OK, let's review - 2 years later

[Sundog]

We failed to find Bin Laden.
We failed to find Mullah Omar.
We failed to find Saddam Hussein.
We failed to find ANY weapons of mass destruction.
We failed to win the hearts and minds of the Iraquis.
We failed to find the source of the anthrax contaminations.
We failed to bring peace to the Mideast.
We failed to enlist the help of our allies in the war on Iraq.
We failed to uphold world opinion about America.
We failed to convince the world our actions are justified.
We failed to win the hearts and minds of the world's Muslims.

Anyone remember 9/11? What the capitalized, italicized **** does our little excursion in Iraq have to do with 9/11? Nothing whatsoever! The old bait-and-switch on a stunning scale. And we Americans are so stupid that we actually bought it.

We have taken our eyes off the ball. We have let Bush distract us into paying attention to his little war instead. In the meantime Bin Laden relaxes somewhere, planning the next outrage.

George Bush is an out-and-out failure.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Sundog
We failed to find Bin Laden.
We failed to find Mullah Omar.
We failed to find Saddam Hussein.
We failed to find ANY weapons of mass destruction.
We failed to win the hearts and minds of the Iraquis.
We failed to find the source of the anthrax contaminations.
We failed to bring peace to the Mideast.
We failed to enlist the help of our allies in the war on Iraq.
We failed to uphold world opinion about America.
We failed to convince the world our actions are justified.
We failed to win the hearts and minds of the world's Muslims.

Anyone remember 9/11? What the capitalized, italicized **** does our little excursion in Iraq have to do with 9/11? Nothing whatsoever! The old bait-and-switch on a stunning scale. And we Americans are so stupid that we actually bought it.

We have taken our eyes off the ball. We have let Bush distract us into paying attention to his little war instead. In the meantime Bin Laden relaxes somewhere, planning the next outrage.

George Bush is an out-and-out failure.

Yes, you are correct about his foreign policy failures. But his great success, which you do not give him credit for, is his handling of the domestic economy. I suspect he will be remembered most for that!

[hammegk]

Get a good lawyer. Maybe he/she/it can sue somebody to correct those Bush debacles and make you feel whole again.

[Crossbow]

World, Sworld!

Who cares about those other guys, you got a tax break right? So that should ease all of your aches.

:p

[Tmy]

Well the Iraq thing does kinda tie into terrorism. Bush wants to reshape the whole region in oder to put the smack down on the islamocrazies. Problem is that hed never come out and say that. Instead he pulls out "iraqi freedom" "wmd" and other digestible justifications .

Thats what pissed me off. Not so much that he went into Iraq, but how he did it and how he justified the action.

[bignickel]

On Yahoo news recently, I read that a second poll confirms the results of the first one months ago:

7 out of 10 Americans believe Saddam Hussein had a hand in 9/11.

:eek:


This country deserves President George W. Bush.

[Cleopatra]

In Europe we hear a lot about restrictions of the personal freedoms and the role of the notorious Ascroft.

How much of these are true? Do you feel that your democratic freedoms have been restricted since 9/11?

[headscratcher4]

I wouldn't say that personal freedoms, per se, for most Americans have been restricted. But than, most Americans don't put their personal freedoms to any real test...i.e./e.g. active dissent. No, what is scary about Ashcroft is that he and the Bush Administration are putting in place tools and procedures that can be subject to grave misuse.

Further, they are setting an atmosphere where political dissent can be easily confused with ideas like "support" for terrorism. For instance conservative writers who are very comfortable with conflating political dissent with "traitor" (a'la Ann Coulter). Bush, Ashcroft and too many in this Administration believe that if you are not with them, you must be supporting the enemy, as they define it.

What is happening in America is the "burn the village to save it" mentality? It isn't like the Nuremberg laws...one day a certain kind of liberty, the next subjugation to the crushing power of the state. It is the subtle chipping away of liberties and the popular understanding of liberty. It is the belief that liberty can be managed and controlled, rather than the understanding that freedom and liberty are messy things. It is the compromise of deep seated values for short term security or political advantage, with no sense that once the liberties have been voluntarily offered up, they will be damned hard to recover.

In the end, the Administration has blithely and willfully forgotten the great words of Ben Franklin (to paraphrase): those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither.

I would still, today, say that the personal freedom enjoyed by most Americans is comparable, if not greater, than any other nation in the world. The problem is that we are let it be eroded bit by little bit, justification by justification, and someday we will wonder where it went and why the "system" stopped protecting liberty and freedom as its highest aspiration. I wouldn't say that personal freedoms, per se, for most Americans have been restricted. But than, most Americans don't put their personal freedoms to any real test...i.e./e.g. active dissent. No, what is scary about Ashcroft is that he and the Bush Administration are putting in place tools and procedures that can be subject to grave misuse.

Further, they are setting an atmosphere where political dissent can be easily confused with ideas like "support" for terrorism. For instance conservative writers who are very comfortable with conflating political dissent with "traitor" (a'la Ann Coulter). Bush, Ashcroft and too many in this Administration believe that if you are not with them, you must be supporting the enemy, as they define it.

What is happening in America is the "burn the village to save it" mentality? It isn't like the Nuremberg laws...one day a certain kind of liberty, the next subjugation to the crushing power of the state. It is the subtle chipping away of liberties and the popular understanding of liberty. It is the belief that liberty can be managed and controlled, rather than the understanding that freedom and liberty are messy things. It is the compromise of deep seated values for short term security or political advantage, with no sense that once the liberties have been voluntarily offered up, they will be damned hard to recover.

In the end, the Administration has blithely and willfully forgotten the great words of Ben Franklin (to paraphrase): those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither.

I would still, today, say that the personal freedom enjoyed by most Americans is comparable, if not greater, than any other nation in the world. The problem is that we are letting it be eroded bit by little bit, justification by justification, and someday we will wonder where it went and why the "system" stopped protecting liberty and freedom as its highest aspiration.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by hammegk
Get a good lawyer. Maybe he/she/it can sue somebody to correct those Bush debacles and make you feel whole again.

Hammy, maybe you're full of she/it.

:p :p

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
In Europe we hear a lot about restrictions of the personal freedoms and the role of the notorious Ascroft.

How much of these are true? Do you feel that your democratic freedoms have been restricted since 9/11?

No, not really, only when I go through airport screening. Other than that, I really don't notice anything different, though I'm sure people in some specific areas (like librarians) probably notice it a lot more than most people. But Ashcroft (much as I detest the man) makes little difference in the daily lives of most americans.

The biggest problem with Ashcroft, etc. isn't the restrictions on freedoms of Americans that's significant, it's the restrictions on freedoms of non-citizens in the US. That's often the case in times of war, and the US has bounced back to a pretty open society from doing much worse (Japanese internment springs to mind), so while it's a problem, it's also not a sign of any sort of irreversible trend.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
In Europe we hear a lot about restrictions of the personal freedoms and the role of the notorious Ascroft.

How much of these are true? Do you feel that your democratic freedoms have been restricted since 9/11?

Honestly, I can't say that there is anything that affects me directly in the way of limited freedoms. Of course, Ashcroft has met a lot of resistance on his plans to limit those freedoms. And I have not been arrested for terrorism either; that is where you most hear of freedoms being abridged.

I did get singled out on an airplane for searching (not a body search). It was because I had a one-way ticket, as did the 9/11 hijackers. That was really clever of the security people, I'm sure they catch a lot of terrorists that way these days.

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by Sundog
We failed to find Bin Laden.
We failed to find Mullah Omar.
We failed to find Saddam Hussein.
We failed to find ANY weapons of mass destruction.
We failed to win the hearts and minds of the Iraquis.
We failed to find the source of the anthrax contaminations.
We failed to bring peace to the Mideast.
We failed to enlist the help of our allies in the war on Iraq.
We failed to uphold world opinion about America.
We failed to convince the world our actions are justified.
We failed to win the hearts and minds of the world's Muslims.

Anyone remember 9/11? What the capitalized, italicized **** does our little excursion in Iraq have to do with 9/11? Nothing whatsoever! The old bait-and-switch on a stunning scale. And we Americans are so stupid that we actually bought it.

We have taken our eyes off the ball. We have let Bush distract us into paying attention to his little war instead. In the meantime Bin Laden relaxes somewhere, planning the next outrage.

George Bush is an out-and-out failure.

while true i dont think this is entirely fair. it's easy to make a list of everything that fits with your argument. for example, saddam's kids were found and killed. if they werent that would be on your list as well. but they were found so there's no mention of it. this is just a terribly one-sided list.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by bignickel
On Yahoo news recently, I read that a second poll confirms the results of the first one months ago:

7 out of 10 Americans believe Saddam Hussein had a hand in 9/11.

:eek:


This country deserves President George W. Bush.

To an extent just as more than half in various surveys still believe that some or all of the hijackers were Iraqi.

Oy!

But I find this latest survey a little misleading.

The phrasing of the question is ambiguous. For instance i can take it to mean a couple things:

1. By saying I believe he had a hand in the 9-11 disaster I could mean I think he probably was involved in some circuitous way either through money, or resources, or simple encouragement of the hatred.

2. I could be saying yes, George Bush and his administration are going after Iraq because we haver material evidence that Husseing helped in the 9-11 attacks.

The first position is kind of a fifty fifty deal, maybe in some way he was involved somehow, and answering yes means you have a personal hunch even though you know darn well there is no evidence whatsoever at the moment.

The second position is ridiculous.

But in either case all we know is yes or no. People may not be the complete idiots implied by that survey.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Sundog


Hammy, maybe you're full of she/it.

:p :p

Could be. You are certainly full of left-wing pc'lib bullsh*t.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by hammegk


Could be. You are certainly full of left-wing pc'lib sh*t.

You and PC are like Bill and cargo cults; it's your favorite insult and you use it even when it isn't germane.

On the rest, mea culpa. :D

[Tricky]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh

while true i dont think this is entirely fair. it's easy to make a list of everything that fits with your argument. for example, saddam's kids were found and killed. if they werent that would be on your list as well. but they were found so there's no mention of it. this is just a terribly one-sided list.
True, but the only things that should be on the list are major objectives that were either stated or discussed. True, we did add a lot of names to the "most wanted" list (or deck), but we rarely heard mention of them until the war was already in progress. Certainly you could say that "taking out Saddam's henchmen" was a general objective, but we can't say that is is done either. Some are accounted for, some are not.

And oh yes, I wanted to add one to the original list of failed post-9/11 objectives:

We failed (so far) to bring stability to Afghanistan.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh


while true i dont think this is entirely fair. it's easy to make a list of everything that fits with your argument. for example, saddam's kids were found and killed. if they werent that would be on your list as well. but they were found so there's no mention of it. this is just a terribly one-sided list.

A perfectly good point. You are invited to construct a similar list of successes.

[Cain]

We failed to do this, we failed to do that, we failed blah blah blah.

Look, we're gonna kill "Chemical Ali" twice. TWO times. This is quite an accomplishment that easily dwarfs "weapons of mass destruction" or 2.7 million lost jobs, or whatever other wholly arbitrary standard one chooses to judge the Bush administration by. Instead, I think we should be impressed by the president's ability to pull off the seemingly impossible. Another example is falling off the Segway. Bush continually challenges us as to what's humanly possible.

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by Tricky

True, but the only things that should be on the list are major objectives that were either stated or discussed.

"we failed to bring peace to the middle east"... c'mon, no one expected that to happen within the two years since 9/11/01. I might as well say "we failed to land men on the surface of mars"

[CapelDodger]

From HarryKeogh:
"we failed to bring peace to the middle east"... c'mon, no one expected that to happen within the two years since 9/11/01. I might as well say "we failed to land men on the surface of mars"
A better job could have been made of the effort. Look at the situation now - realistically, could things have been any worse?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Sundog
We failed to win the hearts and minds of the Iraquis.


There are opinion polls that show the majority of Iraqis are happy with America's action of overthrowing Saddam. (Although I doubt there was much need to 'win their hearts and minds'; they probably supported the invasion even before it began.)

Originally posted by Sundog
We failed to find the source of the anthrax contaminations.


Although its not good that the Anthrax mailer is still out there, how exactly is it Bush's fault? Did Bush have some magic information about his identity that he failed to pass on?

Its not easy tracking someone like the Anthrax mailer. (Remember, the Unibomber went years until he was turned in by his brother.)

Originally posted by Sundog
We failed to bring peace to the Mideast.


Did anyone predict he would be able to bring peace within his first term?

Originally posted by Sundog
We failed to enlist the help of our allies in the war on Iraq.


Actually, they did get many (maybe even most) of their allies on side. They didn't get a lot of neutral (or non-allied) countries on side.

Originally posted by Sundog
We failed to uphold world opinion about America.


Just what exactly do you mean by that? Are you referring to the people who complained about the US 'wasting' the 'goodwill' towards the US following 9/11?

Originally posted by Sundog
We failed to win the hearts and minds of the world's Muslims.


Did anyone predict that all the Muslims in the world would immediately start loving America?

Originally posted by Sundog
We have taken our eyes off the ball. We have let Bush distract us into paying attention to his little war instead. In the meantime Bin Laden relaxes somewhere, planning the next outrage.


Is there any proof that Bin Laden is still alive? We haven't heard from him in a long time. We did get a 'video' this week, but there's nothing in it to show that it was shot within the past year. Bin Laden could very well be burried unter a pile of rubble somewhere in the mountains of Afghanistan.

And even if we were searching for him, the type of resources needed to hunt him involve more intelligence work than military. (I doubt B52s are going to be much help searching for him.)

Originally posted by Sundog

George Bush is an out-and-out failure.

I figure he's just like Clinton, Bush Sr. Regan, etc.... Did some good stuff, did some bad stuff, but much of his activities were just reactions to events in the world.

And while I think Bush should be criticized over some things, I don't thing blaming him for things that weren't really his fault is really fair.

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by Sundog


A perfectly good point. You are invited to construct a similar list of successes.

some of the successes that this administration (an administration that i'm not crazy about either, just trying to be fair here) has accomplished

al qaeda operations have been disrupted (key word, disrupted). many members have been caught or killed. millions of dollars of their assets frozen.

afghanistan is not home to large scale terrorist training facilities and the taliban leadership have been driven from leadership positions. the government no longer has public executions esp. for activities most people wouldnt even deem a crime.

saddam hussein is not in power. no matter which side of the fence youre on you have to admit he was a sick bastard.

saddam hussein's sons, two pretty brutal leaders in their own right, are dead

-of course im not saying al qaeda still isnt a very powerful organization or that there are no taliban influences in afghanistan or that every iraqi is doing a dance of joy in the streets when they see an american soldier walk by but these are some decent accomplishments that shouldnt be totally ignored. (plus i'm only typing them because you asked)

[Tricky]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh


some of the successes that this administration (an administration that i'm not crazy about either, just trying to be fair here) has accomplished

al qaeda operations have been disrupted (key word, disrupted). many members have been caught or killed. millions of dollars of their assets frozen.

afghanistan is not home to large scale terrorist training facilities and the taliban leadership have been driven from leadership positions. the government no longer has public executions esp. for activities most people wouldnt even deem a crime.

saddam hussein is not in power. no matter which side of the fence youre on you have to admit he was a sick bastard.

saddam hussein's sons, two pretty brutal leaders in their own right, are dead

-of course im not saying al qaeda still isnt a very powerful organization or that there are no taliban influences in afghanistan or that every iraqi is doing a dance of joy in the streets when they see an american soldier walk by but these are some decent accomplishments that shouldnt be totally ignored. (plus i'm only typing them because you asked)
A fair list, Harry. And like everyone else, I agree that to expect peace in between Israel and Palestine is ludicrous. Bush actually got high marks for his road map. It wasn't his fault that the crazies wouldn't budge an inch.

However, in spite of these successes, you have to ask, "was it worth it?". What does the balance sheet look like? In my opinion, we are deeply in the red, morally as well as financially.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh


some of the successes that this administration (an administration that i'm not crazy about either, just trying to be fair here) has accomplished...


Some good points there. But I think it's a little ironic that most of these achievements - involving intervening in and actually carrying out war in two countries (so far) in order to change their government strikes me as an odd thing for conservatives to be happy about. Pat Buchanan for one seems hopping mad about it.

But they have no choice but to hold these up as achievements, when they were only side benefits in all cases, because that's all there is. We didn't go into Afghanistan primarily to unseat the Taliban, that was a side benefit. We didn't go into Iraq because Hussein and his sons were oppressing Iraquis, liberating them was a side benefit.

So it seems to me all we can say is that we failed in our primary objectives in both places but that there were positive side effects. This doesn't make me want to sing happy happy joy joy.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Tricky

And like everyone else, I agree that to expect peace in between Israel and Palestine is ludicrous.

My fault. What I really meant was, one of the major reasons for going into Iraq was that it would help stabilize the middle east. I think it's fair by now to call that a missed objective, to say the least.

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by Tricky
However, in spite of these successes, you have to ask, "was it worth it?". What does the balance sheet look like? In my opinion, we are deeply in the red, morally as well as financially.

i don't know yet. part of me feels duped by the administration (regarding reasons for invading iraq) but i find my resentment for that is tempered by knowing basic human rights have a much better chance of gaining a foothold in an iraq free of the old leadership.

hopefully with the passage of time the answer to whether it was worth it or not (in my mind at least) will become much clearer.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Sundog
We didn't go into Afghanistan primarily to unseat the Taliban, that was a side benefit.
I dunno, Sundog. I guess you are saying "getting Ben Laden" was the primary objective. However, Ben Laden and the Taliban were inextricably intertwined and I think most of us realized to to get him, the Taliban had to go. I honestly thought that was the objective, and I approved of it.
---
Edited to add:

But of course, we didn't get rid of the Taliban either, although they are less powerful.

[LTC8K6]

We've been looking for Saddam for 2 years?

[LTC8K6]

We were supposed to have stabilized the middle east already? We've only been in Iraq a few months. I think a miracle is a bit of a high expectation.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
We've been looking for Saddam for 2 years?

:p

You weren't supposed to notice that.

[LTC8K6]

Well, you could go back to 1991 and say we've been trying to get him for 12 years. :)

[Sundog]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
We were supposed to have stabilized the middle east already? We've only been in Iraq a few months. I think a miracle is a bit of a high expectation.

This just strikes me as more wishful thinking by the Bush administration. Stabilizing the Middle East would come as a result of a happy and democratic Iraq, which they seemed to think would just "happen". The imminent arrival of such stability has been, shall we say, greatly exaggerated.

It seems to me that the trend is in the wrong direction and we have made things worse, not better. Witness Libya's desire now to exit the Arab League. It takes more imagination than I have to see how and when any of this is going to result in any kind of stability.

[Furious]

Also not a Bush lover, but:

- Formulated and excecuted a quick response against the appropriate group of nutjobs that killed 3,000 fellow Americans.

- Created a roadmap to peace in Palestine/Israel that both initially found acceptable, even if neither side chooses to follow it.

- Added some much needed security restrictions to airports to ensure 9/11 never happens exactly the same way again.

- Freed millions of Iraqi's from a tyrant who they readily acknowledge they could not have ousted themselves. The "hearts and minds" are not won because we did not do anything to help them 10 years ago when they had a better chance of doing it themselves. They certainly would have been as skeptical of a U.N. coalition regardless of when the U.N. would have ever done it.

- Found 39+? of 52 leaders of a regime that openly defied the international community.

- At least made an attempt at getting U.N. support for an invasion, which historically speaking, has been frequently ignored for unilateral military action by either party.

- Kept the number of casualties in the war to much lower than projected amounts. Even optimistic casualty figures were much higher than the current amount.

- Returned this country to a state where people are once again more likely to talk about the World Series instead of worrying if their office building is going to be bombed.



Both your list and mine are ******** of course. Bush can't take the direct credit or blame for most of either. There are plenty of things on your list many previous presidents of both parties failed miserably at in eight years of office, not just two.

I do not admire Bush. I did not nor will not vote for him. I dislike the idea of faulting him for things he has no control over to enhance a stupid list of four things he could possibly had direct control over, and even those where not likely to happen regardless of which person holds the title of commander-in-chief.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Andonyx


To an extent just as more than half in various surveys still believe that some or all of the hijackers were Iraqi.



Sundog, did you include this in the successes? This is definetely a success of the government.

Thanks for your replies regarding Ascroft and the issue of personal freedoms.

Do I have to say that for us, the foreigners, a travel to USA has turned into hell after 9/11 ?

[Furious]

Do I have to say that for us, the foreigners, a travel to USA has turned into hell after 9/11 ?

From my personal experience, if you have your stuff together, no.

I took a one week vacation to England at the end of May. The gentleman ahead of me before we got to customs were definitely of middle east descent with valid passports ready in hand.

I was somewhat jealous coming out of customs to see that they were ahead of me in getting through, but that was simply because the lines for foreign visitors to the U.S. were about 1/3 of the length of the line for U.S. citizens returning to the country.

So I conclude from that experience, there is nothing overtly hellish. But generally speaking, I wouldn't come here and put up a bomb making site with links to Al Queda's homepage while preaching jihad at the local mosque either.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Sundog

This just strikes me as more wishful thinking by the Bush administration. Stabilizing the Middle East would come as a result of a happy and democratic Iraq, which they seemed to think would just "happen". The imminent arrival of such stability has been, shall we say, greatly exaggerated.


Why do you think that Bush assumed that Iraq becoming happy and democratic would 'just happen'? Iraqis have more freedom than they under Saddam (protests are allowed, even if they are against the US, many newspapers and magazines are being published, heck, they even have pr0n in some cities.)

I certainly thought it would take time and effort. But things are better than they were before, and there is a very good chance they will continue to get better.

Originally posted by Sundog

It seems to me that the trend is in the wrong direction and we have made things worse, not better. Witness Libya's desire now to exit the Arab League. It takes more imagination than I have to see how and when any of this is going to result in any kind of stability.

Why is Libya's desire to leave the Arab league a bad thing? (Do you have a link for that, by the way?) Last time I checked, most Arab League countries were quite oppresive. Is it really better for the world to have one big block of oppressive countries?

Remember, than since the war, Libya has made several friendly comments to the US, Syria is cooperating more (even reforming parts of their economy).

See: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Taheri20030910.shtml (Its an opinion piece, and while I may not agree with everything the author says, he sums up a lot of stuff I've seen in other news articles)

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Why is Libya's desire to leave the Arab league a bad thing? (Do you have a link for that, by the way?)

Sorry, no, heard it on CNN this morning. It's a bad thing because the stated reason is that the Arab League has not reacted strongly enough to our invasion of Iraq. Radical Arabs are stirred up more than ever, just as some of us predicted. This is not the direction towards stability, it seems to me.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Sundog


Sorry, no, heard it on CNN this morning. It's a bad thing because the stated reason is that the Arab League has not reacted strongly enough to our invasion of Iraq.

I did a quick google news search. Yes indeed, Libya is talking about getting out of the Arab league (at least holding a referendum for it), but:
- They've talked about doing that several times before,
- They may be doing it because they think they should have stood up more to the US in their invasion of Iraq; however, like I said, Libya has also made conciliatory gestures to the US.

Originally posted by Sundog

Radical Arabs are stirred up more than ever, just as some of us predicted.

Do you have any proof that significantly more arabs are involved in violent action now than before the invasion? Yes, there is violence in Iraq, and yes, terrorism is not defeated. But those radical arabs would likely be 'stirred up' regardless of what happened.

Originally posted by Sundog

This is not the direction towards stability, it seems to me.

Why are you so fixed on 'stability'? Personally, I'd rather have an unstable situation where countries are taking steps to democracy, instead of a stable situation where human rights are oppressed and governments are free to sponsor terrorism.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Sundog


Sorry, no, heard it on CNN this morning. It's a bad thing because the stated reason is that the Arab League has not reacted strongly enough to our invasion of Iraq.

I did a quick google news search. Yes indeed, Libya is talking about getting out of the Arab league (at least holding a referendum for it), but:
- They've talked about doing that several times before,
- They may be doing it because they think they should have stood up more to the US in their invasion of Iraq; however, like I said, Libya has also made conciliatory gestures to the US.

Originally posted by Sundog

Radical Arabs are stirred up more than ever, just as some of us predicted.

Do you have any proof that significantly more arabs are involved in violent action now than before the invasion? Yes, there is violence in Iraq, and yes, terrorism is not defeated. But those radical arabs would likely be 'stirred up' regardless of what happened.

Originally posted by Sundog

This is not the direction towards stability, it seems to me.

Why are you so fixed on 'stability'? Personally, I'd rather have an unstable situation where countries are taking steps to democracy, instead of a stable situation where human rights are oppressed and governments are free to sponsor terrorism.

[jj]

Originally posted by Crossbow
World, Sworld!

Who cares about those other guys, you got a tax break right? So that should ease all of your aches.

:p

It ain't me,
It ain't me,
I ain't your fortunate son!

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Segnosaur



Do you have any proof that significantly more arabs are involved in violent action now than before the invasion? Yes, there is violence in Iraq, and yes, terrorism is not defeated. But those radical arabs would likely be 'stirred up' regardless of what happened.



Proof, no. Seems to me this Libyan news is evidence of it, and I've heard innumerable anectodal news stories, as have most others I suspect.



Why are you so fixed on 'stability'?

Simply because that was one of the stated aims of the Iraqi invasion.

[jj]

Originally posted by hammegk


Could be. You are certainly full of left-wing pc'lib bullsh*t.

In your world of the magic "I", the facts don't matter, so I'm not surprised you can't digest the fact that 'W' is a total, dead-flat, horrid, complete failure as a president, except perhaps as a president who set us on the road to a business-led totalitarian state ala Shanek and 1984...

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Sundog

Proof, no. Seems to me this Libyan news is evidence of it, and I've heard innumerable anectodal news stories, as have most others I suspect.


Now repeat after me... The Plural of Anecdote is not 'data'.

As for Libya, did you actually read what I had said? Libya has been threatening to pull out of the Arab league for years. They've also made comments about how they want to be closer to the US. Lets wait and see what actually happens in the next year to see what their true intentions are, m'kay?


Originally posted by Sundog

Simply because that was one of the stated aims of the Iraqi invasion.

Fair enough... But then, would you rather have a 'stable' situation with brutal oppression, or an 'unstable' one which could, in theory, lead to freedom and democracy?

[jj]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh


"we failed to bring peace to the middle east"... c'mon, no one expected that to happen within the two years since 9/11/01. I might as well say "we failed to land men on the surface of mars"

Gotta agree with that one, Harry. It's been, oh, about 3000 years since there was "peace in the middle east", hasn't it?

And I think, if we survive the massive wave of terrorism that is to come from disgruntled Iraqi's joining AlQ, that we'll put people on Titan and other Jovian sattelites before we have peace in the middle east...

[jj]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
From HarryKeogh:

A better job could have been made of the effort.

Probably true.

Look at the situation now - realistically, could things have been any worse?

Err. Easily.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Do you feel that your democratic freedoms have been restricted since 9/11?

No.

[Rayn]

Cleopatra said In Europe we hear a lot about restrictions of the personal freedoms and the role of the notorious Ascroft.

How much of these are true? Do you feel that your democratic freedoms have been restricted since 9/11?

Well, I don't have much to add to what everyone else has said in response to this, however, I would like to add my fears in regards to the Patriot Act and an extension of this act, appropriately labeled Patriot Act II (http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/patriot-act-II-analysis.php).

The huge worry for me is that all these mediums in which to collect information exists for Homeland Security, but there are no provisons in place to "watch the watchers." No oversight committee exists, and it is scary what can happen if this does not exist. At the site linked above, they state that Ashcroft already authorized 170 FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/fisa_faq.html)) searches, where only 47 had been authorized in the previous 20 years.

There are also areas where information is gathered on all of our activities, digital and non-digital alike. Information on who we send e-mails to and when, where we go and what we do (from surveillance cameras and EZ Pass ID cards), instant access to credit reports, the ability for the government to compel 3rd parties to release information about us (via subpoena), et cetera is alarming in my book. Also, I believe that they can take away citizenship as soon as they implicate you in support of "terrorism," which although not frightening on the surface, it has dire implications if a broad definition is used, as headscratcher points out. Thus, once they get you under a broad definition of "support" you lose all other rights under the US legal system. Absolutely frightening.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by jj


...the facts don't matter, so I'm not surprised you can't digest the fact that 'W' is a total, dead-flat, horrid, complete failure as a president, except perhaps as a president who set us on the road to a business-led totalitarian state ala Shanek and 1984...

What a load of tripe. I digest facts quite nicely; 2 years after 9/11 & a few months into Iraq has not written The End quite yet nor have I seen many "facts", lefty PC'lib babbling to the contrary.

Go spike a tree, or hug one ... :mad:

[jj]

Originally posted by hammegk


What a load of tripe. I digest facts quite nicely; 2 years after 9/11 & a few months into Iraq has not written The End quite yet nor have I seen many "facts", lefty PC'lib babbling to the contrary.

Go spike a tree, or hug one ... :mad:

Pretty typical of you, to misrepresent your opponent's position. Me? Spike a tree, or hug one? Are you trying to imply I'm some kind of tree-hugging environmentalist now? Where did you dig up that bit of total excrement?

The End is not written. I fully agree. Of course, I didn't say it WAS written, either. Example number 2 of your misreprentations of my position.

However, the performance of this administration (yes, in some difficult times, but I can't relate this to either the depression or WW2 here) leaves a lot lacking, and you really can't argue that if you look at the outcome of the administration's efforts.

It's clear that unless we get our spit together pronto in Iraq, we're going to have created a new, huge training ground for some very seriously nasty terrorists, for instance.

NK is still at large.

The economy still s***s.

We have people bashing on newsroom doors, and trying to intimidate photographers, without warrants/etc, into handing over films and photographs. We have government agencies interfering in state politics.

There are a LOT of new problems since 9/11, and we can all see them. Why you choose not to acknowledge the general decay of civil rights and freedoms in the USA is beyond me, but it's hard not to miss the handwriting on the wall when the "Office of Homeland Security" goes after the members of a particular politcal party in order to influence a state government redistricting vote. That's flat-out treason, it's using the executive branch against the legally behaving public.

Then there's Haliburton and the oil wells. Why is Ken Lay still getting a free ride?

The list goes on and on, and because I can see the bluntly, trivially obvious, you accuse me of being a tree hugger.

Do you know Shanek by any chance?

[jj]

Originally posted by jj


Pretty typical of you, to misrepresent your opponent's position. Me? Spike a tree, or hug one? Are you trying to imply I'm some kind of tree-hugging environmentalist now? Where did you dig up that bit of total excrement?

The End is not written. I fully agree. Of course, I didn't say it WAS written, either. Example number 2 of your misreprentations of my position.

However, the performance of this administration (yes, in some difficult times, but I can't relate this to either the depression or WW2 here) leaves a lot lacking, and you really can't argue that if you look at the outcome of the administration's efforts.

It's clear that unless we get our spit together pronto in Iraq, we're going to have created a new, huge training ground for some very seriously nasty terrorists, for instance.

NK is still at large.

The economy still s***s.

We have people bashing on newsroom doors, and trying to intimidate photographers, without warrants/etc, into handing over films and photographs. We have government agencies interfering in state politics.

There are a LOT of new problems since 9/11, and we can all see them. Why you choose not to acknowledge the general decay of civil rights and freedoms in the USA is beyond me, but it's hard not to miss the handwriting on the wall when the "Office of Homeland Security" goes after the members of a particular politcal party in order to influence a state government redistricting vote. That's flat-out treason, it's using the executive branch against the legally behaving public.

Then there's Haliburton and the oil wells.

Why is Ken Lay still getting a free ride?

The list goes on and on, and because I can see the bluntly, trivially obvious, you accuse me of being a tree hugger.

Do you know Shanek by any chance?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by jj


Pretty typical of you, to misrepresent your opponent's position. Me? Spike a tree, or hug one? Are you trying to imply I'm some kind of tree-hugging environmentalist now? Where did you dig up that bit of total excrement?
Just a stab in the dark. Did it actually miss the mark?


However, the performance of this administration (yes, in some difficult times, but I can't relate this to either the depression or WW2 here) leaves a lot lacking, and you really can't argue that if you look at the outcome of the administration's efforts.
We can agree to disagree on how bad the situations actually are due to Bush admin mis-handling.


It's clear that unless we get our spit together pronto in Iraq, we're going to have created a new, huge training ground for some very seriously nasty terrorists, for instance.
And I'd rather have the US military play anti-terrorist in say Iraq, (or maybe Washington State) rather than in NYC or DC.


NK is still at large.
And this is a Bush admin failure, you say?


The economy still s***s.

Yup, but it could be much worse, for me, and I suspect for you too (and for most of the posters here for that matter). Mtgs at 6%; who woulda guessed?


We have people bashing on newsroom doors, and trying to intimidate photographers, without warrants/etc, into handing over films and photographs. We have government agencies interfering in state politics.
And this is new to you? Sounds more like the same old-same old to me. I worry more about the juduciary and rewriting law.


There are a LOT of new problems since 9/11, and we can all see them. Why you choose not to acknowledge the general decay of civil rights and freedoms in the USA is beyond me, but it's hard not to miss the handwriting on the wall when the "Office of Homeland Security" goes after the members of a particular politcal party in order to influence a state government redistricting vote. That's flat-out treason, it's using the executive branch against the legally behaving public.
And if you had facts rather than anecdotal propaganda to back those allegations, something might be done. We seem to be crawling with legal talent here in the US.


Then there's Haliburton and the oil wells. Why is Ken Lay still getting a free ride?
Halliburton & free ride? jj, do you actually know anything about the oil business? Ken Lay is a mystery to me too; the usual friends in high places I'd assume.


The list goes on and on, and because I can see the bluntly, trivially obvious, you accuse me of being a tree hugger.
Bluntly, your gripes are just that, and trivial to boot.


Do you know Shanek by any chance?
Nope. Libertarian anarchists make me laugh as much as anything. Lefty pc'libs just p*ss me off.

BTW, perhaps you could quote yourself again. Third times a charm, right?

[bignickel]

Not that I want to interupt Hammegk and JJ's debate, but I wanted to get back to the point in my earlier post.

I finally found the article on the 7/10 Americans poll.

Washington Post Poll:
Saddam Hussein and the Sept. 11 Attacks
Saturday, September 6, 2003

The latest Washington Post poll is based on telephone interviews with 1,003 randomly selected adults nationwide, and was conducted Aug. 7-11, 2003. The margin of sampling error for overall results is plus or minus 3 percentage points. Sampling error is only one of many potential sources of error in this or any other public opinion poll. Interviewing was conducted by TNS Intersearch of Horsham, Pa.

*= less than 0.5 percent

How likely is it that Saddam Hussein (INSERT ITEM) ? Would you say that it is very likely, somewhat likely, not very likely, or not at all likely?

LIKELY: NET, Very, Somewhat / NOT LIKELY: NET, Not Very, At all / NO OPIN.
a. was personally involved in
the September 11 terrorist
attacks 69 32 37 28 15 12 3
b. has provided assistance to
Osama bin Laden and his
terrorist network 82 51 31 14 8 6 4
c. was trying to develop weapons
of mass destruction 84 62 22 14 9 5 3
d. had already developed weapons
of mass destruction 78 51 27 19 12 7 3

a. was personally involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks

--------Likely------- -------Not Likely------ No
NET Very Somewhat NET Not very At all opin.
8/11/03 69 32 37 28 15 12 3
2/6/03* 72 34 38 25 16 9 3
10/24/02 71 34 37 25 16 9 4
9/13/01# 78 34 44 12 9 3 9

* 2/6/03 and previous - Time/CNN. "…personally involved in the terrorist attacks
(on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon) on September 11th (2001) -- very likely,
somewhat likely…"
# "How likely is it that Saddam Hussein is personally involved in Tuesday's terrorist
attacks..."
b,c,d. No trend.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data082303.htm

(And yes, you need to have cookies on to get there)

"How likely is it that Saddam Hussein was personally involved the September 11 terrorist attacks?"

69% of the over 1000 Americans polled said 'Very likely'.

Sorry, but this looks like an slam-dunk to me here. Very un-ambiguous in it's wording, very clear on what's it's asking.

Face it: we American rationalists are on an island in a sea of idiots. And that sea of idiots elects our successive government administrations. And this nation has the keys to the largest nuclear arsenel on the planet.

"Do the math" indeed. Except I'm afraid to.

Dang. I hate to start a weekend this cynical.

Everybody party!