posted on November 4, 2003 08:45:24 AM new
reamond - [please excuse my sarcastic tone - not directed at you]
WHAT TERRORISTS???? The only terrorist here in the US is Bush and Co. Haven't you heard? We should just negotiate with these people, plead with them not to attack us, understand their ways of thinking. They mean us no ill-will.
Then there are those who think we should not be fighting a war on terrorism. It's like the war on drug.....useless.
Then those who believe we deserve whatever we get because of our past auctions.
Me? I care. I'm glad we have a president in office that is at least willing to fight against these anti-American groups.
posted on November 4, 2003 09:33:44 AM new
Of course it will. But there are times when I judge that there are a lot of dems who want to hide their heads under the covers, rather than face the realities of our world today and confront them head on.
Like gravid said recently [paraphrasing here] we don't have the guts to do what is necessary when we have the opportunity. We candy coat the seriousness these terrorists present to our country.
We [the citizens of this nation] should be united on this issue if nothing else. But that doesn't appear to be the case.
posted on November 4, 2003 01:46:22 PM new
[paraphrasing here]
There are a lot of cheerleaders who want to hide their heads under the covers, rather than face the deceptions of the chickenhawks today
The yella'belly'chickenhawks don't have the guts to do what is necessary when they get the the call to duty.
We [the citizens of all nations] should stick our deaf and blind heads up our a$$ on this issue if nothing else. But that doesn't appear to be the case.
posted on November 4, 2003 02:03:38 PM new
Linda, the war on terrorism should have been fought all along, not just since 911. If you know who the terrorists are and you stay focused on them, no problem. But going after countries, after admittingly stating your intelligence was faulty, is backwards.
I was taught that the foundation of anything is the most important part. The foundation of war is the planning stage. In what ways were the Afghanistan and Iraq wars thought out? How many terrorists have been caught?
posted on November 4, 2003 02:31:03 PM new
KD - Something I'm afraid you and those like-minded people don't see/understand/believe is what the terrorist, themselves, have said is their goal. Somehow you all seem to ignore that.
Bush took a few months after 9-11 before he gave the Afghanistan government a choice. Either hand over these terrorists you are protecting, or we're coming in. They didn't, we did. At least Bush does what he says he's going to do. At least he's been willing to stand up to their 'evil'.
I don't ever expect to be able to say anything that would change your mind. But what I have repeatedly shared is my opinion. And part of that opinion is that the US WAS attacked during the clinton administration and little was done about it. That wouldn't have happened with a president who supports our military, or a president who's not going to allow that type of action against our nation.
Clinton did not support our military, he reduced funding to it in 7 out of his 8 years in office. Career officers were resigning rigth and left because he wouldn't give funds to do the necessary updating of our military equipment so that we would be in a state of 'ready' if need be.
He avoided dealing with the terrorists when the issues were smaller than 9-11. BinLaden's own statements confirm how he saw clinton's lack of doing anything when our property was attacked [outside the US]. BL said 'we were paper tigers'. He saw our lack of taking action, and so did Saddam. These terrorists, imo, see that as weakness and it makes them feel stronger.
And to say we haven't gotten any of the terrorists is simply not a true statement. We have captured or have handed over to us almost 2/3 of Saddams top advisors. We have captured with the help of others many A-Q supporters.
It's a direct result of the position Bush has taken with terrorism that has encouraged many countries in the world to also persue these terrorists. You're just overlooking the positives that have happened.
posted on November 4, 2003 05:47:48 PM new
Linda, you and those like-minded people don't see/understand/believe that Osama's goal is to BANKRUPT THE U.S.A.
Blaming Clinton because he tried to use diplomacy to the nth degree instead of building up the armed forces, is silly.
Being a peace loving country, you teach peace by your actions. Unjustified war isn't included. By taking on the peace keeping roll, you're setting yourself up for retaliation by non-believers, but that's part of the deal.
posted on November 4, 2003 06:00:11 PM new
Since Sept. 11, I've crossed the US Mexican border at least 3 dozen times. Security is a joke.Recent plants of forbidden items on airliners bears this out at airports. New attacks will not surprise me. It will be a political gold mine for the right.
edited to add: I crossed it yesterday, we were given only cursory glances and waved thru.This in a Suburban, carrying 7 people with an obviously padlocked rooftop box on the rack. I sure hope Homeland Security has made everybody feel safer.
___________________________________
In this world of sin and sorrow, there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican. -- H.L. Mencken
[ edited by profe51 on Nov 4, 2003 06:05 PM ]
posted on November 4, 2003 06:27:35 PM new
Prof I agree the security sucks. But how can you really expect to secure a border the size of ours with Mexico or Canada? Not to mention our coasts and all the ports.
Simply can't be done without removing people's right to travel and making importing goods much much more expensive and slower.
It's all a farce and show. They know that their chance of catching terrorists coming in is almost random and very low.
If they government says - No, you guys don't know your own mind about why you attacked us - it doesn't have anything to do with your religion. And then as in the case of 9/11 retaliate by waging war on Iraq - a country that didn't have anything to do with the attack. What does that do to stop another attack?
They might as well have attacked Jamaica for all their actions related to reality.
It makes all sorts of people wonder if they'll be next no matter what they do. Those that are a real threat like the Saudis and the North Koreans seem to get a free pass.
posted on November 4, 2003 07:10:17 PM new
gravid, I don't think either border can be secured. I do think that Homeland Security and all it entails has given US citizens a patently false sense of security. I have the feeling that those who wish to enter this country with bad intentions are probably able to with approximately the same ease as they ever were. That's why I say the next attack will be a political gold mine for the administration. They'll capitalize on it for an attack on whoever is deemed to be next.
___________________________________
In this world of sin and sorrow, there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican. -- H.L. Mencken
We should just negotiate with these people, plead with them not to attack us, understand their ways of thinking. They mean us no ill-will.
