"The US is absolutely not Germany in 1944, but any step down the road Germany took should be pointed out and squashed mercilessly before it becomes something worse."
So we should free all of the US prison population? Because, you know, Germany incarcerated criminals as well as Jews. So we should have never taken that step in the first place!
Saying we should point out and squash ANY "steps down the road Germany took" is too broad of a statement. We need to avoid taking any of the unreasonable steps which Germany took. Arresting individuals whom we have strong evidence to suspect of planning a terrorist attack, but cannot neccesarily convinct in a court of law, is NOT an unreasonable step. Executing them based on flimsy evidence, or holding them for the rest of their lives, that WOULD be unreasonable. Holding them for 4 or 5 years will allow us to either gather enough evidence to charge them, or take them out of circulation long enough that they become irrelevant. Either way we're preventing the posibility of an immediate attack, and saving lives. If accomplishing that means that we occasionaly lock up an innocent person for a couple years, so be it.
Except what makes your argument ridiculous is that the only ones being targeted are criminals and murderers. That's one type of "targeting" I can support. Who else is being targeted? Let me guess, Muslims? Bullshit. What percentage of American muslims have been incarcerated for suspicion of terrorism? Or, more accurately, what fraction of a percent of American muslims?
France and the US went on record saying they supported the coup. They officially recognized the dictators and prevented any sort of sanctions.
Ah, I see. You mean supported as in "yea, good job, you're doing great!", not as in "trained, armed, and equiped the fighters". Yeah, well, can't blame 'em. Anything that keeps another sharia-controlled theocracy from fucking up another few million people is a good thing in my eyes. Democracy's all well and good when voters are responsible, and the leaders fairly reasonable. But how can you vote to turn a democracy into a theocracy?
Why is it the Republican party gets to pass Christian-oriented legislation; Terry Schiavo laws and ban gay marriage and work towards prayer in schools, but when Muslims talk about having religious politicians, suddenly they must be overthrown?
You're comparing a ruling which prevents the definition of marriage being changed to the imposition of laws which allow for the total physical and spiritual domination of all women?
OH MY GOD! PRISONS! FOR, LIKE, INCARCERATING CRIMINALS! With such horrible conditions that each prisoner is provided with a copy of the Quaran and a prayer rug. Each cell has an arrow pointing east. And prisoners gain weight within days of arrival.
Oh yeah, deffinitely compareable to a concentration camp where prisoners were starved, gassed, and worked to death.
I'd like to poletly suggest you now fuck off and go fist yourself.
"Your papers please, Mein Herr" - classic lines from US movies and British movies that let us know we were in the presense of evil Nazi minions. It was used to remind us what we were fighting for, freedom from a dictatorial government where your every move was noted, logged, filed and cross referenced for ties to subversive elements in society. How things have changed.
Yah. Because you get asked for your papers on a daily basis. And the CIA is building giant ovens in the arizona deserts.
People like you truly disgust me. You wouldn't know real evil if it bit you on the ass. You live in a country which gaurantees you almost complete freedom, and yet seem to get a hard-on from comparing it to a fascist tyrany.
Re:While driving? Safety?
on
Talking iPods
·
· Score: 1
That's why those steering-wheel remotes are nice. Big buttons with the basic features, built right into the sterring wheel. The only problem is when you get used to them, and then have to switch vehicles. I drove a rental car for about a week that had that feature. Now that I'm back to driving my own car, every time I go to change songs I end up turning on the cruise control.
Well, longer lives, better medicine, surer food supply, not having to worry about some guy with a sword chopping your head off, all those little things tend to contribute to quality of life. I didn't say a word about westernization by the way, you're the one who brought it up. I'm not claiming life in China is paradise by any stretch of the imagination, just that it's better than it has been historicaly, and that it will more than likely keep improving. And my main point was that you can't claim that western use of Chinese workers is "slave labour". How the Chinese state treats it's prisoners is a totaly different topic. If you wanted to argue that we should boycot all goods manufactured by forced labour in China, I'd deffinitely agree with that.
What does ANY of that have to do with my statement? All I asked is for someone to name a time in history when the standard of living in China was better. If you can show that their standard of living has declined due to them being used as labour for other nations, then the original commenter would have a valid point. As far as I know though, their standard of life today, while still nothing to be proud of, is better than it has been historicaly. Therefore, as long as their standard of life is improving, the accusations of westerners using them as "slave labour" are silly at best.
For example, the US and France supported the coup against the democratically-elected government of Algeria.
What the heck? You're not talking about back when the Islamic Salvation Front almost got elected into power, are you? Because a) there's zero evidence to support the idea that France and the US had anything to do with that, and b) even if they had, I can't exactly say I'd disapprove. While a coup might not be the best of solutions, I don't think it's much worse than letting an Islamist terrorist organization take power. Anyway, where's your evidence? Don't tell me you're one of those weirdos who also thinks that "the US and Canada overthrew the democraticaly elected government of Haiti". Those freakin' conspiracy whackos drive me nuts.
Not saying US foreign policy is perfect, but any change in it would be pointless since 99% of the problems that get blamed on the US really had nothing to do with them. Most of those rumours are started by some conspiracy nut, and then swallowed whole without any question by the rest of the world because "everyone knows how bad the US is".
It is not ignorance that causes me to se that there are no clear objective, it is the lack of clear objectives.
No, it's ignorance. If I were to say "It's not my ignorance that causes me to beleive that the sky is pink", I would be just as ignorant as you are.
You may be stupid enough to consider the wooly idealology as clear but it is not. Just because you are a grunt does not make you more knowledgeable about these things.
No, being more knowledgable about it is what makes me more knowledgable about it:) Being a "grunt" (what a quaint term) just means it's in my interest to make sure I'm better informed about it.
It is not arrogant of me to tell you that you are wrong, because you are wrong. Your arrogance does not make you right or more intelligent, just more stupid.
Eh. Wow. Wanna take this argument away from the playground?
I have a lot of grasp of what I am talking about, far more than you. You are the one that is stupid enough to rant about how clever you are and how stupid I am when you have no idea who I am, just your arrogant stupidity.
I guess not....
You think that the good guys can do no wrong because they are the good guys. That is the most dumb arsed idea you had.
Oh you're psychic now? Well, you won't be getting any references from me since you're an utter failiure as a mind-reader.
The good guys can do no right because they are the good guys and good is expected. The good guys are only seen to do wrong because that is the only thing that is noticed.
Well that's about the only part you've gotten right so far. In other words, since I'm a good guy, if I give $5 to every homeless person I pass, nobody notices that because it's expected. On the other hand, if I get pissed off at being hassled, and finaly tell one of them to fuck off, I'm now an evil, evil person, and the whole world should know about how horrible I am. Nice logic. I understand that that's how it actualy works as far as public perceptions of the US is concerned, however, it's something we should be counteracting, and NOT something you should be endorsing.
WWII was not anything to do with idealism.
Yeah, not like Hitler was motivated by his faschist ideology and the desire to further the master race. Nothing idealistic there.
Or didn't you know about the countries that were invaded and the fact that Germany declared war on your country?
I don't know man, I seem to remember terrorists attacking the US, and Iraq invading Kuwait. Could be just me though. Maybe I'll just listen to your interpretation of history since you've proven to be so knowledgable so far.
Bosnia was not about ideals but it was more so than WWII but at least in Bosnia the politicians got their noses out and let the military do their job which is why there was so much more success than anywhere else since WWII.
Are you kidding? I was IN Bosnia. It was one of the most politicized mission I can think of, and that's mainly due to the fact that it was under the UN. It was pathetic. All UN missions are. As far as incompetence and poor organization due to political concerns goes, Bosnia was almost as bad as Rwanda.
And the reason there was "more success than anywhere else since WW2" is that we were there in force for 13 years, and STILL have a presence there. You're really right out of 'er. Can you think of another conflict where a multinational force had a large presence for 13 years?
It was not the highway of death that stopped us in GWI, it was the clearly stated objectives that included the fact that we were not allowed to go into Iraq. That was part of the deal that was made to get the coalition together. To get the Arabs on side we agreed not to go into Iraq.
Maybe you've researched vietnam but you obviously know nothing about Iraq. We DID go into Iraq. That fact kinda thor
Ah! Now we get to the real reasons. You don't want us to change our foreign policy because you think it'll decrease terrorism, you just want us to change it because you think it's stupid.
Well, tell ya what. Get yourself elected, come up with a better foreign policy, and implement it. Either that or come up with a detailed explanation of why the current policy is stupid, as well as a detailed plan to implement whatever changes you have in mind. Untill then, we'll just keep doing our thing. Thanks!
I don't normaly reply to (or even read) AC's, but I'll make an exception.
If someone is on your plane, and has a bmb....then you can be damn sure that if you let them hijack the plane, then you won't end up any better.
Your ignorance of history astounds me. Name ONE time pre-911 when a aircraft hijacking (where everyone cooperated) lead to the deaths of all passangers and crew. Off the top of my head I can't think of ANY even though I can tell you about a dozen hijackings which ended well. THAT is why flight crews have historicaly been instructed to cooperate with hijackers. All of that changed after 9/11. If you're too ignorant to understand that, I don't see how you can expect to understand anything that came after.
Heh, tell that to this administration, which haven't made much effort to reverse the trend in declining enforcment; nowadays the number of people arrested for working illegally, or the number of employers being prosecuted is practically zilch.
That's off-tpoic, but in any event, do you see me defending the administrations record on immigration enforcement? Or ANY of the recent administrations?
Were you this determined to take on terrorism after the truck bomb at the WTC? If not, then what is your excuse?"
I've been determined to take on terrorism since the early 90's. After the truck-bomb attack on the WTC, a member of my unit predicted we'd be at war with militant islam by mid 2000. At the time I thought he war right out of 'er - I didn't see it going past limited actions simply because I didn't think the politicial will would ever be there. So when 9/11 happened, one of my first thoughts was "....holy fuck....he was right...".
That is so lame: nobody has any sympathy for terrorists.
Ofcourse not! They're simply "explaining" to us how "reasonable" the terrorists "reasons" are. Yes, that's it. No sympathy at all. People who would rather try to convince us that it's our own actions which are responsible for the deaths of our civilians are CLEARLY sympathetic to OUR side. Not the terrorists. Never!
In WW2 you would have been telling us that it's not our business to be helping out Europe, and that we'd be responsible for any of our people killed by Germany.
So, let's apply your logic: wherever there are terrorists we should send the troops to eradicate them, and after that we bring them back home, right?
You start off with a faulty premise (ie. the above sencence isn't even close to the approach we're taking), so it's no wonder that the rest of your diatribe is pure nonsense. I don't have either the time nor the inclination to give a detailed explanation of our operational goals and overall approach to someone who has already made up his mind on the basis of rumours, lies, and propaganda. If you're ready to beleive that the coalition has "abandoned" Afghanistan, then there's not much I can say in order to sort you out.
Wow! That's the most asinine thing I've read in a long while. School violence is indeed a big problem, which is cause by a myriad of factors. I place a lot of responsibility on the movie industry, and the music industry, which have turned to violent movies and music in order to make money; the fatcats at the top of that tree don't care much about society as a whole, and where this country is heading. They put their money behind all these hip-hop/rap singers which are utterly retarded, and don't do squate besides glorify violence.
Wow! That's the most asinine thing I've read in a long while. I guess when my father was in school back in the 60's and 70's, all the bullying he was subjected to was due to the movie industry and rap music.
We're done here. Come back when you've managed to remove your cranium from your rectum.
How does his comments have anything to do with "terrorism is ok because cars kill more people"?
I guess you missed this part of his post:
What I'm getting at, is that the terrorists on 9/11/01 were irrational, and the thing was like a big car accident, and the thing was not preventable then and another thing like it is not preventable now, and if it were, it would be as evident as the avoided 300 car pileup from a person getting their brakes repaired.
As there are no clear objectives it is impossible to win.
Don't confuse your own ignorance with the lack of clear objectives.
All military leaders have known for centuries that it is stupid to fight a war without clear objectives that your soldiers can understand, read Sun Tzu.
Seing as I'm one of the soldiers fighting this war, I think it's rather arrogant of you to be trying to tell me what I can and can't understand.
Each strike we make strengthens the opposition because we kill so many innocent people the bad guys look better than us.
You obviously have no grasp on reality. "The bad guys" who you claim are starting to look so good have killed more innocent people in the last year than coalition forces have during the entire war. Not only that but they make it quite clear that they are TARGETING those civilians, whereas we always apologize when causing unintentional deaths, and punish those responsible if the deaths were due to their malice or negligencs. Yet we're making "the bad guys" look good? Only in the twisted perceptions of the anti-government media, and their spoon-fed liberal readership. The people on the ground feel rather differently about it.
It is just like Vietnam. It is a war against an ideal (then it was communism, now it Islam) being faught without clear objectives.
Bosnia was a war against an ideal. Hell, WW2 was a war against an ideal. And we've already talkied about the "without clear objectives" nonsense. In order to see any real similarity between Iraq and Vietnam, you'd REALLY have to do some...."creative research". About the only similarity is that they're both non-conventional wars, fought against a fanatical enemy, being supplied by nations who are less than friendly with us.
In Vietnam the US was soundly beaten and that ending is unlikely this time but we still cannot win because there is no objective.
In Vietnam the US lost mainly due to political pressure. During the Tet offensive the VC suffered a lethaly high number of casualties. As a fighting force they were useless. Yet the bad publicity and the high US body count were enough to convince the US president to pull out. Much like during the FIRST gulf war, bad publicity over the "highway of death" was enough to cause a politicaly motivated pull-out. In BOTH cases, the correct course of action would have been to stay and finish the job. In Vietnam, the US pullout eventualy lead to just under 2 million deaths at the hands of the communist "victors", as well as hundreds of thousands of refugees (the famed boat-people). In Iraq it lead to 12 years of sanctions, hundreds of thousands of deaths, and then another war. You've got a point when you talk about politicaly lead wars, except you've got it backwards. The war is a military operation and is going quite well. The "stop-the-war-now" factions on the other hand are politicaly motivated, and their success would only ensure more deaths and more warfare in the future. Personaly I'd much rather see post-pullout-Iraq turn out like the former Yugoslavia, than like Vietnam and Cambodia. And like our actions in Yugoslavia, that's going to require a high level of commitment, more than a decade of work, american and coalition lives, and lots and lots of cash. All we ask YOU for is some money. We'll supply the sweat and blood.
Besides most americans are too cowardly to fend off boxcutters. Now they'd be a bit different; although, they'd be doing it for survival and most are still cowards (proof is in their easy manipulation by fear the rest the world can plainly see.)
What I wouldn't give to have you alone in a room with me. We'd see just how brave "the rest of the world" is. The only real doubt in my mind is whether you'd lose control of your bladder AND you bowels, or just one of the two.
A $20 dollar locking device and common sense could have saved thousands of lives and billions of dollars, but yet we have to keep on harping about security and giving over reaching powers to the police and government.
Really. So a terrorist says "open this door, or I'm going to detonate the bomb". And, ofcourse, in your world the pilot will say "no". Unfortiunately, in the pre-9/11 world, he would have opened the damn door.
If not the the locks on the cockpits, the main reason they werent caught is because the FBI didn't invistigate them and actually follow up on their expired passports.
Do you have ANY idea how many people with expired "passports" (I'm assuming you mean "visas") are living in the US? How many illigals in general? Is the FBI supposed to investigate every single one? Besides which, it's not the FBI's job to be chasing immigration violators. That's why you have the INS.
"Secondly, simply arresting everyone that claims to be a terrorist in a chat room will not make terrorism go away"
Irrelevant. "Simply" doing ANY one thing will not make terrorism go away. It takes many, MANY different approaches. Your comment would only be relevant if the US admin was doing nothing other than watching chat rooms.
"There are tens of thousands of people ready to die in their place."
And we've got hundreds of thousands of proffesional warriors ready to help them along. What the heck do numbers have to do with it? Would you, during WW2, have been yelling "WE'LL NEVER WIN! THERE'S MILLIONS OF THEM!"?
If you want terrorism to go away we will have to change our foreign policy
Bullshit. Let's see you present ANY evidence that a less agressive foreign policy will in any way stop or decrease terrorism.
or find an uber technical solution like Israel and build a wall and become a locked down police state (and look what good that is doing them today with their problems in Gaza).
A wall is hardly "uber technical", and Israel is hardly a "locked down police state". In fact the average Israeli citizen enjoys a higher standard of living and more individual freedoms than any citizen of any other nation in the middle east. Oh, and the wall isn't even finished yet, so you can't exactly blame "their problems in Gaza" on the fact that they built a wall.
Listen, you can't make terrorism go away by appeasing the terrorists. That's been true throughout history, and I really don't understand why people don't get it. Maybe you have a thing for muslim terrorists because you're a bleeding heart liberal, I don't know, but stop for a second and think about christian terrorists instead. If you want to change US foreign policy in order to stop muslim terrorism, why not make abortions illegal in order to stop christian terrorism? After all, they're targeting abortion clinics and shooting abortion doctors, so it's pretty clear what they want, right?
Now do you see why suggestions of appeasment are idiotic? When you give in and change your behaviour because of the threat of force, you're willingly submitting to someone elses will. You're turning yourself into a slave. And just as importantly, you're encouraging them to do it again, AND you're encouraging OTHER groups to take advantage of your weakness.
I don't know if you have children, but I'm assuming you will eventually. When your son comes home with a busted nose, crying about someone taking his lunch money, what will YOUR advice be? "Change your foreign policy and build a wall"?
Ah yes. You're one of the "terrorism is ok because cars kill more people" crowd. Well Mr. Scientist, I'd suggest you stick to your books and leave politics, law enforcement, and warfare to those of us who have at least a little bit of common sense.
And no, we're not all part of a secret plot to scare you sensless so we can "maintain a perception of power". Although your paranoia does nicely illustrate your point about how irrational human beings are. Government spokesmen and agencies generaly reveal information which they deem suitable for public consumption, which makes their organization look good, and which they feel people may be interested in. From there, it's out of their hands. As long as you're not one of the freaks running around screaming about a "zionist controlled media", you probably understand that most media organizations decide whether or not to publish something depending on whether or not it will bring them more customers. The government can try and shape their releases to make them more likely to be published, but in the end they get no real say on what makes the news. Most of the time, the media ignores positive government releases, or at best gives them a single paragraph mention burried somewhere in the back of a newspaper. Most "FUD" in papers these days is along the lines of "WE'RE LOSING THE WAR! IT'S ANOTHER VIETNAM! THE SKY IS FALLING!", which deffinitely has nothing to do with government releases.
"Terrorists using internet chat rooms??? LMAO! Give me a break. The US government can't even tell a half-way believable lie anymore."
Yeah, like, everyone knows they use passanger pigeons! Next thing you know, the FBI will be trying to tell us that 19 guys hijacked the planes on 9/11 and that the WTC collapse wasn't a controlled demolition! How stupid do they think we are?
I'm glad to see that the US government is good at foiling plots from people who obviously are not professional terrorists. But I'm hoping they do just as good as job when the real deal shows up in town.
Maybe you can help me because I'm kinda confused here. What exactly is a proffesional terrorist? Do you have to go to school for that? Can you get a PhD in Explosive Techniques and Terror Tactics? What are the hours like? Is it a 9-5 job, or does it involve shift work? What's the pay like? Any benefits?
Slashdot Mirror
"The US is absolutely not Germany in 1944, but any step down the road Germany took should be pointed out and squashed mercilessly before it becomes something worse."
So we should free all of the US prison population? Because, you know, Germany incarcerated criminals as well as Jews. So we should have never taken that step in the first place!
Saying we should point out and squash ANY "steps down the road Germany took" is too broad of a statement. We need to avoid taking any of the unreasonable steps which Germany took. Arresting individuals whom we have strong evidence to suspect of planning a terrorist attack, but cannot neccesarily convinct in a court of law, is NOT an unreasonable step. Executing them based on flimsy evidence, or holding them for the rest of their lives, that WOULD be unreasonable. Holding them for 4 or 5 years will allow us to either gather enough evidence to charge them, or take them out of circulation long enough that they become irrelevant. Either way we're preventing the posibility of an immediate attack, and saving lives. If accomplishing that means that we occasionaly lock up an innocent person for a couple years, so be it.
"Do you know how many prisoners in Abu Ghraib and Afghanistan have been tortured and killed?"
2? 3 maybe? Killed that is. Mainly due to prison uprisings or fighting the guards. Zero tortured.
"Do you know how many were grabbed for any reason other than a US officer said to grab so many locals, and there were that many nearby?"
Zero.
"Or grabbed because on an unchallenged charge from a neighbor?"
Zero once again. The system doesn't work that way.
If you've got any evidence to the contrary, feel free to post the evidence.
Except what makes your argument ridiculous is that the only ones being targeted are criminals and murderers. That's one type of "targeting" I can support. Who else is being targeted? Let me guess, Muslims? Bullshit. What percentage of American muslims have been incarcerated for suspicion of terrorism? Or, more accurately, what fraction of a percent of American muslims?
France and the US went on record saying they supported the coup. They officially recognized the dictators and prevented any sort of sanctions.
Ah, I see. You mean supported as in "yea, good job, you're doing great!", not as in "trained, armed, and equiped the fighters". Yeah, well, can't blame 'em. Anything that keeps another sharia-controlled theocracy from fucking up another few million people is a good thing in my eyes. Democracy's all well and good when voters are responsible, and the leaders fairly reasonable. But how can you vote to turn a democracy into a theocracy?
Why is it the Republican party gets to pass Christian-oriented legislation; Terry Schiavo laws and ban gay marriage and work towards prayer in schools, but when Muslims talk about having religious politicians, suddenly they must be overthrown?
You're comparing a ruling which prevents the definition of marriage being changed to the imposition of laws which allow for the total physical and spiritual domination of all women?
Talk to me again when you can be serious.
Last time I checked, the government didn't need to ask you for your papers. They just look up the information.
Ah, yes, I guess that facial reckognition technology's gotten much better.
OH MY GOD! PRISONS! FOR, LIKE, INCARCERATING CRIMINALS! With such horrible conditions that each prisoner is provided with a copy of the Quaran and a prayer rug. Each cell has an arrow pointing east. And prisoners gain weight within days of arrival.
Oh yeah, deffinitely compareable to a concentration camp where prisoners were starved, gassed, and worked to death.
I'd like to poletly suggest you now fuck off and go fist yourself.
Let me guess, Cynthia McKinney?
"Your papers please, Mein Herr" - classic lines from US movies and British movies that let us know we were in the presense of evil Nazi minions. It was used to remind us what we were fighting for, freedom from a dictatorial government where your every move was noted, logged, filed and cross referenced for ties to subversive elements in society. How things have changed.
Yah. Because you get asked for your papers on a daily basis. And the CIA is building giant ovens in the arizona deserts.
People like you truly disgust me. You wouldn't know real evil if it bit you on the ass. You live in a country which gaurantees you almost complete freedom, and yet seem to get a hard-on from comparing it to a fascist tyrany.
That's why those steering-wheel remotes are nice. Big buttons with the basic features, built right into the sterring wheel. The only problem is when you get used to them, and then have to switch vehicles. I drove a rental car for about a week that had that feature. Now that I'm back to driving my own car, every time I go to change songs I end up turning on the cruise control.
Well, longer lives, better medicine, surer food supply, not having to worry about some guy with a sword chopping your head off, all those little things tend to contribute to quality of life. I didn't say a word about westernization by the way, you're the one who brought it up. I'm not claiming life in China is paradise by any stretch of the imagination, just that it's better than it has been historicaly, and that it will more than likely keep improving. And my main point was that you can't claim that western use of Chinese workers is "slave labour". How the Chinese state treats it's prisoners is a totaly different topic. If you wanted to argue that we should boycot all goods manufactured by forced labour in China, I'd deffinitely agree with that.
What does ANY of that have to do with my statement? All I asked is for someone to name a time in history when the standard of living in China was better. If you can show that their standard of living has declined due to them being used as labour for other nations, then the original commenter would have a valid point. As far as I know though, their standard of life today, while still nothing to be proud of, is better than it has been historicaly. Therefore, as long as their standard of life is improving, the accusations of westerners using them as "slave labour" are silly at best.
For example, the US and France supported the coup against the democratically-elected government of Algeria.
What the heck? You're not talking about back when the Islamic Salvation Front almost got elected into power, are you? Because a) there's zero evidence to support the idea that France and the US had anything to do with that, and b) even if they had, I can't exactly say I'd disapprove. While a coup might not be the best of solutions, I don't think it's much worse than letting an Islamist terrorist organization take power. Anyway, where's your evidence? Don't tell me you're one of those weirdos who also thinks that "the US and Canada overthrew the democraticaly elected government of Haiti". Those freakin' conspiracy whackos drive me nuts.
Not saying US foreign policy is perfect, but any change in it would be pointless since 99% of the problems that get blamed on the US really had nothing to do with them. Most of those rumours are started by some conspiracy nut, and then swallowed whole without any question by the rest of the world because "everyone knows how bad the US is".
Name a time when quality of life in China was better.
Anyone?
Didn't think so.
Slave labour my ass. With assenine comments likt that, you're doing a huge disservice to those who truly ARE used and treated as slaves.
It is not ignorance that causes me to se that there are no clear objective, it is the lack of clear objectives.
:) Being a "grunt" (what a quaint term) just means it's in my interest to make sure I'm better informed about it.
No, it's ignorance. If I were to say "It's not my ignorance that causes me to beleive that the sky is pink", I would be just as ignorant as you are.
You may be stupid enough to consider the wooly idealology as clear but it is not. Just because you are a grunt does not make you more knowledgeable about these things.
No, being more knowledgable about it is what makes me more knowledgable about it
It is not arrogant of me to tell you that you are wrong, because you are wrong. Your arrogance does not make you right or more intelligent, just more stupid.
Eh. Wow. Wanna take this argument away from the playground?
I have a lot of grasp of what I am talking about, far more than you. You are the one that is stupid enough to rant about how clever you are and how stupid I am when you have no idea who I am, just your arrogant stupidity.
I guess not....
You think that the good guys can do no wrong because they are the good guys. That is the most dumb arsed idea you had.
Oh you're psychic now? Well, you won't be getting any references from me since you're an utter failiure as a mind-reader.
The good guys can do no right because they are the good guys and good is expected. The good guys are only seen to do wrong because that is the only thing that is noticed.
Well that's about the only part you've gotten right so far. In other words, since I'm a good guy, if I give $5 to every homeless person I pass, nobody notices that because it's expected. On the other hand, if I get pissed off at being hassled, and finaly tell one of them to fuck off, I'm now an evil, evil person, and the whole world should know about how horrible I am. Nice logic. I understand that that's how it actualy works as far as public perceptions of the US is concerned, however, it's something we should be counteracting, and NOT something you should be endorsing.
WWII was not anything to do with idealism.
Yeah, not like Hitler was motivated by his faschist ideology and the desire to further the master race. Nothing idealistic there.
Or didn't you know about the countries that were invaded and the fact that Germany declared war on your country?
I don't know man, I seem to remember terrorists attacking the US, and Iraq invading Kuwait. Could be just me though. Maybe I'll just listen to your interpretation of history since you've proven to be so knowledgable so far.
Bosnia was not about ideals but it was more so than WWII but at least in Bosnia the politicians got their noses out and let the military do their job which is why there was so much more success than anywhere else since WWII.
Are you kidding? I was IN Bosnia. It was one of the most politicized mission I can think of, and that's mainly due to the fact that it was under the UN. It was pathetic. All UN missions are. As far as incompetence and poor organization due to political concerns goes, Bosnia was almost as bad as Rwanda.
And the reason there was "more success than anywhere else since WW2" is that we were there in force for 13 years, and STILL have a presence there. You're really right out of 'er. Can you think of another conflict where a multinational force had a large presence for 13 years?
It was not the highway of death that stopped us in GWI, it was the clearly stated objectives that included the fact that we were not allowed to go into Iraq. That was part of the deal that was made to get the coalition together. To get the Arabs on side we agreed not to go into Iraq.
Maybe you've researched vietnam but you obviously know nothing about Iraq. We DID go into Iraq. That fact kinda thor
Thanks, coming from you that means a lot :)
So....don't support dictatorships....and don't go in and remove dictators either?
I don't get it.
Sounds like your advocating an isolationist approach. Which has historically NEVER worked.
Ah! Now we get to the real reasons. You don't want us to change our foreign policy because you think it'll decrease terrorism, you just want us to change it because you think it's stupid.
Well, tell ya what. Get yourself elected, come up with a better foreign policy, and implement it. Either that or come up with a detailed explanation of why the current policy is stupid, as well as a detailed plan to implement whatever changes you have in mind. Untill then, we'll just keep doing our thing. Thanks!
I don't normaly reply to (or even read) AC's, but I'll make an exception.
If someone is on your plane, and has a bmb....then you can be damn sure that if you let them hijack the plane, then you won't end up any better.
Your ignorance of history astounds me. Name ONE time pre-911 when a aircraft hijacking (where everyone cooperated) lead to the deaths of all passangers and crew. Off the top of my head I can't think of ANY even though I can tell you about a dozen hijackings which ended well. THAT is why flight crews have historicaly been instructed to cooperate with hijackers. All of that changed after 9/11. If you're too ignorant to understand that, I don't see how you can expect to understand anything that came after.
Heh, tell that to this administration, which haven't made much effort to reverse the trend in declining enforcment; nowadays the number of people arrested for working illegally, or the number of employers being prosecuted is practically zilch.
That's off-tpoic, but in any event, do you see me defending the administrations record on immigration enforcement? Or ANY of the recent administrations?
Were you this determined to take on terrorism after the truck bomb at the WTC? If not, then what is your excuse?"
I've been determined to take on terrorism since the early 90's. After the truck-bomb attack on the WTC, a member of my unit predicted we'd be at war with militant islam by mid 2000. At the time I thought he war right out of 'er - I didn't see it going past limited actions simply because I didn't think the politicial will would ever be there. So when 9/11 happened, one of my first thoughts was "....holy fuck....he was right...".
That is so lame: nobody has any sympathy for terrorists.
Ofcourse not! They're simply "explaining" to us how "reasonable" the terrorists "reasons" are. Yes, that's it. No sympathy at all. People who would rather try to convince us that it's our own actions which are responsible for the deaths of our civilians are CLEARLY sympathetic to OUR side. Not the terrorists. Never!
In WW2 you would have been telling us that it's not our business to be helping out Europe, and that we'd be responsible for any of our people killed by Germany.
So, let's apply your logic: wherever there are terrorists we should send the troops to eradicate them, and after that we bring them back home, right?
You start off with a faulty premise (ie. the above sencence isn't even close to the approach we're taking), so it's no wonder that the rest of your diatribe is pure nonsense. I don't have either the time nor the inclination to give a detailed explanation of our operational goals and overall approach to someone who has already made up his mind on the basis of rumours, lies, and propaganda. If you're ready to beleive that the coalition has "abandoned" Afghanistan, then there's not much I can say in order to sort you out.
Wow! That's the most asinine thing I've read in a long while. School violence is indeed a big problem, which is cause by a myriad of factors. I place a lot of responsibility on the movie industry, and the music industry, which have turned to violent movies and music in order to make money; the fatcats at the top of that tree don't care much about society as a whole, and where this country is heading. They put their money behind all these hip-hop/rap singers which are utterly retarded, and don't do squate besides glorify violence.
Wow! That's the most asinine thing I've read in a long while. I guess when my father was in school back in the 60's and 70's, all the bullying he was subjected to was due to the movie industry and rap music.
We're done here. Come back when you've managed to remove your cranium from your rectum.
I guess you missed this part of his post: As there are no clear objectives it is impossible to win.
Don't confuse your own ignorance with the lack of clear objectives.
All military leaders have known for centuries that it is stupid to fight a war without clear objectives that your soldiers can understand, read Sun Tzu.
Seing as I'm one of the soldiers fighting this war, I think it's rather arrogant of you to be trying to tell me what I can and can't understand.
Each strike we make strengthens the opposition because we kill so many innocent people the bad guys look better than us.
You obviously have no grasp on reality. "The bad guys" who you claim are starting to look so good have killed more innocent people in the last year than coalition forces have during the entire war. Not only that but they make it quite clear that they are TARGETING those civilians, whereas we always apologize when causing unintentional deaths, and punish those responsible if the deaths were due to their malice or negligencs. Yet we're making "the bad guys" look good? Only in the twisted perceptions of the anti-government media, and their spoon-fed liberal readership. The people on the ground feel rather differently about it.
It is just like Vietnam. It is a war against an ideal (then it was communism, now it Islam) being faught without clear objectives.
Bosnia was a war against an ideal. Hell, WW2 was a war against an ideal. And we've already talkied about the "without clear objectives" nonsense. In order to see any real similarity between Iraq and Vietnam, you'd REALLY have to do some...."creative research". About the only similarity is that they're both non-conventional wars, fought against a fanatical enemy, being supplied by nations who are less than friendly with us.
In Vietnam the US was soundly beaten and that ending is unlikely this time but we still cannot win because there is no objective.
In Vietnam the US lost mainly due to political pressure. During the Tet offensive the VC suffered a lethaly high number of casualties. As a fighting force they were useless. Yet the bad publicity and the high US body count were enough to convince the US president to pull out. Much like during the FIRST gulf war, bad publicity over the "highway of death" was enough to cause a politicaly motivated pull-out. In BOTH cases, the correct course of action would have been to stay and finish the job. In Vietnam, the US pullout eventualy lead to just under 2 million deaths at the hands of the communist "victors", as well as hundreds of thousands of refugees (the famed boat-people). In Iraq it lead to 12 years of sanctions, hundreds of thousands of deaths, and then another war. You've got a point when you talk about politicaly lead wars, except you've got it backwards. The war is a military operation and is going quite well. The "stop-the-war-now" factions on the other hand are politicaly motivated, and their success would only ensure more deaths and more warfare in the future. Personaly I'd much rather see post-pullout-Iraq turn out like the former Yugoslavia, than like Vietnam and Cambodia. And like our actions in Yugoslavia, that's going to require a high level of commitment, more than a decade of work, american and coalition lives, and lots and lots of cash. All we ask YOU for is some money. We'll supply the sweat and blood.
Besides most americans are too cowardly to fend off boxcutters. Now they'd be a bit different; although, they'd be doing it for survival and most are still cowards (proof is in their easy manipulation by fear the rest the world can plainly see.)
What I wouldn't give to have you alone in a room with me. We'd see just how brave "the rest of the world" is. The only real doubt in my mind is whether you'd lose control of your bladder AND you bowels, or just one of the two.
THOSE clowns are "proffesional terrorists"? Heh. Well, I guess we don't have much to worry about then. Thanks!
A $20 dollar locking device and common sense could have saved thousands of lives and billions of dollars, but yet we have to keep on harping about security and giving over reaching powers to the police and government.
Really. So a terrorist says "open this door, or I'm going to detonate the bomb". And, ofcourse, in your world the pilot will say "no". Unfortiunately, in the pre-9/11 world, he would have opened the damn door.
If not the the locks on the cockpits, the main reason they werent caught is because the FBI didn't invistigate them and actually follow up on their expired passports.
Do you have ANY idea how many people with expired "passports" (I'm assuming you mean "visas") are living in the US? How many illigals in general? Is the FBI supposed to investigate every single one? Besides which, it's not the FBI's job to be chasing immigration violators. That's why you have the INS.
"Secondly, simply arresting everyone that claims to be a terrorist in a chat room will not make terrorism go away"
Irrelevant. "Simply" doing ANY one thing will not make terrorism go away. It takes many, MANY different approaches. Your comment would only be relevant if the US admin was doing nothing other than watching chat rooms.
"There are tens of thousands of people ready to die in their place."
And we've got hundreds of thousands of proffesional warriors ready to help them along. What the heck do numbers have to do with it? Would you, during WW2, have been yelling "WE'LL NEVER WIN! THERE'S MILLIONS OF THEM!"?
If you want terrorism to go away we will have to change our foreign policy
Bullshit. Let's see you present ANY evidence that a less agressive foreign policy will in any way stop or decrease terrorism.
or find an uber technical solution like Israel and build a wall and become a locked down police state (and look what good that is doing them today with their problems in Gaza).
A wall is hardly "uber technical", and Israel is hardly a "locked down police state". In fact the average Israeli citizen enjoys a higher standard of living and more individual freedoms than any citizen of any other nation in the middle east. Oh, and the wall isn't even finished yet, so you can't exactly blame "their problems in Gaza" on the fact that they built a wall.
Listen, you can't make terrorism go away by appeasing the terrorists. That's been true throughout history, and I really don't understand why people don't get it. Maybe you have a thing for muslim terrorists because you're a bleeding heart liberal, I don't know, but stop for a second and think about christian terrorists instead. If you want to change US foreign policy in order to stop muslim terrorism, why not make abortions illegal in order to stop christian terrorism? After all, they're targeting abortion clinics and shooting abortion doctors, so it's pretty clear what they want, right?
Now do you see why suggestions of appeasment are idiotic? When you give in and change your behaviour because of the threat of force, you're willingly submitting to someone elses will. You're turning yourself into a slave. And just as importantly, you're encouraging them to do it again, AND you're encouraging OTHER groups to take advantage of your weakness.
I don't know if you have children, but I'm assuming you will eventually. When your son comes home with a busted nose, crying about someone taking his lunch money, what will YOUR advice be? "Change your foreign policy and build a wall"?
Ah yes. You're one of the "terrorism is ok because cars kill more people" crowd. Well Mr. Scientist, I'd suggest you stick to your books and leave politics, law enforcement, and warfare to those of us who have at least a little bit of common sense.
And no, we're not all part of a secret plot to scare you sensless so we can "maintain a perception of power". Although your paranoia does nicely illustrate your point about how irrational human beings are. Government spokesmen and agencies generaly reveal information which they deem suitable for public consumption, which makes their organization look good, and which they feel people may be interested in. From there, it's out of their hands. As long as you're not one of the freaks running around screaming about a "zionist controlled media", you probably understand that most media organizations decide whether or not to publish something depending on whether or not it will bring them more customers. The government can try and shape their releases to make them more likely to be published, but in the end they get no real say on what makes the news. Most of the time, the media ignores positive government releases, or at best gives them a single paragraph mention burried somewhere in the back of a newspaper. Most "FUD" in papers these days is along the lines of "WE'RE LOSING THE WAR! IT'S ANOTHER VIETNAM! THE SKY IS FALLING!", which deffinitely has nothing to do with government releases.
"Terrorists using internet chat rooms??? LMAO! Give me a break. The US government can't even tell a half-way believable lie anymore."
/SARCASM
Yeah, like, everyone knows they use passanger pigeons! Next thing you know, the FBI will be trying to tell us that 19 guys hijacked the planes on 9/11 and that the WTC collapse wasn't a controlled demolition! How stupid do they think we are?
I'm glad to see that the US government is good at foiling plots from people who obviously are not professional terrorists. But I'm hoping they do just as good as job when the real deal shows up in town.
Maybe you can help me because I'm kinda confused here. What exactly is a proffesional terrorist? Do you have to go to school for that? Can you get a PhD in Explosive Techniques and Terror Tactics? What are the hours like? Is it a 9-5 job, or does it involve shift work? What's the pay like? Any benefits?
Thanks in advance!