I'll start this off...

[Tombstone]

Since this is a new topic and I'm a new member on this new board, what better way than for me to express some opinions?

I agree with President Bush's stance on pre-emptive strikes. Should we wait until the terrorists strike us again? I think not.

The thought of losing hundreds or thousands of American lives before we do anything is too much to bear.

What I want to see is some outrage from the U.S. Islamic groups. Where are they? Why are they not speaking out? Their silence is deafening.

If there is any group within the United State's borders that could yield information or pre-emptive counter-intelligence, it is the U.S. Islam and Muslim Communities.

Are they working with the authorities? Are they afraid of speaking out for fear of retribution?

Comments?



Tombstone

[xlt66]

Tombstone wrote: Since this is a new topic and I'm a new member on this new board, what better way than for me to express some opinions?

I agree with President Bush's stance on pre-emptive strikes. Should we wait until the terrorists strike us again? I think not.

Tombstone


Since they are terrorists by definition, they have ethically and morally opened up the door for their targeted *Victims to stand up and defend themselves. They openly profess that they will try to kill at least 4 million Americans. All Americans and Brits are fair game.

All I can say is, "thanks for the warning." At least President Bush has the cajones to stand up to these bullies and let them know that we may strike first.

[CVX]

Hi All,

Timeframe: Immediately following 9/11

Everyone (our "agencies) covered their arses by claiming: no intelligence! Congress jumped on this convenient motto. Let's legislate! Let's gather intelligence! Let's sit on our butts, author insane legislation that penalizes everyone in order to find the few. Let's do what we do best!

Problem: Nobody had the guts to do real surgical strikes. Clean 'em up. Mop 'em up. Do it in any country known to harbor terrorists. Sovereign nations don't like it? Tough.

And yeah, no comment on the border issues. I don't want to go there. I have no idea how to plug our huge borders up.



plazul wrote: I live near the Canadian border and in spite of the hype about new scanning devices and other detection methods at check points I'm confident that I could smuggle (not that I want to!) a ton of high explosives across the border. It would be easier than doing it from Mexico that's for sure. I have a vacation home in Michoacan and DEA is crawling all over the place but Canada get's much less attention from all American law enforcement agencies. I've heard that al-Queda has a significant presence there and the country has a rapidly growing Muslim population (no bias intended).

This is not to say that we're totally dropping the ball with Canada and we may be doing a lot that's not seen but I sure haven't noticed it.

I would rather be inconvenienced at the border and elsewhere than have the government sifting though all of my private data. So by all means, let's put DHS money where it will do the most good.

[Tombstone]

Thanks to everyone for the thoughtful responses. Plazul, interesting that you mention that you are near the border. So am I, but in the Montana and Idaho area.

We just don't have the population issues that the East Coast has. In addition, Middle Eastern men driving down the highway would stick out like a sore thumb! The Canadians sure do!

Rush hour traffic is like 10 cars and 5 trucks per minute. It's the only place in the world that I know of that I can tell my kids to go out and play on the freeway without fear of getting hit. (That's a joke for all of you alarmed moms out there.)

Very cool about your place in Michoacan. I had no idea that there was a growing Muslim presence there. I should have assumed that since it appears that the Islamists really get a strong foothold in poor and uneducated countries.



plazul wrote: I live near the Canadian border and in spite of the hype about new scanning devices and other detection methods at check points I'm confident that I could smuggle (not that I want to!) a ton of high explosives across the border. It would be easier than doing it from Mexico that's for sure. I have a vacation home in Michoacan and DEA is crawling all over the place but Canada gets much less attention from all American law enforcement agencies. I've heard that al-Queda has a significant presence there and the country has a rapidly growing Muslim population (no bias intended).

This is not to say that we're totally dropping the ball with Canada and we may be doing a lot that's not seen but I sure haven't noticed it.

I would rather be inconvenienced at the border and elsewhere than have the government sifting though all of my private data. So by all means, let's put DHS money where it will do the most good.

[Tombstone]

Phew! I was worried. I re-read your post and thought you were talking about Mexico.

That makes sense then.

Good information on Michocan. We have our own little slice of paradise right where we are. Many acres, many trees, great schools, great family values, people working hard and doing an honest days work to support their families.

Very much different than in L.A. and the Bay Area, California



plazul wrote: Hah. You misunderstood and I thought the antecedent was clear. There's a growing Muslim population in *Canada*, not Michoacan. There isn't a muslim in the whole state and I can't imagine what the locals in my totally Catholic village would do if Muslims stared colonizing the place. They'd probably think it was the Anti-Christ's doing.

Idaho, huh? Great place to raise a family. I'll be going through Montana and Idaho via Glacier Park on my way up to Calgary in September. It's a fantastic drive.

Anybody interested in cheap ocean beach property should come to Michocan. You can't own the land but you can set up a fidecomisio (governmenty trust) and live on the land like you own it. Or, if you don't want to build, you can rent a cottage with air conditioning and maid service for a little over a thousand bucks a year. (But be sure to generously tip the help because they are very poor)

[gmc]

I agree with President Bush's stance on pre-emptive strikes. Should we wait until the terrorists strike us again? I think not.


Just because you can does not mean you should. pre emptive strike against whom?

You are not fighting a nation state terrorists are a minority that you can't fight by conventional means. All going in to Iraq has done is divert attention from the real attackers on 911 and set a dangerous precedent. The UN was set up after WW2 specifically to stop pre emptive wars in that if one nation attacked another then other natuions would combine against them. It doesn't work but it's the only thing we have and america just put two fingers up to the world.

Now you are talking about taking out Korea and iran

What will you do if China decides to invade taiwan because they pose an idealogical threat, or Israel decides to attack syria or Iran before they becime too powerful. You can no longer condemn such action as you have just done the same thing.

For years Norad funded IRA terrorism and your government did nothing to stop them. The Ira have helped train terrorists all round the world.

The CIA and the west funded and trained the Taliban because they wanted to overthrow an elected left wing government and it was good to see the Russians get a bloody nose. The cold war has ended but the consequences roll on and on.

No one can condone what the terrorists do but a pre-emptive strike against who? It wasn't Iraq that attacked on 911 there were no iraqis involved.

From the 911 commission report

* “[T]hey didn't allow me to brief him on terrorism. You know, they're saying now that when I was afforded the opportunity to talk to him about cybersecurity, it was my choice. I could have talked about terrorism or cybersecurity. That's not true. I asked in January to brief him, the president, on terrorism, to give him the same briefing I had given Vice President Cheney, Colin Powell and Condi Rice. And I was told, ‘You can't do that briefing, Dick, until after the policy development process.’” Richard Clarke interview with Tim Russert on NBC’s Meet the Press, March 28, 2004.

* "Clarke asked on several occasions for early Principals Committee meetings on these issues [outlined in his January 25, 2001 memo] and was frustrated that no early meeting was scheduled. He wanted principals to accept that al Qaeda was a ‘first order threat’ and not a routine problem being exaggerated by ‘chicken little’ alarmists. No Principals Committee meetings on al Qaeda were held until September 4, 2001.” National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 8, “National Policy Coordination,” pp 9-10; http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/

hearing8/staff_statement_8.pdf

* See Testimony of Richard A. Clarke before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, March 24, 2004:

MR. ROEMER: Okay. Let's move into, with my 15 minutes, let's move into the Bush administration. On January the 25th, we've seen a memo that you had written to Dr. Rice, urgently asking for a principals review of al Qaeda. You include helping the Northern Alliance, covert aid, significant new '02 budget authority to help fight al Qaeda --

MR. CLARKE: Uh-huh.

MR. ROEMER: -- and response to the U.S.S. Cole. You attached to this document both the Delenda Plan of 1998 and a strategy paper from December 2000. Did you get a response to this urgent request for a principals meeting on these, and how does this affect your time frame for dealing with these important issues?

MR. CLARKE: I did geta response. The response was that in the Bush administration I should, and my committee, the counterterrorism security group, should report to the deputies committee, which is a sub-cabinet level committee, and not to the principals, and that therefore it was inappropriate for me to be asking for a principals meeting. Instead, there would be a deputies meeting.

MR. ROEMER: So, does this slow the process down to go to the deputies rather than to the principals or a small group, as you had previously done?

MR. CLARKE: It slowed it down enormously, by months. First of all, the deputies committee didn't meet urgently in January or February. Then, when the deputies committee did meet, it took the issue of al Qaeda as part of a cluster of policy issues, including nuclear proliferation in South Asia, democratization in Pakistan, how to treat the problems, the various problems, including narcotics and other problems in Afghanistan, and, launched on a series of deputies meetings extending over several months to address al Qaeda in the context of all of those interrelated issues. That process probably ended, I think, in July of 2001, so we were readying for a principals meeting in July, but the principals' calendar was full, and then they went on vacation, many of them, in August, so we couldn't meet in August, and therefore the principals met in September.




In 1995, a member of Reagan's National Security Council and co-author of his National Security Directives, Howard Teicher, signed a sworn affidavit stating: “From early 1982 to 1987, I served as a Staff Member to the United States National Security Council.… In June, 1982, President Reagan decided that the United States could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran. President Reagan decided that the United States would do whatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran. Pursuant to the secret NSDD, the United States actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing U.S. military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military weaponry required. This message was delivered by Vice President Bush who communicated it to Egyptian President Mubarak, who in turn passed the message to Saddam Hussein. Under CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, the CIA made sure that non-U.S. manufacturers manufactured and sold to Iraq the weapons needed by Iraq. In certain instances where a key component in a weapon was not readily available, the highest levels of the United States government decided to make the component available, directly or indirectly, to Iraq. I specifically recall that the provision of anti-armor penetrators to Iraq was a case in point. The United States made a policy decision to supply penetrators to Iraq." Affidavit of former Howard Teicher, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CARLOS CARDOEN et al, January 31, 1995. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/

article1413.htm


“The 27 classified pages of a congressional report about Sept. 11 depict a Saudi government that not only provided significant money and aid to the suicide hijackers but also allowed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups through suspect charities and other fronts, according to sources familiar with the document. One U.S. official who has read the classified section said it describes ‘very direct, very specific links’ between Saudi officials, two of the San Diego-based hijackers and other potential co-conspirators ‘that cannot be passed off as rogue, isolated or coincidental.’” Of all the hijackers, 15 of the 19 were Saudi. Josh Meyer, “Report Links Saudi Government to 9/11 Hijackers, Sources Say,” Los Angeles Times, August 2, 2003.


The last two bits were lifted from Michael moore's web site. You may not like his polemic but the facts you can verify yourself.

[gmc]

Norad is in charge of American air and missile defense. Where did you hear that they helped the IRA?


Bad typing I meant Noraid. North american irish defence or something like that. They raised money for the IRA though I suspect most contributors didn't realise what it was being used for.

[Bill Sikes]

Tombstone wrote: What I want to see is some outrage from the U.S. Islamic groups. Where are they? Why are they not speaking out? Their silence is deafening.

If there is any group within the United State's borders that could yield information or pre-emptive counter-intelligence, it is the U.S. Islam and Muslim Communities.

Are they working with the authorities? Are they afraid of speaking out for fear of retribution?Tombstone


You could lock them up in concentration camps, like you did with the Japanese

Americans during WWII. That would be a bloody good idea, wouldn't it!! Then

you could let them out, and apologise to them 45 or so years later. Perhaps

you need not even bother. Is it still the case in the 'States that a non-white

citizen is not equal to a white one, or that religion makes people inequal? It

certainly seems so. Perhaps some Americans or their ancestors come from a

country where terrorists are known to operate then you could lock them up,

too, to be on the safe side! Yeah, another bloody good idea, 99.99% of

Yanks claim to be of Irish stock, they could lock each other up then, and

throw the keys away.

[Bill Sikes]

xlt66 wrote: Since they are terrorists by definition, they have ethically and morally opened up the door for their targeted *Victims to stand up and defend themselves. They openly profess that they will try to kill at least 4 million Americans. All Americans and Brits are fair game.

All I can say is, "thanks for the warning." At least President Bush has the cajones to stand up to these bullies and let them know that we may strike first.


WHO ARE "THEY" ????????????????

[Bill Sikes]

CVX wrote: Problem: Nobody had the guts to do real surgical strikes. Clean 'em up. Mop 'em up. Do it in any country known to harbor terrorists. Sovereign nations don't like it? Tough.


Oh, great. Another one. It's this type of opinion that does the U.S.A. no good at

all, such stupidity invites attack from all and sundry.

[anastrophe]

generally speaking, no, it has the opposite effect.

a dog that cowers when poked with a stick does nothing to deter others who think it fun to poke it. a dog that takes a chunk out of the poker's leg tends to deter others who think it fun to poke it.



it's called self-defense. any nation that harbors terrorists gives up its right to sovereignty. unless you're in favor of terrorism.

[Bill Sikes]

anastrophe wrote: generally speaking, no, it has the opposite effect.

a dog that cowers when poked with a stick does nothing to deter others who think it fun to poke it. a dog that takes a chunk out of the poker's leg tends to deter others who think it fun to poke it.



it's called self-defense. any nation that harbors terrorists gives up its right to sovereignty. unless you're in favor of terrorism.


I'm not sure what you're replying to, some context is generally helpful.

However, to continue the dog theme, a dog that snaps out at anyone

who it *thinks* might poke it is in for a well deserved kick or three.

[Bill Sikes]

anastrophe wrote: any nation that harbors terrorists gives up its right to sovereignty. unless you're in favor of terrorism.


I supposed the 'States has never harboured or or otherwise helped

terrorists, then.

[anastrophe]

Bill Sikes wrote: I'm not sure what you're replying to, some context is generally helpful.

However, to continue the dog theme, a dog that snaps out at anyone

who it *thinks* might poke it is in for a well deserved kick or three.
i was responding to your 'it's this type of opinion' post.



so, if i understand you correctly, we are attacking innocent nations, and we deserved to have 3000 innocent citizens killed by terrorists?

[anastrophe]

Bill Sikes wrote: I supposed the 'States has never harboured or or otherwise helped

terrorists, then.
well, if you're going to make an assertion like that, feel free to back it up. what US terrorists have murdered innocent citizens in britain? france? spain? india? the philippines? china? brazil? haiti?



i'm afraid i don't know the names of said terrorists. nothing like 'al qaida' to refer to them by.

[Bill Sikes]

anastrophe wrote: i was responding to your 'it's this type of opinion' post.



so, if i understand you correctly, we are attacking innocent nations, and we deserved to have 3000 innocent citizens killed by terrorists?


I'm sure you understand me, and that the above is disingenuous. Did Saddam

Hussein perpetrate that act? Did the Iraqi people? I thought that even Uncle

Sam said it was done by an organisation called "Al Quaeda", headed by

someone called "bin Laden".

Also, if I need to remind you, several hundred Britons were killed during that

terrorist attack.

[Bill Sikes]

[QUOTE=anastrophe]well, if you're going to make an assertion like that, feel free to back it up. what US terrorists have murdered innocent citizens in britain? france? spain? india? the philippines? china? brazil? haiti?[QUOTE]

My *question* to you - not an assertion - which you have signally failed to

address, was: "I suppose the 'States has never harboured or or otherwise

helped terrorists, then". Are you going to answer?

[anastrophe]

Bill Sikes wrote: I'm sure you understand me, and that the above is disingenuous.
no, i'm trying to get to the bottom of what you're saying.

Did Saddam

Hussein perpetrate that act?

Did the Iraqi people? I thought that even Uncle

Sam said it was done by an organisation called "Al Quaeda", headed by

someone called "bin Laden".

are you saying that the war with iraq is with an innocent nation? it's funny, when US forces first took baghdad, there was in incredible outpouring of jubilation. average citizens slapping their shoes against the statue of saddam that was toppled. the first observance of a huge religious festival since it was supressed twenty years earlier.



that has been lost in the rhetoric since then. the whole argument of saddam's participation with al queda still has not been resolved. it wouldn't surprise me in the least if his partisans participated covertly, but we will likely never know.





Also, if I need to remind you, several hundred Britons were killed during that

terrorist attack.
i'm not sure what your point is. the attack was not on your soil.

[anastrophe]

[QUOTE=Bill Sikes][QUOTE=anastrophe]well, if you're going to make an assertion like that, feel free to back it up. what US terrorists have murdered innocent citizens in britain? france? spain? india? the philippines? china? brazil? haiti?



My *question* to you - not an assertion - which you have signally failed to

address, was: "I suppose the 'States has never harboured or or otherwise

helped terrorists, then". Are you going to answer?
ahem. now *this* really is disingenuous rhetoric. you have not posed a question. for one thing, your *sentence* did not end with a question mark, thus making it an assertion. secondly, it is an asked-and-answered construct. you did not ask "has the united states ever harbored or otherwise helped terrorists?". that would have been a question. please, let's not play this game. shall i toss out the following in 'rebuttal'?



"so, i suppose the crown never waged a vicious occupation war against the inhabitants of northern ireland, based upon religious bigotry, then."



now, care to actually ask the question? i'm not going to ask it for you, nor answer the question you signally failed to ask.

[Bill Sikes]

sikes wrote: Did Saddam Hussein perpetrate that act? Did the Iraqi people? I

thought that even Uncle Sam said it was done by an organisation called "Al

Quaeda", headed by someone called "bin Laden".


anastrophe wrote: are you saying that the war with iraq is with an innocent nation?


Innocent of what? That they were headed by a Dictator and the regieme was

not the nicest in the world is beyond doubt - but then why Iraq, and not so

many other places in the world??



anastrophe wrote: it's funny, when US forces first took baghdad, there was in incredible outpouring of jubilation. average citizens slapping their shoes against the statue of saddam that was toppled. the first observance of a huge religious festival since it was supressed twenty years earlier.


Yes, of course. It is, even now, just possible that a greater good will come of

this action. However, the continued prescence of the 'States (or "Allies") as an

occupying force may very well be absolutely counterproductive.

anastrophe wrote: that has been lost in the rhetoric since then. the whole argument of saddam's participation with al queda still has not been resolved. it wouldn't surprise me in the least if his partisans participated covertly, but we will likely never know.


It is likely that we will never know! Ding! (as they say).

Sikes wrote:

Also, if I need to remind you, several hundred Britons were killed during that

terrorist attack.


anastrophe wrote: i'm not sure what your point is. the attack was not on your soil.


I do not *care* whose soil the attack was on. It does not really matter. What

does matter is that the attack happened, be it in New York, London, or the

back of beyond. People from many countries were killed, and even in a country

lucky enough to escape the direct effects *altogether* the right sort of people

will feel outrage and a desire to do something about it.

[Bill Sikes]

anastrophe wrote: you did not ask "has the united states ever harbored or otherwise helped terrorists?". that would have been a question.


Well answer, then. A smokescreen or attempt to change the subject will not do.

[anastrophe]

Bill Sikes wrote: Innocent of what? That they were headed by a Dictator and the regieme was

not the nicest in the world is beyond doubt - but then why Iraq, and not so

many other places in the world??
i'm with you there. despotism isn't exactly 'film at eleven' news. it occurs all over the world. the US (and other nations) vacillate between playing policemen of the world and isolationism. i don't know if that will ever change.





Yes, of course. It is, even now, just possible that a greater good will come of

this action. However, the continued prescence of the 'States (or "Allies") as an

occupying force may very well be absolutely counterproductive.


agreed again. however, i don't think that iraq's infrastructure will be able to defend itself internall for quite some time. mr. kerry says that if he becomes president, he'll have troops out of iraq by the end of his four year term!



I do not *care* whose soil the attack was on. It does not really matter. What

does matter is that the attack happened, be it in New York, London, or the

back of beyond. People from many countries were killed, and even in a country

lucky enough to escape the direct effects *altogether* the right sort of people

will feel outrage and a desire to do something about it.
i think we're in trouble here - i'm in complete agreement again! :yahoo_big

[anastrophe]

Bill Sikes wrote: Well answer, then. A smokescreen or attempt to change the subject will not do.
neither, sir, has occurred. ask your question. rather than stating your asked-and-answered assertion, as you did.



as i said, i'm not going to ask the question for you - since you did not ask it.

[Bill Sikes]

anastrophe wrote: i don't think that iraq's infrastructure will be able to defend itself internall for quite some time. mr. kerry says that if he becomes president, he'll have troops out of iraq by the end of his four year term!


4 *years* ??? Good Lord. IMO the situation will continue to deteriorate for

that entire time. I wonder what the effect on stability in a self-governing Iraq

it would have to "lease" a fighting force to them - to act under orders of the

new Iraqi government, but able to refuse to take what it (the force) deemed

any unreasonable action. I'm not sure where the force should come from -

just wondering about the idea.

[anastrophe]

(an aside - i just had to note this, a google ad popped up in this thread stating the following:



Muslim Terrorists

Meet Tens of Thousands of

Muslim Singles for Love or

Friendship.



now that's bizarre!)

[gmc]

“The 27 classified pages of a congressional report about Sept. 11 depict a Saudi government that not only provided significant money and aid to the suicide hijackers but also allowed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups through suspect charities and other fronts, according to sources familiar with the document. One U.S. official who has read the classified section said it describes ‘very direct, very specific links’ between Saudi officials, two of the San Diego-based hijackers and other potential co-conspirators ‘that cannot be passed off as rogue, isolated or coincidental.’” Of all the hijackers, 15 of the 19 were Saudi. Josh Meyer, “Report Links Saudi Government to 9/11 Hijackers, Sources Say,” Los Angeles Times, August 2, 2003.


Did you actually look at the 911 commission report? Iraq had nothing to do with it, it was a pariah state even to other muslim countries, all it is is a distraction from the real terrorists. Hopefully it will all turn out for the better in the end but it is more about controlling the oil than anything else. That's why every western country has been involved in the miiddle east since a scotsman worked out how to crack the stuff.

This terrorist attack just not spring up out of nothing there is a reason behind it that is now buried in blind hatred. You live in a free country why don't you check facts out for yourself and start worrying about what is going to happen in Saudi Arabia which has a lot more to do with 911 than Iraq did.



"so, i suppose the crown never waged a vicious occupation war against the inhabitants of northern ireland, based upon religious bigotry, then."


I'm not going anywhere near that one except a lot of Americans seem to think that was the case. Incidentally the crown is a figurehead and has no political say in anything

[Bill Sikes]

anastrophe wrote: as i said, i'm not going to ask the question for you

(Sikes:- "I suppose the 'States has never harboured or or otherwise

helped terrorists, then") since you did not ask it.


http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/L/List ... e-1945.htm

That may or may not be part of a question, or an answer.

[anastrophe]

Bill Sikes wrote: http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/L/List ... e-1945.htm



That may or may not be part of a question, or an answer.
ahem. interestingly, on that site there is no mention of british foreign interventions since 1945. does that mean GB has never intervened in a foreign nation since 1945?



interestingly, on that site there is no mention of soviet foreign interventions since 1945. does that mean that the soviet union has never intervened in a foreign nation since 1945?



interestingly, on that site there is no mention of chinese foreign interventions since 1945. does that mean that china has never intervened in a foreign nation since 1945?



interestingly, on that site there is no mention of syrian foreign interventions since 1945. does that mean that the syria has never intervened in a foreign nation since 1945?



interestingly, on that site there is no mention of iraqi foreign interventions since 1945. does that mean that iraq has never intervened in a foreign nation since 1945?



no, what it suggests is that the site in question has, to put it mildly, an axe to grind.

[anastrophe]

apparently, the United States is the Evil Empire. We stand for oppression, aggression, and world dominance. We will do anything we can to suppress freedom. We never come to the aid of our allies. We didn't have anything to do with defeating hitler and liberating europe. our citizens live in constant, total fear of the government. we have no freedom of speech, or of the press, and religious expression is not tolerated. tens of millions of americans have been 'cleansed' from our nation as bandits over the last half century. the government has purposely starved tens of millions more. we never render humanitarian aid to other countries. we refuse to conduct trade with any other countries.



i can see why the rest of the world despises us so.

[gmc]

You can look to the past to help understand what is happening now and you do need to look at it objectively. But the real question is what do you do next? Just repeating past mistakes and policies isn't going to work. It seems in the US both sides of the debate pro and anti the war are polarised with the pro war group shouting down opposition as unpatriotic. Blind patriotism is a big mistake in a democratic country.

Realistically the odds of the average american getting caught in a terrorist attack are pretty remote. The same in the UK, at least the IRA sort of followed rules of engagement, the present lot are nutters.

All terrorists need to do to succeed is make people terrified to carry on their normal lives. They want an extreme reactiuon that is why they are doing it. Rational debate doesn't come in to it it's all about provocation. If you go in heavy handed that's exactly what they want you to do. Invading Iraq will create more terrorists, all the intelligence analysts said the same in US and the UK, nobody listened. This is not some clear cut enemy that you can blast to smithereens.

Let's say your neighbour is a terrorist and by way of getting him the authorities kill members of your family. Who will you blame? You might not approve of him being a terrorist but maybe afterwards you might feel he had a point.

The best way to keep a fundamentalist regime in power is to attack it from outside and people will unite against the attacker. In Iran the moderates are already making headway, leave them alone people can stand that kind of regime for so long and then they start to get fed up. The Iran Iraq war helped the fundamentalists keep power, picking on them now is doing the same thing. going in mob handed would be a disaster as not only would the iranians fight but half the middle east would join in and there go your oil supplies.

North Korea is more worrying, they make the fundamentalists seem rational.

If terrorists want to make a "dirty" radioactive bomb there is enough nuclear waste and isotopes lying around to pick up. If you wonder what i mean have a look next time you are in a hospital at the isotopes in common usage. it doesn't have to be high tech. If they put something in the water supply or even just hinted they might have the result would be chaos.

A rambling post but two points.

The current bunch of terrorists are irrational nutters. but

This did not come out of nowhere there is a whole raft of grievance behind it.

What your politicians tell you may not be the truth.

The one with the loud opinion does not necessarily know what they are talking about.

If someone wants to go to war you should look at what they did when it was their turn to fight and what decisions they made then.

If you do go to war it is best to be clear about what your aim is.

Actually I read Colin Powell's autobiography, Thats one of the points he made based on his experience in vietnam. maybe he did believe there were wmd's.

If the level of debate is only in insults then that's probably because they don't want you to think about what is being said.

OK that's more than two

[anastrophe]

i take some exception to the characterization that i'm engaging in bait and switch. i've never maintained that this was a war of liberation. nevertheless, that was a salutory outcome. it does not justify the means, and i've never suggested so.



i'm less inclined to wide eyed conspiracy theories. it's a massive neocon conspiracy, run by a cabal. they cunningly and masterfully manufactured massive amounts of bogus evidence to justify the war, but they were apparently too incompetent and downright stupid to manufacture some 'evidence' to be found in iraq to complete the circle. no, they came up just plain empty handed, not a single WMD found, which suggests they are utterly incompetent. but wait, let's focus solely on that bogus evidence that came up front - massive conspiracy. after the fact, when shown to be boobs - well, they're incompetent boobs too.



it's a dark, omniscient and ever-present secret government being run by otis and jethro from the back of a gas station in mississippi i guess.



those diabolic republicans.

[gmc]

i'm less inclined to wide eyed conspiracy theories. it's a massive neocon conspiracy, run by a cabal. they cunningly and masterfully manufactured massive amounts of bogus evidence to justify the war, but they were apparently too incompetent and downright stupid to manufacture some 'evidence' to be found in iraq to complete the circle. no, they came up just plain empty handed, not a single WMD found, which suggests they are utterly incompetent. but wait, let's focus solely on that bogus evidence that came up front - massive conspiracy. after the fact, when shown to be boobs - well, they're incompetent boobs too.


I think they just knew what they believed and just saw evidence that confirmed their beliefs. Many people do the same thing in their daily lives. How many people on pop idol do you think really believed they can sing and ignore all the evidence to the contrary?

As to conspiracy theory? I don't think it's that simple but have a look at the 911 commission report, project for the new american century, interestingly They don't whole heartedly approve of Bush antagonising the rest of the world.

Michael Moore obviously has his own agenda but in a free country does it not concern you that cinemas can be told not to show his film? Or artists can find their records droopped from play lists because they speak out expressing an opinion.

You may not agree but people have a right to say what they think, what is depressing is the number of americans that think it is right that opponents to the war be kept off the radio and television. If you don't defend others right to speak as they see fit then very soon no one can. You lose freedoms bit by bit

You seem to being kept in a state of hysteria by your press. It doesn't work in this country because we have had years of terrorist attacks and most people realise that the odds are pretty remote of getting involved and we view our government with resigned cynicism.

ahem. interestingly, on that site there is no mention of british foreign interventions since 1945. does that mean GB has never intervened in a foreign nation since 1945?


It's an american site, look at the home page it has US history and world history. Says it all really

[Bill Sikes]

Sikes wrote:

(Sikes:- "I suppose the 'States has never harboured or or otherwise helped terrorists, then")

http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/L/...-since-1945.htm

That may or may not be part of a question, or an answer.




anastrophe wrote: ahem. interestingly, on that site there is no mention of british foreign interventions since 1945.


It's not interesting, it's totally irrelevant to the topic. Since you can't do any

better, I'm going to give up on you. You lose.

[anastrophe]

gmc wrote:

Michael Moore obviously has his own agenda but in a free country does it not concern you that cinemas can be told not to show his film? Or artists can find their records droopped from play lists because they speak out expressing an opinion.
er, uh, in a free country, private citizens aren't forced to do or say or view what they don't want to, either. cinemas are owned by businesses. businesses can choose to do business however they want. if a business owner doesn't want to show a propoganda film, that's his right. if a record label doesn't want to put out records glorifying killing police, they have the right.



in this country, people have a right to freedom of expression. they do not have a right to the *platform used to express themselves* if someone else is paying for that platform. otherwise, i could demand that network TV give me an hour of free time to present my political views. how ludicrous would that be?



but really, all that aside, it's laughable to even mention the two or three movie theaters in the whole country that did *not* show michael moore's film. mr. moore is now a millionaire many times over, as his film did very well in theaters, and millions of people saw it. so, there's no argument that can rationally be made that he was 'prevented' from expressing himself.



You may not agree but people have a right to say what they think, what is depressing is the number of americans that think it is right that opponents to the war be kept off the radio and television. If you don't defend others right to speak as they see fit then very soon no one can. You lose freedoms bit by bit
again. they are not being prevented from speaking. others are choosing not to supply the platform for them to express themselves - while *others* are indeed providing a platform. but again, it's a ludicrous argument. here we are, expressing ourselves in this forum. there is no government interference in our expressing ourselves. there's no government interference preventing artists from expressing themselves. i defy any citizen of the US to turn on the TV sunday morning and claim that all views are not represented. the information is out there, the platforms are out there. of course, the sunday morning news shows are boring, dreary, political give and take. who wants to watch that! i want to hear puff daddy denounce bush with a good backbeat! *that's* political expression!



You seem to being kept in a state of hysteria by your press. It doesn't work in this country because we have had years of terrorist attacks and most people realise that the odds are pretty remote of getting involved and we view our government with resigned cynicism.
that's an odd statement, but i'll take your word for it. i don't see any state of hysteria here however.



It's an american site, look at the home page it has US history and world history. Says it all really
er. uh. 'it has US history and world history'. but apparently, it does not, that's the point. there's a multi-screen litany of the evils of american foreign intervention. there is absolutely nothing detailing the exploits of great britain and its massive imperialistic interventions in every corner of the globe.



or doesn't india ring a bell? australia? new zealand? french west africa? rhodesia? canada? hong kong? cape colony? egypt? transvaal? new guinea? the carribean?

[gmc]

er. uh. 'it has US history and world history'. but apparently, it does not, that's the point. there's a multi-screen litany of the evils of american foreign intervention. there is absolutely nothing detailing the exploits of great britain and its massive imperialistic interventions in every corner of the globe.

or doesn't india ring a bell? australia? new zealand? french west africa? rhodesia? canada? hong kong? cape colony? egypt? transvaal? new guinea? the carribean?


We had the largest empire the world has ever seen, no one denies our imperialist past. There isn't a country in the wold that hasn't interfered with another, we were just particularly good at it, arguably as an accident of geography. Americans when you pint out that they have also done the same seem to feel their motives are completely different and therefore justified regardless of the actual consequences.

er, uh, in a free country, private citizens aren't forced to do or say or view what they don't want to, either. cinemas are owned by businesses. businesses can choose to do business however they want. if a business owner doesn't want to show a propoganda film, that's his right.


My understanding is that most of the cinemas are owned by a few large conglomerates, more to the point the distributors are also on very few hands which makes it very difficult if you fall out with them. On the other hand the publicity seems to have got him more interest than it might otherwise. I quite fancy going to see it myself but it didn't stay long in the cinemas so I guess I'll wait till it's released to cable.

they are not being prevented from speaking. others are choosing not to supply the platform for them to express themselves -


Again is it not the same thing. If only a few companies control the media then they can control what you watch.

I'm not having a go at you about this I am interested in a different perspective. In the UK we have a competition commission to prevent any one company getting that kind of power. Our commercial channels are a franchise the company buy the rights to the licence for a few years than have to put together a bid to keep it.

We tend to regard government control as being there to protect us and prevent any one company getting too much control. Governments can be kicked out and are there to do our bidding but once you let any media company get that kind of power they can have a baleful influence on our freedoms. You need a constantly critical press to keep politicians in check, by the same token you need a government that can remind companies who makes the laws, who governs and smack them down when necessary. Too much either way is bad