Are these ads distasteful?

[T2k]

Guys, let's leave the name calling and personal attacks out of these threads. I know it's not easy when it comes to politics and religion, but. . . .

Problem is that majority of the Bush fans take everything on personal levels. Check Joe's reaction, I think that's typical: I did not write one letter about him and he came back so rude immediately on me.

 

[epicstruggle]

Guys, let's leave the name calling and personal attacks out of these threads. I know it's not easy when it comes to politics and religion, but. . . .

Problem is that majority of the Bush fans take everything on personal levels. Check Joe's reaction, I think that's typical: I did not write one letter about him and he came back so rude immediately on me.

Your one to talk. Everyone has taken things to seriously/personally. Dont go blaming one side, when yours is just as bad.

later,
epic

 

[T2k]

Guys, let's leave the name calling and personal attacks out of these threads. I know it's not easy when it comes to politics and religion, but. . . .

Problem is that majority of the Bush fans take everything on personal levels. Check Joe's reaction, I think that's typical: I did not write one letter about him and he came back so rude immediately on me.

Your one to talk. Everyone has taken things to seriously/personally. Dont go blaming one side, when yours is just as bad.

later,
epic

Epic: check the first page...

HINT: I'm not on any side... I'm opposing Bush, that's all.

 

[Natoma]

You ask too much of the voting masses.

Yep, being intelligent is such a burden to ask of one

It is when you're talking about the voting masses of this country. Sad but true. Voters in generaly aren't educated about who they're voting for. Why do you think John Kerry started steamrolling after he won one primary. I've touched on this in other threads.

Al-Qaeda's worldwide activities have increased as of late. See Iraq, Afghanistan (where the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are on a comeback since we've relied on warlord mercenaries to do our dirty work rather than sending in enough troops to control the entire nation)

First of all, Terrorist Activity is suppose to be attracted to Iraq - that's kinda a subpoint of the theme I've been carrying. But, I guess I'm "asking too much."

So we created a terrorist problem in a country where there wasn't one and that's a good thing? I'm sure the innocent Iraqis who get caught in bomb blast after bomb blast just love the idea that they're the guinea pigs in our war against terrorism. And yes, I know that those innocent Iraqis weren't much happier under Saddam's tyrannical rule. So don't bother retorting with that for sarcastic purposes.

Also, there is hardly a comeback in Afghanistan. This has been rumored in liberal circles since 2002 and nothing has come of it. See here

I subscribe to TIME.

At the end of the Afghanistan war in 2001, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda were reported by the administration and military officials to be completely driven out of the country and hiding out in Pakistan. Those hundreds of Al-Qaeda and Taliban are a come back. What the story doesn't mention, however, is a previous TIME article that profiled the warlords and said that many Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters left the ranks and returned home to their Afghani villages, but have been slowly trickling back after the inhuman treatment by the warlords who also happen to be fighting in our name with our funding.

At least with our own troops, we wouldn't have had that problem.

Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia (my ex-bf is from there and has kept me abreast of the increase in terrorist activities), and The Philippines, to name a few. And that doesn't count the ancillary terrorist groups that have joined Al-Qaeda as part of "joint ventures." Ansar Al-Islam is one group off the top of my head.

Again, these are positive signs of America's effectiveness. Al-Qaeda's strength was it's hierarchial control, funding and international reach. The hierarchy is severed and the funds are gone. The virtual state has most likely splintered into it's regional factions which is why you're seeing such localized attacks.

We seized roughly $200 Million in funds since 2001 IIRC. Bin Laden is a multi-billionaire. Do you honestly think the funds are gone? Btw, the sleeper cell in upstate NY that was caught a couple of years ago was found to be funded by one of the high level Saudi diplomats. This little ditty was leaked online from the 9/11 comissions' report that detailed 26 pages of the Saudi's complicit bedding with Al-Qaeda. I'm sure you know of their dirty history well.

And I disagree regarding Al-Qaeda's strength being it's heirarchical control. In fact, it's strength has long been its ability to splinter and operate in sleeper cells, and develop "talent" at the grass roots. Regional attacks have occurred before and after 2001. That's how terrorists generally work. Planning and executing something as deft as the two WTC bombings or the attacks against the US embassy in Kenya or the USS Cole require years. They don't just happen overnight.

Frankly I'm more concerned that we have not appropriately funded our border and port security. Thousands of boxes and crates large enough to house a small nuke cross our ports every day, yet we inspect only 1%. In order to have a deterrant effect, government officials say that needs to be at least 20%. Terrorists can cross the border at Mexico quite easily if they don't want to take a chance in an airport, and no doubt have been doing so. These are two very important initiatives that have not received proper funding yet, and I believe we've been lucky, not good, in avoiding a terrorist attack on our homeland over the past few years. The same way we were lucky to have avoided the 1999 bombing of LAX for example.

Al-Qaeda and their terrorist bretheren are like decentralized computing. You kill one branch and the others keep on ticking. Just because we haven't seen an attack doesn't mean their activities have diminished worldwide.

I disagree highly. Al-Qaeda doesn't have the funding, control and reach when it's operating in just cells. For example, it's clear that the American Cells pre-Sept 11th pulled off the attack only with the funding and direction of the centralized hierarchy. This is analogous to all the Al-Qaeda attacks pre-9/11.

Unless, you can explain to me how this "decentralized computing" is proved by the pre-9/11 attackers which raised their own funds, operatd under their own direction and were trained themselvs. You can't... end of story.

Funding, yes. Direction? I doubt that. The planning was complete before they went into sleeper status according to post 9/11 reports. Frankly I hope you're right. But I remain skeptical. These terrorists have shown themselves to be highly resilient. Again, just because we haven't seen an attack on US soil since 2001 doesn't mean that everything is hunkey dorey.

There wasn't a terrorist attack on US soil since the 1993 World Trade bombing until 2001. You want to attribute that 8 year stretch of homeland peace to Bill Clinton's handy leadership in the war against terrorism? So good, you didn't even notice it.

During those 8 years, Al-Qaeda moved to Afghanistan and opened their training camps. They also planted the Sept-11 cells and had several attempts on the American homeland which were luckily caught by the FBI/CIA such as the Pacific Airliner attack, or the New Years 2000 attack.

The difference, Natoma, since you won't put it together yourself, is that during Clinton's 8 years Al-Qaeda was training in a stable country with stable funds flowing in - today they're being hunted and 75% of their upper hierarchy is dead.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing Vince. For someone who seems to support "neocon"-ism, (and I'm talking about true neoconservatism here, not the bastardized version that some mistake for republican conservatism, which has in fact been outflanked by neoconservatism on the far right. the "old school" republican conservatives are the ones we call "moderates" today. hehe) you certainly seem to be willing to say everything is hells bells. From what I've read they tend to be rather paranoid about the world's dangers lurking around every corner.

Iran disclosed that they're working on a nuclear reactor for peaceful purposes (yea right). But we can't attack them based off that alone. Libya was certainly a great turning point. However every bad situation has its silver lining.

Yeah, alot of silver you've overlooked here huh?

My point, Vince, is that Iran disclosing their nuclear reactor would have happened anyway. It's not like you can hide a big honkin nuke factory for very long. This would be like one saying Bush putting NK in the "axis of evil" was a good thing because it led North Korea to expose a nuclear bomb program that apparently was going strong all along anyway.

And while we're on the topic of disclosures, it came to light recently that Pakistan's top nuclear scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan, was the one who proliferated all the nuclear 'secrets' to Iran, Libya, North Korea, and Syria I believe. Unfortunately our good buddy Musharraf gave him a full pardon. But at least we got the disclosure right?

We ignored North Korea for over a year after they admitted in late 2002 they were going to have 3-6 bombs by mid to late 2003. I don't know what's worse, not knowing that a country you made a treaty with has pulled the wool over your eyes and apparently continued to develop nukes, or knowing decisively that they would have a nuke (mainly because they were flaunting it) and had no compunction about selling that to the highest bidder.

Well, truth be told, we wouldn't have had this problem if someone's earlier policies weren't so blind when dealing with your described, "most well known billionaire fugitive this side of the Euphrates?"

It doesn't matter who the purchaser is Vince. Bill Gates, if he were maniacal enough, and I'm sure there are some MS haters here who will profess it be true, could purchase a couple of nukes. Osama happens to be the most famous. I doubt he's the only one with money or connections to terrorist organizations. Just run your thumb through the Saudi rolodex.

And that doesn't excuse Bush going after Iraq, a country we thought might have wmd vs North Korea, a country we knew would have wmd. North Korea is no more dangerous today (militarily outside of the nukes they possess now) than it was in 1994 when Bill Clinton threatened to blow the country to high water unless they back off their nuke wishes, so saying that it was because of some threat to South Korea is spurrious at best imo, if you were thinking about coming back with that retort.

And if Saddam truly did have all the wmd the administration professed he did, he could have taken out Saudi Arabia, Israel, Syria, Jordan, Turkey, Afghanistan, and Iran once he saw our troops on the ground and knew we were serious, let alone take out all our troops with a few well placed long range bombs. And lets not forget the fears of an all powerful wmd armed fighting force that would struggle to the last man in urban warfare. Vietnam redux some military folks feared. But we went in anyway.

If we attack Iraq and Iraq had WMD, we lose a great portion of our oil and we go down in flames. If we attack North Korea, we potentially lose 3 of the best economies in the world, and go down in flames. Pick your poison I suppose. I guess I'd rather pick the poison that actually certainly flauntingly had wmd as opposed to the one that may have had it, and turns out apparently didn't.

When the Pentagon releases a report calling Global Warming the greatest threat mankind will face over the next century, I think the time for research is over. Especially when the administration conducting the research has suspect appointments to the very committees that are supposed to be conducting unbiased research.

Courtesy of DemoCoder

(a) The Pentagon report is a joke, this was made clear in that thread.
(b) With all due respect to Democoder, he mistook bioethics for biology research. There's quite a difference.

a) Scientists from around the globe have all been saying this. Now our own military is saying this. But it's still a joke. Ok.

b) Vince, it doesn't matter. The point is that you're stacking a panel that is supposed to give advice based on sound research with people who only believe one way. That does not lend itself well to well rounded opinions. This happened in this instance, and it happened with the OSP, among others. There is just clear repeated evidence of this administration getting the people it wants to hear and dismissing everyone else, no matter their qualifications. That automatically tars their findings.

Alan Greenspan seems to disagree with you there.

Um, IIRC he said exact what I repeated. That the debt is managable, the spending needs to be controlled.

Greenspan said the debt is a long term problem attributable to the decrease in revenue from the tax cuts and the increase in spending. One of them has to go, and he said he prefers to cut spending rather than increase taxes. Unfortunately, spending has only been cut $3 Billion (discretionary non-defense) while defense and entitlement are set to soar. $3 Billion in cuts with a $500 billion deficit is paltry. The president has promised to hold discretionary non-defense spending at or below the increase in inflation. Unfortunately discretionary non-defense spending only accounts for roughly 15% of the budget. You can't cut meat from a stripped bone and expect overall improvement.

No politician is going to touch SS for years until they're forced to. None of them, republican or democrat, have the spine to do it.

Well, we differ here. I think there is a strong Conservative push to get this done in the lame-duck session.

Edit: Correctly attributed quotes. Sorry 'bout that.

If it's as good as the medicare prescription drug bill, lord help us.......

 

[John Reynolds]

I subscribe to TIME.

Left wing liberal trash written by pot smoking, pinko bleeding hearts whose political leanings make them traitors to our Republic.

 

[Natoma]

Psst.. Check the sig.

 

[Natoma]

Your one to talk. Everyone has taken things to seriously/personally. Dont go blaming one side, when yours is just as bad.

Interesting...

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Campaign-Ads.html

Looks like the political landscape on the republican side is a lot like I said it was.

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=233269#233269

 

[Vince]

It is when you're talking about the voting masses of this country. Sad but true. Voters in generaly aren't educated about who they're voting for. Why do you think John Kerry started steamrolling after he won one primary. I've touched on this in other threads.

Well, then that's sad. Not talking about you, much the opposite in that case - but if you're going to play the game and win on something as uneducated and frankly, pathetic as this... then that's sad.

So we created a terrorist problem in a country where there wasn't one and that's a good thing? I'm sure the innocent Iraqis who get caught in bomb blast after bomb blast just love the idea that they're the guinea pigs in our war against terrorism. And yes, I know that those innocent Iraqis weren't much happier under Saddam's tyrannical rule. So don't bother retorting with that for sarcastic purposes.

But, it's a win-win situation. It's not that we're using them (like a guinea pig) as you hinted, their freedom is our defense. It's that simple.

I subscribe to TIME.

At the end of the Afghanistan war in 2001, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda were reported by the administration and military officials to be completely driven out of the country and hiding out in Pakistan. Those hundreds of Al-Qaeda and Taliban are a come back. What the story doesn't mention, however, is a previous TIME article that profiled the warlords and said that many Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters left the ranks and returned home to their Afghani villages, but have been slowly trickling back after the inhuman treatment by the warlords who also happen to be fighting in our name with our funding.

Well, the "previous" article was even further back into 2002. See Natoma, there really isn't a repatriation or revival of the Taliban or Al-Qaeda that's tangible. The Leftist have been talking about how horrible Bush is doing and how their move to Iraq allowed the repatriation of the country - but it hasn't happened in over two years. And frankly, it won't happen now that the US is starting up a lage offensive with the Pakistani's and NATO is around the country.

Show me the proof? It just isn't there Natoma.

At least with our own troops, we wouldn't have had that problem.

Blah! More hollow liberal "Internationalization " talk - the operation was sucessfull due to the type of conflict. What you're saying is amazingly obtuse, especially since what your advocating is what led the Soviets to their death trap.

Our "Own troops" don't know the culture, don't know the terrain, and are trained for a conventional conflict. An armored division is of no use there, nor are several divisions of troops trained for battle against a standing army. You talk about Iraq and the death count, what do you think would happen if you move an armored and infantry divisions in there?

The battle was sucessfully and correctly fought with airpower and special operators in conjunction with the natives. Your concept is wrong.

I disagree regarding Al-Qaeda's strength being it's heirarchical control. In fact, it's strength has long been its ability to splinter and operate in sleeper cells, and develop "talent" at the grass roots. Regional attacks have occurred before and after 2001. That's how terrorists generally work. Planning and executing something as deft as the two WTC bombings or the attacks against the US embassy in Kenya or the USS Cole require years. They don't just happen overnight.

Natoma, you've basically supported my case. Fractal groups/cells are only capable of regional and small scale attacks. 9/11 took years because it took the hierarchy to organize the crews, arrange transit to the US, channel funds and coordinate the attacks. For example, did you know that IIRC the Al-Qaeda hierarchy replaced one-two of the hijackers within months of the attack and sent replacements?

It's abundantly clear that Al-Qaeda's ability to gain funding and manpower, then channel it worldwide to the cells which are given a task is what made it so powerful. Look no further than the hierarchy we've captured and how much knowledge they have - if it was distributed Mohammad wouldn't have knowldge and admit to being behind basically the planning or directive of virtually every Al-Qaeda attack. Same with Ramzi Yousef before.

Frankly I'm more concerned that we have not appropriately funded our border and port security. Thousands of boxes and crates large enough to house a small nuke cross our ports every day, yet we inspect only 1%. In order to have a deterrant effect, government officials say that needs to be at least 20%. Terrorists can cross the border at Mexico quite easily if they don't want to take a chance in an airport, and no doubt have been doing so. These are two very important initiatives that have not received proper funding yet, and I believe we've been lucky, not good, in avoiding a terrorist attack on our homeland over the past few years.

I disagree. We don't live in a police state and the border will never be closed to someone who wants to get in and have the funds/means to do it. We're simply too big.

It's intelligence capability that will prevail as a virtual barrier with the physical border a last stop. Anything else is nothing more than a dream.

It doesn't matter who the purchaser is Vince. Bill Gates, if he were maniacal enough, and I'm sure there are some MS haters here who will profess it be true, could purchase a couple of nukes. Osama happens to be the most famous. I doubt he's the only one with money or connections to terrorist organizations. Just run your thumb through the Saudi rolodex.

And that doesn't excuse Bush going after Iraq, a country we thought might have wmd vs North Korea, a country we knew would have wmd.

First of all, Osama has no WMD that we know of. But he's a plausible threat and must be taken out. Saddam, at the least was just as threatening from his attempted assasination of an American President, to his public funding of terrorist groups, to his desire and external perception of WMD.

North Korea is different for many reasons IMHO, culture and history if one of them. I, for one, question just why the North is acting the way it does and wonder how much of it's cultural history influences and presence of the wealthy/industrialized South is influening his antics.

And if Saddam truly did have all the wmd the administration professed he did, he could have taken out Saudi Arabia, Israel, Syria, Jordan, Turkey, Afghanistan, and Iran once he saw our troops on the ground and knew we were serious, let alone take out all our troops with a few well placed long range bombs.

(a) It's now known that Saddam thought his "allies" in Europe would broker a deal untill the last minute, which is understandable if he was as insane as often claimed by his confidants.
(b) There is no way Iraq, with every percieved WMD we thought he had, could take out our troops.

a) Scientists from around the globe have all been saying this. Now our own military is saying this. But it's still a joke. Ok.

Um, yes. The report claimed the UK would be submerged in like 15-15years. No scientist of respect would publish such a claim knowing how controversial the entire debate is. There just isn't enough evidence to support the case... either way.

b) Vince, it doesn't matter. The point is that you're stacking a panel that is supposed to give advice based on sound research with people who only believe one way. That does not lend itself well to well rounded opinions. This happened in this instance, and it happened with the OSP, among others. There is just clear repeated evidence of this administration getting the people it wants to hear and dismissing everyone else, no matter their qualifications. That automatically tars their findings.

Not in the least, it just shows you don't understand the commission. It's a Bioethics commission and Kass - whose among the greatest philosophers of our time - replaced the two members, whose turns expired, with other people. Big deal, the new people are just as qualified and just as good for the position.

I mean, who are you to question this?

Also, you could have just said, "Yes... Greenspan said what you did"

 

[John Reynolds]

http://reason.com/links/links030304.shtml

Kass simply cannot with a straight face make the claim, as he does in Washington Post, that the "personal views" of Schaub and Lawler are "completely unknown" to him. It's a shame that the White House has somehow persuaded a man as smart and principled as Leon Kass to deny in public what he must in fact know to be so.

 

[Vince]

John Reynolds,

Do you know what Leon Kass's position on Bioethics entails? That is, without the last minute googling. Why do I think based off our previous conversations you have no clue that he's been holding the same view of humanity and the qualities of being a human for more years than I can count on my fingers and toes.

But, aslong as you can google a webpage that supports your nonsensical viewpoint....

Leon Kass is one of the most respected and eminent philosophers of our time. He is undoubtedly a genius whose knowledge and education is vast and widely encompassing; diemetrically opposed to you. Who are you to question him knowing what you do?

As for your little article which tries so hard to find an alterior motive, it falls short. Citing academics who crisscross isn't that impressive to me, it happens all the time in the higher-tier of academia - and it doesn't mean they know a single thing about eachother's personal beliefs. Just because they're at the same conferece, or even the same round-table discussion doesn't mean they talk about their own beliefs and ational behind their positions. I, myself, and I'm sure Democoder can attest, have been part of several such roundtable discussions and frankly, I don't know or care what they think personally. The Lefrak Symposium alone has had over 150 presenters giving their thesis's and academic positions - give me a break. Neither are blatent appeals to invoke the 'religious-right, bible-thumping' reaction with Ben Carson because he's a member of the 7th day adventist church - big deal, I'm a member of the RCC too, but thats about where our connection stops. What a joke - lets bash Einstein as well since he couldn't rule out a God. To tar and feather an eminent neuroscientist for holding a belief in this way is embarrasement to us all - you see, this is why academics and scientists don't step into the debate, because no matter how right you are - you're allways wrong. This, Natoma, is why Roe-V-Wade hasn't been challenged and why as you said yourself, you don't see "biological reductionist" enter the frey. Especially those at high level research universities that holds 'conservative' views - who wants this kind of flak from the established powers that be holding back their progression and work over their choice to be part of this religious group or that, or holding this view instead of that. Where's the affirmative action in this case?

Thank God for Google.... or where else would your asinine positions/conspiracy theories be?

 

[RussSchultz]

Thank God for Google.... or where else would your asinine positions/conspiracy theories be?

On Altavista

/for you old schoolers

 

[Natoma]

It is when you're talking about the voting masses of this country. Sad but true. Voters in generaly aren't educated about who they're voting for. Why do you think John Kerry started steamrolling after he won one primary. I've touched on this in other threads.

Well, then that's sad. Not talking about you, much the opposite in that case - but if you're going to play the game and win on something as uneducated and frankly, pathetic as this... then that's sad.

It's politics as usual, and republicans are as much a stranger to these kinds of tactics as democrats are, if you get my drift.

But, it's a win-win situation. It's not that we're using them (like a guinea pig) as you hinted, their freedom is our defense. It's that simple.

Well the guinea pig comment was for sarcasm purposes only. hehe. But as I said earlier, there's a huge terrorist presence in Iraq now where there wasn't one before. The upside is that we're occupying many of them in Iraq. The downside is that they're causing tremendous problems and will continue to cause tremendous problems for the upcoming transitional government and Iraqis who support them.

I subscribe to TIME.

At the end of the Afghanistan war in 2001, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda were reported by the administration and military officials to be completely driven out of the country and hiding out in Pakistan. Those hundreds of Al-Qaeda and Taliban are a come back. What the story doesn't mention, however, is a previous TIME article that profiled the warlords and said that many Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters left the ranks and returned home to their Afghani villages, but have been slowly trickling back after the inhuman treatment by the warlords who also happen to be fighting in our name with our funding.

Well, the "previous" article was even further back into 2002. See Natoma, there really isn't a repatriation or revival of the Taliban or Al-Qaeda that's tangible. The Leftist have been talking about how horrible Bush is doing and how their move to Iraq allowed the repatriation of the country - but it hasn't happened in over two years. And frankly, it won't happen now that the US is starting up a lage offensive with the Pakistani's and NATO is around the country.

Show me the proof? It just isn't there Natoma.

This isn't the article that I was looking for, but it'll have to do for now until I find the actual one. TIME's search engine is fookered, so I'm having to go through each of my magazines manually and then pull the contents off the web. Very cumbersome.

TIME Magazine, March 1st 2004 Edition[/url]]Because of the paltry number of foreign peacekeepers—about 20,000, in contrast to 130,000 troops in Iraq—and Karzai's inability to extend his grip outside Kabul, most of Afghanistan is under the sway of truculent warlords who in many cases finance armed militias through a resurgent opium trade. The Taliban show signs of a comeback, with forces loyal to Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar—believed to be hiding in Afghanistan or Pakistan—now controlling nearly one-third of the country's territory.

So another military showdown is looming. U.S. military officials believe that Taliban fighters are preparing to launch an offensive against the U.S. and its Afghan allies this spring. "As the weather gets better and as people are better able to travel in the rougher terrain, we expect an increase in violence," says General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

....................

Two months ago, the Taliban claimed responsibility for two suicide bombings that killed a Canadian and a British soldier. Last week, just the day before Karzai declared the Taliban "defeated," five members of an Afghan nonprofit group were shot dead by suspected militants. In Spin Boldak, a dusty smugglers' crossroads in southeastern Afghanistan, the Taliban have launched four major ambushes from Pakistani hideouts against Afghan government outposts over the past nine months, killing dozens. Abdul Raziq, the pro-U.S. garrison commander in Spin Boldak, says he has received intelligence from tribal allies in border towns like Chaman that the Taliban are gearing up for a major guerrilla campaign. "They are coming," he says. "It's only a matter of time."

At least with our own troops, we wouldn't have had that problem.

Blah! More hollow liberal "Internationalization " talk - the operation was sucessfull due to the type of conflict. What you're saying is amazingly obtuse, especially since what your advocating is what led the Soviets to their death trap.

Internationalization? Vince, do you honestly think we would have gotten the 150K+ troops needed to occupy Afghanistan from an international coalition? I'm speaking about our own troops. And I talked about your allusion to the soviet death trap in 1980 in an earlier thread. I don't know if you missed it or just didn't choose to respond, but here it is again:

Vince, the Soviets were not working with the level of technology we have today. It's not like we would have put 150K troops on the ground and they would have had 1980 technology whereas 50K troops had 2001 technology. We needed that amount of troops on the ground so that we wouldn't have to depend on the warlords and their fighters to fight for us. What would that troop strength have allowed us to do? Corner Al-Qaeda and the Taliban with our technology, as well as take the weapons out of the hands of the warlords and truly have a stable nation on our hands, not a nation-city that exists today.

You honestly believe the warlords didn't let the Taliban and Al-Qaeda get away if they were paid enough? They're ruthless mercenaries. They were that way before we went in, and they're that way today. How can we possibly trust them with an issue of the utmost national security? I can't believe you actually consider that a stroke of brilliance on our part. :?

Our "Own troops" don't know the culture, don't know the terrain, and are trained for a conventional conflict. An armored division is of no use there, nor are several divisions of troops trained for battle against a standing army. You talk about Iraq and the death count, what do you think would happen if you move an armored and infantry divisions in there?

The battle was sucessfully and correctly fought with airpower and special operators in conjunction with the natives. Your concept is wrong.

I don't understand your thinking here Vince. Our troops didn't know the culture in Iraq nor the terrain either, but we went in anyway with 150K troops didn't we? Not all of Afghanistan is mountainous either. The majority of the country could have been maintained with armored divisions. And at least if soldiers were dying in Afghanistan, we'd know they were dying for a good reason, i.e. the leaders of Afghanistan were openly harboring those who directly attacked us. We went into Iraq for WMD and the threat of Terrorist Ties. Neither of those have turned out to be true. In many people's eyes, those were the reasons we went to war. Now that they have turned out not to be the case, it's somewhat difficult to support the deaths that have occurred.

I disagree regarding Al-Qaeda's strength being it's heirarchical control. In fact, it's strength has long been its ability to splinter and operate in sleeper cells, and develop "talent" at the grass roots. Regional attacks have occurred before and after 2001. That's how terrorists generally work. Planning and executing something as deft as the two WTC bombings or the attacks against the US embassy in Kenya or the USS Cole require years. They don't just happen overnight.

Natoma, you've basically supported my case. Fractal groups/cells are only capable of regional and small scale attacks. 9/11 took years because it took the hierarchy to organize the crews, arrange transit to the US, channel funds and coordinate the attacks. For example, did you know that IIRC the Al-Qaeda hierarchy replaced one-two of the hijackers within months of the attack and sent replacements?

Vince, the power of 9/11 was that it was 4 coordinated strikes against US interests, 3 of which succeeded, not that it was a terrorist strike on US soil. That doesn't mean that a single deadly strike cannot occur from an isolated cell. The highly destructive attacks in Bali for instance was not planned from the top. It was an isolated cell. That occurs quite often around the world.

It's abundantly clear that Al-Qaeda's ability to gain funding and manpower, then channel it worldwide to the cells which are given a task is what made it so powerful. Look no further than the hierarchy we've captured and how much knowledge they have - if it was distributed Mohammad wouldn't have knowldge and admit to being behind basically the planning or directive of virtually every Al-Qaeda attack. Same with Ramzi Yousef before.

I wonder sometimes the quality of the information gleaned from captured terrorists under duress of torture.

Frankly I'm more concerned that we have not appropriately funded our border and port security. Thousands of boxes and crates large enough to house a small nuke cross our ports every day, yet we inspect only 1%. In order to have a deterrant effect, government officials say that needs to be at least 20%. Terrorists can cross the border at Mexico quite easily if they don't want to take a chance in an airport, and no doubt have been doing so. These are two very important initiatives that have not received proper funding yet, and I believe we've been lucky, not good, in avoiding a terrorist attack on our homeland over the past few years.

I disagree. We don't live in a police state and the border will never be closed to someone who wants to get in and have the funds/means to do it. We're simply too big.

It's intelligence capability that will prevail as a virtual barrier with the physical border a last stop. Anything else is nothing more than a dream.

That isn't the point Vince. We're not funding security enough to get even a level of security that would be described as minimal at best. Port inspections needs to be done at a rate of 20%, but we're only inspecting 1%. The money just isn't there to increase the rate of inspection.

It doesn't matter who the purchaser is Vince. Bill Gates, if he were maniacal enough, and I'm sure there are some MS haters here who will profess it be true, could purchase a couple of nukes. Osama happens to be the most famous. I doubt he's the only one with money or connections to terrorist organizations. Just run your thumb through the Saudi rolodex.

And that doesn't excuse Bush going after Iraq, a country we thought might have wmd vs North Korea, a country we knew would have wmd.

First of all, Osama has no WMD that we know of. But he's a plausible threat and must be taken out. Saddam, at the least was just as threatening from his attempted assasination of an American President, to his public funding of terrorist groups, to his desire and external perception of WMD.

North Korea is different for many reasons IMHO, culture and history if one of them. I, for one, question just why the North is acting the way it does and wonder how much of it's cultural history influences and presence of the wealthy/industrialized South is influening his antics.

Sometimes Vince, a crazy man is just a crazy man.

Who do you think is more insane, Saddam or Kim Jong Il? I answered that question in threads we've had on this topic before, voting quite heavily for Kim Jong Il each time. Look up his history. It'd make Saddam blush. The reason NK is acting the way it is is one reason only. Kim is nuts. Completely utterly bonkers. And he's got two to three nukes on top of his insanity now. That scares me shitless, especially since he's said on numerous occassions that selling to the highest bidder, whoever that is, is no problem for him.

It doesn't have to be osama. As I said before, you could thumb through a Saudi rolodex and find persons with terrorist ties.

And if Saddam truly did have all the wmd the administration professed he did, he could have taken out Saudi Arabia, Israel, Syria, Jordan, Turkey, Afghanistan, and Iran once he saw our troops on the ground and knew we were serious, let alone take out all our troops with a few well placed long range bombs.

(a) It's now known that Saddam thought his "allies" in Europe would broker a deal untill the last minute, which is understandable if he was as insane as often claimed by his confidants.
(b) There is no way Iraq, with every percieved WMD we thought he had, could take out our troops.

A) And once the bombs fell, if he really had the capability of deploying wmd in 45 minutes as Blair maintained, you don't think it would have occurred? He knew Bush was coming after him this time, unlike Bush I.

B) Huh? How do you figure?

a) Scientists from around the globe have all been saying this. Now our own military is saying this. But it's still a joke. Ok.

Um, yes. The report claimed the UK would be submerged in like 15-15years. No scientist of respect would publish such a claim knowing how controversial the entire debate is. There just isn't enough evidence to support the case... either way.

Did it say that? I just finished reading the pdf but I didn't come across that bit.

b) Vince, it doesn't matter. The point is that you're stacking a panel that is supposed to give advice based on sound research with people who only believe one way. That does not lend itself well to well rounded opinions. This happened in this instance, and it happened with the OSP, among others. There is just clear repeated evidence of this administration getting the people it wants to hear and dismissing everyone else, no matter their qualifications. That automatically tars their findings.

Not in the least, it just shows you don't understand the commission. It's a Bioethics commission and Kass - whose among the greatest philosophers of our time - replaced the two members, whose turns expired, with other people. Big deal, the new people are just as qualified and just as good for the position.

I mean, who are you to question this?

I didn't say anything about qualifications. I'm talking about stacking a comittee with no dissenting opinions. That is not good in any form imo. It's just a "yes man" committee atm and tells the administration precisely what it wants to hear. Just like the OSP did. Just like Chalabi and his cohorts did. Etc etc etc.

Also, you could have just said, "Yes... Greenspan said what you did"

No, he said that debt is going to be a huge problem and we have three choices. Either raise taxes or cut entitlement benefits or cut other spending. Considering non-defense discretionary spending makes up only 15% of the budget, and holding spending in that section to the rate of inflation only accounted for a $3 Billion savings, he couldn't have been talking about that. We're certainly not cutting defense spending anytime soon. So that leaves benefit cuts in Social Security and Medicare. Well let's break it down. Medicare, before it has even been implemented, has already increased in price by 34%. Once the coverage gap is closed, and I'm betting the political pressure to do so is too great in about 10 years, that is expected to quadruple the price. Barring any future price increases, that increases the price of this program from the current $534 Billion to roughly $2.1 Trillion in about 10 years. Factoring in GDP growth during that time of a highly optimistic 5%, that works itself out to an increase from a current 5.34% GDP to 12.9% GDP. Realistic cut in benefits here? Highly doubtful. And we haven't even discussed Social Security. Good jeebus that's going to be a bear. Greenspan said he saw cutting spending in order to deal with the deficit, cutting benefits, or raising taxes. Manageability of the debt due to political pressures on all three makes the debt a huge looming fiscal crisis for us, which is why Greenspan spoke out about it in the first place.

My reason for segueing into this in the first place? Your original comment stated that the debt isn't a problem in the long run, when taking into account relative levels of our debt to GDP. Then you went on to say that spending is a problem and has been reigned in somewhat. That is an overly rosy picture of what we're facing in the next 20 years, and too simplistic when taking into account the fiscal problems and combining them with the political inertia to do anything about it, from both parties, until it's too late.

 

[John Reynolds]

I didn't say anything about qualifications. I'm talking about stacking a comittee with no dissenting opinions. That is not good in any form imo. It's just a "yes man" committee atm and tells the administration precisely what it wants to hear. Just like the OSP did. Just like Chalabi and his cohorts did. Etc etc etc.

Exactly. Just woke up and read Vince's reply to my article. That article didn't address Kass' gifts or qualifications, but rather his statement that he was unaware of the political leanings of his new commission members, something that's rather hard to believe. But, like a poor marksman Vince misses the target and runs off at the mouth on some wild tangent. Again.

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

Natoma, why do you take anything Vince says seriously?

I just assume he's joking in all his posts.

 

[London Geezer]

Are these ads distasteful?

No, just really bad.

 

[Evildeus]

HINT: I'm not on any side... I'm opposing Bush, that's all.

OT, sorry.
If you weren't on any side, you would be with everyone side, don't you? Then even Bush's one

 

[London Geezer]

HINT: I'm not on any side... I'm opposing Bush, that's all.

OT, sorry.
If you weren't on any side, you would be with everyone side, don't you? Then even Bush's one

No, he would be like Gollum, on his own in the woods doing his own thing. Eating raw fish...

 

[Vince]

It's politics as usual, and republicans are as much a stranger to these kinds of tactics as democrats are, if you get my drift.

Still doesn't make it right, nor should it be an acceptable answer.

Internationalization? Vince, do you honestly think we would have gotten the 150K+ troops needed to occupy Afghanistan from an international coalition? I'm speaking about our own troops. And I talked about your allusion to the soviet death trap in 1980 in an earlier thread. I don't know if you missed it or just didn't choose to respond, but here it is again:

Vince, the Soviets were not working with the level of technology we have today. It's not like we would have put 150K troops on the ground and they would have had 1980 technology whereas 50K troops had 2001 technology. We needed that amount of troops on the ground so that we wouldn't have to depend on the warlords and their fighters to fight for us. What would that troop strength have allowed us to do? Corner Al-Qaeda and the Taliban with our technology, as well as take the weapons out of the hands of the warlords and truly have a stable nation on our hands, not a nation-city that exists today.

What des technology have to do with it? That's a horrible cop out Natoma. How did the technical edge help the Soviet's relativly in Afghanistan or us in Vietnam? Or even in Iraq concerning IED's and such asymmetrical warfare. Even internal DoD wargames have shown that the technological edge can easily become overcome in such enviroments - which is the very nature of asymmetrical warfare.

Putting, say, 100,000 troops on the ground in Afghanistan would do little in truth. The country is increasingly rugged and has a low-population density. Information gathering as in Iraq would be very hard and the features I mentioned would work against the US and allow for such asymmetrical war to be carried out en masse.

I'd posit that our offensive strategy was groundbreaking and correct (as almost all have agreed) and that due to the natuyre of the country, this counse of action is the most correct. Outside of the few large cities there is nothing, there is little infastructure: no roads, no electricicty, communications, water. What, IMHO, is the best decision to to realize that you won't pacificy the country via massive envolvement. It's not like a game of CivIII were you can stop the rioters by putting more units in a city. Rather, they need structural reforms and those will emerge from Kabul by way of governmental doctrine, a standing army and infastructure rebuilding. Take it step by step and progress when you can.

Also, it's not like the US only "controls" Kabul. We control where ever we drop troops in that country, I just posit that it's not worth it to fill the country with troops at this time.

I don't understand your thinking here Vince. Our troops didn't know the culture in Iraq nor the terrain either, but we went in anyway with 150K troops didn't we? Not all of Afghanistan is mountainous either. The majority of the country could have been maintained with armored divisions. And at least if soldiers were dying in Afghanistan, we'd know they were dying for a good reason, i.e. the leaders of Afghanistan were openly harboring those who directly attacked us.

First of all, Iraq is a structured and mostly secular state which is modernized and has the typical western infastructures in place to facilitate their stay. They also entered Iraq and fought a convential conflict with a standing-army.

And no, the majority of the country [Afghanistan] can't be held with Armored divisions. Look no further than the numerous and sucessful attacks against armor in 1980 IIRC against the Soviets.

And your constant rhetoric against Iraq is tiring and insulting. Any soldier dying in Iraq is dying for a cause and just as worthy as any other fallen American. They know that the world is a complicated place and that defense isn't just worrying about those "who directly attacked us" but rather those who threaten their families back home. Regardless of youir position, the fact that Iraq was hostile and was a threat is beyond question when you look at it objectivly: from financing terrorists to trying to assasinate American leaders, to their terrorist harboring and possible connections with Al-Qaeda.

Vince, the power of 9/11 was that it was 4 coordinated strikes against US interests, 3 of which succeeded, not that it was a terrorist strike on US soil. That doesn't mean that a single deadly strike cannot occur from an isolated cell. The highly destructive attacks in Bali for instance was not planned from the top. It was an isolated cell. That occurs quite often around the world.

Natoma, you're supporting my argument. 9/11 was special for it's planning, size and synchronization - all of which were provided for by the central hierarchy of Al-Qaeda. This is basically beyond dispute, you have yet to show me how the single cell did all the planning, funding and traning for Al-Qaeda- when will you do it?

Bali is regionalized, but look at the scale. Wow, some moron's can drive in front of a nightclub and blow themselves up. Clearly, everything about 9/11 which was spectacular is gone - I've posited why.

That isn't the point Vince. We're not funding security enough to get even a level of security that would be described as minimal at best. Port inspections needs to be done at a rate of 20%, but we're only inspecting 1%. The money just isn't there to increase the rate of inspection.

And what good is 20% going to do? Unless you can check every cargo container it's futile; and this isn't even touching the ability of employee's to be manipulated upon entry. Hell, why even put it a container? Just go to Canada, take a drive into the country and walk across the border yourself. Or borrow a Drugrunner's boat or tunnel from Mexico.

Natoma, if you can agree that there will never be a 100% checking rate - the only option is to virtualize the border and rely on intelligence. It just makes sence and any attempt at defending against terror that broadly, on such a level, is ridiculous it's infeasibility.

A) And once the bombs fell, if he really had the capability of deploying wmd in 45 minutes as Blair maintained, you don't think it would have occurred? He knew Bush was coming after him this time, unlike Bush I.

B) Huh? How do you figure?

(a) No, of course there would have been no strategic launch against a neighbor. Because once he bombs started falling the US was dropping a large percentage of the ordinance on suspected WMD sites. The Western desert was already overrun by Special Operaions forces and outside of tactical uses (which it outside this responce) it would have been increasingly hard.

Also, AFAIK, the 45min referense was in regard to what MI6 heard concerning Iraq's ability to attack their base in Cyprus (?) or some Med island.

(b) I figure because a Biological or Chemical weapon is largely ineffective against a mobilized army - this is known. Outside of a nuclear attack, they would have just pushed threw the attack - which would have an American responce. Hell, the Coalition already drove to Baghdad in their Chem suits basically.

The problem with Chem/Bio weapons is their use against unprotected Urban Centres - which is why it was such a percieved threat with Iraq already supplying and funding terrorists.

I didn't say anything about qualifications. I'm talking about stacking a comittee with no dissenting opinions. That is not good in any form imo. It's just a "yes man" committee atm and tells the administration precisely what it wants to hear. Just like the OSP did. Just like Chalabi and his cohorts did. Etc etc etc.

This is wrong Natoma. First of all, it is about qualifications because you're challenging Kass's judgement and integrity. His qualifications show that he's been consisitent in his views and that he is a man of dignity and high moral standards concerning work ethic.

You (and John) are tar-and-feathering him based on nothing and against a massive body of evidence which shows that he's been an honorable man.

My reason for segueing into this in the first place? Your original comment stated that the debt isn't a problem in the long run, when taking into account relative levels of our debt to GDP. Then you went on to say that spending is a problem and has been reigned in somewhat. That is an overly rosy picture of what we're facing in the next 20 years, and too simplistic when taking into account the fiscal problems and combining them with the political inertia to do anything about it, from both parties, until it's too late.

WTF? Think about what I said.

The National Debt - which is a point metric - is controllable in the long-run. Economic Fact. In the long-run, anything is changable or remanifestable think about why). The debt at it's current levels or within proportionality of GDP is controllable.

The level of spending - which is a rate of change - influences the debt over time and is a problem. I admitted this and stated that it needs to be controlled. This too is an Economic Fact. There is no way around this.

 

[Vince]

Exactly. Just woke up and read Vince's reply to my article. That article didn't address Kass' gifts or qualifications, but rather his statement that he was unaware of the political leanings of his new commission members, something that's rather hard to believe. But, like a poor marksman Vince misses the target and runs off at the mouth on some wild tangent. Again.

John, it was a political article against Kass which questioned his character and claimed that he lost his objectivity and became a tool of the current Adminisdtration.

Maybe you just don't understand, but for someone in the academic world that's tantamount to character assasination of the highest order. You're questioning his validity, his objectivity - that's everything! It relects upon all his past work and his future findings; especially for someone whose among the worlds most recognized philosophers. See, this is why arguiong against people who don't know themselves but google up a page/answer is horrid; these things you just don't extract from staring at a screen.

And in responce, past precendence and achievement is most justifiably utilized in showing that:

• His position has remained static and his record and credentials lend *huge* credence to his ability to objectivly think and view the situation.
• There are inaccuracies in the article, which I outlined, such as their belief that just because you're at the same conference as someone - that you know their personal beliefs and values. Blatently false.
  
  Just as false as their religious bashing by associating ones registration in a religious group as indicative of character and judgement. Nevermind that he's a recognized neuroscientist whose expertise is well know.

The only tangent I went off was clearly ment for Natoma as I stated his name in it in a declarative manner.

PS. (rhetorical) So what about it John, what did you know about Kass before you googled? Just how little did you know? I wonder....

 

[Vince]

Natoma, why do you take anything Vince says seriously?

I just assume he's joking in all his posts.

This comming from the guy who told the board he jerked off in a condom and brought it to school.. Not to mention the guy whose comments and questions are generally on a freshmen in highschool's level.

Wow, believe me... your words really mean alot to me. LOL.

PS. In responce to your other comment - No, I don't "really" know you... and I'm glad.