“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”
Socialist Party presidential candidate Norman Thomas
Thursday, September 11, 2008
NEVER FORGET!!!
If you think American presidential elections are just about taxes, gas prices, and the economy, think again.
Think about it, on whose watch is something like this more likely to happen again, Obama or McCain?
24 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Then think about it one more time, but this time in a wider (global) perspective. Hint: The hen and the egg.
You lost me there capt. but, if you are proferring the idea that McCain would invite more attacks where The One would make the terrorists lay down their weapons and sing hosannah's, then you are wrong.
So, by hen and egg, you mean the chicken and the egg, as in, which came first? By that do you mean which came first, anti-Americanism among terrorists or American oppression of the poor, peaceful Islamists minding their own business in their God-forsaken desert? Please explain.
Unfortunately none of them (McCain/Obama) will make the terrorists lay down their weapons - you can't talk sense with fundamentalists (ANY fundamentalist that is). But yes, I believe the 'climate' will less hostile with Obama.
To a great many (the worst) of the terrorists, Bush is The Great Satan (their words, not mine) - another republican will most likely inherit this title. Obama will - probably - be considered to be of another species (yes, double meaning intended).
And to be as vulgar as yourself: 9/11 DID happen on a republican's watch. He was even warned that terrorist had these plans (maybe not personally, but he's was in charge). The idiotic invasion of Iraq - who had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, no matter how many times your protege Kevin claims otherwise - has only created more hostility against the US.
In a world with totaliarism and nationalism rising in a more aggressive (and wealthier) Russia, a China that stretches it's arms deep into Africa (resources) and with large investments all over the world (also in the US), the tension between the nuclear countries India and Pakistan, an unpredictable Iran, the eternal Middle-East problem, energy-shortage, the US maybe facing a major economy crises etc etc etc - I really don't think another aggressive, tough cowboy is the best answer.
So in short: No, I don't think for a second that another 9/11 is less likely to happen under McCain than under Obama.
Capt., you couldn't be more wrong if you said 2+2=5. Bush isn't the great satan. The US is, and has always been, the great satan to Islamic fanatics, regardless of who's in charge. The 9/11 attack occured under Bush, but it was planned during, and because of, the lackidasical attitude toward terrorists, disastrous intelligence policies, and utter ignorance of the Clintons. Bush barely had time to stock the WhiteHouse kitchen with LoneStar beer before 9/11. How was he supposed to predict it or stop it? 9/11 was Clinton's failure, through and through.
The terrorists are no different than cancy-assed school-yard bullies. They see niceness as weakness, and their contempt for weakness emboldens them. Based on your assessment, we should have been hit time and time again if the terrorists are only maddened by Bush.....but we haven't been hit....even once.
You are wrong my friend. Now more than ever we need a strong, forceful President who doesn't coddle thug dictators and raving madmen like The One would certainly do.
You argue just like a politician, Ed - everything bad is due to the former regime, everything good on the other hand...
It's not unlike like religious people; they say god is behind everything - it's all a part of his plan. But when they can't see the logic or think it's unfair, then suddenly the devil is to blame.
I rarely argue like a politician capt. It happens to be true that Clinton's refusal to address terrorism(look up Jamie Gorelick) led at least indirectly to the 9/11 attacks. But for Gorelick's idiotic memo forbidding the foreign intelligence service(CIA) from notifying the domestic intell. service(FBI) when they detected a threat, the domestic service almost certainly would have ferreted out the terrorists before they attacked us.
And as for everything good, nobody, except maybe you, had been more critical of this administration on any number of issues. It's just that Bush has been 100% right on terrorism.
As former petulant, narcissistic youths and drug-addled hippies who distrusted and loathed the government, the Clintons and their servants did what they've always wanted to do, once in power....hamstring the law-enforcement branch of government as much as possible. But for the loathsome Jimmy Carter pulling the rug out from under the Shah of Iran, Jamie Gorelick's memo did more to harm this country from a standpoint of terrorism than any other event.
Don't tell me I argue like a politician....I'm right!
And I'm not like the religious nuts who think either God or satan is behind every little thing that happens to us as if we're marionettes. I don't think God or satan play any particularly large role in what happens to us. Can God teach us through our independently-caused experiences? Of course. I am not one of those who thinks God toys with us on a daily basis just for amusement.
Have we had a terrorist attack on the United States since the war on Iraq? Iraq, and Saddam Hussein were major funders of terrorism. Sure Osama Bin Laden planned the attacks, and for the most part was behind the entire attack, but it was Hussein's money and support that got the attack under way.
But capt. we're protecting the citizens with troops in Iraq. Who knows how many more thousands or millions of citizens could be killed if we had no troops in Iraq. If nothing else our troops are distracting the terrorists from bombing the capital or some other national monument. If Obama pulls the troops out and then terrorists decide to attack the capital, we'll have to let Biden be in office and then we'd be in some REAL trouble.
Capt America, that analogy makes absolutely no sense. There is a direct correlation between the War on Iraq and terrorism. Bengal Tigers not attacking people in New York doesn't necessarily make it a safe animal. Now, lets say that bengal tiger only attacked for money. And he was getting paid by bengal tigers from say, Iraq, and then some bengal tigers in New York got mad that the bengal tigers in Iraq were paying the ones in New York to harm New York, then the people in New York would go to Iraq and start a war with the Bengal TIgers in Iraq. Funding would be gone, and suddenly there would be no more attacks in New York. Of course, the bengal tigers in New York would have no more funding and have no way of attacking, that is until the war in Iraq stops, in which case the funding would come back. But since bengal tigers are naturally wild in New York, this is a really really stupid analogy. Also, as Sigfreud and Roy discovered, you can't domesticate a bengal tiger, so they are dangerous.
So capt., the chemical slaughter of thousands of Iraqi Kurds, the systematic government torture of thousands of entire families including women and children, the rape-rooms where Saddam's two sadistically deranged sons raped who knows how many women, the persistent, determined, and ultimately successful effort to convince the UN inspectors and the world of competent biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons programs, the nose-thumbing at 17 UN resolutions.....all these things don't amount to reason enough to depose Saddam from Iraq to you?
Don't be hyperbolic capt. I don't want to depose any other ruthless dictators but, when you combine the brutality and human slaughter with credible intel regarding WMD, plus the consent of the UN, why not? While the WMD intel turned out to be mostly incorrect(remember, every Democrat not named Kucinich thought it was credible and voted for invasion too), that estimation was in hindsight. Once there, it's pointless to debate the accuracy of the intel.
I'm not entirely in disagreement with you here. -Should the intel have been vetted better? Of course. -Could the plan to deal with insurgents have been better thought out? Obviously. -Was the war prosecuted well? Obviously not. -Should we have forseen the terrorists coming over from Iran before invading? Certainly. -Did the surge work and is Iraq on the road to having the US gone? For sure -Do you Bush haters think 9/11 should have been investigated by CSI as a law-enforcement issue and not a world-wide terrorism crisis? Disappointingly....yes! -Do liberal weenies want to "talk" to the terrorists in the hopes they will start to like us, rather than kill them whenever we find them hiding in their rat holes? Nauseatingly....yes. -Is the Bush doctrine of pre-emption valid? Absolutely! -Did Iraq, given the intel at the time, fall into the state-sponsor-of-terrorism category? Unequivocally, yes!
If you think American presidential elections are just about taxes, gas prices, and the economy, think again. 
24 comments:
Then think about it one more time, but this time in a wider (global) perspective. Hint: The hen and the egg.
You lost me there capt. but, if you are proferring the idea that McCain would invite more attacks where The One would make the terrorists lay down their weapons and sing hosannah's, then you are wrong.
So, by hen and egg, you mean the chicken and the egg, as in, which came first? By that do you mean which came first, anti-Americanism among terrorists or American oppression of the poor, peaceful Islamists minding their own business in their God-forsaken desert? Please explain.
Neither! those 2 buildings were torn down to build a new site for the UN - weren't they?
Unfortunately none of them (McCain/Obama) will make the terrorists lay down their weapons - you can't talk sense with fundamentalists (ANY fundamentalist that is). But yes, I believe the 'climate' will less hostile with Obama.
To a great many (the worst) of the terrorists, Bush is The Great Satan (their words, not mine) - another republican will most likely inherit this title. Obama will - probably - be considered to be of another species (yes, double meaning intended).
And to be as vulgar as yourself: 9/11 DID happen on a republican's watch. He was even warned that terrorist had these plans (maybe not personally, but he's was in charge). The idiotic invasion of Iraq - who had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, no matter how many times your protege Kevin claims otherwise - has only created more hostility against the US.
In a world with totaliarism and nationalism rising in a more aggressive (and wealthier) Russia, a China that stretches it's arms deep into Africa (resources) and with large investments all over the world (also in the US), the tension between the nuclear countries India and Pakistan, an unpredictable Iran, the eternal Middle-East problem, energy-shortage, the US maybe facing a major economy crises etc etc etc - I really don't think another aggressive, tough cowboy is the best answer.
So in short: No, I don't think for a second that another 9/11 is less likely to happen under McCain than under Obama.
Capt., you couldn't be more wrong if you said 2+2=5. Bush isn't the great satan. The US is, and has always been, the great satan to Islamic fanatics, regardless of who's in charge. The 9/11 attack occured under Bush, but it was planned during, and because of, the lackidasical attitude toward terrorists, disastrous intelligence policies, and utter ignorance of the Clintons. Bush barely had time to stock the WhiteHouse kitchen with LoneStar beer before 9/11. How was he supposed to predict it or stop it? 9/11 was Clinton's failure, through and through.
The terrorists are no different than cancy-assed school-yard bullies. They see niceness as weakness, and their contempt for weakness emboldens them. Based on your assessment, we should have been hit time and time again if the terrorists are only maddened by Bush.....but we haven't been hit....even once.
You are wrong my friend. Now more than ever we need a strong, forceful President who doesn't coddle thug dictators and raving madmen like The One would certainly do.
You argue just like a politician, Ed - everything bad is due to the former regime, everything good on the other hand...
It's not unlike like religious people; they say god is behind everything - it's all a part of his plan. But when they can't see the logic or think it's unfair, then suddenly the devil is to blame.
I rarely argue like a politician capt. It happens to be true that Clinton's refusal to address terrorism(look up Jamie Gorelick) led at least indirectly to the 9/11 attacks. But for Gorelick's idiotic memo forbidding the foreign intelligence service(CIA) from notifying the domestic intell. service(FBI) when they detected a threat, the domestic service almost certainly would have ferreted out the terrorists before they attacked us.
And as for everything good, nobody, except maybe you, had been more critical of this administration on any number of issues. It's just that Bush has been 100% right on terrorism.
As former petulant, narcissistic youths and drug-addled hippies who distrusted and loathed the government, the Clintons and their servants did what they've always wanted to do, once in power....hamstring the law-enforcement branch of government as much as possible. But for the loathsome Jimmy Carter pulling the rug out from under the Shah of Iran, Jamie Gorelick's memo did more to harm this country from a standpoint of terrorism than any other event.
Don't tell me I argue like a politician....I'm right!
And I'm not like the religious nuts who think either God or satan is behind every little thing that happens to us as if we're marionettes. I don't think God or satan play any particularly large role in what happens to us. Can God teach us through our independently-caused experiences? Of course. I am not one of those who thinks God toys with us on a daily basis just for amusement.
"It's just that Bush has been 100% right on terrorism."
Iraq.
Have we had a terrorist attack on the United States since the war on Iraq? Iraq, and Saddam Hussein were major funders of terrorism. Sure Osama Bin Laden planned the attacks, and for the most part was behind the entire attack, but it was Hussein's money and support that got the attack under way.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/29959.html
And to your intelligent point about us not being attack since the war on Iraq:
The Bengal tiger has never injured anyone in Manhattan. It should therefore be one of the safest pets for New Yorkers.
But capt. we're protecting the citizens with troops in Iraq. Who knows how many more thousands or millions of citizens could be killed if we had no troops in Iraq. If nothing else our troops are distracting the terrorists from bombing the capital or some other national monument. If Obama pulls the troops out and then terrorists decide to attack the capital, we'll have to let Biden be in office and then we'd be in some REAL trouble.
Capt America, that analogy makes absolutely no sense. There is a direct correlation between the War on Iraq and terrorism. Bengal Tigers not attacking people in New York doesn't necessarily make it a safe animal. Now, lets say that bengal tiger only attacked for money. And he was getting paid by bengal tigers from say, Iraq, and then some bengal tigers in New York got mad that the bengal tigers in Iraq were paying the ones in New York to harm New York, then the people in New York would go to Iraq and start a war with the Bengal TIgers in Iraq. Funding would be gone, and suddenly there would be no more attacks in New York. Of course, the bengal tigers in New York would have no more funding and have no way of attacking, that is until the war in Iraq stops, in which case the funding would come back. But since bengal tigers are naturally wild in New York, this is a really really stupid analogy. Also, as Sigfreud and Roy discovered, you can't domesticate a bengal tiger, so they are dangerous.
"Bengal Tigers not attacking people in New York doesn't necessarily make it a safe animal."
Glad you got that. Now to what you said:
"Have we had a terrorist attack on the United States since the war on Iraq?"
Get the analogy now?
Carlos:
Write this a hundred times: Iraq (or Saddam) was NOT behind 9/11.
Yes, he was a tyrant and an asshole, and let's hope the people there get a better life by time. But he was NOT behind 9/11, nor did he support Al Q.
"Bengal Tigers not attacking people in New York doesn't necessarily make it a safe animal."
Glad you got that. Now to what you said:
"Have we had a terrorist attack on the United States since the war on Iraq?"
Get the analogy now?
Carlos:
Write this a hundred times: Iraq (or Saddam) was NOT behind 9/11.
Yes, he was a tyrant and an asshole, and let's hope the people there get a better life by time. But he was NOT behind 9/11, nor did he support Al Q.
Sorry the double post.
So are you denying that he funded terrorism?
I'm not denying he funded different palestinian groups. I'm denying he had anything to do with Al Q and therefore 9/11.
You know otherwise? Please document.
Do you not think we should have invaded Iraq?
Not sure if you're being funny, but of course we should never have invaded Iraq.
In retrospect this will be judged by all as 'the' master failure.
Except by you, maybe.
So capt., the chemical slaughter of thousands of Iraqi Kurds, the systematic government torture of thousands of entire families including women and children, the rape-rooms where Saddam's two sadistically deranged sons raped who knows how many women, the persistent, determined, and ultimately successful effort to convince the UN inspectors and the world of competent biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons programs, the nose-thumbing at 17 UN resolutions.....all these things don't amount to reason enough to depose Saddam from Iraq to you?
In your ponion America should invade every country where the leaders treat their population bad, Ed?
Can't wait to see your list of nations!
Don't be hyperbolic capt. I don't want to depose any other ruthless dictators but, when you combine the brutality and human slaughter with credible intel regarding WMD, plus the consent of the UN, why not? While the WMD intel turned out to be mostly incorrect(remember, every Democrat not named Kucinich thought it was credible and voted for invasion too), that estimation was in hindsight. Once there, it's pointless to debate the accuracy of the intel.
I'm not entirely in disagreement with you here. -Should the intel have been vetted better? Of course.
-Could the plan to deal with insurgents have been better thought out? Obviously.
-Was the war prosecuted well? Obviously not. -Should we have forseen the terrorists coming over from Iran before invading? Certainly.
-Did the surge work and is Iraq on the road to having the US gone? For sure
-Do you Bush haters think 9/11 should have been investigated by CSI as a law-enforcement issue and not a world-wide terrorism crisis? Disappointingly....yes!
-Do liberal weenies want to "talk" to the terrorists in the hopes they will start to like us, rather than kill them whenever we find them hiding in their rat holes? Nauseatingly....yes.
-Is the Bush doctrine of pre-emption valid? Absolutely!
-Did Iraq, given the intel at the time, fall into the state-sponsor-of-terrorism category? Unequivocally, yes!
All points I was going to make myself Ed, thank you. Need we remind you capt that Hussein was tried for his actions, found guilty, and hanged?
Sorry if it sounded like i was being funny earlier, i really was asking that seriously.
Post a Comment