Summer Surveillance Campaign - DPChallenge Forums

08/10/2004 08:42:13 PM · #51

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Are these the same happy Iraqis that plant roadside bombs, kill our soldiers, kidnap truck drivers, behead people and ambush convoys to burn the corpses and hang them from bridges?

Nope. For the most part, the Iraqis that plant roadside bombs, kill our soldiers, kidnap truck drivers, behead people and ambush convoys to burn the corpses and hang them from bridges are not women, children or elderly people. In other words, they are the ones who have a lot to lose if democratic rule becomes the way of life. Only by killing democracy can they continue with their enforced repression of women, children, and the elderly, under the guise of "religion".
Of course, there are also the mercenaries brought in from other Arab states to assist the "insurgents".

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

The "honeymoon" between liberated Iraqis and the US forces, if there ever was one, is largely over.

The "honeymoon" is over between my wife and I, too - has been for nearly 25 years. But guess what? We are still married, and we still love each other. And, to be honest, I never expected the "honeymoon" to last that long, anyway. Only a naive idealist would believe it should.

Ron

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

08/10/2004 08:58:17 PM · #52

I think in the end we may learn one cannot force democracy on people who's fundamental religion go against it.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

08/10/2004 09:29:03 PM · #53

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Are these the same happy Iraqis that plant roadside bombs, kill our soldiers, kidnap truck drivers, behead people and ambush convoys to burn the corpses and hang them from bridges?

Nope. For the most part, the Iraqis that plant roadside bombs, kill our soldiers, kidnap truck drivers, behead people and ambush convoys to burn the corpses and hang them from bridges are not women, children or elderly people. In other words, they are the ones who have a lot to lose if democratic rule becomes the way of life. Only by killing democracy can they continue with their enforced repression of women, children, and the elderly, under the guise of "religion".
Of course, there are also the mercenaries brought in from other Arab states to assist the "insurgents".

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The "honeymoon" between liberated Iraqis and the US forces, if there ever was one, is largely over.

The "honeymoon" is over between my wife and I, too - has been for nearly 25 years. But guess what? We are still married, and we still love each other. And, to be honest, I never expected the "honeymoon" to last that long, anyway. Only a naive idealist would believe it should.

Ron

The difference is that the Iraqis want a divorce, before the cruise ship has even left the port.

08/10/2004 09:37:01 PM · #54

Well, Mad, you are approaching reality. In the Middle East we are dealing with medieval cultures, especially in Arab Islam. We are engaged in thinning the ranks of existing terrorist fanatic Islamics, and it is a long, hard road.

You read...you employ Spell Checker...so I believe you are serious in debate.

The United States of America was seriously attacked by Irananian Muslim fanatics in 1979, and the Muslim attacks have continued, and escalated, ever since - to the worst horror of 9/11/2001.

Now, looking back on twenty five years of history, what is your specific plan to stamp out terrorist attacks against our country and its interests??

It is useful to know that I spent the major part of my long life ranging around the world with plentiful dealings with people of every imaginable religious faith...with no difficulties. I have absolutely NO religious axe to grind. And I would ask that NO political hatred be brought with your solution to our world problems.

PLEASE, your own succint, clearly stated, non-polemic solution.

John Masquelier

08/10/2004 09:40:44 PM · #55

Succinct: Precise expression without wasted words.

08/10/2004 10:00:58 PM · #56

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Are these the same happy Iraqis that plant roadside bombs, kill our soldiers, kidnap truck drivers, behead people and ambush convoys to burn the corpses and hang them from bridges?

Nope. For the most part, the Iraqis that plant roadside bombs, kill our soldiers, kidnap truck drivers, behead people and ambush convoys to burn the corpses and hang them from bridges are not women, children or elderly people. In other words, they are the ones who have a lot to lose if democratic rule becomes the way of life. Only by killing democracy can they continue with their enforced repression of women, children, and the elderly, under the guise of "religion".
Of course, there are also the mercenaries brought in from other Arab states to assist the "insurgents".

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The "honeymoon" between liberated Iraqis and the US forces, if there ever was one, is largely over.

The "honeymoon" is over between my wife and I, too - has been for nearly 25 years. But guess what? We are still married, and we still love each other. And, to be honest, I never expected the "honeymoon" to last that long, anyway. Only a naive idealist would believe it should.

Ron

The difference is that the Iraqis want a divorce, before the cruise ship has even left the port.

You say "the Iraqis" as though you speak for them all. Be assured that you do not. SOME Iraqis, for sure. But "the Iraqis" implies the entire population, and I must disagree with your use of that broad of a statement.

Ron

08/10/2004 10:02:09 PM · #57

Originally posted by JEM:

Succinct: Precise expression without wasted words.

Haha I had to look that word up :p but you had spelled it wrong so I had to click on the closest spellings and found what you meant. But thanks for clarifying :)

I had about 3 paragraphs typed up just now to try and answer your question but then I realized, I was finding it much easier to make a plan pre Iraq war. Now that we are were we are, its much more complicated.

08/10/2004 10:04:02 PM · #58

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

I think in the end we may learn one cannot force democracy on people who's fundamental religion go against it.

Yeah. We have the same problem in the U.S. - Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski, the Anthrax mailer, et. al. are perfect examples.

Ron

Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM

08/10/2004 11:00:29 PM · #59

First John, I love your profile picture. Ill try and answer your question, though I do not claim to have all the answers..

First off, we need our leaders to stop saying "they hate us for our freedom". It's simply not that black and white and it retards our concept of the problem. There are many reasons for their hatred and we should try and understand them all.

One nobody talks about, just to point one out, is the sexual frustration of young (and often older) Muslim men. Because of their culture they cannot just walk up and "throw game" on a Muslim woman to try and "get some". They do not even talk to the women, much less make sexual advances towards them. Sexual frustration often ends in such desperation that they will engage in homosexual acts, which further leads to their shame and misery.
Also, the division of upper and lower class in Saudi Arabia is far worse than ours.

As far as the fight, one thing is for sure, we cannot go it alone. As it has been said before, this is a global war. This means we need global support to be successful. Until yesterday Pakistan was doing a hell of a job rounding up Al Qaeda members.
Included in this line of reasoning, one cannot continue further without stating the fact that the current president of the United States is not well liked or well respected around the world. This includes his own country to a strong degree. I think at this point, post Iraq, the US needs new leadership, to start fresh, non stale relationships with the rest of the world. So I think we need a change in leadership in November.

Also, the US should be weaning its people from SUV's and other wasteful habits, and quickly. The US uses too much oil and gets too much from the most instable place in the world. This should have started back in the Carter administration but unfortunately, we are being forced to deal with it now. There are many alternative fuel sources, although its clear to see that none will replace rock oil as our main source. If we put forth full effort into getting people in hot areas solar, people in cold thermal, people near water hydro, etc. and start using our tax cut money researching power technologies and clean alternatives, than we could get somewhere faster. The reason we are still completely dependant on foreign oil is because we have been lazy. Had we started spending billions of dollars a year back in the 70's on alternative fuels who knows where we could be today?

Border control, we need to start doing it. Maybe even close off our borders if thatâ��s what it takes. But I see no reason for our borders to still be wide open when terrorists are foreigners.

Israel.. *shrug* but I know that supporting them unconditionally doesnâ��t seem very logical to me.

Iâ��m going to leave it at here for now as im about to head home. I may try and add more later if anything comes to mind. I would be happy to hear other opinions of what to do.

gingerbaker

Canon EOS-5D

08/11/2004 08:29:22 AM · #60

Oh, man....

Who is "they"? Who is Al queda?

If the al queda people on the planes of 9/11 - let's assume they were al queda - are representative of al queda, then who are they?

Well, they are mostly Saudi males, born of wealthy parents, well-schooled, and not devout.

Are they representative of the usual sort of Muslim extremist who will never make it over here to do damage?

If they are not - and I think they are not - then perhaps mostly Muslim extremists members come from the despicable Madras schools or an equivalent. They have grown up learning only a lexicon of hatred, heads filled with nonsense, lives empty but extremely devout to Wahabi extremism.

It is very difficult to take a "graduate" from one of these "schools" and have him infiltrate U.S. society. Basically impossible. They have no skills, no real education. Essentially they are illiterate in all but the Koran.

No, the dangerous Al queda are a different sort entirely. Educated, intensely Arab. Very group-minded. Supposedly,it is very much like a street gang one-for-all mentality.

I think there are a lot of really pissed off Muslims around the world right now who fall somewhere between these two camps. But 99.999% of them will stay right where they are, and stew in their own juices. A danger to Israel perhaps, but not us.

I think we are being kept in a constant state of fear by the Bush administration for its own political advantage. There are relatively few of the bad terrorist characters here, and we merely need to find them and keep their breatheren out. This can be done effectively and quietly, if only the Bush administration would actually FUND the agaencies begging for the monies to do this, instead of squandering the national treaury in Iraq.

Message edited by author 2004-08-11 08:40:13.

Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM

08/11/2004 09:38:56 AM · #61

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

I think that, in this post, you did pretty well right up until the last paragraph. Let me draw an analogy. The Manhattan Project - group think, highly educated, intensely western in ideology. They work secretly for years on a super weapon. It is constructed - in fact TWO are constructed. Couple of small teams carry those weapons PAST the border patrols of Imperial Japon and set them off in two different cities. BOOM - over 200,000 people killed. Think it couldn't happen here? Maybe not with A-bombs, but how about with dirty nukes? Anthrax? Ricin?
See, that's the problem. It doesn't really matter about how many there are - it only takes one or two. Do you think for one moment that we can find ALL of them? And if you do think that, how do you suppose we could do it without expanding the provisions of the Patriot Act and implementing MATRIX, which most Democrats oppose?
Sorry, but your "solution" appears to be a bit simplistic and naive.

Ron

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

08/11/2004 11:03:41 AM · #62

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Where are the factories that were pumping out tons of bioweapons, chemweapons, and illicit nuclear material?

I don't know. Why do you ask? Were you somehow led ( or misled ) into believing or expecting that there were factories pumping out tons of bioweapons, chemwepons, and illicit nuclear material? If so, I'd like to know the source of such information.

You are right Ron, I can't imagine where anyone would get that idea from. One or two old shell casings and 16 or 17 warheads are obviously what was being discussed:

"There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."
â�¢ White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03

"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
â�¢ President Bush, 7/17/03

"Absolutely."
â�¢ White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
â�¢ Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03

"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
â�¢ President Bush, 3/16/03

"This is about imminent threat."
â�¢ White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
â�¢ Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
â�¢ Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
â�¢ Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02

Or more recently:

" Well, you're the--you and a few other critics are the only people I've heard use the phrase `immediate threat.' I didn't. The president didn't. And it's become kind of folklore that that's--that's what's happened. The president went..."
â�¢ Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Face of the Nation

"The intelligence community apparently got it wrong on stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. I do not expect huge stockpiles to be found."
Secretary of State Colin Powell, 8/10/2004

//www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf has a more complete list.

Message edited by author 2004-08-11 11:17:24.

gingerbaker

Canon EOS-5D

08/11/2004 11:52:45 AM · #63

Originally posted by RonB:

Sorry, but your "solution" appears to be a bit simplistic and naive.

Ron

What solution did I offer? I offered nothing specific, so i don't see how you need to call my "solution" simplistic or naive.

As a matter of fact, my point about Bush starving the agencies looking for monies goes directly to your point. In fact, i think you make my argument for me.

Bush has been drastically UNDERFUNDING the solutions to the security lapses that have existed since he took office. Like our shipping ports, and our airports. Agencies and critics have been begging for money and writing plenty of articles on this to no avail.

Your point about suitcase bombs is an excellent one, but is also one I and many others of course, have been fretting about for years. Indeed, there are articles aplenty on Bush's idiotic decisions which have made it much more difficult for security agencies to contain the needed materials for just such weapons worldwide.

This is what TRULY pisses me off. I am angry at Bush, not for going after terrorists, but precisely because he has NOT done so. Every move this man makes is a blunder. We have just flushed nearly 300 BILLION dollars of our tax money down the rathole in Iraq for no good at all ( unless you are a contractor), and security-wise, we are WAY worse off than we were before.

Al queda is the enemy!!! Iraq is/was not!!!

And now, there are a lot more al queda recruited, a billion more Muslims infuriated with the U.S., and us left with a seven TRILLION dollar debt. And, still no progress on securing our ports, our airports, our food supply, our power plants, our chemical plants or our emergency medical system.

And just this week, the genius compromised our Man In Pakistan!

If you were Osama Bin Laden, you could not dream of a better partner-in-terror than George Bush. Business is booming, U.S troops are out of Saudi Arabia just as asked, recruits and money are way up, Afghanistan is forgotten and back in Taliban hands, opium yields are skyrocketing, Bush is not "concerned" with finding me, Iraq is a complete disaster and a perfect recruiting ground and new base of operations...and best of all... Bush keeps the American population in a state of constant terror so Osama doesn't even have to do operations there. It's all good!

Sorry, but Bush was asleep at the wheel the summer of 2001. And it sure looks like he doesn't even want to wake up. For the sake of the country, it is high time for another approach, IMO.

gingerbaker

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM

08/11/2004 12:17:43 PM · #64

Originally posted by RonB:

how do you suppose we could do it without expanding the provisions of the Patriot Act and implementing MATRIX, which most Democrats oppose?
Ron

I think we need certain small increases in the ability of our security agencies to track down the bad guys.

Don't forget that under President Clinton, the FBI and CIA worked quietly and very effectively under his active direction and was extremely succesful in bring down numerous al queda cells and plots.

My issues with the Patriot act - I must admit I am not familiar with Matrix - have to do with the overarching, needlessly antilibertarian aspects of its implementation.

This act was never read by ANY of the members of the House of Senate before it was passed. Too bad, because i dare say there would have been some needed changes.

In a nutshell: The Patriot act eliminates the normal review of the Judiciary in the protection of legal rights.

Many new antilibertarian actions now do not require subpoena, and those that do, no longer need to go to a regular judge. They can now go to a secret judge of a secret court, appointed, I suppose, in some secret process.

There doesn't seem to be a need for this in America, IMO. There shouldn't be a need for this in America. This is Kafka-esque fascism.

This administration, to boot, has shown already that it accepts no limits on its power and has no sense of scale.

Delberately setting up prison camps to circumvent habeus corpus - and lying about it! Torturing innocent Iraqis!! ( believe it or not I don't have a problem with torturing certain al queda members under very particular circumstances). But the fact that there was no sense of scale - no sense of moral rudder is scary as hell.

Jose Padilla is a case in point. An American citizen, pulled off the street into oblivion - essentially forever, if it had not leaked. He was "suspected" of being a bad guy. What in God's name has happened to this country????

Why has no one been indicted or resigned or been impeached for this?? How are alike are we to Nazi Germany or Stalin's Russia or Mao's China, when this can not only happen, but it basically produces a yawn?

This is why I have some problems with the administration in general and the Patriot ( what sick twisted genius came up with that title?) Act in particular.

08/11/2004 01:37:52 PM · #65

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Where are the factories that were pumping out tons of bioweapons, chemweapons, and illicit nuclear material?

I don't know. Why do you ask? Were you somehow led ( or misled ) into believing or expecting that there were factories pumping out tons of bioweapons, chemwepons, and illicit nuclear material? If so, I'd like to know the source of such information.

You are right Ron, I can't imagine where anyone would get that idea from. One or two old shell casings and 16 or 17 warheads are obviously what was being discussed:

( edited out a very nice list of quotations provided by Gordon, not a single one of which contained the words "factories" or "pumping" or "tons" )

So, since none of your quotes mention anything related to scope ( other than an after-the-fact "stockpile" reference to the intelligence community ) it appears that you came up with those superlatives on your own, or read them in some leftist propaganda pieces.

Ron

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

08/11/2004 01:50:01 PM · #66

Originally posted by RonB:

â��He has at this moment stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.â�� Testimony by U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, House Armed Services Committee
(Sept. 18, 2002).

â��there is no doubt in our mind that he still has chemical weapons stocks." Secretary Powell, Fox News Sunday, Fox TV (Sept. 8, 2002).

â��How do I know that? How can I say that? Let me give you a closer look. Look at the image on the left. On the left is a close-up of one of the four chemical bunkers. The two arrows indicate the presence of sure signs that the bunkers are storing chemical munitions.â��
Secretary Powell, In his speech to the United Nations, U.S. Department of State, supra note 39.

Yet, at the same time, the intelligence services were providing reports that concluded:

â��There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has â�� or will â�� establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.â�� Defense Intelligence Agency, Iraq â�� Key WMD Facilities â�� An Operational Support Study
(Sept. 2002)

I could give the "He's got 'em" quote from Bush too if you like. But obviously it is your opinion that the case was never overstated in any way and that it was a fair and balanced representation of the situation in Iraq, and there was no attempt by the administration to over state the case, or selectively use intelligence to further their political agenda.

Message edited by author 2004-08-11 13:53:38.

08/11/2004 02:00:11 PM · #67

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Originally posted by RonB:
Sorry, but your "solution" appears to be a bit simplistic and naive.

Ron

What solution did I offer? I offered nothing specific, so i don't see how you need to call my "solution" simplistic or naive.

Well, to quote you verbatim

"...we merely need to find them and keep their breatheren out. This can be done effectively and quietly..."

Now, granted you qualified that solution with this caveat:

"...if only the Bush administration would actually FUND the agaencies begging for the monies to do this, instead of squandering the national treaury in Iraq"

So, I take that to mean that if sKerry is elected, no more problem - because HE will insure that the agencies are actually FUNDed.

Sorry, but I don't think so, and I stand by my opinion that this solution is simplistic and naive.

Originally posted by Gingerbaker:

As a matter of fact, my point about Bush starving the agencies looking for monies goes directly to your point. In fact, i think you make my argument for me.

Bush has been drastically UNDERFUNDING the solutions to the security lapses that have existed since he took office. Like our shipping ports, and our airports. Agencies and critics have been begging for money and writing plenty of articles on this to no avail.

Your point about suitcase bombs is an excellent one, but is also one I and many others of course, have been fretting about for years. Indeed, there are articles aplenty on Bush's idiotic decisions which have made it much more difficult for security agencies to contain the needed materials for just such weapons worldwide.

This is what TRULY pisses me off. I am angry at Bush, not for going after terrorists, but precisely because he has NOT done so. Every move this man makes is a blunder. We have just flushed nearly 300 BILLION dollars of our tax money down the rathole in Iraq for no good at all ( unless you are a contractor), and security-wise, we are WAY worse off than we were before.

Al queda is the enemy!!! Iraq is/was not!!!

And now, there are a lot more al queda recruited, a billion more Muslims infuriated with the U.S., and us left with a seven TRILLION dollar debt. And, still no progress on securing our ports, our airports, our food supply, our power plants, our chemical plants or our emergency medical system.

I choose not to respond to this stream of editorialization. I respect your right to state your opinion as emotionally as you choose.

Originally posted by Gingerbaker:

And just this week, the genius compromised our Man In Pakistan!

There you go again. I HAVE to assume that by "genius" you mean Bush, since there is no other logical antecedent. And as I have already repeatedly pointed out, BUSH didn't compromise anything of the sort. I respect your use of the word "compromise" - it appears to be accurate - but Bush wasn't even AT the briefing where the information was made known. The problem is, you don't know WHO to blame, because the briefing was "on background", meaning the individual(s) providing the briefing cannot be identified without violating the law.

Originally posted by Gingerbaker:

If you were Osama Bin Laden, you could not dream of a better partner-in-terror than George Bush. Business is booming, U.S troops are out of Saudi Arabia just as asked, recruits and money are way up, Afghanistan is forgotten and back in Taliban hands, opium yields are skyrocketing, Bush is not "concerned" with finding me, Iraq is a complete disaster and a perfect recruiting ground and new base of operations...and best of all... Bush keeps the American population in a state of constant terror so Osama doesn't even have to do operations there. It's all good!

Sorry, but Bush was asleep at the wheel the summer of 2001. And it sure looks like he doesn't even want to wake up. For the sake of the country, it is high time for another approach, IMO.

Hmmm. More ranting from one who cannot avoid hyperbole mixed with liberal doses of innuendo and unsubstantiated accusations. Best to not disturb their slumber.

Ron

08/11/2004 05:31:38 PM · #68

Mad, I have read your draft of a plan to stop current Muslim terrorism against our USA interests.
My following comments speak to yours:

1. Correct. The problem IS complex. Focus your mind on the HOW of your plan to deal with this problem.

2. I do not understand the link between Muslim homosexuality and hating America.

3. Correct. The USA is a far better balanced society than Saudi Arabia.

4. This paragraph is personal opinion about local politics. Be assured that whatever political color resides in the White House 2005-2009 it will have little impact on world terrorism.

5. Access to fossil fuel is a painful dilemma for most industrialized nations. But, what is your plan to stop terrorism, and will your plan also solve fossil fuel consumption.

6. The USA does need borders with greater security than we have had since WWll. Our friends in Canada and Mexico can help, but only if their internal political requirement permits that assistance.

7. Finally, on the subject of our USA internal security -- this is a very painful work-in-progress.
Most people dislike a change in the status quo. They are fearful that any change may inconvenience them and, as we live in a free society, they complain bitterly and loudly and constantly.

Mad, you are giving serious thought to my challenge for a plan to stamp out terrorism aimed at the interests of the United States of America. For others participating in this particular forum, please do contribute your thoughts. No polemic...
be succinct.

08/11/2004 06:03:26 PM · #69

Sorry to respond so late, but I'm getting a little backlogged with so many questions. I'll try to catch up as best as I can.

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Originally posted by RonB:

how do you suppose we could do it without expanding the provisions of the Patriot Act and implementing MATRIX, which most Democrats oppose?
Ron

I think we need certain small increases in the ability of our security agencies to track down the bad guys.

Don't forget that under President Clinton, the FBI and CIA worked quietly and very effectively under his active direction and was extremely succesful in bring down numerous al queda cells and plots.

They may have worked quietly, but they certainly weren't any more effective. They missed far too many of plots:

World Trade Center - 1993
Kohbar Towers military complex, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia - 1996
U.S. Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dares Salaam, Tanzania - 1998
Destroyer USS Cole, Aden, Yemen - 2000
And a MAJORITY of the plotting for the attacks of 9/11

Originally posted by Gingerbaker:

My issues with the Patriot act - I must admit I am not familiar with Matrix - have to do with the overarching, needlessly antilibertarian aspects of its implementation.

WOW! All this time, I thought you were more of a liberal, and now you suddenly support the libertarian position - but only in the area that you agree with, obviously - not the part about individual responsibility. I do wish that you could be more specific on what those "aspects" are. Perhaps you will later in your post. We'll see.

Originally posted by Gingerbaker:

This act was never read by ANY of the members of the House of Senate before it was passed. Too bad, because i dare say there would have been some needed changes.

Hey, we get what we vote for. I'll bet if YOU were a senator, YOU would have read it before approving it.

Originally posted by Gingerbaker:

In a nutshell: The Patriot act eliminates the normal review of the Judiciary in the protection of legal rights.

Again, I wish that you could be just a little more specific. Wishful thinking, I know.

Originally posted by Gingerbaker:

Many new antilibertarian actions now do not require subpoena, and those that do, no longer need to go to a regular judge. They can now go to a secret judge of a secret court, appointed, I suppose, in some secret process.

And they're probably aliens, to boot.:-) But seriously, you are unnecessarily paranoid. For example, even though the Patriot Act eases the ability to obtain library records, Assistant Attorney General Viet Dinh noted that in "an informal survey of the field offices," he learned "that libraries have been contacted approximately 50 times, based on articulable suspicion or voluntary calls from librarians regarding suspicious activity." He noted that most such visits were in the context of ordinary criminal investigations and did not rely on the powers granted by Section 215. Furthermore, while within months after Sept. 11, federal or local officials visited nearly 10 percent of the nation's public libraries "seeking Sept. 11-related information about patron reading habits ( according to a University of Illinois survey ), the same study suggests that about 13.8 percent of the nation's libraries received similar requests in the year before Sept. 11, so it's impossible to say that the problem was exacerbated by the new law. But, I guess, if you're paranoid, you're paranoid. Since I don't take out books on how to make fertilizer bombs, I'm not worried about it.

Originally posted by Gingerbaker:

There doesn't seem to be a need for this in America, IMO. There shouldn't be a need for this in America. This is Kafka-esque fascism.

You are obviously both right and wrong. Right in that there shouldn't be a need for this in America, but wrong that there doesn't seem to be a need for this in America.

Originally posted by Gingerbaker:

This administration, to boot, has shown already that it accepts no limits on its power and has no sense of scale.

No, it hasn't. All of the provisions of the Patriot Act have limitations.

Originally posted by Gingerbaker:

Delberately setting up prison camps to circumvent habeus corpus - and lying about it! Torturing innocent Iraqis!! ( believe it or not I don't have a problem with torturing certain al queda members under very particular circumstances). But the fact that there was no sense of scale - no sense of moral rudder is scary as hell.

Ah, with the LIES charge again. It never stops. Yes, prison camps were set up, but what proof do you have that the reason was to circumvent habeus corpus? Recorded telephone conversations? E-mails? What proof? All you have for "proof" is media propaganda. What proof do you have that the administration has tortured innocent Iraqis? I've read the official transcripts, and it appears to me that there were very specific instructions from the administration that no physical harm was permitted during interrogations or incarceration.

Originally posted by Gingerbaker:

Jose Padilla is a case in point. An American citizen, pulled off the street into oblivion - essentially forever, if it had not leaked. He was "suspected" of being a bad guy. What in God's name has happened to this country????

Have you read the outline of evidence against him? If not, I suggest you do - it can be found HERE
Admittedly the Padilla case is problematic. On the one hand, I believe that someone who trains with the forces of the enemy ( al Qaeda ) has, by that very action, given up all rights of citizenship. On the other hand, even NON-citizens in the U.S. are entitled to due process - though not all the benefits of citizens.
Then, on the one hand, I support the premise of due process, but on the other hand, letting him go with a warning is only turning an avowed terrorist loose among those he has admittedly vowed to kill. I am reminded of the case of Tracey Thurman, a woman in Connecticut whose estranged husband absolutely guaranteed that he would kill her. He even told the cops that he would do it. He was placed under a "restraining order" but not taken into custody. Needless to say, he stabbed and kicked his wife nearly to death and would have succeeded in killing her if the police had not arrived in time, having been warned by Tracey herself that her husband was outside the house in violation of his restraining order.
See, the LAW has NO POWER to STOP an act from taking place unless the potential perpetrator is PHYSICALLY prevented from carrying it out. And the LAW is not a physical restraint. I am of the opinion that Padilla absolutely needed to be physically restrained, but the "letter" of the law doesn't allow it - EXCEPT FOR ENEMY COMBATANTS, which I believe he is. In this particular case, I have to side with the administration. Eventually, his case WILL be decided by the Supreme Court, and then you can say "I told you so".

Originally posted by Gingerbaker:

Why has no one been indicted or resigned or been impeached for this?? How are alike are we to Nazi Germany or Stalin's Russia or Mao's China, when this can not only happen, but it basically produces a yawn?

It appears that the legal system that you want applied mucho pronto doesn't get applied that way. The case is working its way through the courts and will be eventually decided. Then you can point fingers either at the Bush administration for "violiting his rights" or at the Supreme Court for being "Bush's puppets" ( because no matter WHAT happens, you will find a way to blame Bush ).

Originally posted by Gingerbaker:

This is why I have some problems with the administration in general and the Patriot ( what sick twisted genius came up with that title?) Act in particular.

??? More generalizations that I find difficult to respond to. I'm sorry you have a problem that you cannot articulate.

Ron

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

08/11/2004 06:19:36 PM · #70

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by RonB:

So, since none of your quotes mention anything related to scope ( other than an after-the-fact "stockpile" reference to the intelligence community ) it appears that you came up with those superlatives on your own, or read them in some leftist propaganda pieces.

Ron

â��He has at this moment stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.â�� Testimony by U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, House Armed Services Committee
(Sept. 18, 2002).

â��there is no doubt in our mind that he still has chemical weapons stocks." Secretary Powell, Fox News Sunday, Fox TV (Sept. 8, 2002).

â��How do I know that? How can I say that? Let me give you a closer look. Look at the image on the left. On the left is a close-up of one of the four chemical bunkers. The two arrows indicate the presence of sure signs that the bunkers are storing chemical munitions.â��
Secretary Powell, In his speech to the United Nations, U.S. Department of State, supra note 39.

Yet, at the same time, the intelligence services were providing reports that concluded:

â��There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has â�� or will â�� establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.â�� Defense Intelligence Agency, Iraq â�� Key WMD Facilities â�� An Operational Support Study
(Sept. 2002)

I could give the "He's got 'em" quote from Bush too if you like. But obviously it is your opinion that the case was never overstated in any way and that it was a fair and balanced representation of the situation in Iraq, and there was no attempt by the administration to over state the case, or selectively use intelligence to further their political agenda.

Well, you HAVE come up with a Rumsfeld quote that mentions "stockpiles" and a Powell quote that mentions "bunkers" ( I'll accept "bunkers" in lieu of "factories" in this context ). So, I tip my hat to you. I appreciate your effort at providing this evidence.
In actuality, I DO believe that the case was overstated, but only in retrospect - hindsight is always more accurate than foresight. At the time, BEFORE the time, many Democrats were making statements just as overstated. Of course, you are familiar with them, but here are just a couple as a reminder:

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

Ron

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

08/11/2004 06:54:51 PM · #71

Originally posted by JEM:

For others participating in this particular forum, please do contribute your thoughts. No polemic...
be succinct.

John, imo, a good first step towards considerably reducing terrorism is for the US to stop meddling in the affairs of foreign nations that don't want it. I think that what the terrorist resent so much is that the CIA for years has meddled in the affairs of all Arab (and others) nations. The people in Iraq know that Saddam Hussein for years was a CIA operative and that the US armed him during the Reagan and George Herbert Walker years. They also know that the current presiding prime minister of Iraq, Iyad Allawi, was a CIA man, as was Ahmed Chalabi, who was to be prime minister before he fell out of favor with the Bush administration for selling American secrets to the Iranians and other sordid matters.

For years Iranian people hated the US gov't because we supported the Shah, gave him refuge when he was kicked out Iran. He was a tyrant as bad as any other the world has seen. They also know that the CIA had orchestrated a coup back in 1953 to depose their democratically elected president, Mossahdegh.

The Arabs are also angry with the tremendous amount of arm sales that go to Israel and the way the Israelis are treating the Palestinians. They believe that the US is behind the way that Israel is treating them. This is not an easy question, of course, but needs to be addressed much better than the way the Bush administration has been.

The Bush administration is also good bedfellows with Saudi Arabia, yet another country with horrible leaders that abuse their population and that is supported wholeheartedly by the Bush administration.

In general, I think that the Arab people are fed up because they haven't seen their personal lives improved but rather see that their country's natural resources have been exploited by the first world and that they have gained very little from it. Bottom line is that the Arab people need to have self determination and not have a western power, like the US and GB, greatly influencing what happens in those countries.

If we would start to seriously develop alternative means of energy and not be so reliant on Mideast oil, as well as, to redirect the course of US imperialistic ambitions that we have undertaken since GW took over, by the likes of the neocons, such as Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Armitage, etc etc etc...we would be well on the long road to a terror free world. Not that it would be an easy road, but would be a good starting point.

Message edited by author 2004-08-11 18:57:18.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

08/11/2004 08:22:39 PM · #72

Originally posted by RonB:

At the time, BEFORE the time, many Democrats were making statements just as overstated.

You make the mistaken assumption that I care about partisan boundaries in American politics. Both parties are about as far right as possible, given the global scale of things - they have almost identical policies and similar approaches. In many ways that's why I find much of the nonsense that happens in these forums and the media laughable.

As I remember seeing a few times, this current election in the US is a class war.

Yale class of '68 versus Yale class of '66.

Yes, the entire US political system overstated the case to invade another country and ignored the rest of the world. Partisan politics should be the least of your worries in this.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

08/11/2004 08:28:15 PM · #73

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Are these the same happy Iraqis that plant roadside bombs, kill our soldiers, kidnap truck drivers, behead people and ambush convoys to burn the corpses and hang them from bridges?

Nope. For the most part, the Iraqis that plant roadside bombs, kill our soldiers, kidnap truck drivers, behead people and ambush convoys to burn the corpses and hang them from bridges are not women, children or elderly people. In other words, they are the ones who have a lot to lose if democratic rule becomes the way of life. Only by killing democracy can they continue with their enforced repression of women, children, and the elderly, under the guise of "religion".
Of course, there are also the mercenaries brought in from other Arab states to assist the "insurgents".

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The "honeymoon" between liberated Iraqis and the US forces, if there ever was one, is largely over.

The "honeymoon" is over between my wife and I, too - has been for nearly 25 years. But guess what? We are still married, and we still love each other. And, to be honest, I never expected the "honeymoon" to last that long, anyway. Only a naive idealist would believe it should.

Ron

The difference is that the Iraqis want a divorce, before the cruise ship has even left the port.

You say "the Iraqis" as though you speak for them all. Be assured that you do not. SOME Iraqis, for sure. But "the Iraqis" implies the entire population, and I must disagree with your use of that broad of a statement.

Ron

OK, maybe not all the Iraqis, but certainly the planning and execution being done by the Iraqis that plant roadside bombs, kill our soldiers, kidnap truck drivers, behead people and ambush convoys to burn the corpses and hang them from bridges is supported, if not directly, then implicitly by a significant number of them.

Ron, you and I are never going to agree at all on any of this. You will always believe in Bush and I will just as fervently believe you both to be wrong, which you are.

08/11/2004 09:18:12 PM · #74

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Ron, you and I are never going to agree at all on any of this. You will always believe in Bush and I will just as fervently believe you both to be wrong, which you are.

I would have to give a "ditto" on this one as well.

I will also say this to give some perspective on my opinions.

I never paid attention to politics until after 9/11. I voted in 2000 for Gore because he was pro environment. Other than that, I had no political experience. My parents never talked politics nor any of my friends. I truly introduced myself to the subject because I wanted to learn about 9/11 and ended up neck deep in learning how little I, and most around me knew.

My point is, the opinions you see me display here have been developed by me, in the last 3 years, through hours of research a day (yes my GF is sick of me and my obsession). I did not have a political pre-disposition before then to lean me to any side.