»Clinton failed in protecting the US«
|
|||
 another lefty appease the terrorists mong he's wrong...bush is right...history will prove this and the lefties can eat their hats the end posted by the anomaly |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgPoliticsBush, Kerry, IraqClinton failed in protecting the US |
|
|||
 the anomaly: ...locks up many terrorists throughout the world... He's locked up a hell of a lot of people under "anti-terrorism laws" but as to exactly how many of them are actually terrorists is a matter of dispute. posted by Marl64 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Quote: he's wrong...bush is right...history will prove this You are still delivering post-911 arguments. I am talking here how Bush betrayed the American people before 911. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Quote: * that it has failed to address the root causes of terror this i believe is very true...why do we have so many more troops in iraq than in afghanistan where bin laden is supposedly hiding? (i believe he's in pakistan but that's another thread  ) something is definantly screwy about that no doubt...
posted by The ONEder Man |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
The ONEder Man: ..why do we have so many more troops in iraq than in afghanistan where bin laden is supposedly hiding? Bush invaded Afghanistan with the promise that "We won't stop until we find him" Yet in response to post-Afghanistan queries on the matter now states "He's not important, he's only one man" People have such short memories. 
posted by Marl64 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: Call me naive, but 35 dead Americans and a lot of prevented attacks in 8 years VS. thousands of killed Americans and NO prevented attack in 8 months speaks books. Ask some friends whether the amount of death has baring on that fact. lets look at this a different way to showcase my point...or try to 
i have a bodyguard(clinton) who is there to protect me.(wtc or US in general) that is his job. i also have a maniac(al qaeda) who wants to get to me and hurt me anyway possible. right after this bodyguard is hired he is not paying attention and the maniac tries to cut off my head with a knife but due to improper planning is only able to cut off my arm('93 wtc bombing) The bodyguard is upset because i got hurt so he looks for the maniac only to find a few of his buddies and bring them to justice. So after a while that bodyguard quits so i get a new one(bush) the maniac is still out there and still mad he didn't kill me the first time. so this entire time (93-2001 which was mostly on clintons' term) the maniac has been trying to find a better way to kill me. the new bodygaurd is only there for 8 months and while he's not looking either(damn those bodyguards) the maniac comes up and finally kills me. now after i die the 2nd body guard is saddened and so pissed off he gets a few of his buddies(cooalition) to hunt nonstop until they find the maniac Which bodyguard better protected me? i still say neither because both attacks still occured and niether were watching...that equals ZERO protection on both accounts whether i died or not...the first attack could have taken down the wtc if planned correctly then we wouldn't even be having this conversation... now in terms of what the "bodyguards" have done after the attacks... i see the 2nd bodygaurd as a much better employee...he doesn't mess around with going after a few buddies he goes after them all. and i would blame the 1st bodyguard because for many years he let the hatred and planning of this maniac to grow and as i see it, it is much more his fault for not putting his foot down when i got attacked the first time... posted by The ONEder Man |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: "He's not important, he's only one man" why do we have a 50 million dollar bounty on his head again? posted by The ONEder Man |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
i fail to see a betrayal of anybody if you came into office...who would you consider to be a bigger threat a relatively unknown and small group of terrorists who had carried out only minor attacks in the past or a country that had threatened and carried out an invasion of a country that america relies upon for oil and in turn to keep a relatively stable economy...a country that had used chemical weapons in the past...a country where all available intelligence showed a desire to procure all types of weapons of mass destruction...including nuclear material from niger a country that at one point had the third most powerful armed forces in the world...even beyond china's capabilities as for osama bin laden...in order to catch him(which you seem to want too)...do you sanction invading pakistan(where bin laden fleets over the border to when he is in danger of being caught) and for the ONEder man... the root causes of terrorism are not solely osama bin laden...probably the biggest cause of terrorism is inequality...borne out of western people desires for cheap goods and exotic items...so until your willing to pay a good 10 times more for imported goods from countries which are a breeding ground for terror...then i suggest you be quiet only kidding mate
and as far as the separate argument about a "war for oil"...you need oil...i need oil...so shut the hell up about that too...or else pay 10 times more taxes to invest in "renewable energy"... posted by the anomaly |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
The ONEder Man: Quote: "He's not important, he's only one man" why do we have a 50 million dollar bounty on his head again? That's a question for the man who made the statement.
posted by Marl64 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: the new bodygaurd is only there for 8 months and while he's not looking either This is an understatement, as proven by the security advisors' words: Bush was a bodyguard SLEEPING, if you want that bodyguard analogy. Quote: the first attack could have taken down the wtc if planned correctly then we wouldn't even be having this conversation... That's what I am saying. They didn't plan it correctly. They were stupid and foolish. And in 2001 they planned it correctly with dozens of people and thus the FBI and CIA alarm clocks were ringing and yet, the bodyguard didn't care. posted by knn |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
But Bin-Laden is just part of the problem, he's not the cause. You can argue all day about what could have been done to stop the attacks, but isn't it better to look for what could have prevented them? Looking objectively, one motivating factor for terrorism is a hatred of U.S. foreign policy, but here-in lies the rub. If the U.S. takes a more agressive stance and refuses to give in to terrorism (the standing policy), this will only increase the hatrid and intensify the motivation. If the U.S. backs off, it is seen as weak and "terrorism has won". The politicians maintain that the latter will show terrorists that their methods work and will encourage more attacks Yet common sense tells us that the former is simply adding fuel to the fire. The sad part is that there is no easy answer, but there is an answer - they just don't want to consider it. posted by Marl64 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
spot on man  posted by the anomaly |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
if the 2nd bodygaurd was sleeping then the first was too busy flirting with the ladies
why didn't clinton go after terrorist hard like bush? if he had after the first attack then the 2nd could have possible been averted... Quote: thus the FBI and CIA alarm clocks were ringing and yet, the bodyguard didn't care. during 8 years after the first attack the alarm clock never went off once? as i said before if the first gaurd had planned better against an attack in his 8 YEARS in office compared to the 8 MONTHS in office the 2nd had to work with, i might not be dead posted by The ONEder Man |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
but i was gonna stay out of the discussion of why it happened for another thread...oh god i sound like knn!  posted by The ONEder Man |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: Looking objectively, one motivating factor for terrorism is a hatred of U.S. foreign policy, but here-in lies the rub.
If the U.S. takes a more agressive stance and refuses to give in to terrorism (the standing policy), this will only increase the hatrid and intensify the motivation. Exactly. Here's what Richard Clarke says (please read it completely): Who are we fighting in the war on terrorism? We're fighting Islamic radicals, and they are drawing people from the youth of the Islamic world into hating us.
Now, after September 11th, people in the Islamic world said, "Wait a minute, maybe we've gone too far here. Maybe this Islamic movement, this radical movement has to be suppressed." And we had a moment, we had a window of opportunity, where we could change the ideology in the Islamic world. Instead, we've enflamed the ideology, we've played right into their hands, of al Qaeda and others. We've done what Osama bin Laden said we would do. Ninety percent of the Islamic people in Morocco, Jordan, Turkey, Egypt -- allied countries to the United States -- 90 percent in polls taken last month hate the United States. It's very hard when that's the game, where 90 percent of the Arab people hate us, it's very hard for us to win the battle of ideas. We can arrest them. We can kill them. But as Don Rumsfeld said in the memo that leaked from the Pentagon, I'm afraid that they're generating more ideological radicals against us than we are arresting them and killing them. They're producing more faster than we are. The president of Egypt said, "If you invade Iraq, you will create a 100 bin Ladens." He lives in the Arab world. He knows. It's turned out to be true. It is now much more difficult for us to win the battle of ideas, as well as arresting and killing them. And we're going to face a second generation of al Qaeda. We're going to catch bin Laden. I have no doubt about that. In the next few months, he'll be found dead or alive. But it's two years too late, because during those two years, al Qaeda has morphed into a hydra-headed organization, independent cells like the organization that did the attack in Madrid. And that's the second reason. The attack in Madrid showed the vulnerabilities of the rails in Spain. We have all sorts of vulnerabilities in our country -- chemical plants, railroads. We've done a very good job on passenger aircraft now. But there are all of these other vulnerabilities that require an enormous amount of money to reduce those vulnerabilities. And we're not doing that. I don't think there is much to add to that, except that in the recent polls, the hatred increased to 100%. Well done, Bush
posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
 Register Log in |
The time now is 10 January 2009, 00:30 php B.B. |