That's right, FDR knew about Pearl Harbor.

However, the opposing party then didn't make a deal out of it then for the sake of national unity. Before the opposing candidate planned to do his big speech about it, one of the top brass (McArthur?) asked him not to for the sake of national unity heading into new and troublesome times.

Alas, times have changed, and the Democrats only care about themselves. The 9/11 committe, which is a jump left of impartial to say the least, is bickering over the fact that it's impossible for our country to react to every piece of intelligence, especially when it's not that good in general. Dating all the way back to Jimmy Carter, our intelligence has been degrading. Clinton balanced the budget! Good times! Wanna guess where the money came from? If you guessed the CIA got gutted... give yourself $200 and control of the board! Complacency set in... and America got burned Pearl Harbor style again.

If the Democrats wanted to attack something, why don't they go after airport security, which is just as lax know as it ever was.

Keep up the good work dividing our nation over nothing Democrats.
Keep up the good work with lax airport reform Republicans.

Washington warned us to stay away from the two party system. We've chosen to ignore him... and we'll pay for it by repeated devasting attacks due to the cyclical complacency and cuts to the defense budget. Such is life until the two party system takes a hike.

"The difference between a Democrat and a Republican? The Democrat SUCKS... the Republican BLOWS."
- Lewis Black

Thats funny, I thought we were in for another one of 'those' threads :roflol:

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:That's right, FDR knew about Pearl Harbor.

Unsubstantiated myth.

Quote:However, the opposing party then didn't make a deal out of it then for the sake of national unity.

And, perhaps, because it wasn't true.

Quote:The 9/11 committe, which is a jump left of impartial to say the least,

It is bipartisan -- five Democrats, five Republicans -- appointed in a national capital completely run by Republicans.

Quote:we'll pay for it by repeated devasting attacks due to the cyclical complacency and cuts to the defense budget. 

In a year or two, the United States will begin spending more on defense than every other nation in the world ... combined. No other nation's armies are in a position to challenge us in the seas and in the skies.

If the armed forces shaped after eight years of Bill Clinton were supposedly so weak, how were they able to topple the Taliban regime in a matter of days?

My wifes grandfather was stationed at PH. He got notice a month before the attack to get his family off the island. He was a Major General. He would never admit that they knew, but he never denied it. Take it for what it is worth.

rickheel Wrote:My wifes grandfather was stationed at PH. He got notice a month before the attack to get his family off the island. He was a Major General. He would never admit that they knew, but he never denied it. Take it for what it is worth.

The government tells people not to travel to Beirut and Rwanda. That doesn't mean they KNOW about a pending attack, but they know that it ain't safe for Americans to be there.

Hey, I feel your cynical pain, GTS. Those two sentiments pretty much sum up what I feel about both parties, although the rest of your post is mere unsubstantiated urban legend rhetoric. The mess this country is in is way deeper than "dividing" the country and pointing the long finger of blame at the Democrats.

Things happened. We leftists want to know why they happened (and I assume those of you on the right do too). It's not as black and white as "You're either with us or with the terrorists."

If it were, then bombing Afghanistan would have ended the endless "war on terror."

Anyway, I don't know who I'll vote for. Maybe Al Sharpton?

I may be with on that one Joe. At least you know what you are getting.

Schadenfreude Wrote:In a year or two, the United States will begin spending more on defense than every other nation in the world ... combined. No other nation's armies are in a position to challenge us in the seas and in the skies.

I don't think anyone would argue w/ you on that. But, that's not the type of attacks we have these days, is it?

The point on defense now is to stave off terrorist attacks. From any source: legitimate state, or an obscure entity.

However, to do that requires resources. Because folks like YOU criticize Bush for focusing too much time on Iraq and "ignoring" al Qeida.

You play it both ways sometimes SF (insert crude joke re: the homosexual threads). I don't get it. The president (or more specifically a republican president) is supposed to know all threats and their actual probabilities, and prevent them, BUT he's not supposed to fund intelligence and defense adequately.

The more specific point is, you criticized Bush for being too concerned w/ Iraq, but you don't know how much of a threat Iraq really was. Maybe you're right, maybe they were content to sit back like Cuba and Hussein was going to idle away his remaining years.

OR

Maybe the Rumsfeld reports were right (like re: N. Korea) and Iraq was a threat. Maybe they were planning a strike for Dec 2001, but got scooped by al Qeida. Or, maybe they would have been so energized by 9-11 that they were forging their own attack. You know, how does a lion get taken down by heyenas? Not by one heyena, but by a pack stalking him and several of them nipping, clawing and biting him until he's worn out and fatigued.

You don't know how much of a threat Iraq was. None of us really do. But, your criticisms are illegitimate because you don't know, and because you don't consider other scenarios than your preferred hypothetical utopias.

DrTorch Wrote:The point on defense now is to stave off terrorist attacks. From any source: legitimate state, or an obscure entity.

However, to do that requires resources. Because folks like YOU criticize Bush for focusing too much time on Iraq and "ignoring" al Qeida. . .

. . .You don't know how much of a threat Iraq was. None of us really do. But, your criticisms are illegitimate because you don't know, and because you don't consider other scenarios than your preferred hypothetical utopias.

Will these billions of dollars increase the security of Fortress America?

How much are boxcutters, anyways? A buck fifty?

I'd much rather stop bullying the world and start spending the same money on food/humanitarian relief (remember the peace corps). That's the end of terror, right there. When we stop terrorizing the world, terrorism will stop.

But thanks for your preferred hypothetical utopia. We all appreciate having the same Bushonian war rhetoric pushed down our throats one more time.

You sure are some cheerleader. Are you doing the captain of the football team, too?

joebordenrebel Wrote:When we stop terrorizing the world, terrorism will stop.

We could put the entire federal budget towards foreign humanitarian aid and:

1) We wouldn't fix everything... indeed we'd make our problems worse as places like Africa would experience a population explosion leading toward more people to care for.
2) We'd still be hated. It's called envy. As long as America is #1 (forseeable future) we will be envied... that alone is enough for some psychos to pull terrorist attacks.

DrTorch Wrote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:In a year or two, the United States will begin spending more on defense than every other nation in the world ... combined. No other nation's armies are in a position to challenge us in the seas and in the skies.

I don't think anyone would argue w/ you on that. But, that's not the type of attacks we have these days, is it?

The point on defense now is to stave off terrorist attacks. From any source: legitimate state, or an obscure entity.

However, to do that requires resources.

With the United States about to begin spending more on national defense than the rest of the human race *combined*, is the question really about resources?

If posing this question gives you the impression I am weak-kneed and dovish, so be it.

How much more should we be spending on national defense than the rest of human race, Torch?

Could it the problem be the *manner* in which we spend all these vast billions?

Could it be American patriots like John Kerry were right to vote against certain defense spending silliness -- such as V-22 Ospreys notorious for killing the Marines who try to fly them?

Quote:However, to do that requires resources. Because folks like YOU criticize Bush for focusing too much time on Iraq and "ignoring" al Qeida.

I fail to understand this paragraph.

Are you suggesting that people like me -- people convinced George W. Bush is a facile chickenhawk woefully underqualified for his job -- somehow drive national defense costs up?

Clue me in.

Quote:The more specific point is, you criticized Bush for being too concerned w/ Iraq, but you don't know how much of a threat Iraq really was.... You don't know how much of a threat Iraq was. None of us really do. But, your criticisms are illegitimate because you don't know, and because you don't consider other scenarios than your preferred hypothetical utopias.

Simplified, your position is: "Trust the president. He is smarter than we are."

George W. Bush is a ****ing idiot.

Iraq wasn't a threat to our national security. This ought to be a fact beyond dispute. The only reason it isn't is that our fraternity-brother-in-chief and his gang of cold war retreads never wanted to accept reality. Instead, they have used their bully pulpit to try to convince us (among other things) that a link exists between Saddam and al Qaeda -- despite virtually no evidence of that.

I can reach only two conclusions about Bush and his gang of chickenhawks: They either sincerely had almost no clue what they were doing leading us into war with Iraq -- or they had a hidden agenda for doing so.

Iraq as national security threat simply doesn't wash.

Quoting from the Richard Clarke 60 Minutes interview:

CLARKE: I blame the entire Bush leadership for continuing to work on the Cold War issues when they came back in power in 2001. It was as though they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier. They came back, they wanted to work on the same issues right away -- Iraq, Star Wars -- not the new issues, the new threats that had developed over the preceding eight years

STAHL (exp): {Clarke finally got his meeting to brief about al Qaeda in April, three months after his urgent request, but it wasn't with the president or the cabinet. It was with the number twos in each relevant department. For the Pentagon, it was Paul Wolfowitz.}

CLARKE: I began saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden. We have to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz the Deputy Sec'y of Defense said, 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.' And I said, 'Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the Untied States in eight years,' and I turned to the Deputy Director of [the] CIA and said, 'Isn't that right?' and he said, 'Yeah, that's right. There is no Iraqi terrorism against the United States.'

STAHL: In eight years.

CLARKE: In eight years.

STAHL: Now explain that.

STAHL (exp): {He explained that there was no Iraqi terrorism against the US after 1993 when Saddam Hussein attempted to assassinate the first President Bush while he was visiting Kuwait.}

CLARKE: We responded to that by blowing up Iraqi intelligence headquarters and by sending a very clear message through diplomatic channels to the Iraqis, saying if you do any terrorism against the United States again, it won't just be Iraqi intelligence headquarters, it'll be your whole government. It was a very chilling message. And apparently it work because there's absolutely no evidence of Iraqi terrorism since that day until we invaded them. Now there's Iraqi terrorism against the United States.

STAHL: Was there any connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda?

CLARKE: Were they cooperating? No.

STAHL: Was Iraq supporting al Qaeda?

CLARKE: No. There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda. Ever.

STAHL: You call certain people in the administration and they'll say that's still open ...

CLARKE: Yeah, well ...

STAHL ... that's an open issue.

CLARKE: Well they'll say that until Hell freezes over.

...

VIDEOTAPE OF GW BUSH: You can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.

STAHL: (exp): {Clarke contends that with statements like that, the President continually left an impression that Saddam had been involved in 9/11.}

[VIDEO WITH CLARKE]

CLARKE: The White House carefully manipulated public opinion, never quite lied, but gave the very strong impression that Iraq did it.

STAHL: But you're suggesting here that they knew better --

CLARKE: They did know better.

STAHL -- and it was deliberate.

CLARKE: They did know better. They did know better. We told them. The FBI told them. The CIA told them. They did know better. And the tragedy here is that Americans went to their deaths in Iraq thinking that they were avenging September 11 when Iraq had nothing to do with September 11. I think for a Commander in Chief and a Vice President to allow that to happen is unconscionable.

STAHL (exp): {And he thinks the President to this day misinterprets the nature and the scope of the terrorist threat.}

CLARKE: He asked us after 9/11 to give him cards with pictures of the major al Qaeda leaders and tell us when they were arrested or killed so he could draw X's through their pictures, and you know, I write in the book, I have this image of George Bush sitting by a warm fireplace in the White House drawing X's through al Qaeda leaders and thinking that he's got most of them and therefore he's taken care of the problem, and while George Bush thinks he's crossing them out one by one there are all these new al Qaeda people who are being recruited who hate the United States in large measure because of what Bush has done.

STAHL (exp): {He says that the war in Iraq has not only inflamed anti-Americanism in the Arab world, it drained resources away from the fight in Afghanistan and the push to eliminate Osama bin Laden.}

Schadenfreude Wrote:With the United States about to begin spending more on national defense than the rest of the human race *combined*, is the question really about resources?

If posing this question gives you the impression I am weak-kneed and dovish, so be it.

How much more should we be spending on national defense than the rest of human race, Torch?

Could it the problem be the *manner* in which we spend all these vast billions?

Could it be American patriots like John Kerry were right to vote against certain defense spending silliness -- such as V-22 Ospreys notorious for killing the Marines who try to fly them?

Oooh, patriot John Kerry. If you want 100% perfection on every dollar spent, then stick with swords, bayonettes and the musket. That technology is mature enough that you won't find mistakes.

I'm not saying that correctable mistakes haven't been made in military expenditures. But hindsight is 20-20, and it's easy to point fingers at every failed project and call it a "waste". Kerry's consistent voting against new technology doesn't sound like he made a sound decision on one project, it sounds like you're cherry-picking his one *right decisioin*.

You want good oversight in government expenditures? I'm all for it. Plenty of Colonels and 1-star Generals are angling for dollars on silly projects. But, not every project that sounds "silly" turns out to be that way. And the nature of Research and Development is that you don't have a 100% success rate.

But, I already answered your question. Spending "enough" is preventing every potential attack, because if you don't, a bunch of folks are going to get riled up and start pointing fingers. And you'll have some bandwagon liar like Richard Clark write a book that is convenientlly times w/ hearings so some suckers can make him rich. (Please note that was intentionally thinly veiled)

Quote:

Quote:The more specific point is, you criticized Bush for being too concerned w/ Iraq, but you don't know how much of a threat Iraq really was.... You don't know how much of a threat Iraq was. None of us really do. But, your criticisms are illegitimate because you don't know, and because you don't consider other scenarios than your preferred hypothetical utopias.

Simplified, your position is: "Trust the president. He is smarter than we are."

George W. Bush is a ****ing idiot.

Iraq wasn't a threat to our national security. This ought to be a fact beyond dispute. The only reason it isn't is that our fraternity-brother-in-chief and his gang of cold war retreads never wanted to accept reality. Instead, they have used their bully pulpit to try to convince us (among other things) that a link exists between Saddam and al Qaeda -- despite virtually no evidence of that.

Maybe you ought to stop simplifying things if they get too far off point.

"Iraq wasn't a threat to our national security. This ought to be a fact beyond dispute."

Maybe in your omniscience this is correct. But, I gotta believe you know less about this than most. I don't know how much of a threat that Iraq was...Everybody agrees Iraq was a threat through the late 1990's. Did that change in 2000-2001? It's possible. But, is it prudent to believe so?

If nothing happens, then sure, it was prudent.

Another event happens and suddenly Richard Clark shows up saying, "I warned them about Iraq!"

In short SF, beliving a proven liar like Richard Clark doesn't seem to provide your position with the most compelling evidence.

I've already agreed that it's pure speculation that Iraq was a threat. Speculation that has not been substantiated with the invasion. However, if these are the results of erring on the side of caution...they are far better then the head-in-the-sand approach that was taken after WTC attack #1 and the attack on the Cole.

Moreover, why is Bush an idiot but the Clintons are brilliant?

In this case Bush probably does know more than we do. If you do some research, I think you'll find he's basing alot of this policy on Rumsfeld's recommendations. Rumsfeld is hardly 100% right...but he's had an uncanny knack for digging up some facts that most people had no idea about.

Clark isn't a proven liar any more than Max Cleland is proven to be the embodiments of Saddam and Osama. He's just been labeled that way by the smear mongers in power.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:1) We wouldn't fix everything... indeed we'd make our problems worse as places like Africa would experience a population explosion leading toward more people to care for.
2) We'd still be hated. It's called envy. As long as America is #1 (forseeable future) we will be envied... that alone is enough for some psychos to pull terrorist attacks.

And this is so because the Easter Bunny clued you in? Or Santa whispered it in your ear?

The roots of terrorism have a historical basis. If you believe al Queda was behind 9-11, then you should also believe that they want some very simple things. They want our propping up of Isreal to stop. They want us to withdraw our troops from Saudi Arabia.

Imagine how much more powerful we would have been if we'd gone to Afghanistan and actually fed the near-starving (instead of bombing them). Would the Taliban have been ousted in favor of "real" freedom? Of course it would.

So please don't try to convince me that helping victims (whether victims through our own efforts or the efforts of other countries) is somehow just wasting money. Terrorism breeds in the throes of desperation. If we truly want to win hearts and minds, then we'll stop blowing them up.

And are these people jealous because we're all so perfect? Or because we are extracting valuable resources and exacerbating brutal dictatorships in the name of free markets? Saddam was once our guy, remember? Why do you think that was so?

And that's the bottom line, because Stone Cold said so.

DrTorch Wrote:"Iraq wasn't a threat to our national security.  This ought to be a fact beyond dispute."

Maybe in your omniscience this is correct.  But, I gotta believe you know less about this than most.  I don't know how much of a threat that Iraq was...Everybody agrees Iraq was a threat through the late 1990's.

I don't.

Iraq wasn't a threat to our national security, then, either.

You'll rummage around at this point and quote Clinton.

Whatever. Clinton didn't give the UN the bird and waste $150 billion and hundreds of American lives on a stupid Iraq fantasy.

Quote:In short SF, beliving a proven liar like Richard Clark

I believe Richard Clarke.

Sure he wrote a book. So did Paul O'Neil.

And both books agree: Bush is a scumbag who was just looking for an excuse to invade Iraq.

Do you have something against books?

Quote:I've already agreed that it's pure speculation that Iraq was a threat.

It is immoral to fight a war on pure speculation.

Quote:Wars should not be fought on Speculation that has not been substantiated with the invasion. However, if these are the results of erring on the side of caution

Erring on the side of caution?

Your argument, then, is that America should invade any country who some dumb ****s from Texas think possibly might be a threat, just to be safe, and to hell what the rest of the world thinks?

Iraq didn't attack us. They didn't threaten to. And even if they did, they very clearly weren't capable of doing so.

By your logic, we could attack Bangledesh next. Bet we'd find a few box cutters.

Quote:In this case Bush probably does know more than we do.

Bush is an idiot. He is inept. He has been in over his head his whole life.

Quote:If you do some research, I think you'll find he's basing alot of this policy on Rumsfeld's recommendations. Rumsfeld is hardly 100% right...

That's an understatement.

joebordenrebel Wrote:The roots of terrorism have a historical basis. If you believe al Queda was behind 9-11, then you should also believe that they want some very simple things. They want our propping up of Isreal to stop. They want us to withdraw our troops from Saudi Arabia.

Wrong. They want a world where everybody fears them. They have killed more Islamic Muslims than Americans. They don't care who you are... what country you're from.... what religion you practice. They want you (in general) to die, and to fear them like Gigli 2.

Hmm, let's see, Augusta Chronicle forums, Secfanatics forums, and so on........I really wish I cared about debating you left wing nuts. I just don't have it in me anymore. You guys are mental and will never change no matter what I say.

RebelKev Wrote:Hmm, let's see, Augusta Chronicle forums, Secfanatics forums, and so on........I really wish I cared about debating you left wing nuts. I just don't have it in me anymore. You guys are mental and will never change no matter what I say.

You never did have it in you. :wave:

georgia_tech_swagger,Apr 29 2004, 09:28 PM Wrote:[QUOTE=joebordenrebel,Apr 29 2004, 12:00 PM] Gigli 2.

ewwwwwwwwwwww

Thats MADNESS! the least you could do is warn the country! :bang: :mad: