Kerry said what!?

[sperry]

Originally Posted by JonnydaJibba

Are we the retards for letting two monkies run for office? I mean is it our fault that we had no competant cantidates? Or is it our fault that we let these two represent our country? Were there really no other cantidates that could have better represented this country that we had to pick a coupla fuckin primates?!

I know it's not related but everytime these guys speak these questions come to mind.

All the people with talent, common sense, personality, morals, and a positive work ethic get real jobs and make lots of money. The people that can't cut it in the real world go into politics it seems. Long gone are the people that take a break from their life to become a civil servant to make our country a better place for a term or two, then hand off the position to another useful person.

[Kevin M]

Originally Posted by sperry

All the people with talent, common sense, personality, morals, and a positive work ethic get real jobs and make lots of money. The people that can't cut it in the real world go into politics it seems. Long gone are the people that take a break from their life to become a civil servant to make our country a better place for a term or two, then hand off the position to another useful person.

The last person who even came close to matching that description (as President) was Eisenhower I would say. And before him, Teddy Roosevelt... and before him... umm... uhh... hmm. Grant.

You know, if it wasn't for the Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, etc. types back in the day, we wouldn't be so pissed off about the douches we get to choose from nowadays.

[JonnydaJibba]

Haha, well played Cody.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by BAN SUVS

The last person who even came close to matching that description (as President) was Eisenhower I would say. And before him, Teddy Roosevelt... and before him... umm... uhh... hmm. Grant.

You know, if it wasn't for the Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, etc. types back in the day, we wouldn't be so pissed off about the douches we get to choose from nowadays.

You know what really makes me sick... I actually long for the days of Clinton. You know, the good old days when the only thing the president lied about was banging a consenting female intern of legal age.

[Ezdno]

Couple of things to remember.

1. If you didn't vote you have no right to complain.
2. If you didn't vote you ultimately voted for the current administration.
3. If you think you can do a better job...PLEASE run for the position.
4. Think back to 9-11, it didn't matter who you were or what party you were in you wanted someones ass for what happened.
5. I weigh the options, I shiver to think what Al Gore would have done after he got the call about the twin towers.
6. If you believe everything the media spews, your living a one sided life. Some where between the Bullshit you see, hear in the media, and what reports coming out of the military is the truth.
7. People that think they understand all the layers of politics and economics of something like this ususally have no clue.

I have 3 nephews and 1 cousin, and countless friends in Iraq and Afghanistan, I would take their word over any politician when it comes to whats actually going on over there, its only when the politician confirms what they tell me I give them any credit.
So far the limited ACTUAL information that matches my family is coming from the current administration. I believe Kerry said exactly what he meant to say. The Democrats wanted to string him up after he said those things, and I think the republicans albeit did pounce on the opportunity were mostly in shock knowing what lay in the balance for the Demo's on Tuesday. I don't support war, I don't think anyone does. I do guarantee you this though, any politician Democrat or Republican that didnt follow the same route we did would have seriously let the American people down.

Alchemy of Economics and Politics..in History is an amazing topic.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by Ezdno

Couple of things to remember.

1. If you didn't vote you have no right to complain.
2. If you didn't vote you ultimately voted for the current administration.
3. If you think you can do a better job...PLEASE run for the position.
4. Think back to 9-11, it didn't matter who you were or what party you were in you wanted someones ass for what happened.
5. I weigh the options, I shiver to think what Al Gore would have done after he got the call about the twin towers.
6. If you believe everything the media spews, your living a one sided life. Some where between the Bullshit you see, hear in the media, and what reports coming out of the military is the truth.
7. People that think they understand all the layers of politics and economics of something like this ususally have no clue.

I have 3 nephews and 1 cousin, and countless friends in Iraq and Afghanistan, I would take their word over any politician when it comes to whats actually going on over there, its only when the politician confirms what they tell me I give them any credit.
So far the limited ACTUAL information that matches my family is coming from the current administration. I believe Kerry said exactly what he meant to say. The Democrats wanted to string him up after he said those things, and I think the republicans albeit did pounce on the opportunity were mostly in shock knowing what lay in the balance for the Demo's on Tuesday. I don't support war, I don't think anyone does. I do guarantee you this though, any politician Democrat or Republican that didnt follow the same route we did would have seriously let the American people down.

Alchemy of Economics and Politics..in History is an amazing topic.

1. I voted.
2. I voted.
3. I'm not 35, I can't run for president.
4. Here's the list of asses I want for 9-11: Osama, the people in our own government that failed to prevent it, the people in our own governement that are/were involved in covering up all the details (there are still far too many unanswered questions about 9/11 and yet no one in our government is bothering to answer them).
5. Frankly, I don't think we would have been attacked if Al Gore was the president.
6. Agree. The US media is full of crap and pushes it's own agenda. Read reports from nations on both side of the issue and you'll get a better idea of reality.
7. That isn't an excuse for our government to sugar coat/lie/spin/dumb-down reality. Tell me what's actually going on. If I don't understand it, that's my fault. Not telling your constituants what's really happening is criminal.

Do you really believe that the reactions of our government have gained us anything? We are less safe from terrorism now that we were before 9-11. We had $1 trillion more in the bank than we did before 9-11. We have less personal rights now than we did before 9-11. We have less respect/trust in our own leaders since 9-11. Most importantly we have lost the lives of thousands of our soldiers since 9-11. And we have *nothing* positive to show for it. IMO, any politician Democrat or Republican that did follow the same route we did would have seriously let the American people down.

History will go to show that our current government handled the challenges of 9-11 in a way that marked the irreversible decline of America as a superpower. And if we ever get a real investigation into 9-11, I believe that history will also show that there were elements within our own government that *allowed* it to happen out of some believe that it would be a unifying rally cry to allow us to proactively shape the world with our military. Lot of success with that plan...

[sp00ln]

Scott, your description of how politicians are nothing but people that cant make it in the private sector reminds me of my dad’s rants last week about who he's going to vote for this election Good job. However, wasn't Bush Jr. quite successful in the private sector?

Also, while you're disappointed in the Republicans, the Democrats would have done the same thing. It's politics. It's the way the world works. Perhaps if you really wanted to make a change, try to lead the media into not blowing everything out of proportion.

Everyone makes mistakes, and perhaps when you're president one day you will as well. The problem here is is that people are too damn lazy to really figure out what issues need to be dealt with and how we need to deal with them.; no one has a real interest. So, what do our parties do to gain power in the government - choose figure heads who will appeal to the most people/electoral votes; idiot or not. Even with that being said, is Bush really running the country? I guess I’m optimistic: I believe he’s not. I assume to believe that the people that are pulling his strings are decent people, which are paid decent wages to be string pullers of the President. Yes, they join a political side so they can pull strings in their favor, but who wouldn’t pull strings to benefit themselves? These string pullers, I believe, are educated people making the best decisions that they can for the benefit of our country. No one can read the future. People and countries do make mistakes, and we should, and are, trying to make the best of those mistakes.


/rant

[Nick Koan]

If you call running business into the ground is considered successful, then yes, GWB was rather successful

[MikeK]

Originally Posted by sperry

5. Frankly, I don't think we would have been attacked if Al Gore was the president.

Actually it had more to do with the fact that american troops remained in saudi arabia after the first gulf war than who is or was in power. Osama himself said that was the reason, and other studies have suggested this is true.

Listen to the audio clip at this link ... it is an interview with a guy who did a study on suicide attacks over the last 20 years and found that 95% of all attacks were an attempt to remove an occupying military power from a region.

Just to derail this thread even more, he concludes that occupying Afghanistan, and especially Iraq, were the single worst things that could have been done to stop suicide terrorism.

[Ezdno]

Scott...

Although my comments weren't directed at you or anyone in particular. There is so much more to what goes on in every aspect of the government than meets the eye or ear as it were. The trillions of dollars spent or wrapped up in deficit is nothing more than paper. GWB is not solely responsible for the war, he did not just decide on Wednesday that we were going to war, there is a Congress, among other people that had to ok any action. The fact is there are many people to blame for the unfortunate situation in the middle east. Democrats and Republicans. GWB has repeatedly said he was not satisfied with the progress, but I haven't heard any accountability from the other side. All I hear is blame put on the President.

As far as Osama goes, he is a byproduct of our own agenda during the Russian/Afghan war, but he isnt the first person that has done this. In history there are many leaders we have helped take power only to have them turn on us.

About the loss of life comment, as far as I am concerned one life lost was too many, but in comparison to WW1-2, Korea, Viet-Nam, this war has been mild. The one thing that pisses me off about the war is we follow the rules...what ever they are. If we fought the enemy like they fight us, the war would be over. We protect civilians, they kill civilians to get to us. History repeats itself, I am sure in every war, people have parallel comments, thoughts, and feelings to this one.

I do have one question.....Given the same circumstances given to GWB what would you have done different. I mean really, really think about it. You have the power, your the President, regardless of party, what would you do.

[AtomicLabMonkey]

I think really comitting our troops to a protracted, thorough fight in Afghanistan & its border regions instead of invading Iraq would have been a good start on what to do different. You know, to fight the people that actually attacked us on 9/11. I think the Iraq war has been a monumental waste of money, life, and political capital, and a distraction from the people we really should have been focusing on.

Instead, the Taliban & Al Qaeda have hidden out in the mountains & tribal areas of Pakistan and regrouped & rearmed. Pakistan hasn't done shit to really fight them. Now these assholes are coming out of the woodwork again, 4-5 years after the government told us that the Taliban was defeated. I heard the army commander in Afghanistan talking about the reasons why there were so many clashes with Taliban forces lately, and he said basically that it's because we have started deploying into areas where we've never gone before. Talk about a lie - we never defeated them at all, we just stopped really chasing them when they ran out of the populated regions.

[Dean]

I am not an isolationist, but honestly believe we have no F'ing business being involved in prolonged engagements anywhere, and especially not in the middle of what are effectively civil or religious wars.

U.S. troops are for the defense and protection of the United States, and it's citizens, not some oil field in the middle of a dessert half way around the world!

We have the weapons and technology to kick ass and walk away. You know where the F'ers that organized 9/11 are, bomb them and anyone near them back to the stone age with either conventional or tactical nuclear weapons, and send a message to the rest of the MF'ers not to F with us. And scare the crap out of anyone from aiding or harboring these animals ever again.

The founding fathers did not intend for the US to launch democratic crusades across the globe.

If people want to start a democracy, let them, and even help them where it makes sense, but we shouldn't be trying to force it on anyone, even evil dictatorships. And if spreading democracy was really our goal, why aren't we doing so closer to home. How tough would it be to take Cuba and convert it to a democratic state? Hell, why not just conquer it and make it a state? Oh, right, no oil in Cuba...

[sperry]

Here's my problem w/ 9-11 and the war in Iraq. They are totally unrelated, yet the real reason the government was able to get enough support for going back to Iraq was because the twin towers fell. Sure, no one attempts to claim they were related, but if the executive branch went to congress in 2002 with "evidence" of WMDs in Iraq and the WTC was still standing and people still felt safe in this country, the WMD argument would not have been enough to convince congress to go to war. But with 9/11 on the minds of Americans, congress could go to war.

No one remembers Bill Kristol and the Project for a New American Century. You want to know who's running America, check these folks out:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

The attacks on 9/11 gave these folks carte blanche to do whatever they want w/ the US military. Before that these people were considered nut-jobs even by the Republicans. Personally, I still think they're nut-jobs. I think the idea "that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle" screams of everything that *isn't* American. Isn't the American ideal that people should be allowed to determine their own government? Isn't forcing others to accept the "American way" just the opposite of self-government? Isn't it just a small leap to believe that if these people feel it's "right" to force "our" way on other countries they wouldn't think twice about forcing their ideals on American citizens as well? Isn't that what we're seeing all around us in the name of security?

What I know is that there is an element in our government that is guiding both forign and domestic policy that I didn't vote for. And not because I voted for the other people and lost, but becuase these people hold no elected offices. Do I blame Bush personally for our global situation? No I don't, I don't think he's capable (and I mean that from a checks and balances perspective, not a "he's too dumb" perspective) of doing the things that have been done.

As far as Al Gore preventing 9/11... it's not that Al Gore would have stopped the terrorists. Or that Al Gore would have suddenly made all the people in the mid east love us. It's that w/ a Democratic government all those nut-job neocons would have still been outside the house scratching at the door to be let in, instead of inside mucking up the place. Now I'm not a conspiracy theorists type, but I don't believe that 9/11 could have happened w/o "inside" assistance. And the only people in America that would have benefitted from a massive terrorist attack were the New American Century folks. <can of worms>

Posted on Sun, May. 04, 2003
Neoconservatives push for a new world order
By DICK POLMAN
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - For seven long years, Bill Kristol agitated for a U.S. coup against Saddam Hussein, and argued that America should remake the world to serve its own interests. Few bothered to listen at the time. So how does he feel now?

In his office the other day, he grinned without smirking. That's how most of the hawkish defense intellectuals - better known as neoconservatives - are behaving these days. Although they're sitting pretty in wartime Washington, they're trying not to preen.

Kristol refuses to strut his stuff, because he knows how fast the high and mighty can be brought low in this town; after all, he was once Vice President Dan Quayle's chief of staff. Still, he can't resist contending that Sept. 11 made all the "neocons" look like prophets.

"We saw, earlier than most people, that the world was very dangerous, that America's drift during the `90s was very dangerous," he said Wednesday at the Weekly Standard, the Rupert Murdoch-financed magazine he edits that promotes the neocon credo. "We were alarmed; we tried to call attention to all that. So I don't want to say we feel vindicated, but we do feel our analysis was right."

The neocons - think-tank warriors and commentators, all of whom cite Ronald Reagan's moral clarity - are hot these days because they emerged from the political wilderness to alter the course of American foreign policy. And Iraq is just the beginning, as Kristol cheerily contended: "President Bush is committed, pretty far down the road. The logic of events says you can't go halfway. You can't liberate Iraq, then quit."

The neocons care little about domestic policy; they think globally. They don't believe in peaceful coexistence with hostile, undemocratic states; rather, they want an "unapologetic, idealistic, assertive" America (in Kristol's words) that will foment pro-democratic revolutions around the world, if necessary at the point of a gun.

The neocon assumption - that the American way is best for everybody, whether foreigners know it or not - is not shared by their numerous critics. Establishment Republicans, many of whom worked for Bush's father, worry that the fomenting of new "regime changes" will sow more global terrorism against Americans. Liberals simply say that the neocons have captured Bush's brain.

Historian Allan Lichtman said that regardless of whether one agrees with the neocons, "they are historically important, because, in the post-Cold War world, they are providing an intellectual justification for the continuation of the national security state."

Others talk darkly about a "neocon cabal" that includes a media empire (Murdoch also owns Fox News), policy shops (notably the American Enterprise Institute, home to many neocon scholars and Kristol's Project for a New American Century), and revenue sources (particularly the Bradley Foundation, which has helped finance the policy shops).

In a sense, it is tight-knit. The institute, Kristol's Project for a New American Century, and the Weekly Standard are all housed in the same Washington office building, a square slab of concrete 12 stories high. During Gulf War II, it was the place to be; every Tuesday morning, the institute hosted public "black-coffee briefings" led by Tom Donnelly, an institute scholar who once worked for the Project for a New American Century.

The neocons move between these groups and Bush's government. In 1998, the Project for a New American Century sent an open letter to President Bill Clinton, urging that he overthrow Saddam; 10 of the signatories now work for Bush. And when Bush spoke in February at the institute (Lynne Cheney, the vice president's wife, is a board member), he said that his team had borrowed 20 of its scholars.

Neocon Richard Perle, a Pentagon adviser, was an institute scholar; so was John Bolton, who now has a key undersecretary post in the State Department. Today, the institute still has hawks who were hawks before the neocon label became hip; witness ex-Reagan Pentagon adviser Michael Ledeen, who, while puffing on a fat cigar the other day, said: "Americans believe that peace is normal, but that's not true. Life isn't like that. Peace is abnormal."

But is this a cabal? Networking is a way of life in Washington; Democrats do it, too. Max Boot, another prominent neocon (and a think-tank scholar who writes for Kristol's magazine), said: "The liberals have plenty of well-organized and well-funded groups. The problem is that they don't have any good ideas to sell, at least not on foreign policy. To judge from their recent antiwar invective, a large part of the party is still in cloud cuckoo land."

Marshall Wittmann, a close observer of the neocons and a friend of Kristol's, said: "The neocons are all about ideas. They understand how to promote those ideas. They get a lot of bang for the buck. It's the way they frame their arguments, and into whose hands they put those arguments. Also, while a fair number of conservatives shun the mainstream press, Bill participates in it."

In the `90s, the neocons were also relentless. Paul Wolfowitz, now the deputy defense secretary, was a Pentagon underling in 1992 under Dick Cheney when he drafted a document declaring that America should move against potential rivals, even if forced to act alone: "The United States should be postured to act independently when collective action cannot be orchestrated."

The document was deemed too radical; it was watered down. But four years later, in a foreign-policy journal, Kristol and colleague Robert Kagan tried again, writing that America, in pursuit of "benevolent global hegemony," should be willing to confront hostile countries and "bring about a change of regime."

But, as Kristol now recalls, "that article was pretty much ignored." So was his magazine's special issue of Dec. 1, 1997, titled Saddam Must Go. In fact, most Republicans didn't care; on Capitol Hill, they were talking about a lower U.S. profile in the world. And Bush, during his 2000 campaign, talked of showing "humility" abroad.

It was Sept. 11 that put the neocons in play; until that day, they had been castigating Bush for not being tough enough overseas. And now, looking back, they freely admit that Bush embraced their national-security strategy only because he had been jolted by events.

Gary Schmitt, a former Reagan administration intelligence expert who now runs Kristol's think tank, said: "Without 9-11, Bush might have been off wandering in the desert, in terms of foreign policy. He might have been looking for a minimal foreign-policy voice so that he could concentrate on domestic matters. So we (neocons) might not have been in a good position at all.

"Even now, do we feel triumphant? No. We've been around this town too long. Our job is to continue to push."

The neocon crusade for a democratic Middle East, abetted by American might, has just begun. Last week, Kristol's magazine rebuked Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld for refusing to commit himself to building a military base in Iraq, and tweaked Bush for being "too hasty" in praising Syria for its vow to expel Saddam's henchmen. The neocons, fearing that monetary constraints could hamper their vision, also want a defense budget much bigger than what the Bush team has proposed.

And if people overseas don't like the more imperious America, the neocon response is basically: So what? Boot said: "Being number one will always elicit a certain amount of resentment; lots of people outside New York hate the Yankees, just as lots of people outside Dallas have always hated the Cowboys. That doesn't mean the Yankees and Cowboys can't go on winning."

Kristol shrugged, "We're going to get criticized for being an imperial power anyway, so you might as well make sure that the good guys win.

"But there will be obstacles, and I'm worried about them. Iraq is going to be messy, there's no easy solution to North Korea, and there are risks in confronting Iran. Some things can go wrong. But it's always better to err on the side of strength. The pressures will be great, but this is what it means to live in a genuinely historic moment."

http://www.prisonplanet.com/neoconse...orld_order.htm

[MikeK]

Originally Posted by Dean

bomb them and anyone near them back to the stone age with either conventional or tactical nuclear weapons, and send a message to the rest of the MF'ers not to F with us.

That is just ridiculous. If america used nukes on foreign soil how long do you think it would be before a nuke went off here.

Also, if america set off a nukular weapon somewhere to "send a message", how many people would be killed who had nothing to do with it. Great job! You just killed millions of innocent people and created a whole new generation of honest to science america haters.

America has made an art out of being the world's bully since the fall of the soviet union, but stupid shit like that will bring this era to an end very quickly.

The real solution is for america to stop interfering with the internal politics of other countries, and that will only happen when the oil dependence goes away. How different would the world be right now if every cent that America has been spent in Iraq the last few years was instead spent on developing electric car technology, or ethanol technology, or any other technology that could reduce or eliminate america's dependence on oil.

[AtomicLabMonkey]

Originally Posted by sperry

What I know is that there is an element in our government that is guiding both forign and domestic policy that I didn't vote for. And not because I voted for the other people and lost, but becuase these people hold no elected offices. Do I blame Bush personally for our global situation? No I don't, I don't think he's capable (and I mean that from a checks and balances perspective, not a "he's too dumb" perspective) of doing the things that have been done.

Unfortunately that's the way it is in DC these days, on both sides of the aisle. Most research for policy and new legislation is done through all the partisan/special interest think tanks, instead of the non-partisan sources available to Congress. The same people who have worked in that town for decades just rotate in and out of government, think-tanks & policy institutes, and lobbying jobs. It's all blended into the same thing. I hope a giant flaming ball of poo descends from space someday and obliterates the whole place. Except for the national mall, that's pretty nice.

Originally Posted by sperry

Now I'm not a conspiracy theorists type, but I don't believe that 9/11 could have happened w/o "inside" assistance. And the only people in America that would have benefitted from a massive terrorist attack were the New American Century folks. <can of worms>

Now you're getting out in left field...

...what are you, a Communist?

[qksubi]

The problem with being in Iraq and spending the surplus of money we had and now we are in the RED BIGTIME! For what oil/weapons why are we there now we have a real problem N Korea who has real weapons and are testing nukes!! We have no money even if we wanted to get involved!!

[sp00ln]

I don’t understand how it's so hard to believe that a terrorist could hi-jack a plane and fly it into some of the biggest buildings in the world - pre-9/11 of course. The old policy regarding terrorism and high-jacks on planes to let them do what they want, land where they wanted; then of course soon be arrested. Has anyone ever flown a plane into a building before the events of 9/11?

Personally, I think it's ridicules to think that if Al Gore had been president, that the events of 9/11 wouldn't have happened. I also believe that if Al Gore had been president, he'd be struggling with the same criticism Bush is struggling with today... besides the use of the English language.

[AtomicLabMonkey]

Originally Posted by Dean

We have the weapons and technology to kick ass and walk away. You know where the F'ers that organized 9/11 are, bomb them and anyone near them back to the stone age with either conventional or tactical nuclear weapons, and send a message to the rest of the MF'ers not to F with us. And scare the crap out of anyone from aiding or harboring these animals ever again.

Have to agree with Mike on that one. Nukes are the last resort of all last resorts in any conflict, for a variety of reasons (political, psychological, environmental, etc.). Most of our small tactical weapons have yields larger than our wartime strikes on Japan. Not exactly precision. That's like using a flamethrower to kill the ant crawling across your living room wall. Sure it'll work, but it will totally fuck up the place you live.

For that matter, I think that whole strategy is flawed. We've done "shock & awe", more than once. It doesn't seem to have worked very well in either case. I think the way we're conducting ourselves also feeds right into the radical ideology that they're spewing against us in that part of the world. Every time we invade a country, every time we occupy a city, every time we call in a "precision" airstrike on a residential house that a lone gunman just ran into for cover (and kill an entire family)... it gives those assholes more fodder to rant about in their sermons, and makes it more likely that they'll convince a new generation to fight back by strapping on an explosive belt.

Originally Posted by Dean

The founding fathers did not intend for the US to launch democratic crusades across the globe.

If people want to start a democracy, let them, and even help them where it makes sense, but we shouldn't be trying to force it on anyone, even evil dictatorships. And if spreading democracy was really our goal, why aren't we doing so closer to home. How tough would it be to take Cuba and convert it to a democratic state? Hell, why not just conquer it and make it a state? Oh, right, no oil in Cuba...

I totally agree with that though. All these neocon speeches about how we need to spread democracy around the world ring hollow to me, when we've had a communist, totalitarian dictatorship sitting 90 miles off our coast for decades - and done NOTHING substantive about it.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by AtomicLabMonkey

Unfortunately that's the way it is in DC these days, on both sides of the aisle. Most research for policy and new legislation is done through all the partisan/special interest think tanks, instead of the non-partisan sources available to Congress. The same people who have worked in that town for decades just rotate in and out of government, think-tanks & policy institutes, and lobbying jobs. It's all blended into the same thing. I hope a giant flaming ball of poo descends from space someday and obliterates the whole place. Except for the national mall, that's pretty nice.




Now you're getting out in left field...

...what are you, a Communist?

All I know is that some planes crashed into the WTC, then when they collapsed, it took <10 seconds for them to hit the ground. The laws of physics make the official scenario of "fire weakened the structure causing a chain reaction collapse" impossible, and the official report even acknowledges that fact, yet no one's trying to actually explain what really happened.

I don't think you have to be a rightwing crazy to want an answer that doesn't defy the laws of physics. 9/11 may have been the most important single event that will shape the world for the next 100 years... much like the assination of Archduke Ferdinand in 1914 triggered the chain of events that resulted in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and the Cold War. I think we should know what really went down on Sept. 11, 2001.

[JC]

Originally Posted by sperry

History will go to show that our current government handled the challenges of 9-11 in a way that marked the irreversible decline of America as a superpower.

Irreversible? That's a strong sentiment. If you look at American history is much more of a rollercoaster of power than you would think. One of the large reasons we have been a superpower so long is that we were physically isolated from the world. There is no legitimate threat of war from Mexico or Canada. Whereas most other countries share their borders with other nations that are more than happy to push a little. The Soviet Union was constantly in border skirmishes and had a ton of troops permanetly stationed on the Chinese border. The man power and the money to do that is enormous. I think one of the problems the US is running into is that in a Globalized world our physical isolation no longer means all that much. An isolationist policy would destroy our economy and not make us any safer. I guess my point is that while I agree America is on the decline as a superpower, I don't think it's necessarily because of 9/11.

I honestly feel like a lot of our currents problems are a large result of globalization as much as anything. The US economy is largely moving away from it's traditional blue collar jobs and you can believe that pisses people off. When a family has worked at a factory or a mine for generations and it closes down, what do they do? I don't agree with Iraq at all but frankly we have had plenty of botched wars in our history that have cost us a lot more and we recovered just fine. The real threat to the US IMO is failing to adapt to the new face of the world both socially and economically. While American people are worried that gay marriage is destroying the "institution of marriage" or that evolution is blasphemy, China is graduating something like twice the number of PhDs we are and dumping billions into modernizing their economy. That's a much larger threat to us than any war IMO.

[Dean]

OK, Nukes were not my first choice. To be honest, my preference is for snippers / surgical strikes. And my premis is based on us minding our own damn business and only making noise when sumbody Fs with us.

I want us to protect our borders, and our citizens and punish anyone who hurts us or supports the people who do.

I do not want us setting up permenant structures in foreign countries with no plan to leave. Large ground forces are large targets for gorilla type warfare. Ask the british about the American revolution.

If we mind our own buniness and stay out of other people's countries, religions, etc we may gain some respect, or at least lose some hate points. There will always be people who hate us for what we have, but we create teh rest of the hate by sticking our noses into things we have no busness being involved with.

[Dean]

Originally Posted by sperry

All I know is that some planes crashed into the WTC, then when they collapsed, it took <10 seconds for them to hit the ground. The laws of physics make the official scenario of "fire weakened the structure causing a chain reaction collapse" impossible, and the official report even acknowledges that fact, yet no one's trying to actually explain what really happened.

I beg to differ with you, the physics description I have seen on Discovery channel is pretty damn solid. But then, maybe they are just puppets of the government...

[sperry]

Originally Posted by Dean

I beg to differ with you, the physics description I have seen on Discovery channel is pretty damn solid. But then, maybe they are just puppets of the government...

If you drop something from the top of the WTC, it takes about 10 seconds for it to hit the ground. The only way for the building to collapse that fast is if the upper floors encountered no resistance from lower floors as they fell, i.e. the lower floors were already falling before the upper floors "hit" them. The buildings did not "pancake" down, they were demolished with a sequence of timed explosive charges... or they exist in some other dimension where gravity has different rules.

[Dean]

You and your aluminuium foil beenie wearing buddies should get together and discuss your theories.

[Ezdno]

Originally Posted by Dean

If we mind our own buniness and stay out of other people's countries, religions, etc we may gain some respect, or at least lose some hate points. There will always be people who hate us for what we have, but we create teh rest of the hate by sticking our noses into things we have no busness being involved with.

This is a double edged sword, I agree with the premise, but where does Humanitarian Involvement fall in this category. We constantly cater to countries that need humanitarian support, not just emergency, but everyday life support. We would lose just as much respect by not being involved. I would imagine that many Iraqis feel the war effort in Iraq is just as much Humanitarian as it is Military.

JC does make a good point in the comment about America not adapting to the new world, China has refocused its resources on making China better while not focusing on hunger, strife, etc.. around the world.