Posted by: Jag
- [3064839] Wed, Jul 04, 2007, 00:01
I notice the lack of a thread about one of the most important items of the week. I believe the reason for this is clear, Liberals are predominate on these boards, the UK attack blows to hell every Leftist stance. The UK is much more Liberal than we are, so the idea we just have to be nicer to the Muslims won't wash and the fact they discovered the attempts using more intrusive means than America, must really stick in the Liberal's craw.
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well.
59
walk
ID: 75112114 Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 13:41
I have no prob with profiling. And you can profile your demons, too, if you want. I'd rather see a terrorist looking dude pulled over and searched at an airport than an 80-year old woman in a wheelchair on oxygen (which I did in fact see). So, ppppplease stop generalizing ("demonized by liberals").
Instead of an us against them thing (conservatives vs. liberals), just say what you want more of, less of, and see what others think...maybe it would confirm your beliefs about liberals, and maybe you'd be surprised.
- walk
60
walk
ID: 75112114 Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 13:43
To turn the tables a bit, Jag. Please respond to #58. What is your opinion of whether we should have invaded Iraq, and if we should engage Iran militarily? Do you think these actions are good for our anti-terrorist/security efforts or bad?
thx, - walk
61
Boxman
ID: 251142612 Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 13:43
Back on task...Look, I don't want to be blown up here either, and I live (and work) in a prime target location, Manhattan...but, I don't believe that we will defeat the terrorists by starting wars and occupying lands that makes them madder and more numerous. Security is more like police work. This is why Giuliani scares me..."we have to continue to be on the offensive." What does that look like? I fear that that fearful approach exacerbates the problem.
Terrorist acts like 9/11 and those conducted upon Israel are not police acts; they are acts of war. It remains to be seen, IIRC, if the recent attacks in Glasgow should be considered police acts or something with bigger consequences.
The concept of pre-emptive war, or any war for that matter, is one of a popularity contest. I still firmly believe that if the Iraq War was going to plan, W would not have an approval rating in the 30s, and that the Democrats and the defecting Republicans would be standing behind it. Of course there would still be objectors, but that will occur in any war.
Sticking to the recent attacks, I would like to know who financed them and what international support, if any, they received.
I do agree with Jag's assertion that the Brits are better versed in dealing with terror than we are and we could stand to learn a lot from them.
SO how do we combat terror in the United States without throwing out the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and states rights? Is it possible? There are going to have to be federal measures that supercede state authority so in that vein "big" government wins no different than if we were fighting Hitler and the government needed people from every state to chip in as opposed to having 50 different war strategies from 50 different states.
We simply can't afford to have Illinois, for example purposes only, as the gold standard for terror defense while other states lag behind because it hurts the overall war effort since the terrorists will just find the weakest link in the national armor.
For these enemy combatants, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights does not apply so their treatment does not concern me. Where I am concerned is how the government's actions effect the lives of citizens. Wire tapping and other means of surveillance are omninous, but I would like to hear other viable alternatives that aren't reactionary in nature.
Do we forbid people of certain ethnic backgrounds or from certain countries from immigrating here? I don't think sane people want that.
Any suggestions?
62
sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 13:45
Encouragement of terrorism (section 1): Prohibits the publishing of "a statement that is likely to be understood by some or all of the members of the public to whom it is published as a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to them to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences." Indirect encouragement statements include every statement which glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or offences; and is a statement from which those members of the public could reasonably be expected to infer that what is being glorified is being glorified as conduct that should be emulated by them in existing circumstances."[1]. The maximum penalty is seven years' imprisonment
Unless I missed it we don't have anything like this. {emphasis added}
ummmmmm, ever heard of the 1st Ammendment?
63
walk
ID: 75112114 Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 13:50
No Boxman, I guess I was not clear. I do not mean that terrorist acts = police acts...I mean that the security/prevention of terrorist acts = police acts. What WE need to do...is better policing and such. Those in favor of the Patriot Act would say more surveillance, too. I am open to surveillance if it is not warrantless and goes too far in terms of violating civil liberties.
It seems we are more aligned than you think.
Regarding the Iraq war -- I disagree about the popularity contest analogy, but if I were to give you the benefit of the doubt, then fine, except I'd use the words: "performance evaluation." Look, like a football coach, the two dick's and bush made a strategy call about mideast stability -- go after Saddam and control Iraq. They made the wrong call, executed horribly and now we (and they, in Iraq, lotta regular people live there, too!) are suffering a myriad of horrible consequences. This is not an American Idol decision...these are big, fat meaningful decisions that were wrong, exacerbated, continue to be endorsed and enacted upon by stubborn leaders, and continue to have awful consequences. If that results in "poor popularity," then so fukcin be it!
- walk
64
Perm Dude
ID: 3164859 Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 13:53
Unless I'm mis-reading Jag, sarge, I think his point is that, during wartime, certain rights (even those specified in the Constitution) should be suspended during this self-declared War on Terror.
The fact that no "moderate" would give any president, of any party, the ability to declare war and suspend constitutional rights seems to have passed by Jag, however.
That said, too bad we couldn't do it during the War on Poverty. Or the War on Drugs....
65
Jag
ID: 3064839 Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 13:56
Walk, I believed we should of entered Iraq before Bush did it. If Saddam didn't have the oil financing, he would be just another tin-pot dictator they could be ignored, but he had financial ability to develope a biological weapon , that could kill millions. I tried not to get into arguement about future hypothetical situations with Liberals, because they can't get history right, if they could they would see socialist ideas don't work. I am not trying to Liberal bash here, just give the reason I don't talk much about how I wholeheartedly agree with our dethroning of Saddam.
66
Perm Dude
ID: 3164859 Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 13:58
How in the world is Saddam about socialism?
Is it even possible that you can try to put forth an idea to see if it'll stand on its own?
67
sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 14:01
OK...I'd agree that during war, certain rights could in fact be suspended w/o severely damaging the national interests and while still preserving civil liberties for the most part.
So...when did Congress actually declare war?
68
walk
ID: 75112114 Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 14:03
Well, saying things like: "liberals can't get history right" does not seem very conducive to a substantive debate, does it? That IS bashing, Jag, and you know it. Maybe you need a 10-step course?
;-)
Hey look, Saddam was a very very evil dictator, but the dethroning of him had and has major consequences which unfortunately are real and continuing. The "fear" that he was going to build or buy a big bad weapon and use it or sell it led to the realization of another fear, that is tangible and real -- a freaking mideast meltdown, 4,000 dead U.S. soldiers, thousands more wounded, huge financial debt, more anti-American ill-will, more terrorist threats, eventual higher taxes (someone's gotta pay for it), and a military that is not nearly as strong as it used to be. Soooo, then, playing hindsight and whatif, do ya really think Saddam was going to destroy the world and was this decision/tradeoff worth it?
We'll never know if he was gonna nuke us or not, but never personally had any fear thereof and was against the war from the beginning.
Jag 51 I read the Patriot Act and just scratch my head in bewilderment.
OK that's the knee-slapper of the day.
Jag 54 Unless I missed it we don't have anything like this.
You missed it (big surprise there).
Publicly endorsing terrorism (Section 1 in the UK Terrorism Act) is already illegal in the US. Any more?
Boxman I still firmly believe that if the Iraq War was going to plan, W would not have an approval rating in the 30s
This is a silly statement. The Iraq War isn't "going to plan" because it was a terrible plan, at least as far as attaining its stated objectives are concerned. The region has not become more stable, Islamist terrorism is not in decline, anti-American sentiment is at an all-time high around the world and Islamism continues to spread within the Middle East and into the west.
70
Jag
ID: 3064839 Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 14:06
If god forbid a another terrorist act does hit the U.S. or we stop a major attack, all gains made by the Left, because of Bush's mishandling of Iraq, will be erased.
71
Jag
ID: 3064839 Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 14:08
Great MITH, let me see the wording of our law.
72
sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 14:09
so now you're saying that if the terrorists are succesful in attacking us, this would somehow validate shrubs conduct of the Iraqi debacle???????
73
walk
ID: 75112114 Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 14:16
#70, Jag, that makes no sense. Why would the left's gains be invalidated due to Bush's policies and homeland security? It would be Bush's fault for not having the proper defenses in place. You think somehow his anti-terrorist policies and tactics have been cut back? When?
- walk
74
walk
ID: 75112114 Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 14:16
Now, Jag, if I were to resort your debate strategies, given your comments and Boxman's comments that MITH has commented on, I would make a stereotypical generalization about conservative reasoning: That conservative logic and thinking is stupid. Very very stupid.
I mean, the Patriot Act is every bit as anti-terrorist as the GB terrorism act, and to give Bush a pass cos his war has not worked out as planned and therefore damaged his "popularity" are clearly two very stupid comments. However, I am loathe to resort to this level but have done so cos maybe it will resonate better for you guys.
I also know that not all conservatives engage in stupid reasoning or thinking. However, these comments were particularly stupid and made by conservative type thinkers, so hence, all conservatives are therefore stupid. I also think Bush is stupid (or maybe senile a la Reagan, it could start early...have you seen clips of his public speaking 10 years ago? Amazing differences), but Cheney and Rumsfeld are not stupid, they are just beligerant. So, maybe all conservatives are either stupid or beligerant, but it could be an and/or thing, too.
- walk
75
Jag
ID: 3064839 Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 14:17
No, I saying what I said, and no where in my sentence did I say it validates Bush's mishandling of the war.
76
Jag
ID: 3064839 Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 14:23
Walk, post 74 reminds me of a joke:
Two rednecks decided that they weren't going anywhere in life and thought they should go to college to get ahead. The first goes in to see the counselor, who tells him to take Math, History, and Logic. "What's Logic?" the first redneck asks.
The professor answers by saying, "Let me give you an example. Do you own a weedeater?"
"I sure do." "Then I can assume, using logic, that you have a yard," replied the professor.
"That's real good!" says the redneck. The professor continues, "Logic will also tell me that since you have a yard, you also own a house."
Impressed, the redneck says, "Amazin!" "And since you own a house, logic dictates that you have a wife."
"That's Betty Mae! This is incredible!" The redneck is obviously catching on.
"Finally, since you have a wife, logically I can assume that you are heterosexual," said the professor.
"You're absolutely right! Why that's the most fascinatin' thing I ever heard! I cain't wait to take that logic class!!"
The redneck, proud of the new world opening up to him, walks back into the hallway, where his friend is still waiting.
"So what classes are ya takin'?" asks the friend. "Math, History, and Logic!" replies the first redneck.
"What in tarnation is logic???" asked his friend. "Let me give you an example. Do ya own a weedeater?" asked the first redneck.
"No," his friend replied.
"you a queer ain't ya!"
77
sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 14:26
and if it werent so tragic Jag, the shrub legacy would be a joke too. Whats your point?
#71 When an American explicitly encourages acts of terrorism against the United States, it is called treason.
81
sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 15:06
oh no Jag. Rummy is supremely arrogant, extremely egotistical, radically self-confident...but "stupid" he is not.
82
walk
ID: 75112114 Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 15:10
Okay, I'll change then. Scary, scary, scary who was/is running our country. We have a ways to go, too.
Also, I don't think the next American president, repub or dem, is gonna be "soft" on terrorism. At the end of the day, I'd expect a few elements of the Patriot Act curtailed (e.g. warrantless wiretapping), the suspension of the suspension of habeus corpus, and a return back to the Geneva convention (i.e. no more quasi torture and secret prisons). Finally, I'd expect a withdrawal from Iraq. I don't think any of these things will compromise our security and expect all of them to actually increase our security due a reduction in anti-American sentiment, an increase in cooperation with our allies against a common threat, the cessation of our military being the common target amongst a myriad of terrorists in the mideast, and increase in the $ and personnel resources availble to protect our "homeland." I think Bush et al. would say "if we don't fight them there, we'll have to fight them here." That means we have to fight them forever and ever cos they aint defeatable over there (it's just a factory of recruits rolling into to and within Iraq to fight, and they don't line up conveniently like the British redcoats of the revolutionary war), and we cannot sustain that level of anti-terrorist military activity due to our finite supply of personnel and $.
- walk
83
Perm Dude
ID: 3164859 Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 15:27
I think its a little ironic that Jag is encouraging a British-style terrorist watch system in a thead in response to recent terrorist attacks there.
84
Jag
ID: 3064839 Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 15:31
2 points Walk, it doesn't matter if every Muslim in the Middle East hates us, we have to concentrate on terrorist funding, giving Iraq's oil riches to the mullahs would be suicidal to America. This is what I mean by not learning from history, Carter gave Iran to the Islamist and that has lead to the largest financing of terrorism. Countries are going to do what is in their best interest, it doesn't matter if they love us, respect us or hate us.
85
Perm Dude
ID: 3164859 Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 15:32
I'm afraid we're still waiting for your second point...
Iran fell to the mullahs because the Shah let them back in.
86
sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 15:34
I thought it was SA funding so many of those radical Muslim schools throughout the world.
87
Jag
ID: 3064839 Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 15:35
A failed attack, Perm. Although, I heard it was because of a syringe device failure on the bomb, that the plan failed.
88
Perm Dude
ID: 3164859 Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 15:38
An attack, nevertheless.
So you advocate a system in which exploding cars only get to the front of the airports, rather than one in which, well, no exploding cars to speak of in the US.
89
Jag
ID: 3064839 Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 15:40
That was 2 points, Iran and the thing about countries only helping themselves.
See Liberals can't even count right!
That was joke, like with blondes you have to explain jokes to Liberals.
Curious, Jag (and I'm asking you specifically since you are the only authority I am aware of who knows anything about your version of these events) at exactly what point was Carter supposed to support the Shah and exactly what was he supposed to do?
91
Jag
ID: 3064839 Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 16:00
There are many stories, why Carter pulled support for the Shah, some say he friendly with the Soviets, who backed the uprising, some believe he tried to extort money from the Shah, Carter claims he pulled support because of the Shah's civil rights violation against women, they are much beter now with mullahs in control, but the most popular belief is Carter was just a moron. He withheld arms, ammuntion, riot control gear and intel. Too bad Reagan wasn't president then, can you imagine a U.S. friendly government in charge of Iran.
92
sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 16:02
Yeah, and too bad Gore didnt get the Presidency too. Can oyu imagine 3,000+ fewer dead US military personnel, a trillion or two fewer dollars in the national debt and substantially less worldwide resentment toward the US in general?
93
Perm Dude
ID: 3164859 Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 16:08
can you imagine a U.S. friendly government in charge of Iran
Like Iraq?
Jag, your grasp of even recent history is limited, at best. You talk about "beliefs" and opinions but few hard facts. The Mullahs hated the Shah because he was too pro-western for their tastes.
94
Jag
ID: 3064839 Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 16:09
I don't know if the thought of Gore as President is more funny or scary.
95
Jag
ID: 3064839 Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 16:11
I am not sure what your point is, PD.
96
bibA
ID: 5367222 Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 16:16
91 - There are many stories, why Carter pulled support for the Shah, some say he friendly with the Soviets, who backed the uprising, some believe he tried to extort money from the Shah...
Can you give ANY documentation whatsoever from ANY credible source to back up these accusations?
97
Perm Dude
ID: 3164859 Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 16:23
Exactly.
Jag, my point is that you seem to believe that the Shah would still be in charge in Iran if Carter backed him militarily.
The Shah was probably doomed in 1975 when he abolished all opposition parties (did you forget that part?). He was certainly doomed when he created the secret police (SAVAK) and invited the mullahs back into the country.
Ever heard of the White Revolution, Jag? Read up.
98
Jag
ID: 3064839 Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 16:23
There is plenty of information on the Web to back those theories, you are welcome to look them up, as I said they are not mine, I think Carter was just an idiot and have 4 years of documentation of that.
99
walk
ID: 75112114 Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 16:25
I gotta admit, Jag, I don't know what happened back in the Carter days, but if you're gonna make some allegations, then it's better to have some facts to point to.
Regarding the funny or scary line about Gore. I cannot conceive of anything Gore would or could do that could be funnier or scarier than what Bush has done. Seriously, the Iraq war is a pretty scary thing, aint gonna get any scarier than that. And, on the funny side, Bush is an public speaking idiot (or pre-senile, see comment above, similar behaviors). Everytime he talks it's comedy hour. What could Gore possibly do to fcuk up this country a fraction as badly has Bush has done? All ya really gotta do is not overreach. Oh boy, did Bush and his puppetmasters overreach.
jag I didn't ask you what "some say" Carter did wrong. I asked exactly what he was supposed to do and when he was supposed to do it.
The Iranian uprising was not going to be contained with teargas and rubber bullets. The country hated Reza Pahlavi. Despite being less detrimental to the region and the world than his successors would prove to be, he ran a largely oppressive government that imposed state regulations on 1,000 year old processes of religious vocation, ran secret prisons, tortured prisoners, railed against the bazaar marketplaces that had served as the traditional cornerstone of Iranian commerce for centuries (if not milenia), assassinated religious leaders, failed to keep the Iranian economy strong, outlawed all political parties except for his own and ceded land from family estates that had existed for hundreds of years. Contrary to your repeated contentions, he did hand political rights to women, probably for the first time ever in Persia/Iran. But this ultimately was also a part of his undoing, as Islamic fundamentalists who had gained favor with the street as many other freedoms and religious and traditional aspects of Iranian culture were greately eroded under his rule.
So, again, exactly what was Carter supposed to do and when he was supposed to do it?
101
Jag
ID: 3064839 Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 17:02
MITH, I was being facetious about the women being better off. You guys really need to learn the word sarcasm.
I don't believe the Shah would of fell if Reagan had been in office, I know he backed out of Lebanon, but the strategic and financial importance of Iran was too great to let fall into Islamic fascist hands, especially if it was aided the Soviets.
103
bibA
ID: 5367222 Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 17:20
So Jag - If you are unable to cite any sources whatsoever to support your claims as asked in post 96, will you later fall back on the ol' reliable You guys really need to learn the word sarcasm, or will you admit that you were claiming something that was totally unsupportable, that you actually didn't know what you were talking about?
104
Jag
ID: 3064839 Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 17:34
I wasn't claiming anything, except Carter was an idiot. If you read the post, I stated other theories, but Carter being a moron was the only one which I agreed.
105
Perm Dude
ID: 3164859 Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 17:37
Your post was in response to your being asked directly (#90) what your theory was about Carter.
Now you appear to be backing away from it all, perhaps in response to the realization that Carter might have been an idiot, but that doesn't mean the facts that you presented as your own thoughts are actually true.
106
Jag
ID: 3064839 Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 18:06
He should of given the Shah anything he needed short of troops, at that time we had a strong CIA presence in Iran, Carter not only didn't try to help, he constantly critized the Shah for human rights violation.
107
bibA
ID: 5367222 Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 18:11
My mistake Jag. I didn't realize that when you said There are many stories, why Carter pulled support for the Shah, some say he friendly with the Soviets, who backed the uprising, some believe he tried to extort money from the Shah, that you did not agree with these claims.
Ah. So when you wrote in this thread: Carter claims he pulled support because of the Shah's civil rights violation against women
...and when you told Boxman in post 70 of this thread: the irony of this is that women rights was the chief reason Jimmy Carter pulled support for the Shah, allowing the the Mullahs to take over.
...you were just being sarcastic. I see.
He should of given the Shah anything he needed short of troops
Your inability to even offer a single suggestion for specifics on what kind of support Carter should have given and when he should have given it (something I have asked for twice now) answers my question exactly as I expected you would. Thanks.
109
Perm Dude
ID: 3164859 Thu, Jul 05, 2007, 19:28
FOX News: Universal Health Care Causes Terrorism!!!