How would the average American respond to another major terrorist attack?

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Blackjack200
ignorant of the risks? 2,819 people died in terrorist attacks on 9-11. In the 6 years since, over 240,000 Americans have died in motor vehicle accidents. I'm quite aware of the risks. 1 in 100,000 Americans has died in a terrorist attack in the last 6 years, nearly 1 in 1,000 has died in a car crash.

Are you aware of the differences between an "accident" and a "murder"?

One is often unavoidable, the other is often preventable; and I personally sleep better at night knowing that the latter is being prevented by professionals every day.

Your argument is misguided on several fronts. First, most "accidents" can be avoided ... if we are willing to take the necessary measures to prevent them. Just as with "murder" (i.e., terrorism in this context), we can reduce fatalities by spending more money and increasing government intrusion.

Too many auto accidents? Let's reduce them by putting more stringent safety requirements on automakers, by pouring more money into even safer roadways, and by requiring annual driver training and testing (for example). The retort, typically from the right, is "No way!. We already over-regulate manufacturers, taxes are too high, and no way the nanny state gets to make me do Driver's Ed every year. I'll live with the risk."

Guess what? The same considerations apply to preventing terrorism. Safety, be it accidents, disease, or terrorism, is all about balance and trade-offs. We have many good causes competing for the same limited pool of dollars. We do not give big brother unlimited control over our lives just so he can keep us safe. We draw a line and say that's safe enough. We allocate our limited resources to get the best bang for the buck.


The second issue with your argument is that it presupposes "murder" deaths are somehow more significant than "accident" deaths. That is an emotional assessment, not a logical one. It is this irrational reaction the Bush administration exploits so ruthlessly in its "Terror! Terror! Terror!" fear-mongering.

When trying to compare relative risk of death, the manner of death is a side issue. Number of deaths is the metric that really matters. The simple fact is that for people within the United States, the risk of death due to terrorist attack is far smaller than hundreds of other risks we live with every day. That doesn't mean we ignore the risk of terrorism, but that we need to step above the irrational fear and keep that risk in perspective.


That leads to the third issue with your argument, your insinuation that somehow you want to prevent terrorism while those of us who criticize Iraq/BushCo/whatever do not. That's absurd, and would be insulting if it were anything more than empty partisan propaganda. The real argument is over the best ways to attack terrorist groups, where "best" includes rational consideration and objective cost-benefit analysis rather than a blank check and blind obedience to lord Bush.

Palehorse?

trust me, dude. palehorse is pretty dumb. i'm sure it's probably taking him a long time to reply because he needs to look up the hard words, like "intrusion" and "stringent" and "the".

Says the guy who attributes "Dissent is the highest form of patriatism" to Ben Franklin.

Careful throwing those stones. Glass breaks easily.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Blackjack200
ignorant of the risks? 2,819 people died in terrorist attacks on 9-11. In the 6 years since, over 240,000 Americans have died in motor vehicle accidents. I'm quite aware of the risks. 1 in 100,000 Americans has died in a terrorist attack in the last 6 years, nearly 1 in 1,000 has died in a car crash.

Are you aware of the differences between an "accident" and a "murder"?

One is often unavoidable, the other is often preventable; and I personally sleep better at night knowing that the latter is being prevented by professionals every day.

Your argument is misguided on several fronts. First, most "accidents" can be avoided ... if we are willing to take the necessary measures to prevent them. Just as with "murder" (i.e., terrorism in this context), we can reduce fatalities by spending more money and increasing government intrusion.

Too many auto accidents? Let's reduce them by putting more stringent safety requirements on automakers, by pouring more money into even safer roadways, and by requiring annual driver training and testing (for example). The retort, typically from the right, is "No way!. We already over-regulate manufacturers, taxes are too high, and no way the nanny state gets to make me do Driver's Ed every year. I'll live with the risk."

Guess what? The same considerations apply to preventing terrorism. Safety, be it accidents, disease, or terrorism, is all about balance and trade-offs. We have many good causes competing for the same limited pool of dollars. We do not give big brother unlimited control over our lives just so he can keep us safe. We draw a line and say that's safe enough. We allocate our limited resources to get the best bang for the buck.


The second issue with your argument is that it presupposes "murder" deaths are somehow more significant than "accident" deaths. That is an emotional assessment, not a logical one. It is this irrational reaction the Bush administration exploits so ruthlessly in its "Terror! Terror! Terror!" fear-mongering.

When trying to compare relative risk of death, the manner of death is a side issue. Number of deaths is the metric that really matters. The simple fact is that for people within the United States, the risk of death due to terrorist attack is far smaller than hundreds of other risks we live with every day. That doesn't mean we ignore the risk of terrorism, but that we need to step above the irrational fear and keep that risk in perspective.


That leads to the third issue with your argument, your insinuation that somehow you want to prevent terrorism while those of us who criticize Iraq/BushCo/whatever do not. That's absurd, and would be insulting if it were anything more than empty partisan propaganda. The real argument is over the best ways to attack terrorist groups, where "best" includes rational consideration and objective cost-benefit analysis rather than a blank check and blind obedience to lord Bush.

Palehorse?

trust me, dude. palehorse is pretty dumb. i'm sure it's probably taking him a long time to reply because he needs to look up the hard words, like "intrusion" and "stringent" and "the".

Since you're so smart, why didn't you become a real Doctor? Just curious...

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Blackjack200
ignorant of the risks? 2,819 people died in terrorist attacks on 9-11. In the 6 years since, over 240,000 Americans have died in motor vehicle accidents. I'm quite aware of the risks. 1 in 100,000 Americans has died in a terrorist attack in the last 6 years, nearly 1 in 1,000 has died in a car crash.

Are you aware of the differences between an "accident" and a "murder"?

One is often unavoidable, the other is often preventable; and I personally sleep better at night knowing that the latter is being prevented by professionals every day.

Your argument is misguided on several fronts. First, most "accidents" can be avoided ... if we are willing to take the necessary measures to prevent them. Just as with "murder" (i.e., terrorism in this context), we can reduce fatalities by spending more money and increasing government intrusion.

Too many auto accidents? Let's reduce them by putting more stringent safety requirements on automakers, by pouring more money into even safer roadways, and by requiring annual driver training and testing (for example). The retort, typically from the right, is "No way!. We already over-regulate manufacturers, taxes are too high, and no way the nanny state gets to make me do Driver's Ed every year. I'll live with the risk."

Guess what? The same considerations apply to preventing terrorism. Safety, be it accidents, disease, or terrorism, is all about balance and trade-offs. We have many good causes competing for the same limited pool of dollars. We do not give big brother unlimited control over our lives just so he can keep us safe. We draw a line and say that's safe enough. We allocate our limited resources to get the best bang for the buck.

The second issue with your argument is that it presupposes "murder" deaths are somehow more significant than "accident" deaths. That is an emotional assessment, not a logical one. It is this irrational reaction the Bush administration exploits so ruthlessly in its "Terror! Terror! Terror!" fear-mongering.

When trying to compare relative risk of death, the manner of death is a side issue. Number of deaths is the metric that really matters. The simple fact is that for people within the United States, the risk of death due to terrorist attack is far smaller than hundreds of other risks we live with every day. That doesn't mean we ignore the risk of terrorism, but that we need to step above the irrational fear and keep that risk in perspective.

That leads to the third issue with your argument, your insinuation that somehow you want to prevent terrorism while those of us who criticize Iraq/BushCo/whatever do not. That's absurd, and would be insulting if it were anything more than empty partisan propaganda. The real argument is over the best ways to attack terrorist groups, where "best" includes rational consideration and objective cost-benefit analysis rather than a blank check and blind obedience to lord Bush.

Do you feel that there is an "acceptable" number of murders per year? Is the word "acceptable" an appropriate one to use to describe your feelings on the issue?

I do agree with your interest in a very rational approach to combatting terrorism.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I shudder to think what the 'average' US Citizen might demand if another attack like 9/11 occurred. I would suspect, since the average US citizen doesn't hold a college degree (over one in four adults (27 percent) had attained at least a bachelor's degree), barely votes, and believed at one point or another that there was a direct link from Saddam to 9/11.
I was very proud of this country immediately after 9/11, proud in our ability to come together in a time of crisis. And then I was sickened for the past 6 years on how our current asshole in chief decides to link 9/11 to Iraq in every speech, only through implication and then play dumb on how he's not doing that, and never said that. And the 'average' citizen believes him.
If it happens (or when), I hope we behave exactly the same way immediately following the attacks, but hold our govt responsible for promises made and especially for promises broken (Katrina). No more free passes for any govt official, R, D or whatever. Those days are gone and to (mis) quote someone's sig here The People Shouldn't Fear Their Government, The Government Should Fear The People.
We elect them. We're their goddamned boss. And trust me, dumbya should have been fired minutes after he said "That's one terrible pilot"

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Blackjack200
ignorant of the risks? 2,819 people died in terrorist attacks on 9-11. In the 6 years since, over 240,000 Americans have died in motor vehicle accidents. I'm quite aware of the risks. 1 in 100,000 Americans has died in a terrorist attack in the last 6 years, nearly 1 in 1,000 has died in a car crash.

Are you aware of the differences between an "accident" and a "murder"?

One is often unavoidable, the other is often preventable; and I personally sleep better at night knowing that the latter is being prevented by professionals every day.

Your argument is misguided on several fronts. First, most "accidents" can be avoided ... if we are willing to take the necessary measures to prevent them. Just as with "murder" (i.e., terrorism in this context), we can reduce fatalities by spending more money and increasing government intrusion.

Too many auto accidents? Let's reduce them by putting more stringent safety requirements on automakers, by pouring more money into even safer roadways, and by requiring annual driver training and testing (for example). The retort, typically from the right, is "No way!. We already over-regulate manufacturers, taxes are too high, and no way the nanny state gets to make me do Driver's Ed every year. I'll live with the risk."

Guess what? The same considerations apply to preventing terrorism. Safety, be it accidents, disease, or terrorism, is all about balance and trade-offs. We have many good causes competing for the same limited pool of dollars. We do not give big brother unlimited control over our lives just so he can keep us safe. We draw a line and say that's safe enough. We allocate our limited resources to get the best bang for the buck.

The second issue with your argument is that it presupposes "murder" deaths are somehow more significant than "accident" deaths. That is an emotional assessment, not a logical one. It is this irrational reaction the Bush administration exploits so ruthlessly in its "Terror! Terror! Terror!" fear-mongering.

When trying to compare relative risk of death, the manner of death is a side issue. Number of deaths is the metric that really matters. The simple fact is that for people within the United States, the risk of death due to terrorist attack is far smaller than hundreds of other risks we live with every day. That doesn't mean we ignore the risk of terrorism, but that we need to step above the irrational fear and keep that risk in perspective.

That leads to the third issue with your argument, your insinuation that somehow you want to prevent terrorism while those of us who criticize Iraq/BushCo/whatever do not. That's absurd, and would be insulting if it were anything more than empty partisan propaganda. The real argument is over the best ways to attack terrorist groups, where "best" includes rational consideration and objective cost-benefit analysis rather than a blank check and blind obedience to lord Bush.

Do you feel that there is an "acceptable" number of murders per year? Is the word "acceptable" an appropriate one to use to describe your feelings on the issue?

I do agree with your interest in a very rational approach to combatting terrorism.

I would be more inclined to use the word "pragmatic", but essentially I do believe there is some level of "murder" that is acceptable ... and so do you. Most people will agree when they get past the appeal to emotion in your phrasing and really think about what that question implies.

Can we reduce murders in America? Absolutely. We could reduce them by confiscating all guns and knives, by putting Big Brother monitoring in every house and throughout every block, by mandating a daily dose of sedatives for all Americans, by castrating all males, maybe even by locking every single person in solitary confinement. Such measures are ridiculous, of course, so we as a society have agreed that the present murder rate is "acceptable" compared to some of the draconian measures we could take to reduce it.

That does not mean we should not try to find other, less extreme ways of reducing murder, just as we should continue to find effective, non-intrusive ways to reduce accidents, disease, etc. We don't trash our civil liberties, however, and we don't give the government a blank check. The same rationale, the same balancing act applies to terrorism too. I support going after terrorist groups, but the Bush administration's Iraq-focused "War on Terror" is incompetent to the point of being counter-productive, and is unacceptably expensive in terms of lives, dollars, liberties, and America's relations with the rest of the world.

The bottom line is terrorism is only one of the many risks to Americans' safety, and a comparatively minor one at that. We certainly must not ignore it, but we also cannot afford to panic and blindly throw out all the rules. That has been the false dichotomy hammered again and again by the Bush propaganda machine: give us everything we want or you support the terrorists. I dismiss it in with all their other lies, but too many Americans have been cowed by their fear-mongering, leaving us stuck on stupid for the last five years or so.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: OrByte
I would trust someone like Ron Paul to protect this country. From threats from within and outside our borders.

If not him then maybe Obama.

Definitely not Guiliani or McCain. Terrorist organizations would more likely grow faster under a Guiliani or McCain administration...ala GWB's Neocon administration.

Maybe HRC would do a good job considering how well Clinton performed in that role.

As far as another terrorist attack....I'd shed a tear and pray for the lives lost just like I did on 9/11/01. However, this time around I would hope our country's leaders wouldn't use any future attack to promote a whacked out foreign policy and invade more countries that had nothing to do with any terrorist attack on our soil. If another attack occurred I would hope we learned from that clvsterfvck of a mistake.

How many times were we attacked by terrorists during Bill?s eight years? How many Americans were killed by terrorists during his eight years?

To say that Clinton did a good job of protecting us is crazy. He did NOTHING. The only reason there weren?t more attacks is because it takes so long for the terrorists to plan them out.

That is garbage. At least Clinton tried. Dub did not do anything before 9-11. NOTHING. He was going to cut the terrorism budget.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Do you feel that there is an "acceptable" number of murders per year?

Is the word "acceptable" an appropriate one to use to describe your feelings on the issue?

I do agree with your interest in a very rational approach to combatting terrorism.

Is nearly 4,000 of our troops "acceptable" in a foreign land that did not attack us directly?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: OrByte
I would trust someone like Ron Paul to protect this country. From threats from within and outside our borders.

If not him then maybe Obama.

Definitely not Guiliani or McCain. Terrorist organizations would more likely grow faster under a Guiliani or McCain administration...ala GWB's Neocon administration.

Maybe HRC would do a good job considering how well Clinton performed in that role.

As far as another terrorist attack....I'd shed a tear and pray for the lives lost just like I did on 9/11/01. However, this time around I would hope our country's leaders wouldn't use any future attack to promote a whacked out foreign policy and invade more countries that had nothing to do with any terrorist attack on our soil. If another attack occurred I would hope we learned from that clvsterfvck of a mistake.

How many times were we attacked by terrorists during Bill?s eight years? How many Americans were killed by terrorists during his eight years?

To say that Clinton did a good job of protecting us is crazy. He did NOTHING. The only reason there weren?t more attacks is because it takes so long for the terrorists to plan them out.

That is garbage. At least Clinton tried. Dub did not do anything before 9-11. NOTHING. He was going to cut the terrorism budget.

If Clinton did a good job why would Bush have had to anything before 9/11?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

If Clinton did a good job why would Bush have had to anything before 9/11?

Well that's a good, well thought out argument.

When people accuse you of playing childish word games... this is what they mean.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: OrByte
I would trust someone like Ron Paul to protect this country. From threats from within and outside our borders.

If not him then maybe Obama.

Definitely not Guiliani or McCain. Terrorist organizations would more likely grow faster under a Guiliani or McCain administration...ala GWB's Neocon administration.

Maybe HRC would do a good job considering how well Clinton performed in that role.

As far as another terrorist attack....I'd shed a tear and pray for the lives lost just like I did on 9/11/01. However, this time around I would hope our country's leaders wouldn't use any future attack to promote a whacked out foreign policy and invade more countries that had nothing to do with any terrorist attack on our soil. If another attack occurred I would hope we learned from that clvsterfvck of a mistake.

How many times were we attacked by terrorists during Bill?s eight years? How many Americans were killed by terrorists during his eight years?

To say that Clinton did a good job of protecting us is crazy. He did NOTHING. The only reason there weren?t more attacks is because it takes so long for the terrorists to plan them out.

That is garbage. At least Clinton tried. Dub did not do anything before 9-11. NOTHING. He was going to cut the terrorism budget.

If Clinton did a good job why would Bush have had to anything before 9/11?

Are you dumb or dishonest? We will never eliminate terrorism 100%. Clinton tried to do something. Dub did not even try. Dub did NOTHING before 9-11. Quit trolling.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: OrByte
I would trust someone like Ron Paul to protect this country. From threats from within and outside our borders.

If not him then maybe Obama.

Definitely not Guiliani or McCain. Terrorist organizations would more likely grow faster under a Guiliani or McCain administration...ala GWB's Neocon administration.

Maybe HRC would do a good job considering how well Clinton performed in that role.

As far as another terrorist attack....I'd shed a tear and pray for the lives lost just like I did on 9/11/01. However, this time around I would hope our country's leaders wouldn't use any future attack to promote a whacked out foreign policy and invade more countries that had nothing to do with any terrorist attack on our soil. If another attack occurred I would hope we learned from that clvsterfvck of a mistake.

How many times were we attacked by terrorists during Bill?s eight years? How many Americans were killed by terrorists during his eight years?

To say that Clinton did a good job of protecting us is crazy. He did NOTHING. The only reason there weren?t more attacks is because it takes so long for the terrorists to plan them out.

That is garbage. At least Clinton tried. Dub did not do anything before 9-11. NOTHING. He was going to cut the terrorism budget.

If Clinton did a good job why would Bush have had to anything before 9/11?

Are you dumb or dishonest? We will never eliminate terrorism 100%. Clinton tried to do something. Dub did not even try. Dub did NOTHING before 9-11. Quit trolling.

LOL.. let's be honest with ourselves here. Clinton didn't do a g'damn thing to genuinely curb terrorism during his entire tenure - and neither did Bush during his first 9 months in office.

Anything you THINK Clinton might have done, you're wrong. That assmunch didnt even visit the WTC after it was hit in '93, let alone acknowledge the growing threat of extremism across the globe. He even cut spending in HUMINT and SOF budgets across the board! The NSA had him convinced that they had everything under control, and he listened to them - since IT was the new future, he must have assumed cyber intelligence would rule the world. Well, he was wrong - just as Bush mistakenly listened to the wrong advisers before many of his bad decisions!

Clinton was too busy gloating over the internet boom, his minor success in Bosnia, and Monica's tits, to really do anything worthwhile against Islamic extremism. Hell, OBL openly declared war on the US, and Clinton continued to barely acknowledge his existence. Lobbing a few cruise missiles around (*cough*wag*cough*) is not an effective anti-terrorism strategy!

Like I said, let's be honest here. Every President since Kennedy deserves some of the blame for the growing threat of Islamic extremism we face today!

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

If Clinton did a good job why would Bush have had to anything before 9/11?

Well that's a good, well thought out argument.

When people accuse you of playing childish word games... this is what they mean.

You have to admit, he's pretty good at those games.

 

[Fern]

Maybe HRC would do a good job considering how well Clinton performed in that role.

I don't believe it can be fairly argued that B Clinton did a good job in anti-terrorism. It certainly can't be argued persuasively to an objective party.

IMO, Clinton felt it should be left up to law enforcement, which (IRC) is why he was unable to take UBL into custody when offered by Saudia Arabia (again IIRC, but it could have been another ME country). That's flawed IMO, we need a broader scope involving many agencies including the military. They each have their proper role.

Fern

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: OrByte
I would trust someone like Ron Paul to protect this country. From threats from within and outside our borders.

If not him then maybe Obama.

Definitely not Guiliani or McCain. Terrorist organizations would more likely grow faster under a Guiliani or McCain administration...ala GWB's Neocon administration.

Maybe HRC would do a good job considering how well Clinton performed in that role.

As far as another terrorist attack....I'd shed a tear and pray for the lives lost just like I did on 9/11/01. However, this time around I would hope our country's leaders wouldn't use any future attack to promote a whacked out foreign policy and invade more countries that had nothing to do with any terrorist attack on our soil. If another attack occurred I would hope we learned from that clvsterfvck of a mistake.

How many times were we attacked by terrorists during Bill?s eight years? How many Americans were killed by terrorists during his eight years?

To say that Clinton did a good job of protecting us is crazy. He did NOTHING. The only reason there weren?t more attacks is because it takes so long for the terrorists to plan them out.

That is garbage. At least Clinton tried. Dub did not do anything before 9-11. NOTHING. He was going to cut the terrorism budget.

If Clinton did a good job why would Bush have had to anything before 9/11?

Are you dumb or dishonest? We will never eliminate terrorism 100%. Clinton tried to do something. Dub did not even try. Dub did NOTHING before 9-11. Quit trolling.

Actually, being dishonest is trying to claim that Bush should have stepped into office and immediately begin lobbing bombs at OBL instead of wading through the bureaucratic cruft of an intelligence legacy that Clinton left him with.

If people in here want to make moronic commentary on Bush I'll gladly mirror their bullshit. Funny how when they look in their own reflection they don't like what they see.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

If Clinton did a good job why would Bush have had to anything before 9/11?

Well that's a good, well thought out argument.

When people accuse you of playing childish word games... this is what they mean.

You have to admit, he's pretty good at those games.

Do you think he actually convinces anyone with his empty rhetoric? I don't.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: OrByte
I would trust someone like Ron Paul to protect this country. From threats from within and outside our borders.

If not him then maybe Obama.

Definitely not Guiliani or McCain. Terrorist organizations would more likely grow faster under a Guiliani or McCain administration...ala GWB's Neocon administration.

Maybe HRC would do a good job considering how well Clinton performed in that role.

As far as another terrorist attack....I'd shed a tear and pray for the lives lost just like I did on 9/11/01. However, this time around I would hope our country's leaders wouldn't use any future attack to promote a whacked out foreign policy and invade more countries that had nothing to do with any terrorist attack on our soil. If another attack occurred I would hope we learned from that clvsterfvck of a mistake.

How many times were we attacked by terrorists during Bill?s eight years? How many Americans were killed by terrorists during his eight years?

To say that Clinton did a good job of protecting us is crazy. He did NOTHING. The only reason there weren?t more attacks is because it takes so long for the terrorists to plan them out.

That is garbage. At least Clinton tried. Dub did not do anything before 9-11. NOTHING. He was going to cut the terrorism budget.

If Clinton did a good job why would Bush have had to anything before 9/11?

Are you dumb or dishonest? We will never eliminate terrorism 100%. Clinton tried to do something. Dub did not even try. Dub did NOTHING before 9-11. Quit trolling.

Actually, being dishonest is trying to claim that Bush should have stepped into office and immediately begin lobbing bombs at OBL instead of wading through the bureaucratic cruft of an intelligence legacy that Clinton left him with.

If people in here want to make moronic commentary on Bush I'll gladly mirror their bullshit. Funny how when they look in their own reflection they don't like what they see.

Where the hell did I say that? You must be dumb and dishonest both. Your hero did nothing so get over it.

You are standing in a house of mirrors reflecting your own bullshit infinitely.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: OrByte
I would trust someone like Ron Paul to protect this country. From threats from within and outside our borders.

If not him then maybe Obama.

Definitely not Guiliani or McCain. Terrorist organizations would more likely grow faster under a Guiliani or McCain administration...ala GWB's Neocon administration.

Maybe HRC would do a good job considering how well Clinton performed in that role.

As far as another terrorist attack....I'd shed a tear and pray for the lives lost just like I did on 9/11/01. However, this time around I would hope our country's leaders wouldn't use any future attack to promote a whacked out foreign policy and invade more countries that had nothing to do with any terrorist attack on our soil. If another attack occurred I would hope we learned from that clvsterfvck of a mistake.

How many times were we attacked by terrorists during Bill?s eight years? How many Americans were killed by terrorists during his eight years?

To say that Clinton did a good job of protecting us is crazy. He did NOTHING. The only reason there weren?t more attacks is because it takes so long for the terrorists to plan them out.

That is garbage. At least Clinton tried. Dub did not do anything before 9-11. NOTHING. He was going to cut the terrorism budget.

If Clinton did a good job why would Bush have had to anything before 9/11?

Are you dumb or dishonest? We will never eliminate terrorism 100%. Clinton tried to do something. Dub did not even try. Dub did NOTHING before 9-11. Quit trolling.

Actually, being dishonest is trying to claim that Bush should have stepped into office and immediately begin lobbing bombs at OBL instead of wading through the bureaucratic cruft of an intelligence legacy that Clinton left him with.

If people in here want to make moronic commentary on Bush I'll gladly mirror their bullshit. Funny how when they look in their own reflection they don't like what they see.

Where the hell did I say that? You must be dumb and dishonest both. Your hero did nothing so get over it.

You are standing in a house of mirrors reflecting your own bullshit infinitely.

My, my. Such rage. Remember that famous August 6 PDB on bin Laden? Guess who requested it.

That's right, GW Bush specifically requested it. But you apparently don't have the first clue about that because knowing the actual facts of the matter might fvck up the bogus narrative you've so ignorantly deepthroated and swallowed in one big gulp.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Like I said, let's be honest here. Every President since Kennedy deserves some of the blame for the growing threat of Islamic extremism we face today!

How typically misguided, and ironic in this case, that you pick the very president following the one who actually deserves a lot of the blame, Eisenhower, as the cutoff point.

Iran had some form of democracy, which the US overthrew to put in a dictator, in order to get better oil arrangements for itself and England, in 1953.

That history had no small role in what happened since with the clerics taking over in 1978.

What exactly did Kennedy do, by the way, that was so bad in the Middle East, since you specifically picked him as the dividing line?

 

[coloumb]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
After 9-11 the country came together in an amazing way. American flags every where etc etc.

What I am wondering is what would happen if we had another major attack ala 9-11.

Would the country once again come together like it did post 9-11. Or has the war in Iraq and the 6 year war on terror splintered us so much that instead of unity we would see finger pointing and accusations?

What is everyone?s take on this?

More ends to our already limited freedoms as we know it. I for one would seriously consider moving to Canada to get out of the hell hole that America has become in the past decade...

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Like I said, let's be honest here. Every President since Kennedy deserves some of the blame for the growing threat of Islamic extremism we face today!

How typically misguided, and ironic in this case, that you pick the very president following the one who actually deserves a lot of the blame, Eisenhower, as the cutoff point.

Iran had some form of democracy, which the US overthrew to put in a dictator, in order to get better oil arrangements for itself and England, in 1953.

That history had no small role in what happened since with the clerics taking over in 1978.

What exactly did Kennedy do, by the way, that was so bad in the Middle East, since you specifically picked him as the dividing line?

get over yourself man... i merely recognized that general period of time as the beginning of almost four decades of growing Islamic fanaticism. My choice of Presidents in the statement had nothing to do with Party affiliation, or any one specific incident.

Yes, the rise of the Shaw's power certainly didn't help; but neither did our romantic relationship with Saudi royalty, our growing and sometimes inexplicable support of Israel, our leaving the Afghans to fend for themselves after 1989, and many other large contributing factors.

If you choose to pick a specific incident, or year, based on partisan politics, then good for you. I choose to spread the blame around without bias...

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: coloumb

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
After 9-11 the country came together in an amazing way. American flags every where etc etc.

What I am wondering is what would happen if we had another major attack ala 9-11.

Would the country once again come together like it did post 9-11. Or has the war in Iraq and the 6 year war on terror splintered us so much that instead of unity we would see finger pointing and accusations?

What is everyone?s take on this?

More ends to our already limited freedoms as we know it. I for one would seriously consider moving to Canada to get out of the hell hole that America has become in the past decade...

I love the "I'll move to Canada!" threat. It's so post-....well, it's an old threat actually, but it was particularly virulent during the '04 elections.

Here's one of the most well-written articles I've ever read on the subject, and written by a liberal no less.

http://www.freezerbox.com/archive/article.php?id=323