O'reilly Vs. Moore

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbes@29 July 2004 - 11:49



Perhaps 9/11 is the lesson in which we learned that a stitch in time saved nine.

Why are you people so fixated on some link between Afghanistan and Iraq. Why does it need to exist?

---

What was the lesson again?
According to you, the next time we suffer a terrorist attack we are likely to retaliate against Britian.
Iraq HAD NOTHING TO DO with the September 11th attack.
That's an awful lot of time stitches to take, hobbes.
"We people" are fixated on the "connections" between Iraq and Afghanistan because they were used as an excuse to invade Iraq.
Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeild harped incessantly on the Al-Qaeda-Iraq links ( Cheney still does).
They set up the presumptive importance of those "links", not "we people".

Quote:

---

It had a leader who was letting his people suffer while he built gold toilets, a leader who was in hot water with the UN, a leader suspected of having WMD, and a leader sitting on a crap load of oil.

---

The US routinely ignores other despots who exhibit all those characteristics.
Still do, to this very day.

Quote:

---

Although 900 soldiers have been lost in the year and a half in Iraq, that is a quarter of the number of lives lost during 10 minutes on 9/11. And certainly a strong message has been sent to the other countries.

---

Oh yeah, and it sure is going swimmingly, isn't it, hobbes?
What message exactly do you think we are sending?
Do you think America is now more beloved than before?
Do you think we've dissuaded even one terrorist from dedicating his life to our destruction?

Quote: Clocker-

Oh yeah, and it sure is going swimmingly, isn't it, hobbes?

Bush never promised "swimmingly"; in fact, I think he commented the water would indeed be quite "cold".

What message exactly do you think we are sending?

The message is as follows: "If you are a terrorist, you die"; or some derivative of same.

Do you think America is now more beloved than before?

We have never been, are not now, nor will we ever be "beloved".

To consider being "beloved" a necessity is utter foolishness.

We are, however, coveted.

Do you think we've dissuaded even one terrorist from dedicating his life to our destruction?

Dead terrorists can certainly be considered to have been "dissuaded".

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Busyman+29 July 2004 - 15:45--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 29 July 2004 - 15:45)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-BigBank_Hank@29 July 2004 - 11:08
So you would have done nothing? :blink:

---

Hank R.I.F.

Quote:

---

I would have stepped up the intel, using spies whenever possible.

---

[/b][/quote]
Busy did you not read J2’s post right before yours?

Quote:

---

I would have stepped up the intel, using spies whenever possible.

You can&#39;t.

Your abilities to spy were gutted in the 70s by the Church Committee

---

The only thing the Church Committee did was take away the ability of the CIA to spy on Americans by putting the Department of Justice in charge of this area.

The CIA was never mandated to spy on Americans, and was doing so illegally until this happened, especially during the Vietnam War...which sparked off the scandal.

The CIA was supposed to be after Foreign Intelligence, not Domestic. This was not altered by the Church Committee.

The CIA can now once again spy on Americans due to the Patriot Act, so we&#39;ve come full circle.


None of all of this altered their ability to put Agents on the ground anywhere else in the world, and they are one of the most respected Intelligence Agencies in the world in their ability to get Agents almost anywhere they want to.



As far as im aware, pror to the Invasion of Iraq.... there werent many Americans there :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Quote: Clocker-

Oh yeah, and it sure is going swimmingly, isn&#39;t it, hobbes?

Bush never promised "swimmingly"; in fact, I think he commented the water would indeed be quite "cold".

---

Bush declared the war "over" monhts ago.
How would you describe what we are currently doing.
"Fiasco" is not available...that would be my first choice.

Quote:

---

What message exactly do you think we are sending?

The message is as follows: "If you are a terrorist, you die"; or some derivative of same.

---

That&#39;s funny.
I hear ALOT more about murdered civilians and dead US soldiers than I do about dead ( or even captured) terrorists.
Must be the "liberal media", eh?

Quote:

---

Do you think America is now more beloved than before?

We have never been, are not now, nor will we ever be "beloved".

To consider being "beloved" a necessity is utter foolishness.

We are, however, coveted.

---

We were certainly beloved after WWII, j2.
Up until the Bush administration we may not have been loved, but were at least respected.
He&#39;s squandered that pool of goodwill.

Quote:

---

Do you think we&#39;ve dissuaded even one terrorist from dedicating his life to our destruction?

Dead terrorists can certainly be considered to have been "dissuaded".

---

And for every dead terrorist we have created such a level of animus that there are 10 to replace him/her.
Good job.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat Faced@29 July 2004 - 19:59


BTW SJ:

Prior to the Iran/Iraq war, while saddam was in charge BTW... Iraq had one of the best education systems in the world.

They also had a Free Universal Health system comparable to the best in Europe.

Its not the country of backward peasants that you seem to imply.

---

Actually my best friend in high school was Iraqi/Sicilian, and I happen to know that Iraq is not a country of backwards peasants. I should have clarified that point, which was that some countries in the middle east have incredible poverty and their rulers literally shit on golden toilets.

I hear Nazi Germany had a wonderful infrastructure too, does that mean it was all good?

This too- by some logic, nobody should be the cop to the world. To correlate think about our countries. We have police because somebody has to uphold the law. We do not think about how these paramilitary groups attained power, why they have the power they do, etc. We just accept there are cops.

Should America be the worlds cop?

Now, I suppose so. I say this reluctantly because I would LOVE to one day see China or Russia, you know, do the right thing, fight a battle for a higher cause and not to steal land. Imagine that? If Russia or China decided to take on terrorists? And I do not mean Chechnya in the least (obviously). I simply wish that some other countries would take responsibility for the world and not just send delegates to the UN meetings to sign useless resolutions.

Also, not like I need to say it, but RF I have always respectfully opposed some of your opinions, but I still respect them.

:)

-SJ™

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat Faced@29 July 2004 - 17:17
The only thing the Church Committee did was take away the ability of the CIA to spy on Americans by putting the Department of Justice in charge of this area.

:

---

Rat-

Church and his committee outsmarted themselves, though, and were hoist upon the petard of their own short-sighted arrogance, as explained below by Mr. Walter E. Williams, noted smart guy.

Emasculation of Intelligence Services

Aren&#39;t you a bit perplexed at how rapidly our FBI and CIA identified, arrested or detained so many people involved in the terrorist attack? The answer&#39;s easy. The FBI and CIA had a lot of information about terrorists and their organizations before the attack, but they were hamstrung. According to a Human Events (9/24/01) interview of Mr. Herbert Romerstein, former staffer on House Committees on Internal Security and Intelligence, we&#39;ve emasculated our intelligence services.

Emasculation of our intelligence services began during the Senator Frank Church (D.Idaho) and Representative Otis Pike (D.N.Y) committee hearings in the 1970s. As a result of those hearings Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act (FISA) in 1979. Liberal Democrats in control of the Congress wanted to protect Americans against domestic spying; what they ended up doing was to protect terrorists and others who might do us harm. You say, "What do you mean, Williams?" For example, suppose there&#39;s a person who hasn&#39;t engaged in spying or terrorism, but is a member of an organization that does. Herbert Romerstein says FISA provides that only leaders of the organization can be wiretapped, not the rank and file. Therefore, had bin Laden been in the U.S., the FBI could have wiretapped him, but not the rank and file men who flew the planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

According to Matthew Robinson, in his article, "FBI Forbidden To Tape Hijack Suspect," Human Events (10/1/01), on August 17th, the FBI detained Zacarias Moussaoui for immigration violation. He was the man who paid &#036;8,000 in cash to a flight school for lessons on flying a Boeing 747 and he was uninterested in learning takeoff and landing. On September 1st, the FBI received French intelligence that Moussaoui had spent two months in Pakistan just prior to coming to the U.S. and among his possessions when arrested was a manual on crop-dusting. The FBI went to their Justice Department superiors for a warrant to allow them to collect intelligence on what appeared to be a criminal conspiracy or terrorist planning. They were denied. The Justice Department Office of Intelligence and Policy Review (OIPR) refused to take the case to a judge who could consider a warrant request.

According to a just-released General Accounting Office report, OIPR makes it difficult for the FBI to coordinate investigations within the Justice Department: "Criminal Division officials believe these [OIPR] concerns, while well-intentioned, are overly cautious." The Moussaoui case is the rule rather than the exception where a National Commission on Terrorism said, "OIPR does not generally consider the past activities of the surveillance target in determining whether the FISA probable cause test is met."

Protecting civil liberties against government abuse is laudable but hamstringing our intelligence agencies so that terrorists can roam free in America is stupid. I think Congress should grant U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft some of the investigatory tools that he&#39;s requested to protect Americans against future acts of terrorism. But there should be two important stipulations: first, none of the intelligence gathered under the new provisions may be used to prosecute any American engaged in criminal activity, unless that activity is terrorism or espionage. Second, any changes in the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act of 1979 and other legal measures enacted to prosecute terrorists should contain a sunset provision whereby all changes become null and void two or three years after their enactment. At that time Congress can decide reauthorization.

We Americans had better get used to the idea that a large portion of the world Islamic community hates our guts and we&#39;re going to have to become less naive about what&#39;s necessary to protect ourselves.

Walter E. Williams

Same back at ya SJ :)

I didnt think you meant that, however i thought i better clear it up before some "Liberal" pounced... although i still have trouble believing some of the people you lot call Liberal :lol:


@ J2K4

Quote:

---

Therefore, had bin Laden been in the U.S., the FBI could have wiretapped him, but not the rank and file men who flew the planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

---

As I said... Iraq is not in the USA...

The CIA were free to do whatever they want there, as they were in Afganistan before that.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clocker@29 July 2004 - 19:16

What was the lesson again?
According to you, the next time we suffer a terrorist attack we are likely to retaliate against Britian.
Iraq HAD NOTHING TO DO with the September 11th attack.
That&#39;s an awful lot of time stitches to take, hobbes.
"We people" are fixated on the "connections" between Iraq and Afghanistan because they were used as an excuse to invade Iraq.

The US routinely ignores other despots who exhibit all those characteristics.
Still do, to this very day.

Oh yeah, and it sure is going swimmingly, isn&#39;t it, hobbes?
What message exactly do you think we are sending?
Do you think America is now more beloved than before?
Do you think we&#39;ve dissuaded even one terrorist from dedicating his life to our destruction?

---

Clocker,

For the final time (meaning I used this analogy before- with pictures&#33;) If a rattlesnake bites you and you see a cobra. Do you ignore the cobra because it is not a rattlesnake. A threat is a threat.

The rattlesnake taught you to be wary. Best to kill the snake in his hole.

If Saddam had WMD, he was a threat, a threat you might want to eliminate before he bites you like the rattlesnake did.

Iraq and Afghanistan may be 100% mutually exclusive or 100% related and it bears no relevance to me. A threat is a threat.

I recall posting a year and a half ago (and reposting the link several times) that George stated that there were WMD and I demanded that he bring them forth. To prove to the world that he was in the right. He hasn&#39;t and we look pretty bad.

The question we all are privately mulling over is, what did George really believe, did it keep him up at night, did he lose his appetite in apprehension.

Most of are kinda believing he knew nothing was there, but saw a damn sweet opportunity to legitimize taking out a royal pain in the ass.



I was explaining why Iraq was chosen. It had a unique profile of characteristics that made it the most "productive" target. Iran has oil, too, but that war would have been infinitely harder to win. North Korea is militarily unwinnable.

Anyway I think why Iraq was chosen is pretty obvious. This is not a justification, but an explanation for all you coy headscratchers. Or those who called us cowards because we did not attack North Korea. At least we were smart enough not to go there.



The message we sent was quite obvious. If you support terrorism against the US or are perceived a legitimate threat (If Saddam did have nuclear weapons, he would fit this bill), we will not just attack your terrorists (Al Queda) but we will topple the government which harboured it.

Terrorist will always exist, the point was to scare governments into not supporting them, lest they be held as accomplices for anything those terrorists do.

Poor Kim Jong-Il was crapping in a cave for quite a while. Kadafi also got the message.




America is a country, just like all others, that is attempting to secure it&#39;s future and the future of it&#39;s people. It is not a charity, it is not your buddy, it a self centered entity.

Doing the right thing and doing the popular thing are not one in the same. You can piss alot of people off because your selfish goal conflicts with their selfish goal.

The real matter for debate is what is the best way to act in the global community for long term viability and stablity. Opinions vary.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sprocket@29 July 2004 - 17:22

Quote:

---

Quote: Clocker-

Oh yeah, and it sure is going swimmingly, isn&#39;t it, hobbes?

Bush never promised "swimmingly"; in fact, I think he commented the water would indeed be quite "cold".

---

Bush declared the war "over" monhts ago.
How would you describe what we are currently doing.
"Fiasco" is not available...that would be my first choice.

Quote:

---

What message exactly do you think we are sending?

The message is as follows: "If you are a terrorist, you die"; or some derivative of same.

---

That&#39;s funny.
I hear ALOT more about murdered civilians and dead US soldiers than I do about dead ( or even captured) terrorists.
Must be the "liberal media", eh?

Quote:

---

Do you think America is now more beloved than before?

We have never been, are not now, nor will we ever be "beloved".

To consider being "beloved" a necessity is utter foolishness.

We are, however, coveted.

---

We were certainly beloved after WWII, j2.
Up until the Bush administration we may not have been loved, but were at least respected.
He&#39;s squandered that pool of goodwill.

Quote:

---

Do you think we&#39;ve dissuaded even one terrorist from dedicating his life to our destruction?

Dead terrorists can certainly be considered to have been "dissuaded".

---

And for every dead terrorist we have created such a level of animus that there are 10 to replace him/her.
Good job.

---

Sprocket-

I do not desire to argue semantics, nor do I wish to re-hash the subject of the liberal media, so I&#39;ll concentrate on the "beloved" issue.

There have been many transient (extremely so) periods when individual countries have evinced fond feelings for the U.S., but such phenomena never last.

WWII provided feelings of relief in Europe, and a few American soldiers no doubt were favored by a few momentarily smitten damsels in Paris, but to say even that we are respected barely attains credit.

We are feared militarily, but, nonetheless coveted, if only for our fat wallet.

We have cordial relations with the Canadians and U.K., but that&#39;s about as far as it goes; give the Brits another election cycle, and they&#39;ll likely hate us, too.

What few true alliances survive are owing to proximity, cultural kinships or monetary ties, and the truth is that we were well down the current path (as it applies to international relations) shortly after the WWI/League of Nations/WWII/United Nations cycle began.

Bush has nothing to do with it, in the long run.