Quote :

"unless you are some sort of psychic, it certainly is hypothetical"

i was being sarcastic because its MORE than hypothetical...its something that has actually happened...in the last 5 years in fact

Quote :

""I don't email, however. And there's a reason. I don't want you reading my personal stuff. There has got to be a certain sense of privacy. ""

omg bush doesnt have the freedom to email

8/17/2006 1:27:04 PM

so stopping this will be retroactive and be the cause of all the past terrorist attacks?

8/17/2006 1:28:57 PM

but future actions, that you commented on, are in fact hypothetical

[Edited on August 17, 2006 at 1:29 PM. Reason : ^yeah]

8/17/2006 1:29:21 PM

So many "tough" americans willing to live on their knees, rather than to stand up for freedom, democracy and liberty.

8/17/2006 1:31:54 PM

^my gas guzzling SUV has gas and brake pedals for my knees

^^,^^^ of course not...but the threat of terrorism is not hypthetical, its real

and thanks to both of you for actually addressing my comments unlike someone like sober who just posts pictures and bullshit

8/17/2006 1:32:47 PM

Line up for your governmental anal probe.

8/17/2006 1:34:17 PM

yeah i've been hearing all about those govt anal probes...i think they will be mandatory any day now...thats a serious possibility

8/17/2006 1:34:59 PM

i like how a lot of W supporters like to give him credit for the terrorists stopped; and imply bush's constitution infringing polices are the god save of our nation. The problem of terrorism would be addressed no matter who was office and it is unlikely that shit would be blowing up left and right if Kerry won the last election. 3000 americans didn't die from terrorism during Clinton's term. Also, less terrorists would be gunning for America if it were not for Bush's foreign policies and actions

[Edited on August 17, 2006 at 1:38 PM. Reason : l]

[Edited on August 17, 2006 at 1:38 PM. Reason : l]

8/17/2006 1:37:16 PM

Quote :

"and thanks to both of you for actually addressing my comments unlike someone like sober who just posts pictures and bullshit"

when you start acting like a big boy, ill treat you like a big boy.

8/17/2006 1:43:08 PM

Quote :

"The problem of terrorism would be addressed no matter who was office "

but dont you think in general conservatives/republicans focus more on terrorism/national security than liberals/democrats?

^hey dude score me some caps at bonaroo dude oh man lesh and friends put on a crunchy show man

8/17/2006 1:43:31 PM

Quote :

"but the threat of terrorism is not hypthetical, its real"

I wholeheartedly agree, and I appreciate the need to swiftly counteract terrorist actions, but I don't believe in invading freedoms in the name of freedom.

8/17/2006 1:44:09 PM

9-11 Commission's Report Card:

Quote :

"Homeland Security and Emergency Response -- Radio Spectrum for first responders -- F (C+ if pending legislation passes) -- Incident Command System -- C -- Risk-based allocation of homeland security funds -- F (A if pending legislation passes) -- Critical infrastructure assessment -- D -- Private sector preparedness -- C -- National Strategy for Transportation Security -- C- -- Airline passenger pre-screening -- F -- Airline passenger explosive screening -- C -- Checked bag and cargo screening -- D -- Terrorist travel strategy -- I -- Comprehensive screening system -- C -- Biometric entry-exit screening system -- B -- International collaboration on borders and document security -- [ B -- Standardize secure identifications -- B- Intelligence and Congressional Reform -- Director of National Intelligence -- B -- National Counterterrorism Center -- B -- FBI national security workforce -- C -- New missions for CIA Director -- I -- Incentives for information sharing -- D -- Government-wide information sharing -- D -- Northern Command planning for homeland defense -- B- -- Full debate on PATRIOT ACT -- B -- Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Boards -- D -- Guidelines for government-sharing of personal information -- D -- Intelligence oversight reform -- D -- Homeland Security Committees -- B -- Unclassified top-line intelligence budget -- F -- Security clearance reform -- B Foreign Policy and Nonproliferation -- Maximum effort to prevent terrorists from acquiring WMD -- D -- Afghanistan -- B -- Pakistan -- C+ -- Saudi Arabia -- D -- Terrorist sanctuaries -- B -- Coalition strategy against Islamist terrorism -- C -- Coalition detention standards -- F -- Economic policies -- B+ -- Terrorist financing -- A- -- Clear US message abroad -- C -- International broadcasting -- B -- Scholarship, exchange, and library programs -- D -- Secular education in Muslin countries -- D "

http://tinyurl.com/rmvns

8/17/2006 1:45:45 PM

Quote :

"Muslin countries "

8/17/2006 1:46:34 PM

Quote :

"but dont you think in general conservatives/republicans focus more on terrorism/national security than liberals/democrats? "

they go about it differently. we were in much better shape pre bush.

Quote :

" wholeheartedly agree, and I appreciate the need to swiftly counteract terrorist actions, but I don't believe in invading freedoms in the name of freedom."

signed

[Edited on August 17, 2006 at 1:46 PM. Reason : ly]

8/17/2006 1:46:37 PM

sorry, im not going to sink to name calling.

8/17/2006 1:46:59 PM

^quiet...the adults are talking

Quote :

"we were in much better shape pre bush"

pre bush meaning while al queda controlled afghanistan and while bin laden WASNT running/hiding for his life?

8/17/2006 1:47:19 PM

Quote :

"i like how a lot of W supporters like to give him credit for the terrorists stopped; and imply bush's constitution infringing polices are the god save of our nation. The problem of terrorism would be addressed no matter who was office and it is unlikely that shit would be blowing up left and right if Kerry won the last election. 3000 americans didn't die from terrorism during Clinton's term. Also, less terrorists would be gunning for America if it were not for Bush's foreign policies and actions"

that's really over-simplified and probably not true. to really think that terrorists care whether our president is republican or democrat is kind of silly. do i think that more terrorists might be being indoctrinated and trained than if we hadn't gone into iraq? most likely. but i don't fool myself into thinking that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if a democrat had been president in 2001.

the silliness of this wiretapping is that there is a legal infrastructure for getting warrants after the fact.

[Edited on August 17, 2006 at 1:49 PM. Reason : .]

8/17/2006 1:48:33 PM

Quote :

"pre bush meaning while al queda controlled afghanistan and while bin laden WASNT running/hiding for his life? "

lol bin laden hasn't been in a more cushy position, and we weren't in a quagmire vietnam style war. I actually agreed with afghanistan, but we should not be in Iraq, that man power should be in afg. also.

8/17/2006 1:52:16 PM

bush is your typical coke head.....starting a million different things but finishing none of them.

8/17/2006 1:53:22 PM

Bin Laden Hunt Cut Back?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14377318/

8/17/2006 1:54:36 PM

clinton is your typical pothead...

8/17/2006 1:58:57 PM

meh ........he left us in a pretty good spot.......where will bush leave us?

[Edited on August 17, 2006 at 2:01 PM. Reason : i'm not a clinton advocate, but in retrospect he wasn't so bad.]

8/17/2006 2:00:32 PM

he left us in a pretty good spot? why didnt HE take out bin laden when he had multiple chances? that would have put us in a better spot. thats all in the past though, no sense debating it

[Edited on August 17, 2006 at 2:02 PM. Reason : i liked clinton and bush...but that cant be right...how are people labelling me today?]

8/17/2006 2:01:12 PM

To imply that 9/11 wouldn't have happened under a democrat's watch is just absurd. It isn't like they started planning the thing once they saw who was elected in '00. They planned it YEARS in advance...definitely under Clinton's reign, possibly under Bush 1s reign as well.

If you want to make the argument that they would have stopped it...you're most likely wrong. Don't confuse how seriously we take terrorist threats now with how we would have taken them if we backed up time. If Gore had been elected in '00, we would have definitely still been attacked. Maybe we wouldn't be in Iraq, I can grant that.

I do have a problem with this whole "wiretapping is so bad, life isn't worth living without freedom" mentality in the same thinker as "we shouldn't be in Iraq, the dictator of another country is not our problem"

If OUR freedom is worth dying for even to the point that wiretaps are a problem, how can you be so insensitive to the genocide and destruction going on in another country. (Yes, Darfur included, we should do something about that...before you get that shit in)



*I also agree that Clinton wasn't a bad president. He did a pretty good job, but he did pass on opportunities to jail/eliminate bin Ladin. Another thing about his presidency is that people give him all this credit for a great economy and budget surpluses...when in all actuality, the economic climate at the time had little to do with him being the presidency. Presidents get the blame and credit for much in economics that they had not a damn thing to do with
*

[Edited on August 17, 2006 at 2:07 PM. Reason : more on Clinton]

8/17/2006 2:05:50 PM

i just get the sense that the bush camp blatantly lies about very important issues. Not to say that other admins. don't, but bush seems to have hidden agendas everywhere.

8/17/2006 2:06:10 PM

Quote :

"To imply that 9/11 wouldn't have happened under a democrat's watch is just absurd."

who implied that?

Quote :

"If you want to make the argument that they would have stopped it"

i don't, my issue is with the way it was handled.

Quote :

"If Gore had been elected in '00"

we were stuck between a rock and a hard place in 00......no good choice.

[Edited on August 17, 2006 at 2:08 PM. Reason : .]

8/17/2006 2:06:40 PM

Quote :

"If OUR freedom is worth dying for even to the point that wiretaps are a problem, how can you be so insensitive to the genocide and destruction going on in another country. (Yes, Darfur included, we should do something about that...before you get that shit in)"

what?

8/17/2006 2:07:20 PM

Quote :

"3000 americans didn't die from terrorism during Clinton's term."

8/17/2006 2:08:49 PM

^^clinton did more in that area than Bush has even thought about.

8/17/2006 2:09:20 PM

smcraff, maybe I wasn't clear enough

If a wiretap of people in the US is an attack on our freedom so much so that "life without liberty isn't worth living" then why is it such a problem for us to go and try to grant freedom to other countries who are in tyranny. ie, Iraq, Darfur, Cuba

I think those people deserve freedom and justice as much as your average american.

8/17/2006 2:10:16 PM

Quote :

"3000 americans didn't die from terrorism during Clinton's term.""

3000+ american soldiers didn't die for a cause in which we are no better off than we were 4 years ago during Clinton's term.

8/17/2006 2:10:48 PM

^^^^bin Laden didnt attack US battleships during Reagan's terms

[Edited on August 17, 2006 at 2:12 PM. Reason : ^^^^]

8/17/2006 2:11:55 PM

I assumed when he talked about terrorism...he meant terrorism and not insurgency.

8/17/2006 2:12:08 PM

Quote :

"If a wiretap of people in the US is an attack on our freedom so much so that "life without liberty isn't worth living" then why is it such a problem for us to go and try to grant freedom to other countries who are in tyranny. ie, Iraq, Darfur, Cuba "

first, i don't disagree with the wire taps...its how bush tried to go around the law

second, the tyrrany in Iraq wasn't the stated reason for going in.

8/17/2006 2:12:18 PM

there were 19 stated reasons

do we have to go over them again

WMDs were just ONE of the NINETEEN reasons

8/17/2006 2:13:10 PM

No, it wasn't. I concede that point. However I think in 15 years, Iraqis will be extremely pleased at the outcome of this...even though I'm sure they will mourn the losses due to conflicts over the next decade.

8/17/2006 2:14:30 PM

Quote :

"If OUR freedom is worth dying for even to the point that wiretaps are a problem, how can you be so insensitive to the genocide and destruction going on in another country. (Yes, Darfur included, we should do something about that...before you get that shit in)"

Because some of us had the foresight to see what 'helping' the Iraqis gain their freedom was going to cause in the end - death, civil war, and still more than likely greater restraints on their freedom than under Saddam.

What's that old saying? You can't help someone anymore than they can help themselves?

While America and Western Culture has had the importance of freedom ingrained into it due to centuries of revolution - Middle Eastern culture has not. It is a logical fallacy to claim that the same people who value their own freedom in America are being hypocrites because they don't value the freedom of other people in a completely different culture.

8/17/2006 2:15:09 PM

Quote :

"there were 19 stated reasons do we have to go over them again"

i'm interested in seeing this list

8/17/2006 2:17:00 PM

Oh, ok, good point. I think we should ammend the term "human rights" to "citizens of a western-style culture rights"

Quote :

"Because some of us had the foresight to see what 'helping' the Iraqis gain their freedom was going to cause in the end - death, civil war, and still more than likely greater restraints on their freedom than under Saddam. "

I was under the impression that the civil clashes were mostly unexpected. Who preached to us about that BEFORE the war? Some people may have, but I'm interested

[Edited on August 17, 2006 at 2:19 PM. Reason : .]

8/17/2006 2:18:20 PM

this was the first google hit:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20040416-9999-7m16zinni.html

Quote :

"Warnings ignored, says retired Marine By Rick Rogers UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER April 16, 2004 Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni wondered aloud yesterday how Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld could be caught off guard by the chaos in Iraq that has killed nearly 100 Americans in recent weeks and led to his announcement that 20,000 U.S. troops would be staying there instead of returning home as planned. "I'm surprised that he is surprised because there was a lot of us who were telling him that it was going to be thus," said Zinni, a Marine for 39 years and the former commander of the U.S. Central Command. "Anyone could know the problems they were going to see. How could they not?" At a Pentagon news briefing yesterday, Rumsfeld said he could not have estimated how many troops would be killed in the past week. Zinni made his comments during an interview with The San Diego Union-Tribune before giving a speech last night at the University of San Diego's Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace & Justice as part of its distinguished lecturer series. For years Zinni said he cautioned U.S. officials that an Iraq without Saddam Hussein would likely be more dangerous to U.S. interests than one with him because of the ethnic and religious clashes that would be unleashed. "I think that some heads should roll over Iraq," Zinni said. "I think the president got some bad advice." Known as the "Warrior Diplomat," Zinni is not a peace activist by nature or training, having led troops in Vietnam, commanded rescue operations in Somalia and directed strikes against Iraq and al Qaeda. He once commanded the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force at Camp Pendleton. Out of uniform, Zinni was a troubleshooter for the U.S. government in Africa, Asia and Europe and served as special envoy to the Middle East under the Bush administration for a time before his reservations over the Iraq war and its aftermath caused him to resign and oppose it. Not even Zinni's resumé could shield him from the accusations that followed. "I've been called a traitor and a turncoat for mentioning these things," said Zinni, 60. The problems in Iraq are being caused, he said, by poor planning and shortsightedness, such as disbanding the Iraqi army and being unable to provide security. Zinni said the United States must now rely on the U.N. to pull its "chestnuts out of the fire in Iraq." "We're betting on the U.N., who we blew off and ridiculed during the run-up to the war," Zinni said. "Now we're back with hat in hand. It would be funny if not for the lives lost." Several things have to happen to get Iraq back on course, whether the U.N. decides to step in or not, Zinni said. Improving security for American forces and the Iraqi people is at the top of the list followed closely by helping the working class with economic projects. But it's not the lack of a comprehensive American plan for Iraq nor the surging violence that has cost allied troops their lives – including about 30 Camp Pendleton Marines – that most concerns Zinni. "In the end, the Iraqis themselves have to want to rebuild their country more than we do," Zinni said. "But I don't see that right now. I see us doing everything. "I spent two years in Vietnam, and I've seen this movie before," he said. "They have to be willing to do more or else it is never going to work." Last night at the Kroc institute during his speech "From the Battlefield to the Negotiating Table: Preventing Deadly Conflict," Zinni detailed the approach he believes the United States should take in the Middle East. He told an overflow crowd that the United States tries to grapple with individual issues in Middle East instead of seeing them as elements of a broader question. "We need to step back and get a grand strategy," he said. "

8/17/2006 2:22:01 PM

Iraq is starting to look uncannily(is that even a word?) like vietnam...maybe worse, and that makes me

15 years from now i could have been proved completely wrong......i hope so. Or, we could be looking a 50,000 american soldiers dead, 250,000 innocent iraqis, and a region that is vastly more unstable than when we occupied.

8/17/2006 2:22:15 PM

sarijoul

not the most detailed link but should give you an idea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution_of_2002

8/17/2006 2:23:10 PM

so was the "19" bit just made up?

8/17/2006 2:25:07 PM

soap box stays on topic as much as chit chat

8/17/2006 2:25:13 PM

eh. it's the nature of the beast.

8/17/2006 2:25:52 PM

well that link lists 10 of them

but feel free to click the links at the bottom and read the actual resolutions if you dont mind reading a few hundred pages

8/17/2006 2:26:34 PM

Ok, well that is a decent start for an article sarjoul, but I'd rather see a statement made before the war...I mean its easy to say "I told you so" a couple years later, right?

I don't doubt he maybe mentioned it as a possibility, but I was looking more for congressional testimony...that kind of thing.


Also, that Iraq looks like Vietnam just shows a poor understanding of the magnitude of Vietnam.
I have no problem with people wanting to categorize it as a "mini-Vietnam" but claiming it is going to be worse will just make you look foolish in a decade...not that that should prevent you from thinking that way though.

8/17/2006 2:26:46 PM

^^you implied that this had been covered in this forum before. just calling you out on that.

8/17/2006 2:32:04 PM

i thought the argument by people that "we went to war over WMDs, where are the WMDs?" had been answered 2 years ago

8/17/2006 2:35:43 PM

Quote :

"smcraff, maybe I wasn't clear enough If a wiretap of people in the US is an attack on our freedom so much so that "life without liberty isn't worth living" then why is it such a problem for us to go and try to grant freedom to other countries who are in tyranny. ie, Iraq, Darfur, Cuba I think those people deserve freedom and justice as much as your average american."

The problem is that they are unrelated issues, you cant draw a conclusion on one based on your opinion of another.

8/17/2006 2:35:55 PM