Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rictor on January 11, 2005, 09:24:21 am
-
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6806255/
The nerve center for the most heavily guarded presidential inauguration in history will not be in Washington, where President Bush will take the oath of office, but 25 miles away in a futuristic command post in Northern Virginia.
advertisement
Click Here!
Inside a gleaming steel-and-marble complex, the Secret Service and 50 federal, state and local agencies will monitor action in the sky, on the ground and in the subway system. Giant plasma screens will beam in live video from helicopters and cameras at the U.S. Capitol, along the parade route and at other potential trouble spots. Officials will be able to track fighter jets patrolling the skies, call up three-dimensional maps of downtown, even project the plume of any chemical release.
You know, nothing shows how loved the respected you are by the people than having to hide behind an army of Secret Service agents at your own inauguration. And helicopters.
Hail Caesar!
-
Cop: Do you know who the President is?
Blade: An asshole.
-
he isn't going to be in the bunker. the bunker is just the command center for security. it tells you that in the first paragraph.
-
Well, considering how many people want him dead...
-
It may be to avoid scenes like last time with... lots of protestors.
-
No president has ever been universally loved. They all have their detractors...although Dubya is one of the more divisive presidents ever.
-
They don't ALL have mass protests at the inauguration. He had that 2000.
-
That's really not the kind of stuff we need to have posted, sorry. // Sandwich
-
Goatse, was it?
__________________
Diamond Geezer was once banned for a week
-
There have been 42 American presidents before Dubya. Not one has had a need for this level of security, even in times that were far more dangerous. What does that tell you about Bush and his presidency?
edit: my bad ShadowWolf. It was early in the morning when I posted this, and I guess my brain wasn't quite awake.
-
Alright wtf did he post?
-
Oh well.
Oppression breeds resistance. Resistance breeds oppression. Resistance to opression will always win.
So long as there is oppression, there will always be resistance.
-
Originally posted by Corsair
No president has ever been universally loved. They all have their detractors...although Dubya is one of the more divisive presidents ever.
Don't forget Johnson, wow, boy was he hated.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
There have been 42 American presidents before Dubya. Not one has had a need for this level of security, even in times that were far more dangerous. What does that tell you about Bush and his presidency?
No American President has had to lead a fight against cowardly bastards who hide in the indiginous population either.
OT
I'd be interested in what bob posted that was so bad that Sandwich wiped it almost instantly.
-
Lib - I do believe there was this one something called Vietnam a few years back when that very thing happened. But then again, my memory isn't always top-notch.
-
The difference langy is that they could be in the crowd at the inauguration. AFAIK, no VC ever made to the States, much less Washington D.C.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
No American President has had to lead a fight against cowardly bastards who hide in the indiginous population either.
I guess you need to get out the Ouija board and tell that to Regan and Kennedy then :lol:
Or is it that you don't mind someone taking potshots at the president as long as it's a white american rather than one of those stinking A-rabs.
-
kara, was Reagan or Kennedy under potential threat from terrorists?
-
Well, seeing as they were both shot, I'm gonna go with 'yes.'
-
Terrorists killing Bush would probably do themselves more harm than good, or are you that dumb that you think Bin Laden thought you might actually listen to him when he said vote for Kerry.
-
So Booth and Oswald weren't anything like todays terrorists then, Lib?
__________________
Diamond Geezer has no body piercings
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
So Booth and Oswald weren't anything like todays terrorists then, Lib?
__________________
Diamond Geezer has no body piercings
They were good 'ole american terrorists, red of blood, blue of eyes and white of skin!
-
And that kind is okay!
-
It must hurt to be ignorant, Lib....:p
-
Thunderbirds are go.....
-
I was talking about foreign agressors and you know it...
-
Foreign?
Oh well, then you have Kennedy versus the Commies, Reagan versus the Iranians (wait, didn't he negotiate to sell them arms in exchange for hostages?) & Lybians & probably the good old Commies.... in fact, the threat of Al-Queda pales in comparison to what the USSR could have done had they wanted to.....
In particular
[q]When intelligence reports surfaced that Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi had plans to assassinate American diplomats in Rome and Paris, President Reagan expelled all Libyan diplomats from the U.S. (May 6, 1981) and closed Libya's diplomatic mission in Washington, D.C. Three months later, Reagan ordered U.S. Navy jets to shoot down Libyan fighters if they ventured inside what was known as the "line of death." (This was the line created by Qaddafi to demarcate Libya's territorial waters, which he said extended more than 100 miles off the country's shoreline; the U.S. and other maritime nations recognized Libyan territorial waters as extending only 12 miles from shore.) As expected, the Libyan Air Force counter-attacked and Navy jets shot down two SU-22 warplanes about 60 miles off the Libyan coast.[/q]
-
Originally posted by redmenace
Don't forget Johnson, wow, boy was he hated.
Not of that magnitude though.
-
How many more of the Bash Bush threads do we need? It gets really old. find something new to ***** about.
-
Well, I sort of agree that 'Bush can do no right' anymore, however, you must admit, Bush operates on a similar mental level to Kim Jong II. 'We have the most wonderful, free country in the world and everyone loves me... more bodyguards! more bodyguards!'
-
wait what was it that I posted?
I don't even remember, I think it was a reference to the 0-curse.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
It must hurt to be ignorant, Lib....:p
Seeing as how he's the only one who's made an intelligent statement so far, I ccan't see how this applies to him.
I mean, really. Comparing Bush to Small-Dong? You people have become so obsessed with your hatred of Bush that you're getting more and more absurd by the day. I'm hoping that there are some other people out there that get as much of a laugh as I do at the **** some of you spew day after day.
-
Wheras you are so obsessed with your adoration of him that you cannot even take criticism? Let alone a joke?
Hmmmm.....
-
Originally posted by Rictor
There have been 42 American presidents before Dubya. Not one has had a need for this level of security, even in times that were far more dangerous. What does that tell you about Bush and his presidency?
edit: my bad ShadowWolf. It was early in the morning when I posted this, and I guess my brain wasn't quite awake.
I think that's a bit unfair of a comparison. In 1786, when the Constitution was formed and George Washington took oath, 'Right to bear arms' meant a rifle, which would take 15-30 seconds between shots. TNT was the Weapon of Mass Destruction. :p
Now, we have machine guns that are accurate from 2 kilometers away, and nuclear bombs that fit in suitcases. Security concerns have changed, and not just because of 'terrorists', or because everybody hates Dubya.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
...in fact, the threat of Al-Queda pales in comparison to what the USSR could have done had they wanted to.....
That's a granted. But the possibility of having a lone assassin or a group of assassins more than willing to die to acheive their objective is far higher now, thus the high-end security.
All the security in the world wouldn't have protected them(Johnson and Reagan, from your example) from a 10 megaton nuke falling on their heads, which was by far the larger danger in those times.
The difference is that, while dark and corrupt, the USSR was a Nation that could be dealt with on those terms. You seem unwilling to accept the fact that the Terrorists are multi-national(though mostly Saudi and Iranian) organization whose stated goal is the destruction of The West, which is you, me, your families, your pets, everything. They can't be negotiated with because they don't want anything but the destruction of The West, and when you and your like talk, I hear people who would just as soon help them....
-
Well, I will admit that I've never heard one of the 'terms' (for want of a better word) offered by Bin-Laden to be the mass suicide of everyone west of Egypt. And such a want in these people would be the ultimate pipe dream.
Yes, there are Easterners who would love to see the West destroyed, just as there are some Westerners who would feel more comfortable in the opposite situation. But if theres one thing that's been stressed it's that Terrorists aren't stupid, so if they aren't stupid, why would they want something as stupid and self-destructive as that?
They don't want to destroy the West, they want the same luxuries and privileges as the West, this hasn't come about partly through self interests in the UK, US and other countries and partly because of the unwillingness of many Eastern leaders to invest the required money in their infrastructure.
So, no, it's not solely Americas fault, and yes, some of the complaints aimed at the West by leaders in certain areas of the East are purely to distract attention away from their own faillings, but with all due respect, that is no different to other governments using Terrorism as an excuse to distract people from theirs.
We're all being mislead to believe minorities are majorities, be it bloodsucking businessmen to radical suicidal Muslim terrorists. And the wave of generated hatred, misinformation and prejudice that has been created threatens to make the Tsunami look like a slightly high tide.
To be honest, Vietnam was the 'War to End all Wars' of this sort, since it proved that traps, terrorism and 'insurgency' could wear away an army which is designed for head-head combat.
Edit : In fact, I seem to recall Saddam saying that America would face 'another Vietnam' if they went into Iraq, and, for the main part, he wasn't wrong.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
That's a granted. But the possibility of having a lone assassin or a group of assassins more than willing to die to acheive their objective is far higher now, thus the high-end security.
Is it really, though? AFAIK there hasn't been a single conviction of a terrorist for planning an attack in the UK or US; I believe the closest was arrensting and charging a bunch of Arabs for playing paintball ("preparing to attack the homeland").
Originally posted by Liberator
All the security in the world wouldn't have protected them(Johnson and Reagan, from your example) from a 10 megaton nuke falling on their heads, which was by far the larger danger in those times.
Actually, I was thinking of using KGB agents for assassination purposes; far less risky than a nuclear exchange (which MAD made only a remote possibility anyways; arguably nuclear was was as likely to occur due to human error as intentional warfare).
Originally posted by Liberator
The difference is that, while dark and corrupt, the USSR was a Nation that could be dealt with on those terms. You seem unwilling to accept the fact that the Terrorists are multi-national(though mostly Saudi and Iranian) organization whose stated goal is the destruction of The West, which is you, me, your families, your pets, everything. They can't be negotiated with because they don't want anything but the destruction of The West, and when you and your like talk, I hear people who would just as soon help them....
When you talk like that, i hear people who are willing to manipulate a threat to make it seem worse than it is, for personal and political gain.
EDIT2; actually, reading it again, I feel pretty damn insulted. you assume that, because I think the US' tactics are not only innefectual but also dangerous, that I somehow support terrorism? That if I question the honesty and public interest of these leaders, that I am somehow giving implicit support to mass murderers?
There's a reason why the muslim world and indeed many places beyond hates the US - it's that sort of insulting 'with or against us' always right attitude that pervades your countries foreign policy. Surely recent history has shown beyond all doubt that you can't launch a military attack on terrorism without reinforcing the prejudices, bias and reasons that people become or support terrorists? Or if not beyond all doubt, enough that you can actually question how effective this foreign policy is?
I'm well aware of the multi-nationality of terrorism, but if you stack up the numbers of convictions and actual acts (against the west), it's far from the massive SMERSH-type organisation we have been told it is.
Of course, the Pentagon itself admit that Al-Queda and the like don't hate the US for it's freedom, they hate it for it's policies. I'll try and edit in the link for that in a jiffy.
EDIT;http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4040543.stm
NB: Flip, (you probably know this anyways, but it's an intereting editorial statement) Bush Senior also said he was against pushing into Iraq during the 91 Gulf War; namely because they'd be stuck in a quagmire which they'd still be stuck in justnow (maybe his exact words). So even if Junior was getting revenge for his dad, he sure as hell wasn't listening to him....
-
though, you know liveing in a nation that is half populated by religous nuts maybe I have a better understanding of the mindset. and lets also take into consiteration the general atitudes as well as nutty **** that are hallmarks of 'the left' such as thinking anything humans do is evil, especaly the more modern ones, you know 'destroying the planet'. so the thought that there are a bunch of nuts somewere in the world on a mission from God to kill us all, who are able to take advantage of a bit of a inate self hatred in there enemy in order to keep them fighting themselves, maybe even get them to fight each other right out. isn't beond the relm of posability either. at least in my humble oppinion.
-
I think if there were that many terrorists out there, we'd see a lot more people dead... it's not particularly hard to blow up a truck-bomb, or a knapsack bomb on a train, for example; there's no shortage of soft targets. I think the highest estimate of terrorists was something like 100,000? (based on al-Queda training camps...of course, these people were also training to fight Islamic revolutions in their own countries ala for the Taliban, and many of those people probably died in Afghanistan). In global terms, that's not really enough people to take down a country, let alone the western world.
-
realy well, lets think about it, 19 terrorists killed 3,000 people, if there was 100,000 of them well lets see here.. that means they can kill about 16 million people, granted that still leaves about 900 million of us left, but I think you get my point
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
realy well, lets think about it, 19 terrorists killed 3,000 people, if there was 100,000 of them well lets see here.. that means they can kill about 16 million people, granted that still leaves about 900 million of us left, but I think you get my point
Very big if, though.
And assuming that none are caught or killed before / during the act. And that security is lax enough to give them the opportunity for a 9/11 or Beslan style 'spectacular' (the latter is admittedly more likely).
IMO (one of, rather) the fundamental argument is; will putting tanks in the Middle East really stop some nut hi-jacking an airliner from Boston? Will it stop people (specifically Islamic fundamentalists in this case) supporting terrorism or even participating in it?
-
I don't think the problem is with the threat though, regardless of how large or small that threat is, the current course of action is actually inflaming the wounds between East and West, not healing them. Yes, you are angry about 9/11, Bin Laden claims he is angry after he entered a massacred village. Saddam was angry because Kuwait was nicked from under his nose.
In fact, so many people are busy being angry at each other for things other people did that most people can't even remember when, where or how it all started.
-
I think you can only tackle terrorism - even global terrorism - by doing 2 things; hunting the terrorists (law enforcement and international co-operational), and removing the basis of their grass-roots support.
The latter requires actually acknowledging you may have made some mistakes in the past and present, which is why no-one seems to do it... there will always be a bunch of irrational hard-core nutcases to deal with, of course, but the key aim in any 'war on terror' surely has to be to deal with the people who grow up to become these nutters?
(no, not deal as in negotiate, deal as in tackle the problem pre-emptively by resovling those issues which can be resolved)
-
Originally posted by Rictor
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6806255/
You know, nothing shows how loved the respected you are by the people than having to hide behind an army of Secret Service agents at your own inauguration. And helicopters.
Hail Caesar!
I know. Caesar was great.
-
He also had an superiority complex that would have had Napoleon crying into his soup ;)
-
And he was bisexual (Julius, that was - "every woman's man and every man's woman." - although homosexuality and pedastry was common in those times, so many if not all of his predecessors and successors would be too).
-
Lib:
terrorism (and I use the term much less broadly than you) may be a unique kind of threat, but I don't think you can reasonably say that it is overall a greater threat than some of the enemies of the past. If you look at it statistically, and no through the lens of fear and paranoia kicked up by the media, you will see that the chances to dying in a terrorist attack are very, very small indeed.
I think that Bush, and the entire US government, is being overly paranoid about matters of security, and I also don't think that the aim of such actions is not to substaintially improve the security of the American people. The Democrats can't use the "oooh, terrorists" card, but they come up with other ways to stifle dissent, or at least public dissent. Thats what its about, keeping the naysayers on the margins and out of sight, out of mind. Did you see the video of Bush's 2001 inauguration? Now point to a previous president that has recieved that kind of "welcome", and remember this is before the big bad terrorisrt struck, so it was just ordinary Americans.
Well, thats my opinion anyway..
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
I know. Caesar was great.
Great at being stabbed by a man he had virtually adopted. Even Bush doesn't have to worry about that :D
-
I dunno, just give Rumsfeld and Cheney a chance......
-
Aldo i agree with your ideas on how terrorism will eventually be brought down. Right now we are the sherriff of nottingham to bin laden's robin hood.
I remember watching tv on 9-11, and beyond the obvious, i clearly remember the site of people dancing in the streets over it. overjoyed at the attack on us. it didn't matter to them that most of the people killed were civilians just going to work. What mattered was an attack on the US. I think that anti american sentiment would have to be the first thing addressed if we are to undermine the civil support for terrorists. I am not saying that all of the arabic people support terrorism, but i think that in the end, so long as terrorists are attacking america and americans, they will continue to gain aproval of the actions. we need to first change how we deal with certain affairs, and only when we have been at it for a generation will we begin to see the change.
I don't think we can change the minds of most people right now, old prejudices and such. But we could change the minds of the next generation. unfortunately, we change presidents every four years, sometimes 8...so i don't see that happening.
-
You can change their minds very easily with a reversal of foreign policy that rapes their countries.
I'm not asking anyone to actually do it, just recognise that's the only way to actually destroy the reasons for people to attack the US.
-
True. America needs to mind it's own ****ing business. People won't get pissed off if you're not shafting them at every opportunity.
-
Ah yes, I see it now. Being a Bush supporter makes one either a religious nutjob or an ass-kissing redneck, or maybe even both. How silly of me; I can finally know my true self. Thank you all for this remarkable revelation.
Seriously, though, I don't give a damn about what the terrorists "feel." The people around the world who support killing the "infidels" need to wake the hell up and get into the twenty-first century. As for me, I don't care how small-minded it is; the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist. At least the US is doing something about the problem; unlike certain nations (which will remain nameless) who are too pussy-footed to actually do something. I'd love nothing more than to have Bin Laden's head on a platter. I don't care what made him become a terrorist; I just want him dead. "Understand" the terrorists? Sure, that works great for some neo-yuppie sipping a mocha latte, but try telling that to the people who died in the African embassies, or on the USS Cole, or in the World Trade Center, or how about the innocent Iraqis being killed every day due to homicide (and I know that's going to piss some people off, but I don't give a damn) bombers, or the innocent people in shopping malls in Israel. I'm sick of this Bush-hating ****; I'm sick of hearing you people belittle everything he has done. Well, guess what: at least he's done something. And I, for one, think it's the right thing. I don't care how much I get flamed or called an obsessive Bush-lover; I just want stand up and say to the rest of you that your viewpoint isn't right just because you say it is.
-
I don't think Bush has achieved anything beyond destabilising the world.
EDIt; what do you think he has achieved, then? Beyond ripping up the Geneva convention and basic civil liberties with Gitmo and the Patriot act, of course.
Yes, it's all very nice to kill terrorists; but that isn't going to solve the problem in the long term, is it? Not when you're killing people who are happy to die, to become martyrs and thus rally more to the cause.
I dunno, maybe you could work and figure out why people become terrorists? Possibly even *shock, horror* figure out how to pre-emptively solve the problem?
Or are you already equating 'Muslim angry at the West' with 'terrorist'? Because if you treat them as such, they'll eventually become that.
-
As I've said before, the list of casualties on both sides goes on and on, it's regurgitating stuff like that ad nauseum that got us into this mess in the first place.
I've stated my opinion several times on this board, and I've taken America's side when necessary, but as I've said before, sticking a bit of chewing gum to block a nuclear leak is 'doing something'...
-
Well certain nation may be too pussy footed to act. But it is better to act when the result is worse than the original problem ? Sure, Iraqui are 'free' now, but infrastructures are still not totally rebuilt, they are even more afraid for their lives than during Saddam, ffs !
As it has been said and re-hashed before, Saddam wasn't the worse dictator by far. I mean, just look at NK, or, for those without blinders, even at China. Only difference is that it would have taken a true courageous person to go to war with nations like that, who can defend themselves.
Frankly, give me one of the numerous reason bush gave for going to war in irak that hadn't been debunked, and I'll admit i'm wrong. Just one, that's all I ask.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Great at being stabbed by a man he had virtually adopted. Even Bush doesn't have to worry about that :D
Thats why it sucks to be Caesar! :lol:
-
No, aldo, I'm not equating the two. In fact, I'll be the first to admit that my post isn't really practical. I just felt like blowing off some steam. There's just something about seeing so much criticism that just sometimes get me rather pissed off. I mean, I'll be the first to admit that Bush is far from the perfect President, and that he's made many mistakes, but at least he does what he thinks is right. At least he tries to solve problems, regardless of whether or not his solution is the best one. I have no problems when people disagree with his decisions/policies. I have myself in the past. What I do have a problem with are irrational, overblown fear-mongering and *****ing about Bush, along the lines of "destroying the Constitution, eroding civil liberties, making war for oil, etc." Anyone with half a grain of common sense knows that none of these statements are true.
Genryu, you really think that Iraqis are worse off now than under Saddam? Have you ever looked at the details of what he did? He was a psychopath who had a disturbing history of gassing his own people. That, for me, is more than reason enough to get rid of him. Yes, things don't look good right now, but need I remind you that the transition from dictatorship to democracy has never been easy; plus, when you're dealing with Islamikazis, this adds a whole new level of difficulty. Iraq has made some very notable progress, and the upcoming election is another big step. As for reasons that Bush gave for going to war, you can look them up yourself. Don't fall victim to the media's "WMD hype." That was only one of the regions Bush gave; another was that the eventual establishment of a stable democracy in the region would lead to its long-term viability. Do the research yourself; the facts don't lie.
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
No, aldo, I'm not equating the two. In fact, I'll be the first to admit that my post isn't really practical. I just felt like blowing off some steam. There's just something about seeing so much criticism that just sometimes get me rather pissed off. I mean, I'll be the first to admit that Bush is far from the perfect President, and that he's made many mistakes, but at least he does what he thinks is right. At least he tries to solve problems, regardless of whether or not his solution is the best one. I have no problems when people disagree with his decisions/policies. I have myself in the past. What I do have a problem with are irrational, overblown fear-mongering and *****ing about Bush, along the lines of "destroying the Constitution, eroding civil liberties, making war for oil, etc." Anyone with half a grain of common sense knows that none of these statements are untrue.
Well... let me think. First we have Guantanamo bay, which breaks the Geneva convention and thus human rights. But that is involving (mostly) foreign people, who don't count I guess.
We then have lying to the American people over WMD in Iraq, which I'd imagine is a bit of a biggy. but I'll allow the benefit of the doubt there, i mean it's not like they'd sent in weapons inspec..... oh.
How about the Patriot act, which Feds are using to force journalists to turn over their material and sources (1st amendment rights?). Or the legislation that can force ISPs to make their systems insecure so the federal authorities can monitor them (CALEA). Or the issue over banning homosexual marriage, which can be said to violate both the UN charter of Huamn Rights and also the amendment that states the government can't make religious laws (based on the fact that the only objection to homosexuality is surely religious in nature?).
And...well, there are people with more examples than me.
What happens is, I reflect on Bush's time in office so far, and I think "what has he done right?". And, in all honesty, nothing comes immediately to mind.
Originally posted by Mongoose
Genryu, you really think that Iraqis are worse off now than under Saddam? Have you ever looked at the details of what he did? He was a psychopath who had a disturbing history of gassing his own people. That, for me, is more than reason enough to get rid of him. Yes, things don't look good right now, but need I remind you that the transition from dictatorship to democracy has never been easy; plus, when you're dealing with Islamikazis, this adds a whole new level of difficulty. Iraq has made some very notable progress, and the upcoming election is another big step. As for reasons that Bush gave for going to war, you can look them up yourself. Don't fall victim to the media's "WMD hype." That was only one of the regions Bush gave; another was that the eventual establishment of a stable democracy in the region would lead to its long-term viability. Do the research yourself; the facts don't lie.
And do you really think there is a snowballs chance in hell of Iraq becoming a proper democracy?
(oh, and the US is also building a number of permanent military bases in Iraq, BTW; it's a useful strategic point vs Syria and Iran, plus if they get chucked out of Saudi.)
-
ffs, do a bit of research yourself. That wasnever his people he gased. iranian with the help of the US, yes. AFAIK, kurd who would sooner separate from irak than do anything else, yes. his own people, never. never said the guy was a saint, far from it, but he is not the monster the media made him to be. Otherwise, let me also call Bush a monster for all the carpet bombing the US did. Fair's fair.
And if you think than IMPOSING a democracy will lead to stablity, can you direct me to what you're smoking, and share some with me ? People in the Middle-east are used to other form of government than democracy. Imposing it on them without preparing the population first is simply asking for trouble, trouble that you received.
-
All right, aldo, I'll bite...
Fact 1: Most of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay do not fall under the provosions of the Geneva Convention, since they were non-uniformed combatants and were not fighting for an officially declared army. Regardless of that, however, their being foreign has nothing to do with it. And, this may surprise you, but I'd like to see them go to trial. This is also one case that I feel should be decided by the Supreme Court. I know that there have been legal challenges, and if the action is declared constitutional, I will agree with that decision. Until then, however, I have no problem with the prisoners being held. However, I would prefer that they were formally charged.
Fact 2: Bush did not lie about the WMDs. The entire world community had the same intelligence, and they all assumed that Saddam had relatively active WMD programs and stockpiles. Unfortunately, that assumption was wrong. Operating on flawed intelligence does not make a lie; it makes an error. Also, I think that the media has hyped the WMD issue far more than Bush did before deciding to invade. Regardless of this fact, though, I stand by Bush's assertion that the invasion was for the best, regardless of whether or not WMDs are found in Iraq. I'm also very curious as to what actually happened to the weapons we know Saddam had after the Gulf War. Were they destroyed? Shipped to Syria? That's what we have to find out.
Fact 3: Has the Patriot Act ever been used to encroach upon someone's civil rights? I'm not asking what it says; I'm asking how it's been used. I'm well aware that, if pushed to its limits, the act could potentially violate civil rights, but, until this point, it has not been enforced in such a fashion. It may have been too much, but legislation was needed, and it is something, at least. I'm hoping that a better law can be formulated as a replacement, but until then, I'm not uncomfortable in the least with the act. Until the Supreme Court declares it unconstitutional, it is technically constitutional. As for the ISP issue, I was not aware of such legislation, but I would oppose it.
Fact 4: The issue of homosexual marriage has nothing to do with this thread, nor should it be brought into this thread. This board has seen enough flamewars over this issue; I'll kindly ask you to drop it. As for being only religiously motivated, I hardly think so; there are also societal and psychological arguments to be made against it. Just because the issue is espoused by a certain religious group or groups does not make the issue motivated only by religious reasons. That's all I'll say in the matter.
Fact 5: Yes, I do believe that Iraq will eventually become a stable and well-functioning society, and that the current troubles will be nothing more than a memory. The Iraqi people will make their voices heard; they will create a better future for themselves, with or without our help.
Edit: Not a monster, Genryu? I think it's you who is missing the facts. Do things like the actions of Uday and Qusay, the secret police squads, the rape and abuse of women, and the treatment of the Iraqi soccer team ring any bells? I think those qualify for moster status. Rampant carpet-bombing? I don't know about you, but I don't think that smart bombs qualify as that. Overall, the invasion was conducted with great restraint to avoid as much civilian loss of life as possible. True, there were civilain casualties, but these are unavoidable in any war. Also, I'm not sure where you hail from, but what is your country doing to help Iraq? Not as much as we have done, I'll warrant. Removing a dangerous and psychopathic dictator is far from "forcing" democracy, and as far as I'm concerned, it definitely qualifies as help.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Or are you already equating 'Muslim angry at the West' with 'terrorist'? Because if you treat them as such, they'll eventually become that.
Drop the angry at the west bit and you're nearer the truth.
Good article on Iraq stability btw:
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GA12Ak02.html
-
Originally posted by Gank
Drop the angry at the west bit and you're nearer the truth.
I'm not even going to validate this with a rebuttal. Now who's the delusional one?
-
You.
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
All right, aldo, I'll bite...
Fact 1: Most of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay do not fall under the provosions of the Geneva Convention, since they were non-uniformed combatants and were not fighting for an officially declared army. Regardless of that, however, their being foreign has nothing to do with it. And, this may surprise you, but I'd like to see them go to trial. This is also one case that I feel should be decided by the Supreme Court. I know that there have been legal challenges, and if the action is declared constitutional, I will agree with that decision. Until then, however, I have no problem with the prisoners being held. However, I would prefer that they were formally charged.
Actually, that's wrong. I'll dig up the Red Cross link in a jiffy, but if they are illegal-combatants, then the legal responsibility falls to the Afghani government to try and prosecute them. There is no legal loophole that allows the Geneva convention to be circumvented.
EDITED
http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/5YNLEV
Not exactly what I was looking for, but covers the same territory in a little more legalese language; gist is that even terrorists are protected under the Geneva conventions.
NB: the ICRC has definite concerns over the holding of incommunicado prisoners in undisclosed locations, and also of the holding of under 18s (2 of them) in Gitmo. Amongst other things.
Originally posted by Mongoose
Fact 2: Bush did not lie about the WMDs. The entire world community had the same intelligence, and they all assumed that Saddam had relatively active WMD programs and stockpiles. Unfortunately, that assumption was wrong. Operating on flawed intelligence does not make a lie; it makes an error. Also, I think that the media has hyped the WMD issue far more than Bush did before deciding to invade. Regardless of this fact, though, I stand by Bush's assertion that the invasion was for the best, regardless of whether or not WMDs are found in Iraq. I'm also very curious as to what actually happened to the weapons we know Saddam had after the Gulf War. Were they destroyed? Shipped to Syria? That's what we have to find out.
You went to war on an assumption? Including citing evidence that your own security service has verified as forged (yellowcake uranium)? Taking the battlefield deployment claim from the same defector who also said Iraqs nuclear programme was discontinued?
Why pull out the weapons inspector, then? Why did the US not provide the UN inspectors with more intelligence (the first time they saw Powells UN briefing intel was on that day; if there was WMD the inspectors were never given the intel in time to visit the site)? Why did Paul Wolfowitz reportedly go ballistic when they (CIA) failed to dig dirt on the inspectors, and Cheney threaten to discredit them?
(read Hans Blix' book; it's very informative and is not biased IMO, even though you'd expect it to be)
Originally posted by Mongoose
Fact 3: Has the Patriot Act ever been used to encroach upon someone's civil rights? I'm not asking what it says; I'm asking how it's been used. I'm well aware that, if pushed to its limits, the act could potentially violate civil rights, but, until this point, it has not been enforced in such a fashion. It may have been too much, but legislation was needed, and it is something, at least. I'm hoping that a better law can be formulated as a replacement, but until then, I'm not uncomfortable in the least with the act. Until the Supreme Court declares it unconstitutional, it is technically constitutional. As for the ISP issue, I was not aware of such legislation, but I would oppose it.
Firstly, you're happy to have an act which can be used to violate your civil rights, so long as it hasn't been visibly used to do so?
(especially given that the FBI are allowed to secretly search your house without a warrant and any knowledge is bound as secret by law)
Secondly, http://www.alternet.org/story/15770 is an example of violation IMO. i'll have a poke for others (which have been made public).
Thirdly, 2 sections of the act have already been declared unconstitutional by federal judges (805 and 505). Here's also a list of communities that have passed an act against it; http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=11256&c=206 (I recognise you might not consider the ACLU source as unbiased, but you should be able to independtly verify)
Originally posted by Mongoose
Fact 4: The issue of homosexual marriage has nothing to do with this thread, nor should it be brought into this thread. This board has seen enough flamewars over this issue; I'll kindly ask you to drop it. As for being only religiously motivated, I hardly think so; there are also societal and psychological arguments to be made against it. Just because the issue is espoused by a certain religious group or groups does not make the issue motivated only by religious reasons. That's all I'll say in the matter.
It has to do with the US constitution and civil / human rights. I think that makes it valid; I'm not aware of any non-religious reason for barring homosexual marriage, certainly not one strong enough to be regarded as unequivocal in making it wrong.
Originally posted by Mongoose
Fact 5: Yes, I do believe that Iraq will eventually become a stable and well-functioning society, and that the current troubles will be nothing more than a memory. The Iraqi people will make their voices heard; they will create a better future for themselves, with or without our help.
When? During the Jan 30 elections, where only people in secure (i.e. non-insurgency and thus less likely to vote for extreme anti-Us parties) regions can vote? While the countrys security is contiuously deteriorating on a daily basis?
-
Seeing how theres only 70k registered to vote nationwide as of a few weeks ago I wouldnt get too worked up about the people of Al-Anbar not having their say.
http://washingtontimes.com/world/20041213-123025-1824r.htm
-
Wow. Thats lower than even I expected.
-
(the name is actually an acronym: "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act.")
****. Just hearing that...I'm disgusted. :doubt: They're trying so hard to make it sound great, you just KNOW something has to be wrong with it.
On the other hand, 'Wartime Provisions Act' or 'Citizen Scrutinization Act' would be too honest. And close to the truth.
-
How about we bring back the Alien and Sedition Act?
What fun!
-
The elections are a joke, you dont actually vote for a person, you vote for a list of names. Each list gets a certain amount of people in based on the amount of people who vote for it starting with the first name downwards. The names of the people and their ranking on the list arent being published bar the first, so the average Iraqi is only going to have a vague idea who hes voting for.
-
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
****. Just hearing that...I'm disgusted. :doubt: They're trying so hard to make it sound great, you just KNOW something has to be wrong with it.
On the other hand, 'Wartime Provisions Act' or 'Citizen Scrutinization Act' would be too honest. And close to the truth.
Yeah... it's like, "who would vote against the Patriot Act after 9/11 with that name?". ****ing pathetic.