said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There are many underlying goals that will never be publicly admitted. All to the benefit of special interests. As much as I hate it, it's been a part of our system since the start.


----------



## ChileMass (Jul 8, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> ChileMass said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Every country needs to enter the 21st century because the global economy requires it.  Especially the world's 5th-largest oil producer.  

The citizens of Iraq want democratic institutions, even if they cannot come out in public and demand them for fear of repercussions.  Democracy depends on the rule of law and respect for personal property rights, which must be upheld by laws and courts selected by the people. Instititions such as parliaments, executive offices and courts support these rights.   

Democracy has flourished in places thought impossible - China is the obvious example. It can and will work in the Middle East as well.  

The terrorists in the Middle East do not want democracy, they want a theocracy based on Islamic law.  That would seem to be fine, except for fanatics who  interpret the Koran to require shunning or killing non-believers.  This is where it breaks down.  This is why we have separation of church and state in western democracy.  Otherwise, some idiot ultra-right-wing Christian could get elected, enact laws that say kill everyone who's not like us, and we'd be just like the terrorists in Iraq.  We are helping these people to see the need for secular democracy and I'm sure they already understand its benefits.


----------



## dmc (Jul 8, 2005)

ChileMass said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm still uncomfortable pushing our values on societies...  I think a lot of why people hate is is because of this...

How would you feel if Iraq voted and selected a theocracy instead of a democracy?


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 8, 2005)

One paragraph at a time in response to Chilemass:

1)	You ask “when are we justified in standing up for democracy?” Fair question. If you want to set the US up as the Defenders of Democracy, you have to be prepared to consider the flip side of the coin- when are we justified in NOT standing up for democracy? Do the Iraqi’s deserve democracy more than 95% of Africa? Is the suffering of the Iraqi’s more pressing than that of an entire continent? Then, do we go into North Korea? Back into Vietnam? What about China? Is democracy better? I certainly think so. Others find it, too. Russia did, Chile did, Bolivia is, and all without our direct military intervention. I’ll concede Afghanistan, since I support the reasoning, and initial strategy, for our action there.

2)	It’s a values-driven political question. I disagree with both the values and the politics of BushCo. I don’t believe they knew what they were doing before going in to Iraq (and the preponderance of evidence seems to support that conclusion), and I don’t believe they know what they’re going to do next. If they knew the UN would support it, why not wait? The advantages to waiting (unity, support, more time to prepare, access to planning and intelligence) far outweigh the disadvantages (I can’t think of any). Which European political skins have we saved? Blair gets blasted regularly (he’s endured what, 3 no confidence votes?), Spain’s government got booted, France is moving even further towards socialism, Schroeder’s getting creamed.  The US went in six to nine months before it would have been militarily advantageous- waiting for the UN would have given us time to equip our troops appropriately and position them better (that said, they did a fantastic job, militarily speaking- and with all those horrible cuts Clinton did that obviously ruined the US military).  The US and Britain prove we’re willing to stand up to bullies and terrorists?  Great. Especially now that the majority of the world considers us to be bullies, and that’s brought the terrorists out of the woodwork.

3)	I agree with you wholeheartedly on this one.

4)	Peru, Andorra and North Korea don’t have a permanent seat on the Security Council.  I don’t agree that increasing the power and prestige of anyone is necessarily a bad thing, and I certainly don’t agree that it’s a zero-sum game.  We can certainly gain respect by being the bigger man, and allowing other countries to have their say, and maybe even listening once in a while. There’s a difference between hesitating while waiting for the French and Germans and spending time to come up with a solution that can be agreed upon. I didn’t vote for BushCo, and I don’t trust them, either philosophically or to know what they’re doing.

5)	9/11 cost a lot of jobs, no doubt, and the world economy absolutely depends on stability. How is the US helping that by going cowboy whenever we want? War is always messy- that’s the main reason it should be avoided whenever possible, and used only as an absolute last resort. Killing all the reactionary fanatical Islamic terrorist bastards is a great idea. Ever heard of the Hydra? Going in hacking and slashing doesn’t work- you have to get at the fundamental root causes.

Sorry this is so long- I like one-shot answers rather than bits and pieces. And, sorry this is veering towards Iraq again and away from London. But, it's all relative.


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 8, 2005)

*How would you feel if Iraq voted and selected a theocracy instead of a democracy?*

Awesome question. Certainly bears repeating.


----------



## ChileMass (Jul 8, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> I'm still uncomfortable pushing our values on societies...  I think a lot of why people hate is is because of this...
> 
> How would you feel if Iraq voted and selected a theocracy instead of a democracy?



I completely agree with you that people need to be able to select their own government, but as we've pointed out there's all sort of flavors of democracy.  Maybe the Jordanian model is best in the Middle East.  Some people would not consider China to be a democracy, but at least they are a lot more democratic than they were under Mao.  

If Iraq elects a theocracy (a definite possibility BTW), they will be a lot like Iran, and unfortunately will be ostracized by a lot of the world if they choose to form a government around the Shia interpretation of Islam.  This is where the problem is with Islam and the west.  It's not a problem of religion, it's a problem of separation of church and state.  Radical Islam requires its believers to disassociate with non-believers and allows for killing those that offend their religion.  This is obviously where we westerners need to learn more about the Shia and how not to piss them off and give them respect so we can all get along in our interconnected world.  

But - thank God (irony intended) the US founding fathers got it right, because as an atheist, I'd probably have to be living in a guarded compound in Montana or near the Arctic Circle based on the Christian fanaticism I see in the US today.  

The US is helping the Iraqis and other Islamic people learn that secular (non-religious) democracy based upon popularly-elected institutions have been proven to be superior to communism or rule by dictatorship.  These are new and disruptive concepts, which they will get used to and learn over time to value as we do.


----------



## dmc (Jul 8, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> *How would you feel if Iraq voted and selected a theocracy instead of a democracy?*
> 
> Awesome question. Certainly bears repeating.



How about this one... 
What if they decided via a majority vote to bring Sadam back?


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 8, 2005)

Now you're reaching.


----------



## awf170 (Jul 8, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> ctenidae said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I no one thing.... that would make this country look like the biggest bunch of idiots ever, did u know sadam  hates fruit loops(sry had to add that)


----------



## dmc (Jul 8, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> Now you're reaching.



Just throwing it out there...
People still support Saddam there - no matter what GWB says....


----------



## dmc (Jul 8, 2005)

awf170 said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



He wears "tidey whiteys" too...


----------



## ChileMass (Jul 8, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> He wears "tidey whiteys" too...



Phew - ugly mental image!  Thanks a lot..... :wink:


----------



## dmc (Jul 8, 2005)

ChileMass said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 8, 2005)

Nice one!
I've got your tyrant right here...
In my pants!


----------



## ChileMass (Jul 8, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> ChileMass said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



SWEET!!!!  I hope he burns in hell.....


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 8, 2005)

I think Saddam's special punishment in Hell will be wearing damp tighty whities. Such an itch they give you!


----------



## ChileMass (Jul 8, 2005)

ctenidae - here's my response:

1 - We ARE the defenders of democracy and have been since 1917.  The Euros get all caught up in their socialist knickers and we get called in every other decade to sort it out.  We screwed up in Vietnam, but other than that we're 10-1 all-time.  Africa unfortunately does not have the oil Iraq does, it's that simple.  And we have a longstanding policy of defending Israel against its neighbors.  Africa is next on the list, however, and hopefuly will not have to be helped at the point of a gun (I realize I am making some of your points here).  

2 - You're mixing politics and values again and basing your position on style.  Would fewer people have been killed if Kerry had been elected?  Who knows?  Maybe the insurgents would have been even more emboldened if the US resolve were perceieved to be weaker. Maybe the "eventual Iraqi civil war" would already be started if we had pulled out.  Who knows?  At least there's no civil war going on now, and the possibility exists for a democratic Iraq.  

2A - Here's another news flash - the rest of the world doesn't hate us, they envy us. They want to be us.  They are a 13-year-old boy with bad teeth and pimples and we are a smoking hot 22-year-old babe who doesn't even know he's alive.  We are the Porsche every poor guy wants when he walks by the lot, and he has to work his ass off for 20 years to get it but he finally does.  We have it all but for some of us it's still not enough because we aren't perfect.  Quit beating yourselves (and me) up and realize we are all doing our best, including W and the government.  

3 - Thanks.

4 - Power in the UN is *absolutely* a zero-sum game, which is why the US has largely never played by the rules and another reason why the rest of world envies us - because we can do whatever we want and get away with it. In that respect it may suck to be a Frenchman if the US' interests lie against you, but for us it is a terrific thing.  I will agree abusing this power needs to be closely monitored.  

5 - We tried for decades to put money into Iraq and all it did was increase Saddam's Swiss bank account. Cowboy diplomacy is not my preference, but at long last we are getting the changes we wanted in the area as democracy takes hold.


----------



## dmc (Jul 8, 2005)

ChileMass said:
			
		

> 2A - Here's another news flash - the rest of the world doesn't hate us, they envy us. They want to be us.  They are a 13-year-old boy with bad teeth and pimples and we are a smoking hot 22-year-old babe who doesn't even know he's alive.  We are the Porsche every poor guy wants when he walks by the lot, and he has to work his ass off for 20 years to get it but he finally does.  We have it all but for some of us it's still not enough because we aren't perfect.  Quit beating yourselves (and me) up and realize we are all doing our best, including W and the government.



PUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUULEASE!!!
Not everybody craves what we have... Thats so cocky...
Some people are happy with more spirtual things...

GWB may be doing his best..  But that kid with downs syndrome in the Special Olympics does his best to run the 100yard dash too..... 

They(Karl Rove) are making this stuff up as they go along...  Ask one question to his cabinet and you get all different answers...


----------



## Stephen (Jul 8, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> PUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUULEASE!!!
> Not everybody craves what we have... Thats so cocky...
> Some people are happy with more spirtual things...
> 
> ...



France and Germany don't have an immigration problem. We do because people WANT to be here. People are willing to risk their lives to come here. Actions say a lot.

Oh... and you think my words are offensive? To pull in that Special Olympics analogy is pretty heinous.

-Stephen


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 8, 2005)

_2 - You're mixing politics and values again and basing your position on style._

Absolutely. I don't think you can seperate politics from values. The conservatives are tthe (political) party of values, aren't they? I happen to disagree with 99.9% of them.


_4 - Power in the UN is absolutely a zero-sum game_
Again, I disagree. It is possible to accomplish things without there being a winner and a loser. It is possible for everyone to get what they need.

_I will agree abusing this power needs to be closely monitored. _
Agreed.

_We tried for decades to put money into Iraq and all it did was increase Saddam's Swiss bank account._
That's because the money was being put in Saddam's Swiss bank account. By Bush Sr andumsfield, primarily. Where do you think he got all those nast WMDs?


----------



## dmc (Jul 8, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sorry if I offended you...  Actually afte what you said about me yesterday..
I'm not...

But to anybody else that I actually respect.. I aplogize... Was trying to make a point that all kinds of people try with the best of intentions...

But the road to hell is pave with good intentions..

People want to come here for cash... Plain and simple..  They make their $$ here and send it back to where they came from...


----------



## dmc (Jul 8, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> _We tried for decades to put money into Iraq and all it did was increase Saddam's Swiss bank account._
> That's because the money was being put in Saddam's Swiss bank account. By Bush Sr andumsfield, primarily. Where do you think he got all those nast WMDs?



Our soldiers are getting killed with weapons we sold Iraq...
We really F'd up Iraq... Now we are paying the price..


----------



## ChileMass (Jul 8, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> People want to come here for cash... Plain and simple..  They make their $$ here and send it back to where they came from...



Of course people come here for cash - how naive can you be - ??  

Yeah, I understand that spritual well-being is ultimately more important than money, but honestly - that's only for those that have their basic needs already well-covered.  It's hard to max out your spiritual side when you have no income and live in a poor country.  

C'mon - you don't really believe that do you? That people like living in poor countries with lousy sanitation and no food and no education for their kids?  How come people aren't lined up to become citizens of Tibet or India to go where the ideal environment for spiritual expression is at?  Because they want to raise their families in America where they can sleep on a soft bed in a warm house and where food is cheap and plentiful.  

Don't you guys appreciate living in America - ??


----------



## Stephen (Jul 8, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> Sorry if I offended you...  Actually afte what you said about me yesterday..
> I'm not...



I believe liberalism is treasonous and kills. I'm sorry if that offends you, but that is my viewpoint. Doesn't liberal tolerance dictate that our opinions have a right to exist... or is it only allowed if it agrees with the liberals? Some day dmc, you'll read beyond the editorial page of the New York Times, and share a rational non-emotional thought. Until then, this'll be my last response directly towards you, for fear of disgusting you, pissing you off, or whatever other emotional response you have to intellectual opinions that differ from your own.

In the meantime, getting back to the original topic:

Now, groups are threatening to attack Rome. I've come to the decision that it's presumptuous of us to think these attacks are about us, the U.S. I fear it's really part of the endgame of Islam's desire to wipe all non-believer's (aka infidels) from the face of the planet. 

If this is not the case, where are the outcries from the Muslim leaders denouncing London's attacks? It's not there. Yes, Muslim leaders in the U.S. are speaking out (softly) against it... but they are here BECAUSE they are the moderate ones who can live in a civilized society with other religions.

Are the Muslims in Europe and Asia shouting in the streets, denouncing the attacks? No, they are shouting "Nuke, Nuke Washington! Bomb, bomb Pentagon!"

It's all part of an endgame folks. I don't see how we get out of it either. If I listen to one side, pulling out of Iraq emboldens them. If I listen to the other side, staying in Iraq aggravates them. Are we in a lesser of two evils situation? And which IS the lesser evil?

-Stephen


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 8, 2005)

_Don't you guys appreciate living in America - ??_

Don't do that- it's cheap and silly.

Of course we all agree that America is the greatest place to be- otherwise we wouldn't be here. Just because I don't like the way the government has been behaving lately doesn't mean I hate America. That's a cheap Limbaugh-type ploy. In fact, one of the things I love most about America is that I can completely disagree with something that's going on, and say so, without fear of a jackboot stomping on my head. 

Seriously, there's a parallel to be drawn between the general Conservative tactic of bashing anyone who disagrees, labeling them a "liberal" and telling them to get out of the country and Islamic fundamentalists stoning unbelievers, labeling them heretics, and killing them.


----------



## dmc (Jul 8, 2005)

ChileMass said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I personally love this country...  No doubt... 
Why would you ask such a question?

If I didn't love America - I wouldn't be defending what I believe in...  I would just go somewhere else...


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 8, 2005)

_Are we in a lesser of two evils situation? And which IS the lesser evil? _

Perhaps, and that's a pretty good question.


----------



## dmc (Jul 8, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> Until then, this'll be my last response directly towards you, for fear of disgusting you, pissing you off, or whatever other emotional response you have to intellectual opinions that differ from your own.



There is a god!!!  WOOOHOOO!!!
No more accustaions of killing our soliers!!!
No more blasting my opinions while crying that I blast yours!!!

Still don't know why you don't sign up to go kill terrorists..


----------



## dmc (Jul 8, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> _Are we in a lesser of two evils situation? And which IS the lesser evil? _
> 
> Perhaps, and that's a pretty good question.



Thats for the person to decide... not someone else to tell them..


----------



## dmc (Jul 8, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> Seriously, there's a parallel to be drawn between the general Conservative tactic of bashing anyone who disagrees, labeling them a "liberal" and telling them to get out of the country and Islamic fundamentalists stoning unbelievers, labeling them heretics, and killing them.



Nice!!!


----------



## ChileMass (Jul 8, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> _Don't you guys appreciate living in America - ??_
> 
> Don't do that- it's cheap and silly.



Well I guess it was sort of a rhetorical question, but I do appreciate the response.  You and dmc obviously have well-thought out and deeply-held positions, but I'm still confused at your suspicion of the government's actions if you have so much love for America and what it stands for. 

Do you need the government, as your representative, to be perfect?  It ain't gonna happen......


----------



## JimG. (Jul 8, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> I think Saddam's special punishment in Hell will be wearing damp tighty whities. Such an itch they give you!



Make that damp and tight tighty whiteys. Talk about a twist in your shorts.


----------



## Stephen (Jul 8, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> Seriously, there's a parallel to be drawn between the general Conservative tactic of bashing anyone who disagrees, labeling them a "liberal" and telling them to get out of the country and Islamic fundamentalists stoning unbelievers, labeling them heretics, and killing them.



Of course, the opposite is true when Liberals claim that Conservatives are mean-spirited, that they have to have been in the military before they can choose to send them to war or to even advocate the use of military force, and accuse them of reading off memos or drinking the "kool-aid" whenever they make a contrary point.

You have as much right to state your point as I have mine. As long as we're willing to agree on that. If we can't then we're all wasting our breath.

At the same time, the right to free speech doesn't in any way absolve us from the consequences of that speech. And our words have effects, from shouting fire to a crowded theatre to affecting the morale of soldiers and terrorists, even thousands of miles away in Iraq.

If it'll help people, call me a Conservative and we'll know what you imply by that. I'll gladly take the label. 

It's liberals who can't admit what they are.  :lol: 

-Stephen


----------



## dmc (Jul 8, 2005)

ChileMass said:
			
		

> You and dmc obviously have well-thought out and deeply-held positions, but I'm still confused at your suspicion of the government's actions if you have so much love for America and what it stands for.
> 
> Do you need the government, as your representative, to be perfect?  It ain't gonna happen......



No - but I'd like to feel that my Government isn't a big swaggering bully, force feeding our brand of Democracy down peoples throats...

For the first time in my life...  I don't trust *anything *that comes out of the Whitehouse..

I won't feel comfortable until the pupet master, Karl Rove is gone...


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 8, 2005)

I don't need the government to be perfect. Just not substandard. Perfect would be nice, but not likely.

I look at Reagan as a standard, of sorts. I didn't like a lot of his politics (well, more his economics, but that's another thread, entirely), but he was a guy you could get behind. I didn't like what he said, but by God, I liked that he said it. My entire problem with the current administration lies in the pre-invasion handling of things. The fact the administration lied multiple times, won't respond to questions about the handling on intelligence data, may have outed a CIA operative out of spite, didn't plan an exit strategy, etc etc etc, all bothers me greatly. That is not up to American standards, though it may be putting American standards through an American Standard (They make toilets. Sorry). The fact that no one seems to care, either that the story changed several times, or that BushCo won't answer questions about the change in reasoning really gets to me, and scares me. The railroading of the USA Patriot Act scares the bejesus out of me. These aren't instances of government not being perfect. These are examples of government running roughshod over the ideals and beliefs this country was built on.


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 8, 2005)

_Of course, the opposite is true when Liberals claim that Conservatives are mean-spirited, that they have to have been in the military before they can choose to send them to war or to even advocate the use of military force, and accuse them of reading off memos or drinking the "kool-aid" whenever they make a contrary point. _

Gotta say, I see many more instances of COnservatives accusing Liberals of doing these things than I do of Liberals actually doing them.
As for having to have been in teh military to advocate the use of force, I think you'll find that the vast majority of "doves" have military experience, while the majority of hawks do not. There's a disconnect there, somewhere. Bush: Skipped out on service, rushed to war, re-elected for it. Powell: former Joint Chief of Staff, counseled restraint, run out on a rail for it. On teh reading off memos charge, watch teh talking heads sometime- you'll find that the rabid Conservatives (Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity) all use the same phraeology. Rumsfeld, Bush, Ridge, Cheney, all use the same phrases in their statements. Liberals, on the other hand, can't share a cogent thought between them. I don't think either thing is good.
On Kool-Aid- I'm not even real sure what this is supposed to reference- Thorazine in a psych ward or Jonestown? Depending on rabidity, I suppose it could pertain to either.


----------



## dmc (Jul 8, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> Powell: former Joint Chief of Staff, counseled restraint, run out on a rail for it.



Don't forget Bush Sr....  He actually warned his son about the problems with occupying Iraq...

But the "shrub" did not listen to his own dad...


----------



## ChileMass (Jul 8, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> I don't need the government to be perfect. Just not substandard. Perfect would be nice, but not likely.
> 
> I look at Reagan as a standard, of sorts. I didn't like a lot of his politics (well, more his economics, but that's another thread, entirely), but he was a guy you could get behind. I didn't like what he said, but by God, I liked that he said it. My entire problem with the current administration lies in the pre-invasion handling of things. The fact the administration lied multiple times, won't respond to questions about the handling on intelligence data, may have outed a CIA operative out of spite, didn't plan an exit strategy, etc etc etc, all bothers me greatly........
> 
> These aren't instances of government not being perfect. These are examples of government running roughshod over the ideals and beliefs this country was built on.



OK - you liked Reagan but hate W?  I don't get it.  They are so much the same except that W is a lousy actor by comparison.  

I hated Reagan and still find it hard to look back and forgive him for some of the things that he did.  I despised his gang of hard-liners back in the day (Meese, Haig, Regan, Cap Weinberg, etc).  The parallels with your criticisms of W's administration are pretty evident.  

I guess the difference is that back in the 80s I didn't have 2 nickels to rub together and now I have some things I want to protect.  Back then, I thought the government would help me if I got in a jam, but 4 weeks after I voted for Reagan in 1984 (Mondale just had too much of that Carter-era loser aura still hanging on.  I guess I hoped Ronnie would turn into a lame duck in his 2nd term.) the Republicans axed my Pell grant (70s-80s era college stipend) and I had to get a second job to get thru school.  I hated Reagan after that.  Plus, he was responsible for the rise of the religious right, who justifiably scare anyone not on their team. 

I think you got hoodwinked by Ronnie's excellent PR team........


----------



## Stephen (Jul 8, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> Gotta say, I see many more instances of COnservatives accusing Liberals of doing these things than I do of Liberals actually doing them.



I suppose you have to be there to see it. Do a search for dmc on this site and you'll see the number of times he responds with these accusations to my posts rather than refuting anything I say.



> As for having to have been in teh military to advocate the use of force, I think you'll find that the vast majority of "doves" have military experience, while the majority of hawks do not.



The generals not on the front lines, yes. But the guys I talk to returning from Iraq are all behind the presindent's policy 100%



> There's a disconnect there, somewhere. Bush: Skipped out on service, rushed to war, re-elected for it. Powell: former Joint Chief of Staff, counseled restraint, run out on a rail for it.



And which war did Clinton serve in before he bombed Sudan and Bosnia... oh wait, he actually ran to Canada instead.

And I have some National Guard buddies who would take issue with them not considered to be "serving".



> On teh reading off memos charge, watch teh talking heads sometime- you'll find that the rabid Conservatives (Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity) all use the same phraeology. Rumsfeld, Bush, Ridge, Cheney, all use the same phrases in their statements. Liberals, on the other hand, can't share a cogent thought between them. I don't think either thing is good.



Tell me if any of these words sound familiar? "Gravitas" "Quagmire" "Exit Strategy" "Rumsfeld resignation" "No WMDS" "Bush Lied" "Oil" "Idiot" "Selected, Not Elected". Our media is loaded with catch-phrases on both sides, and it's quite clear that both parties engage in pow-wowing about what they present and how they spin.

The difference for individuals like me is that I can give you the line of decisions that I have made that have led me to the conclusions I have, if you'll give me the time.



> On Kool-Aid- I'm not even real sure what this is supposed to reference- Thorazine in a psych ward or Jonestown? Depending on rabidity, I suppose it could pertain to either.



It refers to Jonestown, and it's a derisive remark that indicates a bunch of people brainwashed into spewing out a doctrine. dmc even went as far as to post a photo of Bob Jones in response to my points.

It's odd that one person with an opinion is a "radical", two people are a "minority", three people are a "movement", but millions of people with the same opinion are "brainwashed".

-Stephen


----------



## dmc (Jul 8, 2005)

ChileMass said:
			
		

> OK - you liked Reagan but hate W?  I don't get it.  They are so much the same except that W is a lousy actor by comparison.



Best quote of the day!!!

Reagan was the first president I voted for.... Mainly cause I was convinced he would keep the Soviets from nuking me...


----------



## JimG. (Jul 8, 2005)

Oh boy, back to the labels again, just when I thought we were making some progress here. I wouldn't live anywhere other than America, and I've visited many countries outside the U.S.. Nowhere else measures up.

I support my government because our current leaders were elected by a majority vote (whatever you might think about Florida in 2000). I'm suspicious of all politicians because a few, both democratic and republican, have done some really crappy things and lied to the public about it. I don't agree with the current administration's handling of the terrorist problem. There are things I do agree with, but not because I'm a conservative. 

Stephen, I think saying that liberalism causes death and treason is over the top, but you're entitled to your opinion. Doesn't offend me because I'm not liberal, but it bothers me that it offends others. To be fair, dmc's comment about the special olympics was over the top too, but I know him personally and know he didn't mean it the way it sounded. Maybe that's part of the problem here; I don't know you personally, so the way I interpret what you say may not be how you actually mean it. 

Unfortunately, none of this will help solve our current crisis regarding terrorism. What I can say is this: I will act to twart any terrorist if I can, and it won't matter to me whether they try to kill conservatives of liberals, French or Germans, Muslims or Christians.


----------



## dmc (Jul 8, 2005)

JimG. said:
			
		

> To be fair, dmc's comment about the special olympics was over the top too



I cool with that..  But I was trying to make a point...  Didnt say anything bad about kids with Downs Syndrome...


----------



## JimG. (Jul 8, 2005)

ChileMass said:
			
		

> I think you got hoodwinked by Ronnie's excellent PR team........



Nope, it wasn't the PR.

I liked Reagan too...because he had charisma and he really believed in what he said.

I know Bush believes in what he is doing, but he has no charisma. That makes it harder for him to sell the public on his ideas.


----------



## dmc (Jul 8, 2005)

JimG. said:
			
		

> ChileMass said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So instead of selling ideas he scares the crap out of people by raising terror alerts and hitting people while biking....


----------



## ChileMass (Jul 8, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> ChileMass said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



dmc - No way - I was convinced at the time that Ronnie's act was *much* more likely to get us nuked.  

I'll concede all day long that W is a lousy actor, might not be very bright and likely won't go down in history as one of our best presidents.  But he's the president and I have things and people I need to protect.  I held my nose and pulled the lever for him last year, and did the same in 1984.  

But how can you laud Reagan and bash W?  They're the same guy!!!!!


----------



## JimG. (Jul 8, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> JimG. said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Whatever his plan is or whatever his advisors are telling him, it isn't working for alot of folks. Reagan projected an image of calm and control that Bush lacks. 

The terrorist alerts are pretty much ineffective...too much boy crying wolf, I don't think the public pays attention anymore (a very bad thing); sorry, you lost me on the biking thing.


----------



## ChileMass (Jul 8, 2005)

JimG. said:
			
		

> ChileMass said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Jim G - you're making it really easy for me here - so you're saying that you vote for the president and like him because he's a good actor - ??  Reagan was a full of crap as any president and by the end didn't know what he was talking about.  He and W are remarkably similar.  

Does anyone remember the 1982 Grenada invasion or the Iran-Contra fiasco?  There's very little difference between Reagan and W. You guys sound like you were charmed out of your votes......


----------



## JimG. (Jul 8, 2005)

ChileMass said:
			
		

> Jim G - you're making it really easy for me here - so you're saying that you vote for the president and like him because he's a good actor - ??  Reagan was a full of crap as any president and by the end didn't know what he was talking about.  He and W are remarkably similar.
> 
> Does anyone remember the 1982 Grenada invasion or the Iran-Contra fiasco?  There's very little difference between Reagan and W. You guys sound like you were charmed out of your votes......



I didn't like Reagan because he was an actor, I liked him because he had charisma. Acting is acting; you can't fake charisma, you either have it or you don't. 

Clinton had charisma too; I despised Clinton and his policies, but his "down home boy" persona made it hard to stay mad at him for long. I did not vote for Clinton in 92 or 96 though. I don't vote based on one thing or another, it's the whole package.

I didn't like either package in 04. Hey, politics is a sales job whether you like it or not. I run a sales department, I wouldn't hire Bush. I would hire either Reagan or Clinton though. Those boys could SELL.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 8, 2005)

ChileMass said:
			
		

> Reagan was a full of crap as any president and by the end didn't know what he was talking about.



I don't think he was full of crap...alot of what he said he wanted to do he got done. Like what he did or not, he got done what he said he wanted to get done. Yes, he made dumb mistakes like any other human being.

It still saddens me that he got Alzheimer's. Such a vigorous and dynamic man who couldn't even recognize his own family in the end. His funeral was a truly awesome display of patriotism.


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 8, 2005)

Reagan had his problems, absolutely. Some that probably should have gotten him impeached (Iran-Contra, anyone?) but you could almost believe that he really believed what he said. Gotta respect him for that.

On the National Guard- I have utmost respect for them- especially considering the extremely short end of the stick they're getting in Iraq. I don't think Bush spent a whole lot of time in the Guard, though. On paper, perhaps, but in reality? I have my doubts (I know, those documents were faked (and poorly), but Bush still won't release his records to prove he was there? One more instance of "Why not?")


----------



## SilentCal (Jul 8, 2005)

I think there was a post on the AMC boards recently about where the Mountains and Molehills board went to. I think I might have found it :lol: 


You guys are all a riot.  It doesn't matter what topic it is, you guys turn it into a politcal boxing match.    This thread did start about the london bombing remember.  They are not even 100% sure that it was Al qaida behind this.  For all we know, this could be an English Oklahoma City type bombing that turns out to be one of their own that did it. 

I started a post recently just about the rising fuel costs and how people reacted to it and it turns into a politcal deathmatch.   Some people here wear their politcal beliefs on their shirtsleeves and stick to their guns no matter how foolish they sound.  I bet the next Supreme Court nominee choice battle will be at least a 100 posts within a day or two as well.

What this country needs is a little more  :beer: 
and a lot less :argue:  :argue:  :argue: 

What happened to the lost art of compromise?  

Death toll now is over 50.  My heart goes out to those who lost someone dear to them.....


----------



## Stephen (Jul 8, 2005)

SilentCal said:
			
		

> I think there was a post on the AMC boards recently about where the Mountains and Molehills board went to. I think I might have found it :lol:






> You guys are all a riot.  It doesn't matter what topic it is, you guys turn it into a politcal boxing match.





> I bet the next Supreme Court nominee choice battle will be at least a 100 posts within a day or two as well.





> What happened to the lost art of compromise?



There is a potential solution in the works. Stay tuned!

-Stephen


----------



## SilentCal (Jul 8, 2005)

Doesn't matter much to me.  I enjoy the comedy.   As long as the Flags site is ready for Monday,  I'm a happy guy!


----------



## Stephen (Jul 8, 2005)

SilentCal said:
			
		

> Doesn't matter much to me.  I enjoy the comedy.   As long as the Flags site is ready for Monday,  I'm a happy guy!



Um, right.. Gonna be a busy weekend.


----------



## Stephen (Jul 8, 2005)

My comment about liberalism killing soldiers was a criticism toward loose rhetoric being detrimental to the morale of our troops. My frustration at the unfounded criticsm of the mission in Iraq, which I believe is a statement against the troops who are performing that mission, led me to say something that implied that comments on this thread led to soldier's deaths in Iraq.

It was not intended to lay blood on anyone's hands, but merely to reinforce the idea that what we say has consequences. 

I recognize now that it was over the top, and I apologize if I offended you with my comment. 

-Stephen


----------



## JimG. (Jul 8, 2005)

SilentCal said:
			
		

> This thread did start about the london bombing remember.



I'm guilty of starting it; when I heard the news it made me really angry again and I posted without thinking. And I mentioned the dreaded "I" word; it just seemed totally linked to the topic.

Should have known it would lead to  :argue: .


----------



## dmc (Jul 8, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> My comment about liberalism killing soldiers was a criticism toward loose rhetoric being detrimental to the morale of our troops. My frustration at the unfounded criticsm of the mission in Iraq, which I believe is a statement against the troops who are performing that mission, led me to say something that implied that comments on this thread led to soldier's deaths in Iraq.



No problemo...

Believe me... It's not about the troops...  I come from a military family..  I support the crap out of the troops.  I've stated serveral times the things I've done to support my family as well as working for Walter Reed..  I've personally thanked tons of guys going over to Iraq at Fort Dix in NJ... 
But I don't have a yellow magnet ribbon... sorry...

It's the old don't hate the playa - hate the game...
I support the troops and the job they have to do but hate the whole war premise...

Lots of my liberal friends all agree that whatever you think about this situation... We're in to win it now...  We can't just leave those people without giving it our best effort to stabalize the country...

Sadly though.,... It's going to go into a civil war..  These people have major issues with each other..


----------



## dmc (Jul 8, 2005)

JimG. said:
			
		

> SilentCal said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is an awesome thread!!!  I mean... Isn't this what the countries all about?
Brought together by a common interest but still as diverse as the day is long...


----------



## Stephen (Jul 8, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> Sadly though.,... It's going to go into a civil war..  These people have major issues with each other..



I thought the same thing about Bosnia... yet it's holding on somehow. Could be denial, but still, it's not the top of the news anyhow.

-Stephen


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 8, 2005)

Sure, things get tense occasionally here, but we're all friends. Stephens right, too- what we say does, in the end, have some consequences. I notice, though, that there hasn't been a single disparaging remark about the troops, or the job they're doing. The bone of contention is the premise of the premise of the action, and the reasons given for it. We are in it, adn good, now. Seems to me the best support we can give the trooops is to try to get them home as soon as possible.

There's a car in my neighborhood with the yellow ribbon magnet, a USMC sticker, USMC license plate frames, and aumper sticker that says "I don't have to like Bush to love my country." I think that sums up a majority of the liberal's attitudes. It does mine, anyway.


----------



## dmc (Jul 8, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They've recently been having problems..  But your right...  It did kinda work...

Believe me... I seriously want Iraq to be a peaceful place..  It's the cradle of civilization - I'd love to check it out..


----------



## SilentCal (Jul 8, 2005)

ctenidae is on to something.  Except for some bad eggs in Abu Gharib,  I think nobody has anything bad to say about our troops over there.   Anyone that does disparage any of the troops that are doing their job for their country,  is going to get a serious   :smash: from me.    :flag: 

[/quote]


----------



## pizza (Jul 8, 2005)

ChileMass said:
			
		

> OK - you liked Reagan but hate W?  I don't get it.  They are so much the same except that W is a lousy actor by comparison.



Wow, what a thread.
I'd be curious to know what perspective you come from to draw such a conclusion. I understand the underlying meaning behind Reagan being a better actor, but are you implying that they're politically similar or just similar in character?

For the record, I think that Bush is more different politically from Reagan than from Kerry. This is more of a factor of the times than a factor of the politics - two decades is a long time in politics. As far as character goes, accusations as to either can't really be backed up because nothing can be proven. As far as we know, Clinton lied much more than either of them. I'm not saying he did, I'm saying we don't know.

Comparisons between Reagan and Bush2 are really pointless anyway.


----------



## Greg (Jul 8, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> SilentCal said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Please all - see *this thread*.


----------



## ChileMass (Jul 8, 2005)

pizza said:
			
		

> ChileMass said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Personally, I think all politics is pointless, but here's my response to your question about Reagan and W being similar:

-Religious nuts are allowed large influence on policy
-Rich people get preference over the middle/working classes
-Increased separation of economic "haves" and "have-nots"
-Primary voter appeal between the coasts
-Regular use of military force abroad
-Ongoing vicious battles with "liberal" press
-Foreign policy largely secondary to domestic issues
-Market-driven economic policies (laissez-faire)
-Questionable use of military (Iran/Contra, Iraq)
-Tax cuts for the rich and for corporations
-Environmental issues subverted to corporate/short-term needs
-Cabinet composed of hard-line right-wing hawks
-Supreme Court nominees must be ultra-conservatives

Shall I go on?  Anyone wanna add to this list?  I'm sure there's more......


----------



## pizza (Jul 8, 2005)

Heh. There's no nice way to say this, but all of your points are kind of typical, boring, old, untrue and oversimplified.

So yeah, I've heard what you said a hundred times. I could take the same approach between, say, a Kerry and a Mondale, and I would sound good, but what I said above about your comments would have applied to me as well. Yet it would have made a lot of sense to a conservative.

So I'm going to keep my response short: The two major parties these days are homogonized and dishonest. BOTH.

Both parties are much different from 20 years ago.

That's about it.


----------



## Stephen (Jul 8, 2005)

OK, I want to dispel some of this.

-Religious nuts are allowed large influence on policy

The ten commandments are out, the bible is out, but the koran is treated with white gloves.

-Rich people get preference over the middle/working classes

Cause goodness knows rich people don't work.

-Increased separation of economic "haves" and "have-nots"

I've moved from the have-not to the haves. IT had nothing to do with government.

-Primary voter appeal between the coasts

Liberals on the coast, conservatives in fly over country. That hasn't changed.

-Regular use of military force abroad

As has been the case for the last, oh, 60 years or so.

-Ongoing vicious battles with "liberal" press

Regan had decidedly more respect from the press than W. I'm old enough to remember that.

-Foreign policy largely secondary to domestic issues

When Bush was originally running against Gore, the claim was that he had no foreign policy. Now it's all he has apparently. Bush does have domestic policy such as tax cuts. I disagree with immigration, though (It's the borders, stupid!)

-Market-driven economic policies (laissez-faire)

I believe it's referred to as "free-market" for just that reason.

-Questionable use of military (Iran/Contra, Iraq)

Again, this goes through every administration (Bush SR., IRAQ, Clinton, Sudan)

-Tax cuts for the rich and for corporations

I'm not rich NOR a corporation, but I got a tax cut.

-Environmental issues subverted to corporate/short-term needs

I think removing dead timber to cut down on forest fires is not a short term solution. OH, that reminds me... anyone hear of Hillary writing to support International Paper's plan to burn tires for energy production? She indicated that the chemicals from the tires would be of "minimal impact". I know that I sound like a conspiracy nut, but it's an amazing coincidence that International Paper was also involved in the Whitewater deal. But I digress...

-Cabinet composed of hard-line right-wing hawks
It has evolved to that due to the nature of the war on terror. Was FDR's cabinet hard-line and right-wing too?

-Supreme Court nominees must be ultra-conservatives
Like Sandra Day O'Connor, who supported abortion rights. She was nominated by Reagan. Compare that to W's nominees and.... wait... he hasn't nominated any yet.




> Shall I go on?  Anyone wanna add to this list?  I'm sure there's more......



One would be nice. :wink:

-Stephen


----------



## ChileMass (Jul 9, 2005)

Stephen - Pizza - !!  Boys - why can't we all just get along - ???    :wink: 

I've fortunately moved to being one of the haves as well, and although I am disparaging both W and Reagan, I voted for both.  All I'm doing is pointing out the similarities.  Whether you consider each point a good or bad thing is a personal preference.  

I still find it funny that people remember ole Dutch with such fondness and hammer W for what I consider to be very similar policies and attitudes.  It's all in the PR and the delivery.  Ronnie scared the be-jeezus out of most people 20-25 years ago.  He provoked the Russkis, he took programs away from the poor (well, made them more "efficient", anyway), and generally turned the US welfare state upside down.  His wife was an uncrowned empress whom everyone hated, and his advisers were hawkish robots that frightened everyone more than the President.  I'm telling you today isn't that different!  20 years of favorable spin has softened Reagan's legacy.


----------



## ChileMass (Jul 9, 2005)

pizza said:
			
		

> Both parties are much different from 20 years ago.



OK - this I will ask you to expand upon.  Different how?


----------



## pizza (Jul 9, 2005)

ChileMass said:
			
		

> pizza said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Politics in general has changed tremendously over the last 20 year. The parties are more homogonized than ever, the concerns of the country are different, and both parties are more dependant on lobbies, who are more powerful than ever.

Compare the 80s to the 60s. Or the 60s to the 40s. There are huge differences between all the periods, and 00s and 80s are no different.


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 11, 2005)

there is probably a thread on the actual war on the board somewhere, but I just found this and can't find the war posts as they were "before my time" here...so I am going to post this here...sorry to the moderators if this is frowned upon..

Just to dispell some myths that have been mentioned on this thread.

http://www.rightwingnews.com/special/xyz.php

M


----------



## dmc (Jul 11, 2005)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> Just to dispell some myths that have been mentioned on this thread.
> 
> http://www.*rightwingnews*.com/special/xyz.php
> 
> M



Ummm... Right Wing News...  OK...  
I think I'll get my news from more tradtional sources...


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 11, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> SkiDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah I know...probably because you dont like the spin...why not just go read...they will link you to the SOURCES they use...some of its undeniable..

M


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 11, 2005)

Not to crank this up again, but what about the 9th myth, that the Bush Administrations stated reasons for invading Iraq have changed at least 3 times? 

That one's a little tougher to debunk, and is the root of my unease.


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 11, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> SkiDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



did you enjoy farenheight 9/11?

M


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 11, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> Not to crank this up again, but what about the 9th myth, that the Bush Administrations stated reasons for invading Iraq have changed at least 3 times?
> 
> That one's a little tougher to debunk, and is the root of my unease.



I dont follow...and I also wasnt trying to stir up the hornets nest again, but figured some of that was pertinent informaiton.

Gotta take it all with a grain of salt anyway.

M


----------



## dmc (Jul 11, 2005)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not a big fan of any of that *too far left *or *too far right* stuff...
I only saw F911 a month ago...  Didnt watch any of the "swift boat" bs... 
I prefer to hear the facts and make up my mind without spin...


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 11, 2005)

First we were invading because Iraq had WMD's, then it turned out they didn't, so we were invading because Iraq supported terrorists. That didn't seem to have the bang Bush wanted, so now we're in Iraq to bring democracy and to free the Iraqis from an evil dictator.

Why not pick one and stick to it? Bush could have sold it to the UN and the US as "Look, the guy's an ass, he's making us all look stupid, and he's killing people. Plus, his sons are a couple of real dirtbags. We ought to do something about it because it'd do the world some good." I'd have gone along with that a lot better than "Well, he's got...uhm, no, well, forget I said that, it's because he,...well, maybe not so much...Look! They're voting! It's great!"


----------



## Greg (Jul 21, 2005)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163186,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4703777.stm


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 21, 2005)

Yikes!

A little more detail:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/21/AR2005072100474.html

Wonder if the exploding rucksack story checks out- a little premature detonation, perhaps? The three stations closed are pretty far apart, though all on lines that meet at King's Cross (where one bomb went off two weeks ago). Scary stuff...


----------



## loafer89 (Jul 21, 2005)

Apparently one of the terrorists ran into a university hospital and the police now have the hospital locked down  

Hopefully they get the bastard.

I heard this information on WCBS 880 radio while running an erand from work.


----------



## ChileMass (Jul 21, 2005)

ABC News reported the other night that there was an al-Qaeda "summit meeting" in Pakistan early in 2004 which approved the London subway system and the NY financial district as bomb targets.  Now that they've done London - twice - I wonder how long before something happens in lower Manhattan? God help us if it does.  I don't feel like getting laid off again.  

Let's all agree to support the NYPD, the FBI and the Homeland Security folks........


----------



## ChileMass (Jul 21, 2005)

I don't want to be alarmist, but this isn't good - 


London Blasts Spark Stock Sell-Off (Yahoo News)

http://www.yahoo.com/_ylh=X3oDMTB2MXQ5MTU3BF9TAzI3MTYxNDkEdGVzdAMwBHRtcGwDaW5kZXgtaWU-/s/247813

Just when the economy is really starting to pick up....


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 21, 2005)

It wasn't much of a sell off, actually- mostly just what the article said- people taking some gains from yesterday. Of course, the markets would probably be rocking right now, if not for London (and some dissapointing earnings reports). China finally floating the yuan is the best news I've heard all day. Don't think I like the timing, but that's beside the point.

More to the point, looks like an attempted repeat of two weeks ago- 3 stations and a bus, again:
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,16011047%5E661,00.html


----------



## BeanoNYC (Jul 22, 2005)

Oh gosh, I hope these cops didn't make a mistake, it would just add to the problem.  We see this too many times with the NYPD and it's just not good for anyone.  

"One of them was carrying a black handgun - it looked like an automatic - they pushed him to the floor, bundled on top of him and unloaded five shots into him."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4706787.stm


----------



## JimG. (Jul 22, 2005)

Thought about this one for a day; didn't want to start any more firestorms. You know, I thought the first attacks in London would be a political pothole for GWB. 

I think the 2nd wave is just the opposite...it's a political windfall for him. Not only does it take the Plame thing off the front pages, it bolsters his stance on terrorism.

Al Qaida takes a big hit on this one...if they think they're gonig to scare the Brits with their little bombs they're wrong. The Brits lived through nightly air bombardments during WW II and buzz bombs and V2 rockets at the end of that war. The Brits aren't scared and will ferret these people out like rats. Look at how they've reacted to the past 2 weeks. Instead of setting up "ground zero" like memorials and flocking to the bomb sites to take a look like we do in the US, they were back in the park SUNBATHING right next to the covered shell of the blown up bus from 2 weeks ago the next weekend! Stiff upper lip!

I like the British, they really are our friends.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Jul 22, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> It wasn't much of a sell off, actually- mostly just what the article said- people taking some gains from yesterday. Of course, the markets would probably be rocking right now, if not for London (and some dissapointing earnings reports). China finally floating the yuan is the best news I've heard all day. Don't think I like the timing, but that's beside the point.
> 
> More to the point, looks like an attempted repeat of two weeks ago- 3 stations and a bus, again:
> http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,16011047%5E661,00.html



History tells us that in the past 20 years the DJIA has only moved up in the 2nd half of the year  three times. I'm hoping this year will be an exception to the rule as I had a great July.

BTW, since I started following Intrawest and Vail beginning April 20th, they are up 16% and 18% respectively.


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 22, 2005)

_BTW, since I started following Intrawest and Vail beginning April 20th, they are up 16% and 18% respectively._

I've been half-watching them too- Vail's Q3 earnings are impressive, and I think Intrawest is being bouyed by that a bit. Vail closed on 114 parking spots in Vail Village in June- each one went for $100K. Each.

On to London- The House renewed the USA PATRIOT Act last night, indefinitely. I'm not a fan of that move, personally, but the London bombings certainly provided adequate cover for it.


----------

