| Author |
Message |
    
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 3953
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 1:36 pm: |     |
Sylad, the president didn't make a issue big issue out of terrorism. Osama bin Laden did. Any president would have done more than the preceding ones.
Your implied correlation between Kerry's time in the senate and the terrorist attacks we have received is an absurd stretch. If I were to accept that, I'd believe that Bush caused 9/11 and the rooster makes the sun rise. You know, remember how in statistics class they taught us that correlation does not prove causality? Or did you just think everyone here would be so uneducated as to think your implication makes logical sense? |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 124
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 1:37 pm: | |
NBC News: Worldwide terrorism-related deaths on the rise
"Of the roughly 2,929 terrorism-related deaths around the world since the attacks on New York and Washington, the NBC News analysis shows 58 percent of them — 1,709 — have occurred this year."
MORE
"Senior U.S. intelligence officials note that in fact, the frequency of terrorist attacks carried out by Muslim radicals is increasing, not decreasing. Moreover, they say the attacks carried out by what they now refer to as “central al-Qaida” are being dwarfed by those carried out by affiliates, such Ansar al Sunnah in Iraq, the Chechen rebels and even ad hoc groups like those who blew up the Madrid train stations. "
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5889435/
Sylad, are you ignorant of the facts or just blindly devoted to Bush? |
Andrew N de la Torre
Citizen
Username: Delatorre
Post Number: 252
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 1:46 pm: | |
CJC,
Kerry has always stated his ultimate opposition to the 87 billion dollar bill was due to the Administration's refusal to reverse the tax cuts on the wealthiest to help pay for the war, the lack of planning and degree of unbid contracts. So where is the flip-flop. In fact Bush threatened to veto the bill if some of the tax cut were reversed.
"To the haves, and the have-mores. Some people call you the elite, I call you my base"
George Bush 2001 |
Phenixrising
Citizen
Username: Phenixrising
Post Number: 14
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 1:47 pm: | |
"George W. Bush has done more than any other president in the fight against terror."
And he's done MORE to ALEINATE us from our allies and the rest of the WORLD.
He says, "we're a safer naton without Saddam". Yeh, right. Just look at all those "color" warnings they have to post. Folks in this counrty are still on edge. Just last week when those street pothole covers blew up on the westside of NYC, folks thought we were under attack. Outside the US, the "American" is a sitting target for some terrorist fanatic.
That man has created ALOT of FEAR! More so than any president I've seen in my lifetime. |
Phenixrising
Citizen
Username: Phenixrising
Post Number: 15
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 1:48 pm: | |
"George W. Bush has done more than any other president in the fight against terror."
And he's done MORE to ALEINATE us from our allies and the rest of the WORLD.
He says, "we're a safer naton without Saddam". Yeh, right. Just look at all those "color" warnings they have to post. Folks in this counrty are still on edge. Just last week when those street pothole covers blew up on the westside of NYC, folks thought we were under attack. Outside the US, the "American" is a sitting target for some terrorist fanatic.
That man has created ALOT of FEAR and TERROR! More so than any president I've seen in my lifetime. |
George W Bush
Citizen
Username: Mondale
Post Number: 108
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 1:53 pm: | |
boring |
Guy
Citizen
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 190
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 1:55 pm: | |
In the War on Terror Germany and France are still fighting with us in Afghanistan.
WE can now call Pakistan, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan as allies who were not before Bush became president.
Let's talk about alienation of allies. Kerry calls the countries fighting with us in Iraq the" coallition of the BRIBED AND COERCED"
He basically called Allawi a liar and the DNC called him a puppet.
Who is the real candidate who alienates allies.
Another question, do you feel safer than you did on Sept 12,2001? |
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 3885
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 2:09 pm: | |
"Another question, do you feel safer than you did on Sept 12,2001?"
Well, no. In the over three years since then, American has captured some of the planners of the 9/11 attack. Others are at large. We've learned that there is a loosely-connected network, which has been handed a golden recruiting opportunity by the current Administration.
"Fighting them in Iraq instead of here" is not really the point. The people in Baghdad, Fallujah, Najaf, and other such cities did not come over here to attack us on 9/11. |
Andrew N de la Torre
Citizen
Username: Delatorre
Post Number: 254
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 2:11 pm: | |
There is no question about the need to defeat terrorists in Afghanistan. Where our major long term allies continue to support us.
Pakistan will be our ally as long as we let it build nuclear weapons. So much for containing nuclear arms.
I would hardly call Libya, Iraq allies. The City of Kabul would hardly qualify as Afghanistan
Allawi is an Ex-Baathist opportunist puppet.
The real question is: do you feel safer than you did on September 10th. |
scribbler
Citizen
Username: Scribbler
Post Number: 76
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 2:11 pm: | |
A resounding NO!! Bush has played right into the hands of the entire Islamic population. Remember, Bin Laden's alleged jihad was because of the US Base on Arab soil (Saudi Arabia). You don't think he has alot more to add to the Jihad now that we also occupy Iraq? Now America is actually becoming what other non-friendly countries have always contended; arrogant, colonialist, and deceptive. I HATE Bush for what he has done to my country! We are far less safe and if you don't believe it, you're dwelling in the same fantasy-land that our President is. |
Andrew N de la Torre
Citizen
Username: Delatorre
Post Number: 255
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 2:14 pm: | |
Additionally,
I do not feel safer since September 12 th. |
Guy
Citizen
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 192
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 2:20 pm: | |
Nohero , think back to Sept 12, we didn't know when the next attack would happen. People were afraid to fly, I can remember not wanting to drive over the GW Bridge on Sept 22 because of some rumor. Safer today, yes. Safe , No.
It seems to me Al Qeda had a nice recruiting effort and training program going before 9-11.
Andy, I would consider Pakistan an invaluable resource against Al Qeda. Iraq and Afghan will give us a stronghold in the region.
|
Guy
Citizen
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 193
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 2:23 pm: | |
Scribbler , when you are at war you don't worry about upsetting your enemy. Also don't forget my Appleworks question. |
Andrew N de la Torre
Citizen
Username: Delatorre
Post Number: 256
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 2:27 pm: | |
Little Guy,
Pakistan at best is an unstable resource, so when they give away more nuclear weapons information/resources away. How much safer will we ultimately be?
"Iraq and Afghan will give us a stronghold in the region"
So are they allies or puppet regimes? |
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 3886
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 2:31 pm: | |
"Nohero , think back to Sept 12, we didn't know when the next attack would happen."
I know I'm not the only one who passes by concrete barriers every day on the way to work,
because we've been told by the government that we don't know when the next attack will be.
"It seems to me Al Qeda had a nice recruiting effort and training program going before 9-11."
Yes, and now they and their buddies have an even better one, from all accounts. |
Mark Fuhrman
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 662
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 2:32 pm: | |
Any disruption to Al Qaida's pre-9-11 recruiting is because of what we did in Afghanistan, and by belatedly slowing down their means of transfer of funds. The war in Iraq has done nothing to slow their recruiting because Iraq was not central to their efforts. In fact, by being seen as the aggressor in yet another Islamic nation, we have probably given them another recruiting tool. And you can bet that Al Qaida or its successor is working on setting up new bases in Sudan, which we cannot pay attention to because we are mired in Iraq. Sudan may become the next Taliban-style terrorist holding company. Iraq has not made us appreciably safer, especially when weighed against the huge costs of the war.
I don't understand why conservatives feel such a need to hold onto the failed policy in Iraq. It is not a liberal-conservative thing--it is about strategy to benefit our country and the world. It is idiotic--not patriotic--to support this war the way it is being prosecuted, regardless of your political point of view. |
Guy
Citizen
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 195
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 2:37 pm: | |
Andy, Nohero, and Mark,
I remember seeing a think tank study about increased recruiting because of Iraq, but there was no hard evidence, just conjecture from interviews. No mention of training camps.
Pakistan is a resource non the less.
Allies provide us strongholds. |
Phenixrising
Citizen
Username: Phenixrising
Post Number: 18
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 2:39 pm: | |
"I know I'm not the only one who passes by concrete barriers every day on the way to work,
because we've been told by the government that we don't know when the next attack will be".
DITTO!
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 2511
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 2:43 pm: | |
We disrupted Al Qada recruiting because of Afghanistan, but when we went to Iraq, then it really, really took off. What caused all the Al Qada recruiting during the 90s, beginning with the first World Trade Center bombing? I'm surprised all the help we provided Muslim peoples in The Balkans didn't earn us some goodwill with the terrorists. |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 126
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 2:50 pm: | |
Great, blame Clinton. The fact remains Bush didn't protect us Sept. 11, 2001. His policies aren't helping us now (see above article on INCREASE in terrorist attacks worldwide). Republicans blind trust in Bush is scary. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 2512
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 2:56 pm: | |
I didn't blame Clinton. I'm saying the threat was there, was growing, gathering, and we finally had to address it after 9/11 and we're doing something about it rather than talking about it and launching a couple missiles here and there.
Terrorist attacks will increase going into elections in Iraq and Afghanistan, just as attacks increased going into the transfer of sovereignty. AP article out there today says Taliban/terrorists are having a hard time ramping up significantly in Afghanistan cuz Pakistan is going heavy on their border.
It's tough, will get tougher at times, but it's infinitely worth it. |
Andrew N de la Torre
Citizen
Username: Delatorre
Post Number: 257
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 3:14 pm: | |
While Kerry was in Vietnam
Bush was
 |
Phenixrising
Citizen
Username: Phenixrising
Post Number: 19
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 3:35 pm: | |
Security is deteriorating in Baghdad, some say
Wed Sep 29, 6:48 AM ET
By Jim Michaels, USA TODAY
In a visit to Washington last week, Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi said Iraq (news - web sites) as a nation that's safer and stronger with Saddam gone. He said the violence is happening mostly in certain pockets and is not widespread. His words echoed those of President Bush (news - web sites).
But some people who live and work here - including U.S. civilian contractors, security firms and charity groups - see a deteriorating security situation. Hashami, 41, said she switched off a broadcast of one of Allawi's Washington appearances because "he was not real." Just this evening, she said, she and the children came across a car with two dead men inside, apparently ambushed and shot.
The start of school for the children in Baghdad was postponed until next month because of the poor security, and some Iraqis believe classes will be postponed longer. "If Allawi is certain of improvement, why didn't school start on time?" Hashami asked.
Attacks by insurgents have increased through the summer and into fall, sometimes reaching 100 a day against U.S. and allied forces. Kroll Security International, which provides analysis for the U.S. government and others, said the average now is about 70 per day, compared with fewer than 50 before Allawi took office in June. The death toll for U.S. troops, which passed 1,000 earlier this month, continues to rise.
The violence in Baghdad is changing the way Iraqis live. Feeling unsafe, Safi and Hashami left the cafe quickly as the city grew dark. So did Hussam Salim, a 22-year-old university student, and his friends. Salim said he's proud that Allawi spoke to Congress. "I am hopeful about improvements," Salim said. "But his words are not 100% true about security."
The violence in Iraq is uneven. Many areas, as Allawi said, are peaceful for the vast majority of the residents. At the same time, in those same places, death lurks for those targeted by the insurgency: Americans and other foreigners, military or civilian, and the Iraqis who help them. Dozens of those Iraqis have been killed this year and, in many cases, their families were also threatened or harmed.
Soldiers and civilians said it's becoming increasingly difficult to tell friend from foe. It's also increasingly difficult to tell where it's safe.
Last week, Allawi cited several cities that are safe compared to hostile areas. Among them were Ramadi, a city about 60 miles west of Baghdad; the northern oil city of Kirkuk, and Basra, the major city and province in Southern Iraq overseen by the British.
But Ramadi has seen hostilities recently. On Sunday a U.S. soldier was killed there by a mortar round. Kirkuk is also tense with struggles between ethnic groups, and one of its main highways is known as a "sniper alley." Basra, Centurion said, has been "fraught with attacks on a daily basis." Two British soldiers were killed there Tuesday.
Baghdad has grown more dangerous and the fighting more intense, as both Allawi and Bush have warned would happen the closer Iraq comes to elections in January. In the Shiite enclave of Sadr City, militia loyal to radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr clash regularly with American troops.
|
Sylad
Citizen
Username: Sylad
Post Number: 821
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 4:32 pm: | |
Tom—President Bush took office and asked Rice for a comprehensive plan to eliminate AQ. Unfortunately there were AQ plans that were in the works for years and we did not see the clues that may have stopped the attack.
But he took office and made the decision to reduce the threat and did not continue the policy of the Clinton administration of “swatting flies”
President Bush asked for the plan because not enough had been done to date and he wanted to change that.
No other president took that action.
Does more need to be done, yes, but the President's record on terror is second to none.
|
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 17
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 5:32 pm: | |
Robert Livingston --How about Cheney's stand down order on 9-10 & 9-11, for the military?
How about the PNAC calling for the need of a PEARL HARBOR type event? When Bush was Gov. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 3962
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 1, 2004 - 8:19 am: | |
Sylad, I've read plenty of articles that refute your statement, and I don't know how to resolve our disagreement. What I read is that during the White House transition, Clinton's aides pleaded with Bush's to understand what a serious threat bin Laden was, and Bush's staff made an apparent effort to ignore and belittle it. This is the first I am hearing that Bush asked for any plan from Clinton. I read a lot of articles that say he did just the opposite. |
JMF
Citizen
Username: Jmf
Post Number: 50
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, October 1, 2004 - 8:32 am: | |
Sylad, I agree with Tom.
I haven't seen anything about Bush being pro-active against Al-Qeada pre 9/11. |
bobk
Citizen
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 6237
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, October 1, 2004 - 8:42 am: | |
He who owns the printing press gets to write the history. 
|
ess
Citizen
Username: Ess
Post Number: 35
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Friday, October 1, 2004 - 10:22 am: | |
Safer than before 9/12/2001?
Concrete barriers?
How about the power outage of last summer, when everyone's first thought was of terrorism?
How about the explosion of the space shuttle, when everyone's first thought was of terrorism?
How about thunder storms, when little kids think we are being bombed by terrorists?
Safer? I don't think so. We have become a scared and frightened nation, and Bush is playing upon those fears just to keep his job. (And to think -- thousands of truly competent people have lost their jobs under this guy's watch.) |
notehead
Citizen
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 1543
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, October 1, 2004 - 11:17 am: | |
Good points, ess. |
marinab
Citizen
Username: Marinab
Post Number: 61
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Friday, October 1, 2004 - 10:25 pm: | |
My understanding is Bush simply decided not to pursue Clinton's plan about terrorism, but did nothing to implement his own. (I think this came up when Condoleeza Rice was questioned before Congress) It was the usual dropping of the ball that can happen with change of administrations, as they seek to make their own mark. Another example in foreign policy is this administration also turned its back on whatever headway was made in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and made it clear this was not a priority. In the meantime, Bush had advisors who were agitating about Iraq--before September 11th.
I find it curious that during the debates it was never mentioned that one of our most important allies, Pakistan, was selling nuclear secrets like hotcakes--talk about proliferation.
Or that elections are virtually impossible in Afghanistan outside Kabul.
Or that every analysis has shown that Iraq is in a downward spiral, with not one sector is functioning: civil, security, economic, or military.
But at least Poland was one of our allies.
(not a polish joke)
|
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 1138
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 1, 2004 - 10:55 pm: | |
"...but the President's record on terror is second to none."
So true. So sadly true. Practically a poster child for Al Qaeda recruitment. |
Maplewoody
Real Name
Username: Maplewoody
Post Number: 806
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, October 2, 2004 - 8:29 am: | |
 |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page