Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Delay to Russert: We are safer....
Author Message
KlutzDio I Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,120
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #1
 
Tom Ridge to country: we are not safer, we are under the highest threat since 9/11.

So which is it? I thought capturing Saddam would make us safer. What happened?

I know, he wasn't a threat to us to begin with!

Unrelated: Oh yeah, on the news today John McCain had some very good criticisms of the corporate welfare system, i.e. Boeing making boo-coodles of money off of the taxpayers!

Why do myself and McCain say this is wrong? Because Boeing is a private corporation!

When the government uses tax dollars to prop up a private business, laissez-faire capitalism does not exist!
12-22-2003 07:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


KlutzDio I Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,120
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #2
 
I wanted to bring this post to the top because I thought these were some good, yet tough questions for those favoring war. I see, though, that no one cared to respond. I wonder why?
12-23-2003 08:42 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
rickheel Offline
The Old Bastard
*

Posts: 8,468
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Heels
Location:

Donators
Post: #3
 
KD, there will alway be threats. They raised the level based on intelligence. This has nothing to do with Saddam. Should they have not raised the level? If so, why not?
12-23-2003 09:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


rickheel Offline
The Old Bastard
*

Posts: 8,468
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Heels
Location:

Donators
Post: #4
 
BTW, I was happy to see Condit lose his job at Boeing. A few heads in the Air Force should roll too.
12-23-2003 10:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
KlutzDio I Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,120
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #5
 
rickheel Wrote:KD, there will alway be threats. They raised the level based on intelligence. This has nothing to do with Saddam. Should they have not raised the level? If so, why not?
The fact remains, Bush and the death lovers said we'd be safer after conquering Iraq. They said we'd win the war on terrorism after invading and kicking but in Iraq. But now we have "control" of that nation and the terrorists are still threatening us. Why?

Could the current U.S. policy be wrong?


I appreciate your opinion on Boeing. I just heard about all that the other day. And, I was outraged. Ike warned us of the influence of the military-industrial complex on our gov. We are no longer gov'ed by the people, rather by the military and MBA's with nothing better to do than chase dollars!
12-24-2003 10:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


rickheel Offline
The Old Bastard
*

Posts: 8,468
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Heels
Location:

Donators
Post: #6
 
Death lovers? That is a bit over the top. Do you think the familys in Iraq who lost their loved ones to Saddam and his boys are happy they are gone?

Answer me this. Do you, or do you not think we should be after the terrorists? I think we should. And should we have raised the threat level? Did you see what happened in Paris? Do you think we may have saved lives? Sometimes you have to give credit where it is due. Hope you had a great Christmas.

<a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A30843-2003Dec25?language=printer' target='_blank'>A little blurb from the Post showing another "victory".</a>
12-26-2003 08:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Guest
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #7
 
rickheel Wrote:Answer me this. Do you, or do you not think we should be after the terrorists?
What does this have to do with Iraq? The terrorists we were after were in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

It boggles my mind that this administration has even managed to confuse this issue with reasonably intelligent folks.
12-26-2003 10:00 AM
Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Wryword2 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 124
Joined: Aug 2003
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #8
 
KlutzDio I Wrote:Tom Ridge to country: we are not safer, we are under the highest threat since 9/11.

So which is it? I thought capturing Saddam would make us safer. What happened?

I know, he wasn't a threat to us to begin with!

Unrelated: Oh yeah, on the news today John McCain had some very good criticisms of the corporate welfare system, i.e. Boeing making boo-coodles of money off of the taxpayers!

Why do myself and McCain say this is wrong? Because Boeing is a private corporation!

When the government uses tax dollars to prop up a private business, laissez-faire capitalism does not exist!
Dio, your question, rhetorical as it may have been, discloses what I must call a rather ignorant, inexperienced view of things. Capturing Saddam Hussein is rather on the order of capturing a field marshall. It is significant, will pay great dividends over time, not the least of those being the effect on the enemy's morale, but by no means means the end of the war. No one ever said it would, so far as I can recall. I don't think you get how widespread this effort is. Saddam Hussein's capture (a pity he wasn't killed out of hand) is the capture of one enemy, but he never controlled all of our enemies.

This is not a war that bears much comparison to recent past wars. We are fighting an extremely elusive foe, one that does not have a formal, tightly designed command structure. Our enemies are everywhere and nowhere, across the planet. Get used to this, my friend, because we are in this for the long haul. The die was cast some time ago, and there is no going back now. This war is going to be more like the Thirty Years War, or perhaps the struggles between Christendom and the Moslem world than the past World Wars and Vietnam.

The greatest threat we face is grave injury to our economy. Money is the sinews of war, observed Cicero, and while we are not likely to be beaten on the battlefield, a few well aimed blows at financial centers and large cities in this country, and oil fields elsewhere, could have dismaying economic effects, seeing how our economy is basedmore on "consumer confidence" than actual production. This is a serious risk, given the braying cowardice, immaturity and ignorance of many in this country, who simply do not want to realized that their pipedreams are only those. Gay rights, abortion, anti-smoking initiatives, no development of oil fields in Alaska, and all the pet social projects of the left are simply forms of denial of what is really important now.
12-26-2003 02:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
KlutzDio I Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,120
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #9
 
rickheel Wrote:Death lovers? That is a bit over the top. Do you think the familys in Iraq who lost their loved ones to Saddam and his boys are happy they are gone?

Answer me this. Do you, or do you not think we should be after the terrorists? I think we should. And should we have raised the threat level? Did you see what happened in Paris? Do you think we may have saved lives? Sometimes you have to give credit where it is due. Hope you had a great Christmas.

<a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A30843-2003Dec25?language=printer' target='_blank'>A little blurb from the Post showing another "victory".</a>
I never said I support terrorism.

Many of the people that were subjected to Saddam's cruelty are now feeling the wrath of the U.S. See other posts I made about how arrests and mass detentions are the result of occupation. Some deserved detention and some don't, but regardless, our actions today will cause another generation of Arabs to hate us.

Death lovers was a bit over the top. I was being facetious. Blogging on the whiny liberal site: http://www.jacksonfreepress.com prompted me to say that. All the whiners over there call Bush and his henchmen "death lovers," "warmongers" and other ad hominems. I prefer to morally neutral ad hominem, "stupid" when referring to Bush.

My point, Rick, was the Bush Administration said that we'd be safer after deposing, ousting, invading, conquering, waging a war in Iraq. The fact remains regardless of whether or not we went to war with Iraq, terrorists still hate us and they will continue to target us. War in Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with Al Quayder. It was more about making the common U.S. citizen feel better. The war was/is all about revenge.

My militarily connected pro-war, pro-death loving uncle said the Rose Bowl is the latest threat. On the Western seaboard, it will be easy for terrorists to board jets flying from South American nations toward San Francisco, Los Angeles or Seattle. More than likely, if a terrorist event will occur, it will be a plane crashing into the Rose Bowl causing 10,000+ deaths, acc. to my uncle. In the same breath he said, "....but that's 10,000 less liberals from California and Michigan that we have to deal with..."
12-26-2003 02:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Wryword2 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 124
Joined: Aug 2003
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #10
 
Yes, I find it difficult to imagine the destruction of Lost Angles as a bad thing. The destruction of places like Malibu, Hollywood and such places would be a positive thing. Would hate to see Seattle get hit though.

Anyway, if the terroists don't get them out there, earthquakes will. If the earthquakes don't, immigration will be their end.
12-27-2003 10:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
KlutzDio I Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,120
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #11
 
And you said "death-lovers" was over the top?
12-27-2003 12:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
joebordenrebel Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,968
Joined: Oct 2002
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #12
 
Behold, the beautiful deliciousness of unscripted irony!

Excellent points, Dio. Let me ask you another question. Why do you think we didn't target Marine training grounds after the OKC attack? I mean, if we're going after all the breeding grounds for terrorists, then that seems a fair place to look.

And didn't all the hijackers live in Florida? Let's nuke the "HECK" out of that state for sure!

Seriously, though, Bush has already said HIMSELF that Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11. If Saddam didn't have WMD's, wasn't about to attack us and wasn't linked to Al Quayder, then WHY IN THE SAM PATOOTIE ARE WE OVER THERE?

N Korea looks like a far more foul state to police. Let's go light them up for a while if we're on a crusade to cleanse the world of Evil. . . :roflol:
01-02-2004 03:07 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.