Honda Motorcycles - FireBlades.org banner

1 - 20 of 30 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,390 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
I recently read a very interesting passage:

By assassinations, bank robberies, kidnappings, hijackings and so on, all calculated to attract maximum possible publicity in the media and to embarrass the government to the greatest possible extent, the guerillas sought to provoke the displacement of democratic governments by tough military regimes, or to drive existing military regimes to even stricter and more unpopular security measures. If the regime resorted to counterterror, torture, "disappearances", and death squads, all the better, for the purpose was to discredit the government and alienate it from the population.

From the book War by Gwynne Dyer, written in 1985.

As you can possibly guess from the "guerilla" term, the passage was specifically referring to stuff going on down in South America.

But considering the precipitous drop in Bush's popularity, the recent Bush-Clinton finger pointing, the passage of the Patriot Act, illegal wiretaps, Gitmo, Abu Gharib, and the unpopular responses done by people like the TSA in regards to a few idiots with bottles of acetone, or whatever...you have to wonder if we're playing right into the terrorist playbook here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,390 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Totally. They've always irritated me, but I do believe it is part of the price we pay for the first amendment.

Unfortunately, soldiers such as you bear the largest part of this burden. :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,397 Posts
This is exactly why you put it down before it starts. Had the other gov'ts of the world acted in a timely manner we wouldn't have the FARC setting up a nation within a Nation in Columbia. Wouldn't have Alkeada setting up in Pakistan cause the pansy ass leadership won't stand up and put them down. :rant: Unreal
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
630 Posts
Does he really need to? I mean isn't it obvious by now, even to the dolts out in the sticks?
Yes, sir-ree. I tell you what. We all be pretty dumb out here in dolt land. And I kinda noticed an unwritten rule on fireblades.org. And that is that you don't just shoot off your mouth without being able to explain yourself if someone asks. That's one reason some of the dolts in the sticks post here, I believe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,243 Posts
Does he really need to? I mean isn't it obvious by now, even to the dolts out in the sticks?

The answer to this is yes, he really needs to. If you have an opinion, and state it, you should be able to explain and defend it. In fact you should be required to. Other wise you would find that people tend to make vague statements that exibit some attitude of disdain, but are never really specific about the problem, and CERTAINLY never about the solution.
I know this is hard to believe, but some people (generaly seems to be those who reside in larger metro areas for some reason) will talk down, or even make fun of the opinions of others who don't see their "logic" (they even make fun of the areas that they live in, as if this somehow has something to do with IQ), and yet they never say anything constructive.
I don't pretend to have great understanding, and am far from having all the answers. If you feel you have these things then share them with all us "dolts" and otherwise mentally challenged mental midgets out here. Don't play games, put something real out there if you are able.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,390 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Why Bush is at fault?

Patriot Act
FISA judges and wiretapping
NOT taking a stand against torture
His method of going to war
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,704 Posts
This is exactly why you put it down before it starts. Had the other gov'ts of the world acted in a timely manner we wouldn't have the FARC setting up a nation within a Nation in Columbia. Wouldn't have Alkeada setting up in Pakistan cause the pansy ass leadership won't stand up and put them down. :rant: Unreal
Unfortunately, in this case, putting it down isn't quite that easy. There is no head to cut off, no body to dissect, and no discernable center of gravity to assinate. We're fighting an ideology that will take years, if not a decade to destroy.

Sure, Bin Laden is a great target. But his demise won't stop what's going on in the world right now. It's going to take change on multiple levels to rid the world of this. Politically, we need to be strong, and honest with ourselves. This is not a war between countries and will take some serious wrangling behind the scenes to hunt down, capture and kill the heads that rise up. Militarily, it's obvious. We need to keep doing our job free of the political crap that usually ties our hands. On the intelligence side, we need to develop an effective system that can gather, analyze and disseminate the info in a more timely manner so a coordinated, decisive action can occur.

And personally, I think this country needs to become less pussified. The intel world is shady and shady things need to happen to get the information we need. The military is going to kill people, that's what we do. We need to let the world know that for every one American killed, 1000 citizens of whatever country that harbors terrorists will die. End of story. No negotiation, no recouse, no mercy.

Would you please explain why this is so?
Does he really need to? I mean isn't it obvious by now, even to the dolts out in the sticks?
Why Bush is at fault?

Patriot Act
FISA judges and wiretapping
NOT taking a stand against torture
His method of going to war
You can blame Bush if you like but your own representatives aren't challenging him on these subjects and, as a result, you're each responsible. For every representative and senator that is reelected, you failed. Bush can't stand up there solo and make these things happen.

As far as the method of going to war, that's a responsibility of his wartime advisors and what could ostensibly be considered the largest planning failure ever to grace this nation as it entered a war. The face of war has changed, and was already changing prior to entering Iraq, and the people charged with executing the war couldn't change fast enough.

Yes, Bush stands alone atop the decision making structure, but it's not solely his fault nor do I think he's smart enough on all these matters to make these decisions alone. No one is. It's his fault as a leader, but you can't blame just him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,390 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Seamus, I hear what you are saying, and yes, representatives from California were in the House and Senate at the time the Patriot Act was passed.

BUT, would this have been the same under a different CIC?

Can you imagine the political position right after 911 of "OPPOSING MY THE WAR ON TERROR!"?

Anytime Bush's actions have come under any scrutiny, the next day he's in the press talking about TERRORISTS! and NUKES! and all sorts of stuff. Anyone who opposes him doesn't care about "matters of national security". And of course, they always refuse to answer questions, again, citing national security. Also, Congressional probes and oversight of much of this stuff is not allowed, or is under gag order...under the auspices of national security. The people, and there representatives need to know what is going on if we are to make decisions.

The staff around Bush is a hand chosen group of syncophants. It is well known not towing the Bush line is a fast pass out of the cabinet.

Many of the things Bush has done I disagree with most, like the illegal wiretaps, were done within the "shadow governments" that no elected representation has control of. This was why judges were resigning. Direct meddling by White House staff.

As you said, Bush is CIC. That means ultimately he's responsible in the militaristic sense. But, he has also set a tone of fear and threats when anyone has dared oppose him, and the republican platform and actions are dictated directly from the White House.

If you wish to minimize the pres, ask yourself this, if Carter was pres, with the same members in Congress, would this have gone down as it did?

There is no doubt in my mind, it would have been dramatically different.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,070 Posts
On a related topic, the opposition Minister of Defence, Liam Fox, at the Conservative Party conference:

“I want to begin by focusing on a different consequence of our addiction to oil and the security implications that result from it. We are all too familiar with the fact that recent years have seen substantial rises in the price of crude. What is seldom discussed is the cumulative wealth shift that this represents, how it is being spent and the foreign and security policy implications that flow from it.

Let me begin with a few numbers. In the past five years Europe alone has pumped $49bn into the economy of Iran and an astonishing $232bn into the former Soviet Union, mainly Russia for crude oil alone. This does not include the financial transfers resulting from gas or petroleum product sales. Of these two examples, at a national level, Germany has contributed $54bn to Russia while Italy handed $10.1bn to Iran. The global figures are, of course, much greater still.

In both Russia and Iran this windfall has been used to finance military buildup. In other words we in the West find ourselves in a security Catch-22. Our dependence on oil means that we cannot avoid paying whatever price is demanded of us. That in turn produces huge financial flows out of our economies into those oil producers, some of whom may be hostile to us. They in turn use this to finance a defence build up. In other words, our addiction to oil results in us funding the potential threat against us and our interests. There is, in addition, the consequence that there is little incentive for a state like Iran to reduce international tension as greater uncertainty will inflate the oil price and keep revenues high.

Our inability to wean ourselves off our oil habit may be providing us with more immediate threats to our security and wellbeing than the effects that climate change may bring.”
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,224 Posts
Seamus, I hear what you are saying, and yes, representatives from California were in the House and Senate at the time the Patriot Act was passed.

BUT, would this have been the same under a different CIC?

Can you imagine the political position right after 911 of "OPPOSING MY THE WAR ON TERROR!"?

...
And there is the REAL problem. If the scum in Washington tried more often to do the RIGHT thing rather than the personally beneficial thing once in a while then a lot of these discussions would go away.

Oh and I agree Seamus that DC is a bunch of pussies that want to get into a slap fight. There is a piece of BS called the Just Theory of War that they are trying to adhere to when the goal should be kill the enemy. If a sniper fires from a mosque level it, soon they will not be welcome. If villagers hide rebels then drop a MOAB on them. We need to make it a bit more expensive for the locals to support or be passive with the rebels/terrorists.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,704 Posts
That's just my point. He is the CIC. He isn't Castro, Chavez, Tito, Stalin, etc. If he were setting the tone with fear and threats, the Democrats would be all over television with tapes, pictures and hidden video of Bush demoralizing Congress. But they're not and that's because he's not. Right now, everyone is playing CYA and trying to find the message that will get them reelected.

The Patriot Act, wiretapping and all the associated losses of freedoms passed because they got majority votes. If Carter was president, or anyone else for that matter, a lot of things would be different. But different isn't always better. I don't think I was minimizing Bush, just not allowing everything to be his fault. He does try to take the herd of cats that is Congress and lead it in a direction but he can't force the hands.

As for the use of "national security", terrorists, and 9/11, I'm right there with you. Everytime I hear, "Ever since 9/11" I just shake my head.

Politics has become too politicized, if that makes sense. Rather than focus on what's right and doing that, the parties focus on what the other is supposedly doing wrong. In the mean time, the country is going to hell.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,063 Posts
On a related topic, the opposition Minister of Defence, Liam Fox, at the Conservative Party conference:

“I want to begin by focusing on a different consequence of our addiction to oil and the security implications that result from it. We are all too ...

Stuff about oil and our addiction to it deleted. Should be in another thread anyways.
Why is it when ever anyone contradicts the current administration, administration supporters always seem to change the subject instead of addressing the issues at hand? I work with a guy who is an avid Bush supporter. And I have found over the years, that Bush has been in office, this guy still says Bush is doing a great job. "his" policies are good and we need to back him. There is no logic to this support. It is purely faith based.

As to me explaining what I said previously. Do I really have too? Haven't you been following the news recently? Oh, I guess you have been up in arms over Bill Clinton's smack down of that douche Chris Wallace, instead of paying attention to the latest report to come from our own federal security departments. The same report that Bush wants to keep secret because it will make him and everyone who supported/supports his administration's missteps in the middle east have trouble this election year. Well boo fucking hoo. About time some truth is coming out from this government.

I wonder how all the Bush supporters out there can take the repeated lies and deception they are given by Bush and his cronies? Again, I have to attribute it to faith because there is definitely no rational reason for anyone in the general population to support Bush or this administration.
As for Congress and the Senate...Money talks and lobbyists who don't have any don't get in the door.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,704 Posts
Maybe I read it wrong but oldfogey's post seems to agree, from a different vantage point, with your post about the terrorists winning.

Why should you explain yourself? Because, in a debate, you:

1. State your premise
2. Provide corroborating evidence to support your premise
3. Refute the opposing side using evidence and facts
4. Dance on your opponents figurative grave

You don't:

1. State your premise
2. Argue that everyone else is changing the subject
3. Speak vaguely while changing the subject
4. Imply that everyone else is an idiot
5. Close your argument by again changing the subject
 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Top