More whining...

[MrBishop]

Current Conflicts
Algeria--- Insurgency 1992 -->
Angola--- Cabinda 1975 -->
Burma--- Insurgency 1950 -->
China--- Senkaku Islands 1968 -->
China--- Spratly Islands 1988 -->
Colombia--- Insurgencies 1970s-->
Congo (Zaire)--- Congo War 1998-->
Georgia--- Civil War 1991-->
India--- Assam 1985 -->
India--- Kashmir 1970s-->
India--- Naxalite Uprising 1967 -->
Indonesia--- Aceh 1986 -->
Indonesia--- Kalimantan 1983 -->
Indonesia--- Maluku 1999 -
Indonesia--- Papua / West Irian 1963 -->
Israel--- Al-Aqsa Intifada 2000 -->
Israel--- Lebanon 2006 -->
Ivory Coast--- Civil War 2002 -->
Korea--- Korean War 1953 -->
Laos--- Hmong Insurgency 2000 -->
Moldova--- Transdniester 1991-->
Namibia --- Caprivi Strip 1966-->
Nepal--- Maoists 1996 -->
Nigeria--- Civil Disturbances 1997 -
Pakistan--- Baluchistan 2004 -
Peru--- Shining Path 1970s-->
Philippines--- Moro Uprising 1970s-->
Russia--- Chechen Uprising 1992 -->
Somalia --- Civil War 1991-->
Spain--- Basque Uprising 1970s-->
Sri Lanka--- Tamil Separatists 1983 -->
Sudan--- Darfur 1983 -->
Thailand--- Islamic Rebels 2001 -->
Turkey--- Kurdistan 1984 -->
Uganda--- Civil Conflict 1980 -->
United States--- Afghanistan 1980 -->
United States--- Djibouti 2001 -->
United States--- Iraq 1990 -->
United States--- Philippines 1898 -->
Uzbekistan--- Civil Disturbances 2005 -->
Yemen--- Sheik al-Houti 2004 -->

 

[2minkey]

There's always somebody 'fed up' with the system they live in that will do whatever they deem necessary to further their cause and bring about their version of utopia.

yup. just ask karl rove.

well there's really no denying that there is some terrorist threat. whether whatever we're doing in iraq is helping or hurting us in the fight against terrorism is certainly open to debate. as is the domestic, symbolic use of terrorism, which has a life of its own outside of any real events or groups.

 

[Gato_Solo]

yup. just ask karl rove.

well there's really no denying that there is some terrorist threat. whether whatever we're doing in iraq is helping or hurting us in the fight against terrorism is certainly open to debate. as is the domestic, symbolic use of terrorism, which has a life of its own outside of any real events or groups.

Guess you don't like Karl much, eh?

Anyway...there will always be wars, and there will always be discontent regardless of whether you live in a wealthy, prosperous area, or a poor, destitute area. Nobody likes to leave where they are, or move to where their thinking is the same as everyone elses. They want the world to change to suit them. Its all just a matter of degree of change/difference you are willing to 'put up with'.

 

[chcr]

The threat is real, and minimizing it won't make it go away. as for numbers...There are enough terrorists to populate Memphis, and there are enough recruits to populate Nashville. What you see running about are cells.

1. There is a real threat, to upwards of a few thousand people at a time. Again, abhorrent but hardly a real threat to "our way of life." A functional nuke would up the ante in lives but even if they exploded the nuke in a US city it would not really change everyone else's "way of life" unless we let our own gov't impose a police state on us for our own "safety." I don't minimize the threat, you grossly overstate it.

2. Smoke, mirrors and suppositions. The real reason no hard numbers exist on how many terrorists there are is more likely to be that they don't exist than that they're so good at hiding their identity. Where's the hard evidence? With the hard evidence of WMDs in Iraq no doubt. When they continually count the aged and infirm, women and children to inflate the count the etereal "evidence" that they do come up with is highly suspect.

Again, the terrorist threat is grossly overstated. Our way of life is in much more danger from within than from outside.

I'll ask it once again. The main focus of terrorism is to make the focus of their ire afraid. Why do you want to confuse them by giving them exactly what they want?

 

[Gato_Solo]

1. There is a real threat, to upwards of a few thousand people at a time. Again, abhorrent but hardly a real threat to "our way of life." A functional nuke would up the ante in lives but even if they exploded the nuke in a US city it would not really change everyone else's "way of life" unless we let our own gov't impose a police state on us for our own "safety." I don't minimize the threat, you grossly overstate it.

2. Smoke, mirrors and suppositions. The real reason no hard numbers exist on how many terrorists there are is more likely to be that they don't exist than that they're so good at hiding their identity. Where's the hard evidence? With the hard evidence of WMDs in Iraq no doubt. When they continually count the aged and infirm, women and children to inflate the count the etereal "evidence" that they do come up with is highly suspect.

Number two is where we have a disagreement, then. I'll answer that with a supposition to your supposition. If someone really doesn't want to be found, how would you find them? Remember...Ted Kazynski was a free man for over 20 years before they figured out who he was...and a relative had to turn him in. Also...the only 'aged and infirmed' terrorist I know of off-hand is Osama Bin Laden, and he's not actively involved in the 'wetwork'.

Again, the terrorist threat is grossly overstated. Our way of life is in much more danger from within than from outside.

I'll ask it once again. The main focus of terrorism is to make the focus of their ire afraid. Why do you want to confuse them by giving them exactly what they want?

Do not confuse fear with ire. We are not scared...at least most of us aren't.

 

[chcr]

Do not confuse fear with ire. We are not scared...at least most of us aren't.

I disagree. If most of us aren't scared, how do they sell 250,000 gasmasks a year to people who will never, ever be anywhere near a terrorist attack? By and large, Americans are much more afraid than the situation warrants. After all, how do you differentiate between Ahmed the 7-11 owner (to use an obvious stereotype) from Ahmed the mad terrorist. It's easy after he blows your ass up but its a bit late. The fact is that any middle-eastern person you see in America is wildly unlikely to be involved in any kind of plot. Any middle eastern person you see in a middle-eastern country is wildly unlikely to be involved in any kind of plot. Marginally more likely than the one in America but not that much I'll bet.

Re number 2, Sure it's easy to hide. It's even easier to pretend a large group that simply are trying to live day to day are in fact violently opposed to everything we stand for. Smoke and mirrors. We had the Kaiser, then Hitler, then the Commies and the cold war. There isn't a real threat from the outside anymore so the people who run the government panic and try to create one. They're simply scared to death of losing power.

 

[2minkey]

Guess you don't like Karl much, eh?

meh, it's not that big of a deal to me. i just think it's quite odd that his vision of the future is guiding so many executive decisions.

i mean, gee, look at the guy. you know he was the pudgy, giggly 12-year old in the schoolyard that told the other kiddies about sex, when he would actually not be involved in sex other than with himself until the age of 42, when he finally moved out of mom's house, drank his first beer, and paid a prostitute to lower herself upon him for the six seconds it took him to liberate his little squigglies.

 

[Gonz]

...and we will continue to deal with it as we have for the last 40+ years.

Which is why I was, and still am, in favor of the action we're taking.

In 1972 they killed soem Jews in Germany.

In 2001 they dropped some buildings & killed thousands.

Shall we wait until another Saddam (hater of the west & of terrorists) decides he dislikes terrorists less than the west & assists them in killing tens of thousands? Which was much the reasoning for this particualr battle.

Either we stop it or we give them permission to keep killin gus.

 

[BeardofPants]

Either we stop it or we give them permission to keep killin gus.

What did gus do?

 

[Gonz]

He spat in your soup.

 

[chcr]

No, Iraq was not responsible for this particular action. However, Iraq, namely Saddam Hussein & his sons were sponsors of international terrorism.

Shall we wait until another Saddam (hater of the west & of terrorists) decides he dislikes terrorists less than the west & assists them in killing tens of thousands?

The situation you describe in the second quote is exactly the situation that we have created. It is unsavlageable by any sane means.

 

[Gonz]

hater of the west & of terrorists

That was simply an appeasement (to you) on my part. I don't know if it's true.

The situation you describe in the second quote is exactly the situation that we have created.

They've had no problem so far. Until recently.

 

[2minkey]

They've had no problem so far. Until recently.

okay i'm lost here, as folks are now talking in generalities.

so, um, they've had no problem with what, exactly? i'm not even sure who "they " are at this point.

 

[chcr]

I think he's talking about the Iraqis?

No troubles?

That was simply an appeasement (to you) on my part. I don't know if it's true.

 

[Gonz]

The terrorists have had no second thoughts on killing us.

You think Saddam was opposed to terrorism. I'm not so sure.

 

[2minkey]

The terrorists have had no second thoughts on killing us.



You think Saddam was opposed to terrorism. I'm not so sure.

well that clarifies everything.

 

[Cerise]

What the public can't seem to fathom is that the military is the only thing on their entire site mandated by the US Constitution.

And that the military exists to stand against those who would attack us and impose their warped views on us---to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.

 

[Cerise]

.... "provide for the common defense" or whatever it says....

You never learned the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution?

We the People of the United States

The Framers were an elite group - among the best and brightest America had to offer at the time. But they knew that they were trying to forge a nation made up not of an elite, but of the common man. Without the approval of the common man, they feared revolution. This first part of the Preamble speaks to the common man. It puts into writing, as clear as day, the notion that the people were creating this Constitution. It was not handed down by a god or by a king - it was created by the people.

in Order to form a more perfect Union

The Framers were dissatisfied with the United States under the Articles of Confederation, but they felt that what they had was the best they could have, up to now. They were striving for something better. The Articles of Confederation had been a grand experiment that had worked well up to a point, but now, less than ten years into that experiment, cracks were showing. The new United States, under this new Constitution, would be more perfect. Not perfect, but more perfect.

establish Justice

Injustice, unfairness of laws and in trade, was of great concern to the people of 1787. People looked forward to a nation with a level playing field, where courts were established with uniformity and where trade within and outside the borders of the country would be fair and unmolested. Today, we enjoy a system of justice that is one of the fairest in the world. It has not always been so - only through great struggle can we now say that every citizen has the opportunity for a fair trial and for equal treatment, and even today there still exists discrimination. But we still strive for the justice that the Framers wrote about.

insure domestic Tranquility

One of the events that caused the Convention to be held was the revolt of Massachusetts farmers knows as Shays' Rebellion. The taking up of arms by war veterans revolting against the state government was a shock to the system. The keeping of the peace was on everyone's mind, and the maintenance of tranquility at home was a prime concern. The framers hoped that the new powers given the federal government would prevent any such rebellions in the future.

provide for the common defence

The new nation was fearful of attack from all sides - and no one state was really capable of fending off an attack from land or sea by itself. With a wary eye on Britain and Spain, and ever-watchful for Indian attack, no one of the United States could go it alone. They needed each other to survive in the harsh world of international politics of the 18th century.

promote the general Welfare

This, and the next part of the Preamble, are the culmination of everything that came before it - the whole point of having tranquility, justice, and defense was to promote the general welfare - to allow every state and every citizen of those states to benefit from what the government could provide. The framers looked forward to the expansion of land holdings, industry, and investment, and they knew that a strong national government would be the beginning of that.

and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

Hand in hand with the general welfare, the framers looked forward to the blessings of liberty - something they had all fought hard for just a decade before. They were very concerned that they were creating a nation that would resemble something of a paradise for liberty, as opposed to the tyranny of a monarchy, where citizens could look forward to being free as opposed to looking out for the interests of a king. And more than for themselves, they wanted to be sure that the future generations of Americans would enjoy the same.

do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

The final clause of the Preamble is almost anti-climatic, but it is important for a few reasons - it finishes the "We, the people" thought, saying what we the people are actually doing; it gives us a name for this document, and it restates the name of the nation adopting the Constitution. That the Constitution is "ordained" reminds us of the higher power involved here - not just of a single person or of a king, but of the people themselves. That is it "established" reminds us that it replaces that which came before - the United States under the Articles (a point lost on us today, but quite relevant at the time). http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_pre.html

 

[spike]

And that the military exists to stand against those who would attack us and impose their warped views on us---to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Well that certainly clarifies that we shouldn't be in Iraq then.

 

[Cerise]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0406/p99s01-duts.html

But Levin's story, which was simply repeated without any real investigation by the Post or even the inspector general's office, relies on a false dichotomy. The senator now pretends that the CIA and other intelligence outfits had reached a rock-solid conclusion that there was no noteworthy relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in 2002, but Feith's shop improperly pressed on.

This is simply revisionist history at its worst.

Although there were certainly disagreements between the CIA and Feith's shop, both argued in 2002 that there was a relationship between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda.

The bottom line is that members of the CIA, including the Agency's director, certainly believed in 2002 that there was a relationship between the Iraqi regime and al Qaeda. And no matter what he says now, Senator Levin knows that. In a June 16, 2003 appearance on NewsHour, Senator Levin explained:

"We were told by the intelligence community that there was a very strong link between al-Qaida and Iraq, and there were real questions raised. And there are real questions raised about whether or not that link was such that the description by the intelligence community was accurate or whether or not they [note: "they" here refers to the intelligence community, not the Bush administration] stretched it."

The idea that Feith's analysts cooked up the connection, while the CIA shunned the very notion, is pure fantasy--a fantasy dreamed up by Senator Levin and some former CIA members who have repeatedly made clear their disdain for the Bush administration.

Tenet explained, "We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." Iraq and al Qaeda "have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression." Tenet warned, "We have credible reporting that al-Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al-Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs." And, "Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians, coupled with growing indications of a relationship with al-Qaeda, suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent US military action." http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/510ixmdf.asp?pg=1

What Levin and dinosaur media are not telling the American public:

The purpose of intell assessments is to present a variety of possible interpretations of the available data.