General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2175456

    US government, justification or scare tactics?

    Locked

    by oz_media ·

    Recently I have picked up on the tail end of a few news reports about the Airport security and taxes in the US.

    FIRST of all, I heard a report that al-Qaeda has been planning another attack, again using airplanes as their detructive force, except more along the lines of charters or even helicopters. They are said to not have quite the same depth of intelligence behind the planning this time, but are still effectively planning attack on the US again. This was followed by them saying how al-Qaeda has regrouped, even within the US and an attack is now suspect, though no time frame or positive details are offered.

    About an hour later I heard about GWB’s plan to increase Airport security and a request to use incresed tax dollar spending to do it.

    So while we ALL should agree that, despite the failed efforts in Afghanistan, al-Qaeda has NOT been stopped in ANY way, those that terrorized you still have strength and plans to do so again (moreso in vengeance of their former leaders)and they even reside in cells within the US.

    So is this SCARE tactic about the airports possibly being used as yet ANOTHER scare tactic to get US citizens on the government side?

    Will it work AGAIN?

    Will everyone support the government’s atrocious spending of your tax dollars due to fear of another attack?

    Will people ever realize that you have always been a target of terrorism, as have many other countries around the world, and probably ALWAYS will be?

    Will the US ogvrenment just have a new scare tactic every few years to make them seem proactive in stopping /reducing these threats? Do you ACTUALLY believe it is effective and not just lip service to secure a single FORM of government (repub or Democrat)as the one that works and helps protect America?

    Seems like very ‘convenient’ timing between the ‘new found information’ (that everyone should have known all along anyway, and validating GWB’s request for added tax spending?

    Will he then expect the large coporations, that he has given tax breaks to, to start paying MORE taxes or will it be from YOUR pockets instead?

    Does the US government possibly have the same need to control it’s people as those that are considered socialists are SAID to have?

    If so, will it happen by default, everyone just being coaxed into more conformity until they are living under the government’s own umbrella, away from the personal freedoms and independance you feel you have over others?

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #3350473

      I’d rather see foreign aid slashed

      by gralfus ·

      In reply to US government, justification or scare tactics?

      and use that money to cover our own butts first. We give away billions of tax money annually to nations run by corrupt governments that pocket most of it. Rather than continue to flush it down the toilet, I’d like to see reform. We could not tax the money in the first place, and benefit our people. The money he is asking for is already being taxed, but is being spent on projects that don’t benefit us. But to keep adding on more taxes is a foolish path. We have an entrenched mentality that there are some things that just won’t be touched, but I’d like the prez and congress to be much more tightfisted with tax monies going abroad, and use them locally first.

      • #3350459

        That’s a pretty interesting view

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to I’d rather see foreign aid slashed

        Is that ‘charitable donation’, for lack of a better word, not in the US best interests as far as trade with other nations is concerned? I don’t mean direct trade with the nation being aided but acceptance of OTHER allied nations by doing so.

        It would be hard for the US to APPEAR to be an empathetic and caring nation if they refused support of such countries, as many other countries spend large portionsof their money these same ways, certainly due to the US economy, wealth, dollar value and NUMBERS of people, the US donation is considerably MORE than others but is similar when broken down to percentages.

        Would it not HARM the US world relations, if they ceased such aid?

        Sure the US is pretty independant and at the present time, still has the largest military. But the US also relies on SO many other countries as it definitely is an importer of others goods more than it is an exporter of it own. The US, relies on these other allies more than most people seem to realize, I think.

        Without the imports from other countries, your own costs would be higher, your consumption would need to be reduced greatly (again to stop soaring costs due to limited availibility) and would lose MUCH allied support that you have always relied on in times of war, for power, for imports such as grains and lumber and others that keep your country’s economy intact. Yes the US is the KEY driving force between modern allied warfare, but they have proven several times that they NEED and RELY on other allies for spcific contribution in order to save more US lives and effectively execute their plans of war, they rely on importing power from Canada as well as other valued resources.

        Your imports FAR outweigh your exports, you NEED the world to support you, FACT.

        SO if every other country did the same and started saving their own resources would we not all be reverting to a world of individual countries that plan to invade and attack each other to gain valuable resources? I feel it is this two way street that keeps the peace and allows all involved to live better lives.

        Not supporting the allies of your allies seems that it would only be detrimental to your own economy and safety in the long run, no matter how many mroe dollars are kept in your country. Having money is great, but not if you can’t get what you need WITH that money.

        So would THIS perhaps be a reason to continue world relations in the same maner and keep as many ‘friends’ on your side as possible?

        The world’s allied nations have formed alliances in order to create better countries for eveyone involved. This has included , support for war, trade, aiding those in need and stopping repression of those that do NOT have it as good as we do.

        I feel that ceasing such support would in turn show that you don’t care about nations that do not support your own economy and would in turn harm relations with those countries who you DO require support from.

        American can’t do it alone, this is a fact I am sure you realize, you are NOT self sufficient and NEED others in order to sustain your way of life that you have grown accustomed to. Is this not a good reason to support those in need of YOUR help too?

        Just thoughts…

        • #3352241

          Puts me in mind to post this quote:

          by fonken monken uk ·

          In reply to That’s a pretty interesting view

          “Of course the people don’t want war. But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.”

          Ahh Herman Goering. Ahead of his time it would appear. To my mind, scare mongering is whats going on.

        • #3352213

          buying “friends”

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to That’s a pretty interesting view

          From many posts here, and watching world news outlets it doesn’t look like we are getting much value from this “investment”.

          When a lot of countries are either scared or jellious of us, it doesn’t look like we are getting much bang for the buck here.

          We give the money to the governments who turn around and brainwash their people who evil and decadent America is. Cut them off.

          If you are truely an ally, with common goals and respect you do what ever you can for them.

          Countries like France that can’t come to grips on why they aren’t a world power sure don’t deserve support OR the purchase of their exports.

          You make is sound like countries are doing us a FAVOR by them being able to sell their goods here. So we should GIVE them money so they can continue to SELL us goods below what North Americans producers can? That doesn’t help any of us in the long run.

          Because we by percentage HAVE more, we are EXPECTED to GIVE more? I don’t believe that for a second that is a rational argument.

          I know homelessness has been a problem in Canada. Wouldn’t you argue for helping THEM before sending aid to other countries? (I do not include disaster relief in this)

        • #3352175

          Get the facts straight

          by amcol ·

          In reply to buying “friends”

          Do any of you happen to know exactly how much the US spends in foreign aid on an annual basis? And what percent of the total budget that represents?

          No fair peeking, don’t do any Internet searches. You’re all making comments about better use of the money, let’s see if you know what you’re talking about.

          Post your answers to both questions, then I’ll tell you what the real answers are. Which I happen to know since I’m in the business.

        • #3352110

          How much you give in foreign aid, broken record.

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Get the facts straight

          Whenever the USA is questioned there is ONE focus rom teh people, HOW MUCH WE GIVE and NEVER HOW MUCH WE TAKE.

          YOu obviously work with the government as you are in the business of understanding world affairs and global trade agreements that sustain your livelihoods.
          Then you should know the facts already. You take, you take, you take you take.

          But Americans say you give, you give, you give, you give.

          So I suppose all in all it is a pretty fair give and take situation afterall.

          http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us/

          NOTE: I didn’t do an internet search, this is a great site for a lot of economical information and stats that are used here often.

        • #3331057

          Whoa, big fella

          by amcol ·

          In reply to How much you give in foreign aid, broken record.

          It may surprise you to hear that I completely agree with you. This was the point of my posting…an overwhelming majority believes the US gives a lot more than it does.

          A study commissioned by the Rand Corporation within the last year asked Americans how much they thought the US gave in foreign aid each year as a percentage of the total budget.

          The most popular answer, far and away, was 25%.

          The correct answer: 0.25%. US foreign aid annually is only about $15 billion. This against a multi-trillion dollar budget.

          Can we give more? You betcha.

        • #3331044

          The question is should we?

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to Whoa, big fella

          I say no…but I am only a simple average Joe and I think that money should be spent here instead of overthere (although I can see the necessity). Lets face it, both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of this.

          The second part to your equation is…that .25% might be low on the percentage scale…but high in actual monies given. Meaning…our GDP is so high, that we give more $$ in raw dollar amount but low percentage amount. So lets face it…in the end it doesn’t matter what the damn percentages are…it is the actual $$ that are being spent is what counts.

          50% of 100,000 = 50,000 (Say Canada or something)

          25% of 1,000,000 = 250,000 (USA).

          Our percetage is low…but our actual $$ is HIGH. See the difference.

        • #3331042

          Sorry

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Whoa, big fella

          I obviously miunderstood your post.

          I wasn’t TOO sure as I read it, I saw both sides of your comment but got the wrong overall impression, my mistake.

        • #3331037

          Garion

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Whoa, big fella

          I see your point but I feel it just outlines the point being made before.

          It’s not the TOTAL dollar value that is impressive, it’s the persentage of it.

          If one guy donates $100 and the other only $50. The first is seen as twice as genrous and caring as the second.

          If that $100 equates to only 25% of that persons income and the $50 equates to 50% of the second guys income, the first person doesn’t look QUITE as generous at that point and in fact the second person is making a FAR greater personal sacrifice in an effort to help out.

          SO if everyone in the US sacrificed $1 for a total donation of $300 million, in order for Canada to match that donation, the personal contribution each person must donate is $10.

          SO the percenage of GDP is FAR more accurate in THIS case than the total amount of money spent.

        • #3330976

          US Foreign Aid – in perspective

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Whoa, big fella

          .
          It floats somewhere between 0.25 percent and 0.75 percent of total government spending. It depends on how much discretionary spending goes abroad. The additional 15 billion in recent “AIDS pledges”, for example, will come from discretionary spending, not the line-item budget.

          But in my opinion, whatever it is, it’s way too much, since most of it goes into the pockets of corrupt foreign leaders anyway, and not to the people it was intended to help. I read somewhere (can’t remember the source) that upwards of 75 percent of all foreign aid is lost or stolen, never reaching the real intended targets.

          Moreover, I believe that it should never go to a nation that doesn’t at least attempt to operate under some semblance of a democratic system.

          In addition, “uncounted” foreign aid might be from:

          – The tens of thousands U.S. military personnel stationed around the globe (not counting Iraq and Afghanistan), whose millions (or billions) of American dollars go right into the local economies.

          – The same could be said for American businesses operating abroad, especially with Americans working in other countries, not to mention the salaries paid to foreign workers.

          – Private “foreign aid”. This is never counted in official budget numbers. The American Red Cross comes to mind as one big contributor. American dollars spent in foreign nations and being given to foreign people in the form of cash, goods or services. And the Red Cross is only one such organization. How many more hundreds (or thousands) are operating?

          – And this doesn’t even count the “foreign aid” in the time and efforts donated by people like the Peace Corps volunteers and such. What’s more valuable, a dollar or an hour?

          – The US “sisters city” programs. A lot of American “local dollars” find their way to a large number of “sister cities”.

          – Our huge trade deficit. We buy a heck of a lot more than we sell, so those dollars find homes in foreign pockets.

          I know, I know. Other countries do it too. And I don’t intend to overlook them. But the amount of “foreign aid” given by the USA is much more than the amount taken out of our federal budget.

          But personally, I believe the best “foreign aid” comes not in the form of dollars, but in the form of showing people the way to help themselves. A self-sufficient population is always better off than a dependant one. (Gee, why not practice that theory at home?)

        • #3330975

          By the way – If you want to “give more”. . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Whoa, big fella

          .
          …knock yourself out. But how can you possibly justify giving away other people’s money?

        • #3330881

          Max

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Whoa, big fella

          I know you have studied those stats before and your argument is fine, but where should the balance be, and is this even ethical?

          What I mean is that obviously you need to spend money to tighten security and find new ways to ensure you stay one step ahead of the enemy at this point. I find the TIMING, between the request for tax dollars and the “new information” about terrorist plots to once again use airplanes as a means of destruction, to be quite questionable.

          There is no doubt that fear was a catylist that built such strong public support for these wars on terrorism. Why not again? I am not having a poke at GWB even, it’s a government at this point not so much a single man’s decisions, perhaps even he is being duped at this point, who really knows. Why not question it?

          So I see the economic side of it being HOW MUCH will it take? WHen they spend money to increase a program, that doesn’t mean it ceases as soon as that EXTRA money is gone, people still work and use the new technology daily, so why so much MORE to continue what has already been invested in. I don’t know, just struck me as funny I guess.

          This immense spending the current administration has been responsible for will trickle down to all woks of life including Canadian trade and workers salaries so I think it’s a valid question to ask.

        • #3325657

          Thats the point

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to Whoa, big fella

          It doesn’t matter how much donation is % OF GDP. The benficiary doesn’t care because in the end, he/she/it is Guess what? will see actual value in the real $$ that they received. Do you care how much % of revenue your salary is or do you care how much you are taking home every week?

          If you do…then I challenge you to take a position that pays 10% of a company’s revenue (say company’s revenue is 1,000,000) which comes out to 100,000.

          As opposed to 5% of a company’s revenue (say company’s revenue is 5,000,000) which comes out to 250,000.

          Go ahead and I challenge anyone here to do that. Equal perks and same job.

        • #3325630

          WHatever

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Whoa, big fella

          I know the view YOU are seeing and bottom line is that those recirpeints don’t see that either. But there’s no mistaking the U.S.A. emblazoned on everything you send. Other countries just don’t advertise as much, in many cases they purchase goods from nearby providers and ship them to keep costs lower.

          But a% is used as a measure of the personal contribution per citizen, how much each eprson has sacrificed. It’s easy to see yourself as the major helper if you look at total dollars when you have 10X the population of your neighbours.

          You can be assured that if China was playing the game (with a population over 1.2 billion) you would no longer hold yourselves as the esteemed givers of all.

          Therefore the rpecentage is used to show a ‘country’s donation’ and not a total sum in $.

          This is not even remotely similar to taking a job based on a percentage and not a dollar figure, it is an irrelevant analogy.

        • #3352112

          Of course

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to buying “friends”

          MANY Canadians have lost work due to our constant acceptance of American corporations on Canadian soil.

          But the US DOES ‘buy’ a lot from Canada, and relies on our resoucres.

          As far as the US buying goods elsewhere instead of providing these products through American companies. THat’s missing my point a bit, the US NEEDS the products from other countries as they can’t procide them internally at any cost.

          America doesn’t HAVE a lot of resources that it purchases from other countries, that’s WHY they reach out to others for support.

          We had a water shortage in Vancouver a few summers back, we have some of the largest water sheds around in North Vancouver, so why a water shortage?

          Because THAT water is saved to create hydro electric power to light up a great deal of California.

          Our comercial fishing companies have been suffering from a massive loss in revenue and fishing openings (when they all line up and float around an inlet for a week, then the fisheries declares it open, they drop nest and fish madly for a hour then it is closed again. These opening used to be fine, BC Salmon was abundant and being sustained at a rate that would see the flourishing BC SAlmon industry thrive for an eternity.

          THen the US commercial fleets decided they wanted to fish in BC waters and catch their own Salmon to lower the price to their people.

          SO now those one hour openings and the few areas that were opened are now also split up with US Commercial fishing boats that have a need to fish our waters instead of paying for our fish and sustaining that industry as a Canadian one.
          So commercial fishermen have lost homes,boats, livelihoods due to American need/want for our resources.

          Canada has MASSIVE reserves of natural gas and a LARGE reserve of oil.

          THESE resources are now also being handed over one by one to US based companies and the Canadian locals are now losing money and livlihoods again.

          Thia is for ONE province in Canada. THis happens all the way across Canada with numerous industries.

          You are a nation of consumers, not resources. You consume far more than you can provide.Then extend that demand to other countries who then have to share their own limited resources with an ever increasing need from the US.

          You see your GIFT to the world as being WAR. Uh, thanks…

          Here’s some stuff you can use and actually need in return.

          You are missing the point that the countries you provide monetary support to that AREN’T your trade partners are those who your trade partners seek to support. So therefore in the world of fiar trade, you need to keep these trading partners happy. If they see your hand out for resources, then more resources then more, they expect tp see some support of those THEY support too.

          If Canada runs low on Salmon, we consume fewer and fish fewer, we understand and accept our responsibility to support out resources and industries.

          When it comes to the US damands, they just increase with absolute NO concern whatsoever for sustaining the resources they consume.

          Like a Dog and a Cat both left alone with a bowl of food for a weekend.

          The dog will generally eat the big bowl of food on the first day, making himself sick if need be just because he can’t stop eating the food.

          A cat will always have SOME fod left when you return as they will eat less and less each day until their food source has returned.

          But it’s not so much that you rely on most other countries to sustain your own and you simply do not have the internal resources to provide much of what you import anyway, (grain, fish, lumber, power, natural gas, oil and much more) it’s that you feel you are giving more than you receive.

          IN fact your comment says it all quite clearly, “When a lot of countries are either scared or jellious of us, it doesn’t look like we are getting much bang for the buck here.”

          I have been around the world more than twice, I have yet to see a SINGLE person who has ever been ‘jealous’ of America and certainly not one who’s ‘afraid’. The only thing that scares me about America is being a neighbour when you are such a targeted nation or seeing my friends lose jobs to the American take over of Canadian resources.

          I have never been jealous for s spolit secon dthough, nor have ever met someone else jealous of America. We are known as ‘one of’ the most desireable places to live on Earth, but I wouldn’t say people are JEALOUS of Canada, many would LIKE to live here though.

          Perhaps a starving child in a third world country would DESIRE a better life, a bug refrigerator and huge supermarket. This doesn’t make him JEALOUS though, just in desire of your resources but unable to force legislation to get you to ship it to them nor able to pay for it. So they accept the world’s charity instead, personally I have never had aproblem sharing anything with anyone, what’s mine is yours. NO I don’t expect praise and love from you for it, it is just what’s needed to make my world a better place.

          Now if those people I was helping started to move in next door and want a duplicate bank card for when I’m not around to help them, well than I’d start asking questions. Much like how the US takes over Canadian resources and industries instead of simply accpeting them.

        • #3325768

          I’m jealous of Canada!!!

          by jessie ·

          In reply to Of course

          I want health care guaranteed for my kids so that my kids and hubby and I don’t have to worry every time one of us gets the sniffles. Even though I’m making 40k per year, the people I work for are too damn cheap to offer health insurance, and we can’t afford $700 per month to get our own health insurance. And NOW they’re talking about taking AWAY the health insurance for low income families because it doesn’t work as well as it should. WTF!?!?!

          I also want guaranteed maternity leave even if I haven’t been employed somewhere for at least a year.

          Yep… I’m jealous… but all my family is here, and it’s important to me that my kids grow up having a close relationship with family members… so no, we’re not leaving. No matter WHAT Max says!!!

        • #3352154

          My point

          by gralfus ·

          In reply to That’s a pretty interesting view

          My point is not that we become Fortress America and cut off the rest of the world, but that we seriously curtail the foreign spending. We are giving money to 3rd world countries with specific intent that they use it to better the lives of their people. But we hardly ever follow up to see that the money goes to the intended location or purposes. Typically, the “minister” of that country gets the money, hires more members of his family or tribe (since it is culturally expected of him to do so now that he is rich), and they live high on the hog while the clinics, schools, and services go to hell. It is the lack of accountability that causes money to vaporize in these countries. Some European countries are recognizing this (after spending many billions already) and are cutting off funding until there is a system in place to demonstrate that the funds are being used properly. If we enforced the outcome of the funds, we wouldn’t need to keep on funding them. There would be change and they would become self-sustaining.

          Other countries are using these 3rd world systems as a giant money laundering scheme. For example, a hundred million dollars may go to help a country have a self-sustaining cashew production. Then the minister of that country is approached by asian companies that offer to do all the processing and have local labor. The people are given jobs, so they are allegedly better off than before. But the asian company is who gets both the aid money and the profits from the cheap (slave) labor. The minister gets a 10 million dollar kickback, so the people continue on in abject poverty, under the guise that they now have jobs. To effect real change, the people themselves must be taught how to run a business, how to process and sell the finished product and reap the rewards themselves. That is how the cycle of poverty can be broken.

          But our current approach is nearly criminal. The rich get richer and the poor feed them. Instead of enabling this corrupt system, the US should cut it off and redesign it. That would also free up billions for our own people to use.

        • #3352129

          Fair enough

          by amcol ·

          In reply to My point

          Is the answer to significantly cut back on foreign aid because too much of the money ends up lining the pockets of corrupt local officials, or is it to come up with a better program?

          You say the US should cut off foreign aid and redesign. Is it necessary to shut the spigot while we do that? What will be the consequence of such an action?

          How long will it take to redesign? Can the world, and the US, afford to wait while that happens?

        • #3331056

          Reasons

          by gralfus ·

          In reply to Fair enough

          Since the money nearly entirely ends up in the hands of the ministers and not the intended people, cutting off the funds gets the attention of the ministers directly and does not adversely affect the people, since they weren’t getting it anyway.

          I was told that Sweden did this recently to Guinea Bissau and told them to clean up the corruption if they want any more funding (this after about 47 billion went into the ether). Sweden has since instituted field workers to check on the distribution of the funds in other countries.

          It isn’t rocket science, it just takes committment on the part of the countries doing the funding. Quite simple really, but almost none are doing it.

          Mind you, I’m not suggesting that all foreign aid everywhere be stopped, just where it is being pocketed instead of being applied to the problems we sent it for.

    • #3352151

      It’s an excuse to spend money that’s all

      by tomsal ·

      In reply to US government, justification or scare tactics?

      First I’ll clear things up on how I feel/think..

      ..Yes I think we will be attacked again, why..becaus e a)it is the product of the times we live in, a reality of modern life, b) to say I don’t believe we will be attacked again would be irrational, illogical and just plain naive in the highest order.

      …Yes I think our (US) gov’t are a bunch of (censor on) (#*$#($*#($***$(##$($# ing….(#$*#(@#$**%*&$ munchers (#$(#*$(@# who don’t #($(#*$#(*%(#$$($*$ at all #($*#($#*) (censor off) and that they have lied to us in the past (and always) and will lie to us tomorrow (and always).

      I think the government is being “stupidily smart” in a way. They know they can milk this “terrorism/security thing” for a while to use tax dollars and little or no questioning will come from the civilian populace. That’s the smart part. The stupid part is that they are doing this as well. 🙂

      I think security is a joke in the US still…it went up a few notches after 9/11 from utter pathetic excuse for security, to “what a joke” today.

      We are trading more and more privacy for security and yet we are saying we are more secure and yet still folks are breaking through (in many stupid ways) and causing death, “terra” and destruction.

      For crying out loud we talk of securing against terrorists yet we can’t protect our own judges from getting gunned down in COURT by the accused! We talk securing our airports — yeah, so we detain grandmom or little katy, but allow the 6’4 arab guy walk by with a smile and a handshake.

      OH NO…eeeegats batman are you suggesting …(-play suspense music now-) “Profiling?!” OH NO!!!!!

      Yeah its just swell that we keep spending billions on this stuff, we are so much more better off.

      😉

      • #3352118

        Court shooting

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to It’s an excuse to spend money that’s all

        If it wasn’t so terrible what happened, it would be funny.

        First, the whole system that allowed a little old lady (cop or no cop) escort a guy that most of us couldn’t handle.

        The next when a KNOWN violent guy (found knifes in shoes) can’t be cuffed because they might make him look dangerous to the jury. Now tell me that isn’t a bunch of crap!

      • #3352105

        Well that’s a little more on topic than the reat.

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to It’s an excuse to spend money that’s all

        So far you are the first to address the question at hand without pointin your finger at others.

        This isn’t about foreign aid, it is about the president using scare tactics to spend money.

        And for people to say that protecting your own soil is more imprtant than foreign aid, just goes to show that the administration has been successful in it’s motives of instilling that importance in your country.

        You can’t spend ENOUGH money to prevent terror, that is inevitable regardless of how much money you spend. But you can justify spending/wasting that money anyway by reducing support of those who DO gain benefit from the money spent.

    • #3331054

      I say it is none of your business

      by garion11 ·

      In reply to US government, justification or scare tactics?

      You seem to be asking questions that don’t concern you…since these aren’t YOUR tax dollars, nor your government.

      Why don’t you worry about what your own government is doing and go to Ottawa and ask questions there??

      Perhaps join in and contribute to the plans for an invasion of Quebec and those French wannabes??

      • #3331043

        Invasion of Quebec?

        by dwiebles ·

        In reply to I say it is none of your business

        They are French-Canadians by the way, not french wanna-bes. What would have to gain by invading? How can you invade a territory that already belongs to you?

        Anyway, The goings on of Canada’s “closest” ally and premier trade partner are no longer our business? Seemed to be our business when the U.S. wanted a handout for their missle defense program (which we refuse to participate in, formally any way). The reality is so long as the U.S. feels the need to police the universe, demand the aid of its allies, and consume resources far beyond it ability to produce, it is our business. Democracy is a system of checks and balances, and those need to be preformed on the world stage as well. The U.S. is more than willing to do this for others, but becomes utterly defensive when someone questions them.

        Sumation – I agree with Oz

        -D

        • #3331026

          Yes it isn’t your business when it concerns our airports and our taxes.

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to Invasion of Quebec?

          //”They are French-Canadians by the way, not french wanna-bes. What would have to gain by invading? How can you invade a territory that already belongs to you?”//

          That was sarcasm at its finest….obviously you missed it.

          //”Anyway, The goings on of Canada’s “closest” ally and premier trade partner are no longer our business?”//

          When the topic in question concerns Airports and Taxes of the citizens of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, it is none of your fucking business what we do. Understood??

          //”Seemed to be our business when the U.S. wanted a handout for their missle defense program (which we refuse to participate in, formally any way).”//

          Excellent, I am glad you refused to participate in the missile defense program. We refused to particpate in Mad Cow disease infested cows that seemed to have been abundant in Canada. WTF does this have to do with the topic at hand? Answer: NOTHING.

          //”The reality is so long as the U.S. feels the need to police the universe…”//

          OMG REALLY? We don’t police the universe. Where the fuck did you get that idea? We don’t care what Canadians do or think. We don’t care what Europeans do or think. We care about our national security and our our buildings and planes used as missles, and last but not least our people. Just like you have self interests, so do we.

          //”demand the aid of its allies…”//

          Considering that US is your ally, I am not sure why you think it is demand. Don’t help us…its fine by US.

          //”…and consume resources far beyond it ability to produce, it is our business…”//

          Consume more than produce?? Would you like to compare GDP of our countries? Seriously would you??

          It is none of your business again (ready? read the next sentence)…for the TOPIC AT HAND, WHICH IS AIRPORTS, TAXES, AND AMERICAN GOVERNMENT (whether Democrat or Republican). Canada or scumbag Canadians who post useless drivel and information which doesn’t concern them is my issue.

          //”Democracy is a system of checks and balances, and those need to be preformed on the world stage as well. The U.S. is more than willing to do this for others, but becomes utterly defensive when someone questions them.//”

          No, we welcome debates. But stupid assumptions, lies, truth spinning, misinformation, without logical solutions are not welcome here. In addition, WTF makes you think you have better answers than Americans that are living here??

          As far as US is concerned with middle east…Iraq or whatever…it is in America’s interest to see a democracy in the middle east. It is in Canada’s interest to see a Democracy in the middle east. It is in the WORLD’S interest to see a Democracy in the middle east. Why don’t you comment on the dictators, terrorists, and China’s communist governments and go post on their websites with your comments??

          Translation: America is your friend. Your enemy is knocking on your doorstep. Stop criticizing your ally (like a bunch of aholes) and start criticizing your friend’s enemy, you ungrateful bastards.

          //”Sumation – I agree with Oz”//

          Of course you do…there is nothing wrong with that. Just don’t embarass yourself by making this knowledge public.

        • #3331001

          OF course it’s OUR business

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Yes it isn’t your business when it concerns our airports and our taxes.

          or did you miss/ignore.turn a blind eye at the connection.

          First of all Garion, you have showed your complete disinterest with anything BUT America in all of your posts since day one here.

          You are the first to point a finger at other ocuntries but anyone who mentiones anything to do with your country is out of line.

          You have taken an honest discussion and question and turned it into an anti US rant and have become naturally defensive while ignoring the issue at hand entirely. As long as you are prtecting yourselves…. Gee that’s the whole point being made here, people will ignore the means if they believe in the end reult, GWB wins again at duping another. That’ sthe whole point being made here, WILL tis scare tactic be used to defend additional spending, YES, you have proven that you will accept any spending regardless of consequence to reduce the amount of fear instilled in Americans….by the president.

          [i]When the topic in question concerns Airports and Taxes of the citizens of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, it is none of your ******* business what we do. Understood??[/i]

          It seems YOU don’t understand it too well Garion, you are talking about YOUR airports and YOUR taxes as if that has no effect on YOUR economy, which in turn has direct effect on MY economy and therefor eis 100% in MY interest.

          [i]Excellent, I am glad you refused to participate in the missile defense program. We refused to particpate in Mad Cow disease infested cows that seemed to have been abundant in Canada. WTF does this have to do with the topic at hand? Answer: NOTHING.[/i]

          You’re right, the ISSUE is not related, the ‘expectations’ are. We are supposed to take an interest in programs YOU want us to be interested in but are supposed to ignore issues you DON’T deem our business?

          [i]”Considering that US is your ally, I am not sure why you think it is demand. Don’t help us…its fine by US. “[/i]

          NO it isn’t fine by you, that’s why you spend so much time flaming any country that doesn’t join in with your choices.

          The GDP of countries is not in question here, YOU rely on others more than they rely on you when it comes to natural resources as you live in a consumer society that consumes mroe than it is able to proivide itself and feels that if it doesn’t have enough, it will do whatever is needed to get it from somewhere else, regardless of the effect on the other’s economy or citizens.

          This is where you lie/contradict yourself:
          [i]It is none of your business again (ready? read the next sentence)…for the TOPIC AT HAND, WHICH IS AIRPORTS, TAXES, AND AMERICAN GOVERNMENT (whether Democrat or Republican). Canada or scumbag Canadians who post useless drivel and information which doesn’t concern them is my issue.[/i]

          If it is of no concern to you, explain the heated nature of your reply.

          [i]Scumbag Canadian’s[/i]? Nobody has been discussing overly defensive fu**ed in the head Americans?

          [i]No, we welcome debates. But stupid assumptions, lies, truth spinning, misinformation, without logical solutions are not welcome here. In addition, WTF makes you think you have better answers than Americans that are living here??[/i]

          No you don’t unless in your favour. Stupid assumptions> Who’s made assumptions? As the original posts states, I have heard some news and was looking at some possible views, there were no assumptions or accusations included, YOU assumed that and have now turned a somewhat creative discussion into a he said/she said flaming session as oyou seem to do anytime your country’s name is posted.

          There WERE no accusations, assumptions, drivel or anything else. Just honest questions about US news reports. POSSIBLE views, not assumptions, you drag everything to that level yourself and without any help from others. Talk to your own news agencies if you feel they are reporting garbage. Or perhaps ask them to not report it in Canada as it is not our business.

          And this just sums up your overly defensive mentality in a nutshell!
          [i]Translation: America is your friend. Your enemy is knocking on your doorstep. Stop criticizing your ally (like a bunch of aholes) and start criticizing your friend’s enemy, you ungrateful bastards.[/u]

          Translation: America is our friend, but we cannot take an interest in our friends well being. We are not allowe do take interest in our friend because that is deemed crtiticism. We need to find fault with our friends enemy instead and take our focus away from our freinds well being.

          As for the middle east BS, stay on topic if you are going ot insist others do to. We were discussing al-Qaeda, INSIDE America and planning attack on America. Or is THAT nobody’s business either?

          If not I suppose what you do in the middle east is not our concern, who attacks you is not our concern, terrorism is not our concern either.

          Anyway, you have succeeded quite well, as always, in turining a fair discussion into a flame war between Canadians and Americans with your overly defensive posturing. One day we’ll have a civil discussion here, just let us know when you are taking your holidays.

          YOU make something out of nothing, nobody else is trying to, but YOU are while trying to insist people are bashing your country when they are not.

          NO wonder you always think you are being attacked, you create your own conflicts.

        • #3325660

          Spelling helps..especially with the edit button

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to OF course it’s OUR business

          //”It seems YOU don’t understand it too well Garion, you are talking about YOUR airports and YOUR taxes as if that has no effect on YOUR economy, which in turn has direct effect on MY economy and therefor eis 100% in MY interest.//”

          Tell me how it affects you?? Directly?? Then we can talk about whether you should get involved or not.

          “//NO it isn’t fine by you, that’s why you spend so much time flaming any country that doesn’t join in with your choices.

          The GDP of countries is not in question here, YOU rely on others more than they rely on you when it comes to natural resources as you live in a consumer society that consumes mroe than it is able to proivide itself and feels that if it doesn’t have enough, it will do whatever is needed to get it from somewhere else, regardless of the effect on the other’s economy or citizens.//”

          GDP is measurement of a country’s production. So yes GDP does play an immense role in determining a country’s production. The rest of your rant is pointless as usual.

          “//No you don’t unless in your favour. Stupid assumptions> Who’s made assumptions? As the original posts states, I have heard some news and was looking at some possible views, there were no assumptions or accusations included, YOU assumed that and have now turned a somewhat creative discussion into a he said/she said flaming session as oyou seem to do anytime your country’s name is posted.

          There WERE no accusations, assumptions, drivel or anything else. Just honest questions about US news reports. POSSIBLE views, not assumptions, you drag everything to that level yourself and without any help from others. Talk to your own news agencies if you feel they are reporting garbage. Or perhaps ask them to not report it in Canada as it is not our business.
          “//

          //”Will the US ogvrenment just have a new scare tactic every few years to make them seem proactive in stopping /reducing these threats? Do you ACTUALLY believe it is effective and not just lip service to secure a single FORM of government (repub or Democrat)as the one that works and helps protect America?”//

          Scare tactics? Hmm..golly gee sounds like an assumption on your part to me. Maybe the threat is actually real. 9/11 sure confirmed it. Conclusion: ASSUMPTION.

          //”Seems like very ‘convenient’ timing between the ‘new found information’ (that everyone should have known all along anyway, and validating GWB’s request for added tax spending?”//

          See this is what I mean. You are not questioning anything. You are just putting your own political views to bash an American administration.

          //”Will he then expect the large coporations, that he has given tax breaks to, to start paying MORE taxes or will it be from YOUR pockets instead?”

          “Does the US government possibly have the same need to control it’s people as those that are considered socialists are SAID to have?”//

          WTF is this supposed to mean? GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD FOR THE LAST TIME. US GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CONTROL ITS CITIZENS. Conclusion: ASSUMPTION.

          //”If so, will it happen by default, everyone just being coaxed into more conformity until they are living under the government’s own umbrella, away from the personal freedoms and independance you feel you have over others?”//

          Please see the above statement that is in CAPS including the word ASSUMPTION.

          //”Translation: America is our friend, but we cannot take an interest in our friends well being. We are not allowe do take interest in our friend because that is deemed crtiticism. We need to find fault with our friends enemy instead and take our focus away from our freinds well being.//”

          You are not taking an interest in a friends well being. You never have taken an interest in friends well being. In all your posts regarding USA, none has been positive. I have been sarcastic and sometimes funny at Canadians and Canada…but you take your hatred of America to the next level. When 75% of Canadian teens and your own president’s cabinet calls America and American governments evil and idiots (as opposed to terrorists)…how are we supposed to take that? Would you like us to invite you for dinner?

          As for the middle east BS, stay on topic if you are going ot insist others do to. We were discussing al-Qaeda, INSIDE America and planning attack on America. Or is THAT nobody’s business either?//”

          No that is everyone’s business. You just make post and direct it in such a way as to make America seem she deserved to be attacked. I don’t mean just you either…every ahole in here is guilty of that.

          //”If not I suppose what you do in the middle east is not our concern, who attacks you is not our concern, terrorism is not our concern either.

          Anyway, you have succeeded quite well, as always, in turining a fair discussion into a flame war between Canadians and Americans with your overly defensive posturing. One day we’ll have a civil discussion here, just let us know when you are taking your holidays.

          YOU make something out of nothing, nobody else is trying to, but YOU are while trying to insist people are bashing your country when they are not.

          NO wonder you always think you are being attacked, you create your own conflicts.”//

          See what I mean.

          You just make posts and direct it in such a way as to make America seem she deserved to be attacked.

        • #3325628

          Sure man

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Spelling helps..especially with the edit button

          One day you’ll read that and realize what utter onsense your entire post was.

          YOu are ALL over the place, for example:

          [i]”Scare tactics? Hmm..golly gee sounds like an assumption on your part to me. Maybe the threat is actually real. 9/11 sure confirmed it. Conclusion: ASSUMPTION.”[/i]

          911 Confirmed WHAT? That Saddam was planning an attack with WMD? That sure panned out well.
          What the hell are you talking about? I am talking about Iraq, WMD, and all that crap you were fed so soon after the 911 events which scared people into believing it was immediately neccessary to save your lives, which has since been proven false.

          You quoted me and didn’t have any comment on it, and THIS is complete BS:

          [i]//”Seems like very ‘convenient’ timing between the ‘new found information’ (that everyone should have known all along anyway, and validating GWB’s request for added tax spending?”//

          See this is what I mean. You are not questioning anything. You are just putting your own political views to bash an American administration.[/i]

          What do you mean my own political views? I didn’t share a friggin’ view you moron. That’s my point, you will turn ANYTHING into a political slam that for some reason you feel you have a duty to defend.
          Even if I did say Bush was to blame, which I DIDN’T, who cares? Does this mean anything to you? If so, perhaps you will see the difference between a guy that takes his politics far to seriously and begins defensive ranting in order to ruin yet another discussion that had some relevant feedback and interested respondents in it.

          You also need to study the difference between an ASSUMPTION and posing a THOUGHT or THEORY.

          Again, still full of crap.

          [i]”You are not taking an interest in a friends well being. You never have taken an interest in friends well being. In all your posts regarding USA, none has been positive”[/i]

          Bullsh*t, I argued my anti-Iraq-invasion stand when you were just as adamantly supporting it and slamming evey other country you could look up in the Atlas. You have been absent from these discussions pertty much ever since GWB’s reelection and now feel you can offer a valid opinion on what I say or do? Try again. There was NOTHING condescending in my post, you will find an ulterior motive to anything posted with your country’s name in it anyway,which you have proven once again by wasting time here.

          HOW does YOUR tax spending directly effect me???

          Look at a freaking Atlas, have a boo at things like NAFTA and the amount of Canadian resources you demand. Your economy directly reflects on ours,you would have to be pretty damn stupid to not see it.

          [i]”No that is everyone’s business. You just make post and direct it in such a way as to make America seem she deserved to be attacked. I don’t mean just you either…every ahole in here is guilty of that.”[/i]

          This is a discussion about tax dollars and where said money is coming from. Who was it that said you deserved to be attacked? I think you’re having flashbacks or something.

          YOu stupid f**k! NOw you are really showing yourself to be the most idiotic retard to grace this forum, I quote;

          “Anyway, you have succeeded quite well, as always, in turining a fair discussion into a flame war between Canadians and Americans with your overly defensive posturing. One day we’ll have a civil discussion here, just let us know when you are taking your holidays.”

          You have GOT to be kidding. Nobody would be stupid enough to get THAT from this discussion. It was a topic being discussed without a SINGLE mention of any animosity between Canada and the USA, UNTIL you posted here. Then YOU started accusing me of attacking America and a whole heap of absolute fabricated crap that you started to sling.

          You stupid clown, read from post one and you will see, [b]YOU jumped in and turned the discussion into a rant. Nobody but you.[/b] You stupid little liar of an overly defensive and insecure little panty waste of a man.

          Then you finish with an absolutely ridiculous assumption!

          [i]NO wonder you always think you are being attacked, you create your own conflicts.”//

          See what I mean.

          You just make posts and direct it in such a way as to make America seem she deserved to be attacked.[/i]

          See what I mean? NO I don’t. I said YOU were overly defensive. You equate that to me saying America deserved to be attacked? YOu need more than a head check at this point.

          Geez talk about enforcing my point?!? What a dip s**t, grab a brain you fool!

          Yes I flamed you, yes I am arguing your ridiculous assertions. I didn’t start it though, YOU posted your defensive BS to start it all off, as always. GO wave your flag and sing the anthem a few times,I’m sure you’ll get over it.

        • #3325539

          Aww the good old useless of an Oz.

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to Sure man

          First of all understand this clearly. You don’t own Techrepublic, you are not the administrator, you are nobody. So STFU in that regard. You don’t have any authority on here so stop acting like you do.

          Second I love the way you take my posts and quote out of context.

          Third, really Oz. I thought you are a mature little boy. Were the curses really necessary?? I figured after you were warned by TR not to curse. Where are you manners little boy??

          “//Yes I flamed you, yes I am arguing your ridiculous assertions. I didn’t start it though, YOU posted your defensive BS to start it all off, as always. GO wave your flag and sing the anthem a few times,I’m sure you’ll get over it.”//

          LOL. You are a truthspinner as usual with your full lies and half truths. Who started this thread? YOU DID. Who asked ridiculous questions like this?

          //”Does the US government possibly have the same need to control it’s people as those that are considered socialists are SAID to have?

          If so, will it happen by default, everyone just being coaxed into more conformity until they are living under the government’s own umbrella, away from the personal freedoms and independance you feel you have over others?”//

          WTF is this supposed to mean? We are all sheep in America and don’t have independent thoughts and actions? WTF…how dare you assume that you shmuck??

          You don’t have thoughts and theories. Your thoughts and theories are rude assumptions about America and its citizens.

          The rest of the post was so stupid and full of curses, I will reply once you have control of your emotions.

        • #3322606

          misposted in wrong part of thread

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Sure man

          See reply “I never made any such assertion that time either”

          Below

      • #3331036

        And what’s YOUR problem ?

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to I say it is none of your business

        You take personal offense to ANY interest in your own country, yet you expect your country to be of interest to everyone.

        YOUR economy DIRECTLY effects our own, therefore it IS in my interests to know what YOU are doing.

      • #3331021

        Hey Lighten up

        by bhunsinger ·

        In reply to I say it is none of your business

        Who died and left you arbiter of the Free world? I don’t care for many of Oz’s opinsion’s but he is entitled to them, and if what he says fits to well, then learn from it.
        Besides it is worth it to talk about the cheesebrains who starve a military so they cannot function at full capacity or the other sillyness of being Canadian PM. ;P

        • #3330998

          CReating his own controversy

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Hey Lighten up

          Garion will read something into anything posted by someone that is not American. It’s a problem I thought he grew out of last year, apparently took a bit of a slide.

          As for the Canadian military being starved, they are both at home now and eat quite well.

          Sure comes in handy when you need proper recon though, or humanitarian support in these countries that are so devastated. Just don’t go asking us to provide naval help in the summer, the boat is usually too busy with wedding cruises and sightseeing tours. Oh yeah right, we don’t flex our muscles or get attacked either do we.

          This COULD be a fair discussion, unfortunately there’s always someone willing to make assumptions and take it to the next level of the flame wars. Too bad,some people actually take interest in DISCUSSING these issues, others just don’t want to face them I suppose.

      • #3330993

        Garion you missed one

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to I say it is none of your business

        http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=170002&start=0

        This should give you AMPLE opportunity to tell people what is and isn’t their business. The Pledge of Allegiance being discussed by NON AMERICANS!!!

        Stop the insanity!!!!!!!!

        Or were YOU the kids father?

      • #3330915

        Huh?

        by deepsand ·

        In reply to I say it is none of your business

        So, what you are saying is that it’s no concern of the other animals in the barn what the elephant does?

        • #3325664

          No they have their own barn to worry about

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to Huh?

          You ever wonder why they don’t make posts about their own country?? Either they don’t know or don’t care or better yet don’t want to know what their country and its leaders are doing. It is much easier to post about USA in the negative for these people. Thats whats pis/sing me off.

          They should start paying attention to their own barns before they make posts criticizing, suggesting, assuming, about other people’s barns.

          I can already see it coming now…USA’s policies affects me, blah, blah, booo hoo, blahhhh!!!!!!!!

          My reply to that is…you can say that about any country on the international stage.

          You ever wonder why they don’t make posts about the latest stoning or hanging (SURPRISE!!! that still happens there) in Iran or the human rights abuses in China??

        • #3325626

          Still at it?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to No they have their own barn to worry about

          Pont made AGAIN.

          Who’s starting the rants?

          My barn isn’t spending billions hand over fist.

          Of course you can compare any country’s economy as effecting your own, fortunately they aren’t spending hundreds of billion of dollars while seeking our resources though.

          We also are not talking about terror in third world countries. You have strayed SO far from the topic of dicsussion you have effectively turned a civil discussion in to a rant. Well done.

        • #3322565

          In case you have not noticed, …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to No they have their own barn to worry about

          we are all in the SAME BARN.

      • #3330795

        Actually Canada is one of the few friends we have..

        by tomsal ·

        In reply to I say it is none of your business

        I know it may be painful for you to hear (after that post anyway) Canada is one of the few friends we Americans have. With all the “here and there” negative comments (not just this thread but others in the past I mean) about Canada and US…folks should realize that both countries help each other out. Of course we don’t agree with each other’s policies sometimes but hey — name two people on the planet that always agree with each other (if they are being honest anyways).

        Joking about each other’s countries is one thing and I’m find with that.

        But dude I think Canadians have valid reason to be curious of our policies here and I think we do for them.

    • #3330964

      You’re right

      by aldanatech ·

      In reply to US government, justification or scare tactics?

      You’re probably referring to a a February report from the FBI and the Homeland Security Department that indicates that our aviation system still remains vulnerable to attacks by al-Qaida and other terrorists either with noncommercial aircraft and helicopters. Such a report also indicates that members of al-Qaida are believed to be examining and testing U.S. security systems for weaknesses. So far we have spent more than $12 billion were spent on commercial airline security since 9/11, and the Bush Administration has proposed to spend another $5 billion; but their way of handling this situation has not worked, it still doesn’t work, and it won’t ever work until they accept this and make major changes.
      You’re probably referring to a February report from the FBI and the Homeland Security Department that indicates that our aviation system still remains vulnerable to attacks by al-Qaida and other terrorists either with noncommercial aircraft and helicopters. Such a report also indicates that members of al-Qaida are believed to be examining and testing U.S. security systems for weaknesses. So far we have spent more than $12 billion in commercial airline security since 9/11, and the Bush Administration has proposed to spend another $5 billion; but their way of handling this situation has not worked, it still doesn’t work, and it won’t ever work until they accept this and make major changes.

      • #3330936

        You said…..

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to You’re right

        .
        When you said, “…their (Bush) way of handling this situation has not worked…”

        What’s happened to lead you to that conclusion?

        Was there another terrorist attack that I missed, or something?

        • #3330880

          Either way

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to You said…..

          That is the story I am referring to I think.
          I don’t want to place blame on anyone, I am wondering if anyone else has found it a little too coincidental to retain credibility.

        • #3330793

          Some thoughts

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Either way

          .
          I personally know someone who is a high-level manager (very high-level) for the Department of Homeland Security, and I’m told that not a day goes by where someplace in the world, and often times in the USA itself, that another potential terrorist attack is not thwarted. I’ve read George Friedman’s book, “America’s Secret War: Inside the Hidden Worldwide Struggle Between America and Its Enemies”. And I’ve read Richard Miniter’s book, “Shadow War: The Untold Story of How Bush Is Winning the War on Terror”. (Look them up and read the reviews and about the authors — or better yet, buy the books and read them yourself.) I believe what’s going on is nothing short of absolutely incredible. The world is changing drastically, and terrorism, as we’ve known it for the past forty years, is not only being stopped, but it’s being defeated.

          Are we spending too much or too little? Personally, at this point, I don’t care. We’ve obviously done enough up to this point, because another 9-11 hasn’t happened. If we stop another 9-11, it’s money well spent. If another one happens, we haven’t spent enough. Neither you or I know the full extent of what’s going on behind the scenes. You don’t trust President Bush and/or his agents; I do trust President Bush. If anything, he’s been absolutely unwavering and 100 percent focused in his resolve to not only prevent, but to defeat world-wide terrorism, and he’s just letting the chips of criticism fall where they may. And I think that is the most admirable thing about him. Personally, if you want to believe that “scare tactics” are being employed, knock yourself out; believe whatever you want. But I believe that there’s a difference between “scare tactics” and erring on the side of caution. I believe that stopping another 9-11 and defeating world-wide terrorism is worth…..whatever it takes.

          But taxes were not increased for anything. GWB has been criticized by the redistribution of wealth crowd for REDUCING taxes. It’s tax money already collected and just diverted from another source in the huge discretionary spending budget. I’d rather it be spent on improving and/or increasing airport security than go to some loser drug user for some stupid program that only enables his self-destructive lifestyle. (Multiplied by scores of equally stupid programs for millions more transfer of wealth recipients.)

          At first, I was going to address your initial discussion message point by point. In fact, I even started my reply. But I quit out of the document, I didn’t save anything I wrote, and decided that it was a waste of my efforts. I believe that you are wrong — dead wrong — about so many of your assertions that it’s pointless to debate them. Afghanistan has been an overwhelming success, but you call it a failure. Iraq is starting to sprout the results of the seeds of change planted a few years ago, seeds you were against planting in the first place. Some huge things are happening, and quite frankly, I actually feel sorry for the blind and the ignorant for not being able to see it.

          A high ranking Jordanian official expressed it this way. (And I’m paraphrasing.) He said that he never would have believed it possible just a few short years ago, but what’s going on in the middle east right now is tantamount to the fall of the Berlin Wall. Those are some powerful thoughts coming from such a person — to some powerful things that are going on.

          Open your eyes, Oz. Some incredible things are happening, and you can’t even see it.

        • #3325684

          Reply To: US government, justification or scare tactics?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Some thoughts

          Firstly, I understand that the extra money for security is being pulled from another corner of the budget somewhere, I have always stood fast that when programs are dropped, nobody is going to see a difference in personal taxes because the money is simply reallocated.

          This is also where I raise the question of ‘how much?” though. Obviously that fund isn’t a bottomless pit unless all other government spending is ceased completely and in order to retain your current tax level other sacrifices will be made, this is where I see it possibly stemming to areas such as international trade.
          The purse strings get tighter and more demanding if you will.

          As for your assumptions of my views on Iraq, I am quite stunned to see that after ALL this time you STILL don’t understand my position on these issues which has been unwavering since this all began.

          I have NEVER said Iraqi’s will not be better off living in a democracy, you can also not say that I think Saddam shouldn’t have been removed or that I don’t think that Iraqii’s will succeed in the long run. My ONLY argument and the BIGGEST argument behind this whole issue is that I feel he/the current administration was deceptive and didn’t use a fair or justified means for initsializing this whole mess, even after it was clear that inspections would finish or force would be used to finish inspections before anyone went to war.
          That’s all old hat now though and you know very well that is my issue with Bush and the current admin.

          Yes, the global efforts by the world’s allied nations WILL prevail in reducing the threat of terrorism, however I doubt completely thwart it. It is a realization that the world should have acted upon many years before now.

          I credit Bush’s reaction and efforts of the COA since 911 for this awareness.

          I do NOT pat Bush on the back or even excuse the disgusting behaviour and misinformation that built support for the Iraqi invasion, even moreso the haste, timing and ‘piss on you’ manner in which it was done.

          Affghanistan has shown some improvements in repression since the Taliban were squeezed farther into Kandahar. As for all the other wonderful things tht happened when the military presence was strong and financial support was still available to build a better home for these people, well that was all amoke and mirrors and rel life in Afghanistan now shows women facing the same issues they did prior to the war and there are several in the new government that have taken the reigns, as you know removed the ONLY woman with the ability to support women’s independance in Afghanistan, and are also accused as being Taliban supporters, religious fundamentalists and as repressive as former leaders.

          So, it just wasnt followed through properly in my eyes. Again adding to my distaste in teh timing and haste of the Iraq invasion.

          But none of this really addresses the issue in question other than you feel taxes will just be pulled form another ‘less important’ fund, which is to be expected I would think.

          As for opening my eyes, after all this time and all of our discussions, I am shocked to see you have missed my views entirely.

        • #3322573

          If things went your way

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Reply To: US government, justification or scare tactics?

          .
          If the powers that be would have listened to you, the US would have waited until they got the “seal of approval” from the United Nations, which would have never happened, and Saddam Hussein would still be in power. The United Nations crooks who were stealing billions from the oil for food program would still be doing it, and the Saudis would not have been pressured (by having US armored divisions parked on their northern border) into cutting off funding to the terrorists.

          You can’t claim to like the outcome but disapprove of the methods used — IF those methods were the only option at the time. (Your “other option” to wait for the UN would have only maintained the status quo.) You can’t claim to have supported waiting for United Nations intervention without, at this point, conceding that it would have never happened because they were conspirators in Saddam’s oil-for-food crimes.

          Yep, if you had your way, Saddam would still be sitting in one of his dozen Baghdad palaces snubbing his nose at the impotent United Nations, and paying them off in return. And if you had your way, Iraq of 2005 would look just like Iraq of 2001.

          So you were wrong.

          And by the way, when you said, “So while we ALL should agree that, despite the failed efforts in Afghanistan…..”

          No, we don’t all agree. You are wrong. They were successful efforts in Afghanistan.

          And then you said, “….al-Qaeda has NOT been stopped in ANY way.”

          Again, you are wrong. Yes they have.

          You can’t have it both ways, Oz. You were against the actions in Iraq from the beginning, you were an “arm-chair quarterback” critic every step of the way, and you are having to eat crow because things are going extremely well, and the future of the middle east is now on a different track — a better track — than if we had done things “your way”.

          You were wrong, and you are still wrong.

          And now in this discussion you’re throwing out the “scare tactic” charge, and you are wrong again.

        • #3322537

          NO you have just failed to see my objection again

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to If things went your way

          I have said NOTHING about waiting for UN approval, I have never even MENTIONED UN approval when it comes to justifying the invasion of Iraq, not ONCE in ANY post EVER.

          I HAVE said that seeing as wepaons inspectors WERE effectively conducting searches EXACTLY as expected, and they were about 6 weeks (estimated by several sources) from finishing said inspections, then the inspections SHOULD have completed before going to war.

          When Bush addressed other allies this was also intoned by several, wait until inspections complete, if they DON’T finish then use force TO FINISH them.

          The issue is, you probably WOULDN’T have had invasion support because nothing was found. At THAT point, you would have had to come up with more convincing reasons for the invasion, while many would have supported it based on the grounds of Saddam’s repression (including myself), I feel that the majority wouldn’t have and it would have been even harder for Bush to get support of the people.

          WMD were that last straw that was never actually placed on the camels back but just waved around.

          al-Qaeda HASN’T been stopped any human with any common sense knows that. Certainly SOME people have been captured, some attamepts to gain information have been thwarted but al-Qaeda STILL exists and is said to be plotting attacks on America just as before. They exist in countries ALL over the world and grow daily, this is not news it’s commonly accepted fact by all including the Bush administration.

          As for being wrong, at NO time have I said that it probably wont work out in the long run and I have even credited Bush’s determination on these forums more than once. I just think it should have been justified differently.

          Unlike yourself, I saw more than one option as a means to justify the invasion and resolve these issues and no it didn’t rely solely on the UN’s support. I never said that EVER.

          I see the timing between Bush asking for greater funding and recent reports of al-Qaeda’s plot to use airplanes or helicopters as too coincidental.

          Guess I’ll just have to wait until US trade laws start being pushed again. It seems a lot like the WalMart thing, they are the big player so if you want in on their market your only option is to outsource or reduce your own labout standards to meet lower cost demands. In our case it results in layoffs in the major redource industries that provide to American consumers.

          I wasn’t wrong, and haven’t been corrected about the justification of teh invasion, if anything YOU were proven wrong when nothing was found yet you were positive there would be, before saying that they were probably moved of couse.

          You can spend days digging through past posts, I have never said Saddam should have been left in power, I have never said it should have been up to UN approval, I have never said that Iraq wasn’t better off without Saddam. I have suggested that many didn’t WANT US presence, I have said many didn’t want the new officials that they were told to choose from, but I have NEVER EVER said that it should have been left for UN approval, ever.

        • #3329205

          “You fail to see” or “You misunderstand” or whatever

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to If things went your way

          .
          There are two people who post on these threads who constantly reply to other people with “you misunderstand”, or “you fail to see” or “you missed my point”, or any number of other things to dismiss a person’s message.

          Oz and apotheon say those kinds of things ALL the time.

          It’s interesting how people always don’t understand you.

        • #3329154

          Have it your way then Max. You’re F******g WRONG!

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to If things went your way

          You have completely failed to understand my views on the hasty invasion of Iraq despite my countless attempts to reiterate exactly what my stand is.

          I have explaned until I am blue in the face just how I am NOT against Saddam’s removal, I am NOT against liberating a society or helping them live in democratic freedom.

          Perhaps you haven’t FAILED to understand or misinterpreted me at all, perhaps you just WANT to think I feel a certain way and anything else couldn’t be beat into your head with the biggest Louisville Slugger available to mankind.

          I thought saying you had misunderstood me after all this time was a little more civil and less combative though.

          Your choice, I’ll stick to the fact that you must be completely f****ng dense if you haven’t picked that up no matter how many times I have explained it in the simplest of terms. Lots of other people know my feelings and unseratnd exactly what I am opposed to, perhapse you ‘re just too stupid to notice it through all of your attcks on my posts then.

          And remember, I tried to be civil, it just wasn’t good enough for you.

        • #3329140

          I’m very civil – And you’ve been very critical

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to If things went your way

          .
          I’m completely civil in this discussion. I make a simple observation, however, and you go ballistic.

          MY point, which you fail to see, is that you’ve been either (emphasis on either) against, or critical of, absolutely everything the USA has done in Iraq, and most (emphasis on most) everything the USA has done in its fight against terrorism; you won’t admit or concede that the two are connected; and you continue to be critical, as evidenced by this very discussion that you started.

          You want to show I’m wrong? Go ahead, link to a discussion that proves I’m wrong. Link to a message of yours that shows that you’ve been anything but what I described — either against or critical.

          According to you, nothing has been done right, nor has it ever been done right. But the outcome is just fine. Go figure.

          Even Julian admitted that things went better than he predicted or thought they would. But to get such an admission from you isn’t likely.

        • #3329127

          Oz, explain one thing to me

          by amcol ·

          In reply to If things went your way

          Maybe I’m misunderstanding your viewpoint also but it seems to me your main thesis is that the ends don’t justify the means.

          I believe you’re saying you’re in favor of Saddam’s removal and consider the Iraqis to be better off now. Your objection seems to be how the administration sold the war to begin with, saying that we needed to eradicate the threat of WMD. Not having found any, we were all obviously lied to.

          Help me understand something. And, since it’s difficult to accurately convey emotion in written communication, please know that I’m not being sarcastic or putting you on in any way. I’m sincerely curious to understand your views better. I don’t care that you’re not American, you’re entitled to your opinions too.

          1. If so, so what? That was two years ago. Does it really matter how the original sale was made at this point?

          2. Again if so, does the reason why the sale was made the way it was matter? There’s ample evidence that the CIA and other intelligence gathering agencies blew it. Without making a judgment of any kind, I’m willing to believe that for the most part the administration made decisions on the basis of what was known at that time and presented their arguments accordingly. If it’s found later that the facts key conclusions were based on were erroneous, is it the leadership’s fault that the original justifications were equally erroneous?

          3. In the long run, does it really matter? Like you, I believe that in almost all circumstances the end does not justify the means. However, I’m not uncomfortable with the idea that a goal so clearly needed…the removal of a corrupt, brutal regime that was destabilizing the entire region and responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of its own citizens…is justification enough. I don’t like being lied to (and I’m not saying we were) but in this case I’m not really sure I care.

        • #3329126

          You continue to be wrong

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to If things went your way

          Actually I have given credit to GWB for his consistency and HAVE said that I don’t think it will not end in a positive light several times, you can dig through it yourself though, those threads are far too long for my time.

          I DON’T agree with th eway it is justified, I DON’T agree with much that has gone on IN IRaq, but like anything it will show a positive light in the end. Unfortunately not the way I feel it COULD have been handled. It’s not the end result I protest as much as the means and the justification of the means. This shouldbe VERY clear.

          This topic actually had nothing to do with war in Iraq, and wasn’t supposed to until the two were dragged together. Though I DO recognize that to you and many US citizens, the war in Iraq was justified by the events of 911 and IS an attempt to stop terrorism. I do NOT recognize it as an imperative issues that constitutes removing people who are doing planned work and invading anyway. It’s like scrapping plan A before it fails and jumping into plan B, in my eyes.

          Again though, this does not reflect on the topic of this discussion. The issue is MORE money being spent that may adversely effect international trade relations and IF that spending is being properly justified, in which case IF IT IS, I am fine with it.

          It was a question asking for opinions of economics and justification, not what you thought of my views of the Iraq invasion as you seem to want to relate the two as easily as you relate everything as part of a war on terrorism.

          I HAVE been critical of the JUSTIFICATION for the invasion, I have not supported it at all. This does not mean that I don’t support a positve outcome. I think with proper alied support it would have been miuch mroe effective and I still think that had you waited for inspections to complete, you WOULD have found allies and it would have still gone ahead, you seem to think it wouldn’t but neither can be right until proven wrong, which neither of us will ever be now.

          So stop clouding your replies with your conclusions of my beliefs, as they are not relevant nor correct as you have demonstrated here,and try to stick to the topic at hand.

          YOu almost did offer an opinion but again clouded it with your assumptions of my thoughts.

          [i]”And now in this discussion you’re throwing out the “scare tactic” charge, and you are wrong again.”[/i]

          So in other words, to start you off on the RIGHT track, are you trying to say,
          “No I don’t think it is a scare tactic to gain more support. Because….”

          Or would you add that you didn’t think WMD were a scare tactic and that they will be found because you KNOW they still exist, they existed before and they exist now, just no longer in Iraq.

          Thus affording you the right to invade all countries until you find them and prove people had a good reason to be scared?

          Well we see some flaws in your theories too after all.

          If you want to discuss th etopic, please do so, your input is MORE than welcome. If you want to point fingers and make incorrect comments based on your idea of where I stand, start a new thread.

        • #3329110

          Amcol your bang on

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to If things went your way

          Amazing how you learned it in such a short time, yet others have not understood this stand no matter how I iterate myself, well done. You DID say explain ONE thing to me, then asked 3 questions, but I think we can let that slide. 😉

          1) [b]Does it really matter how the sale was made. [/b]Well it SHOULD matter and SHOULD’VE mattered when the guy was trying to be relected for another 4 years. I thought being such a government focused nation and after having one guy impeached as a liar, some poeple would be fed up with being mislead and I was seriously stunned when nobody questioned the motives to begin with. I would have expected the majority of Americans to lynch someone for providing false information that had NOT been thoroughly checked out and confirmed. It didn’t take long for it to turn up as misinformation from untrustworthy intelligence with an ulterior motive AFTER the invasion had began. People hold companies responsible for deceptive sales practice all the time, why not the governmenmt who you all trust and obey.

          2) [b]Knowledge of the misinformation[/b]
          From what I have read, heard and understand, the SOURCE of the information WAS questioned to begin with, but this was not addressed until AFTER the invasion was launched. GWB HAD a CIA operative in Iraq who came back to say there was NO WAY that Saddam could aquire nuclear weapons either, but the SAME DAY that man returned to the US and told the administration this Bush was made a speech that confirmed that Saddam had the means to try and aquire nuclear arms. (to many/most sane people this means, Saddam HAS WMD and won’t let us inspect his country and now he has a way to get nuclear arms too!)

          3)[b]In the long run does it really matter?[/b]

          Well it SHOULD, regardless of the outcome. A president who can’t gain support of his nation by being forthright with it’s citizens is not exactly a great leader, no matter what he acvhieves. THIS is exactly what I was amazed to see so many people defending so vehementy.

          BEFORE the invasion, the problem was WMD inspections NOT being completed, this proved that Saddam had something to hide, or did it? The US was playing games with the OFF program too, it was a touche situation between Iraq and the US. The US wasn’t conducting inspections on imports to Iraq as they had propsed to do in a timely fashion, therefore Saddam played hardball and refused to allow inspectors in, AGAIN.

          Regardles of that, before the invasion actually started though, inspectors WERE successfully inspecting said areas in Iraq for WMD, but were coming up empty handed. They HAD found some unused warheads (incapable of intercontinental attack though), they WERE a said 4-6 weeks from completing the inspections. I have heard 2 weeks too, but I’ll go with the longest time frame I have seen reported and say 6 weeks.

          When BUSH addressed his allies and sought support, these alies either showed no interest in it, OR they wanted to wait for the completion of inspections so they could confirm allegations.
          NOTE: This does NOT mean that if weapons weren’t found nobody would have supported it and it doesn’t mean it was up to UN authorization for them to do so. In fact the UK was already interested in Liberating Iraq moreso than finding WMD, others wanted to see the facts first. The information provided at THAT time was questioned by allies(supposed CIA intelligence, that was actually a tip to them by an informant that even the CIA had said was questionable).

          Bush then REMOVED the weapons inspectors form Iraq befre they had concluded their inspections and launched a full scale invasion regardless of allied opinion. WMD WERE used as a jutifying key to the invasion, yet they were inconclusive and unfinished.

          SOME people say there was more to it than WMD, which in the UK there WAS more to it than that and people KNEW it up front, TB had been plead to by Iraq Exiles to liberate their country.

          But you ask MOST people what the reason was and they will all give you the same answer, WMD.

          Well inspections were never concluded, how can you THEN support an invasion based on inconclusive evidence when the president has removed the possibility to offer a conclusion either way?

          Lastly, and sorry to go on but I must be clear, IF these inspectors had found nothing and GWB STILL wanted to invade and liberate Iraq, WOULD Americans have supported it the way they DID?

          Sorry but I SERIOUSLY doubt it would have found the same level of support and I think Bush KNEW that. So in order to carry out his quest, that PROOF was removed and replaced with heresay and questionable intelligence as the key reason to invade.

          So YES, I think it was improperly justifed and YES it SHOULD have been properly justified.

          You can tell you son NO without reason when he is 4 years old and MAY endager himself.

          You can’t invade a country and slam anyone who doesn’t agree with it or participate unless you have a pretty damn good and SOLID reason to, regardles sof the outcome.

          Why didn’t America pick up on this betrayal? Because they were focused on saving their own souls. Face it, no matter WHAT country we are talking about, survival is human nature. Fear will justify ANYTHING in the end.

        • #3328988

          OK, Oz, thanks

          by amcol ·

          In reply to If things went your way

          First of all, I must say I’m impressed with the articulate nature of your reply. Well done.

          You’ve obviously put a lot more thought into this than I have, so I won’t pick your response apart point by point. Generally speaking, I think you’ve assigned too much blame for the untruths and half truths that initially justified the war to only one person, the President. I’m not defending him…it doesn’t matter how hawkish or stubborn you believe him to be, nor how much you believe his strong religious beliefs color his judgment. It’s illogical to assume that he, or anyone else, knew for a fact back then that there were indeed no WMD’s nor any programs or capabilities to build them. There were a lot of conflicting opinions and interpretations of intelligence.

          My own view on this is fairly simple. I believe wholeheartedly that removing Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do…for the Iraqis, for the US, and for the world. I don’t really care that the justifications for doing so may have been obfuscated or even misrepresented. It was the right thing to do, and the world is a better place because of it.

          If we’d found WMD’s, well frankly that would have been gravy. Not because it would have validated the justifications, but because that too would have rendered the world just a bit safer with a few less doomsday bombs in circulation.

          History is replete with many examples of the right thing being done for the wrong reason. As I said in an earlier post, I agree with you…the ends don’t justify the means. But I’m willing to suspend that argument under certain circumstances.

          I don’t like being lied to as much as anyone, but I don’t consider that the major issue here. I’m biased against rehashing the past, which is why I asked why this all still matters. No question we should learn from our mistakes, but let’s be realistic…you know as well as I do that in the next election it’s going to be meet the new boss, same as the old boss, no matter what we do.

          I’d much rather debate the original question you posed. It’s forward looking and the answers will in fact allow us to make the world a slightly better place.

        • #3342594

          Fair enough on that

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to If things went your way

          Just a coupe of quick comments reagarding THIS situation though. THIS time, the misinformation, or whatever we will call it, DID work out for the better. It has done in the past too, but our past, America, Canada, England and every other country on the planet is also riddles with such assumptions that DIDN’T pan out as expected.

          As for WHO is blamed, the administration is a LOT of people, but the information provided to the public and the elected leader of that administration was in charge, or SHOULD be, for any such reports to the American people is in the hands of one man, the people’s elected LEADER not followe rof his tribe. We can’t excuse the ONE man responsilble for informing the public as someone who was himself mislead, it’s his DUTY to you to NOT be mislead and to dot the i’s and cross the t’s. Unless there was 100% proof FOUND and CERTIFIED, there was no reason for the comments regarding WMD. And they WERE sold as the major catalyst for the invasion. DO you no longer hold the president responsible for the actions of his administration? In a court of law, GWB WOULD be responsible, not the janitor or operations manager who mislead him into screwing people over.

          As for the main issue of the post, I have since been told that it is the same thing and I am just looking to flame Bush. I suppose that HAS been dragged out of me by all the segues by people unable to address the issue in question, as I’m sure you have seen firsthand here yourself, even though I haven’t flamed Bush ONCE, even in these comments. Holding someone responsible who heads an organization is not exactly flaming them.

          But I do agree it is something that SHOULD be of concern, I suppose it concerns those that will suffer more than those who will benefit though.

          Thanks for your reply.

        • #3342388

          For what it’s worth

          by amcol ·

          In reply to If things went your way

          I didn’t read anything you wrote anywhere as Bush flaming. Or America bashing. I thought you were making a statement about the responsibility an elected leadership has to its constituency to always tell the truth. That’s a universal concept, inherent in any democracy where free elections take place.

          I’ll concede a point to you, something I hadn’t thought about until I read your posts. At the end of the day it doesn’t matter if Mr. Bush used a bogus justification early on because he was given bad information or because he was pushing an agenda of his own, or whatever. He’s the leader and as such he must take responsibility. There are a lot of corporate meltdowns going on in which the leaders are directly responsible for misrepresentation to the point of fraud, and those scoundrels should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. There are other such situations in which the leaders were duped or were themselves the victims of an underling’s shenanigans, and frankly those folks need to fall on their swords as well.

          I believe there are very rare exceptions to the “ends don’t justify the means” rule, such as when the greater good is served no matter what. I do, however, also believe there are NO exceptions to the rule that the captain goes down with the ship. You want the perks, you have to also take the fall when things go bad.

        • #3250946

          Amcol to elaborate

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to If things went your way

          First of all, when the invasion FIRST began, I was horrified by the use of WMD as a catalyst to support it. Some say there were ALL these other reasons, but at the same time, people were all over these threads flaming anyone AGAINST the invasion and saying that they weren’t prepared to wait until they were killed, they were protecting their families and anyone who didn’t agree with the invasion would be a poor citizen that would allow their families to be killed. SO it goes without saying really, that MOST people thought the WMD scare was the main justification.

          I was obviously tagged one of those citizens who didn’t care about his family, an American hater, was not a loyal Canadian, or Brit for that matter etc. and even that I was JEALOUS of America! 😀

          THAT’s where all of the current flames stem from.

          I HATED Bush’s deception and couldn’t believe that so many poeple who had been so politically focused would allow it to pass unquestioned, therefore I am Anti-Bush, Anti-American and may as well have been Bin Laden himself, regardless that we all have freedom of speech and expression, unless it differs from common opinion of course. I have studied psychology in body language and he showed ALL the signs of a blatant liar that any criminal investigation would have locked him up for.

          So when I post ANYTHING with the words USA, or GW in it, I am seen as bashing Bush. People will say that is my mindset and that’s where I stand and I hate America etc.

          I actually LIKE America and as many know, I have run offices in America,sell products in America, hired and worked with Americans too. But that all seems irrelevant when you don’t share popular opinion in a free country, I see the same comments toward Americans that share my opinions too though.

          Now in Bush’s defense, Tony Blair had done the same thing, BUT and it’s a BIG BUT, he BEGAN by saying that they were intent of ridding Iraq of Saddam and liberating the people of Iraq. He read from a letter he was sent that represented 3000 Iraqi exiles living in England that outlined their PLEA for liberation in Iraq. THEN after the big Bush WMD blast out, Tony Blair added that he had reason to believe Saddam STILL possessed WMD or the means to manufacture them.

          Bush did the opposite, SCARE Americans into support with the WMD plot, THEN swing over to the Liberation view to keep up the support of those in disbelief.

          When they (WMD) were NOT found, Tony Blair made a public annoucement immediately and offered his regrets for the WMD misinformation, he explained that he AND his government had been lead astray but that Liberation must continue.

          GWB stuck his head in the sand and pretended nothing was wrong.

          There was a later comment that nothing HAD been found, which GWB quickly pushed blame toward failed intelligence and a questionable TIP they had got regarding WMD. But Liberation must go on.

          I agree, Iraq DOES need to be liberated, why not say that and STRESS that as the reason for the invasion,instead of saying weapons inspectors had failed, which they HADN’T, that the madman was planning to attack America etc. Look at all the Anthrax hype and scares around that same time, seems too convenient to use WMD as a cataylst for the invasion, how would you NOT get full support?

          I don’t think Bush is a BAD person, I am sure that internally he’s made his share of good and bad choices but as a representative to his people and on behalf of his multi-billion dollar inteligence service, he failed. And he didn’t just fail in informing his people, he failed in accepting responsibility for a mistake that ANY leader could have made and been humbly excused for.

        • #3250943

          What you missed

          by aldanatech ·

          In reply to You said…..

          You want to know what you missed? Everything. And you’re still missing a lot every single day. Here is some of what you probably missed just by the middle of this week alone:

          Army raises enlistment age for reservists to 39
          http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1896&e=2&u=/nm/20050321/us_nm/iraq_usa_recruiting_dc

          Detained Iraqi journalists say they were subjected to repeated beatings, torture and sexual humiliation by U.S. forces
          http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050322/ts_nm/iraq_abuse_dc_1

          Because troops in Iraq are unable to rely on Rumsfled, they now order Supplies from Home Depot
          http://www.komo-am.com/stories/35862.htm

          Wolfowitz choice may lead to a new nomination process

          Ukraine to withdraw troops from Iraq
          http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050322/ap_on_re_eu/ukraine_iraq

          North Korea admits they’ve built more nukes
          http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/03/21/northkorea.nukes/index.html

          Rumsfeld blames his failings on the nation of Turkey
          http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-rumsfeld21mar21,1,2120467.story?coll=la-headlines-world

          All this by less than the first half a single week; I wonder what the rest of this week will bring.

        • #3250616

          Some Headlines that YOU missed but I didn’t. . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to What you missed

          .
          Crack Found on Governors Daughter.

          Something Went Wrong in Jet Crash, Expert Says.

          Police Begin Campaign to Run Down Jaywalkers.

          Iraqi Head Seeks Arms.

          Is There a Ring of Debris around Uranus?

          Prostitutes Appeal to Pope.

          Panda Mating Fails; Veterinarian Takes Over.

          Teacher Strikes Idle Kids.

          Miners Refuse to Work after Death.

          Juvenile Court to Try Shooting Defendant.

          War Dims Hope for Peace.

          If Strike Isn’t Settled Quickly, It May Last Awhile.

          Cold Wave Linked to Temperatures.

          Enfield Couple Slain; Police Suspect Homicide.

          Red Tape Holds Up New Bridges.

          Typhoon Rips Through Cemetery; Hundreds Dead.

          Man Struck By Lightning Faces Battery Charge.

          New Study of Obesity Looks for Larger Test Group.

          Astronaut Takes Blame for Gas in Spacecraft.

          Kids Make Nutritious Snacks.

          Local High School Dropouts Cut in Half.

          Hospitals are Sued by 7 Foot Doctors.

          ———-

          No one can accuse ME of not keeping up with important news. Geesh!

          (Yes, actual headlines.)

        • #3249884

          I knew you…

          by aldanatech ·

          In reply to Some Headlines that YOU missed but I didn’t. . . .

          I knew you would circumspect the point — unless of course you didn’t get the point.

    • #3330914

      GWB = Fearmonger

      by deepsand ·

      In reply to US government, justification or scare tactics?

      It is typical of hawks to resort to FUD in order to drum up support in their quest for more money to gain more power.

      • #3330738

        deepsand = mistaken

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to GWB = Fearmonger

        .
        I think you let your emotions overtake your reason.

        • #3325799

          Respectfully disagree

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to deepsand = mistaken

          As one who experienced it from the inside, I see too many bothersome parallels between the Nixon administration & the Vietnam war on the one hand, and the Bush administration & the “war on terror” on the other.

          The current potential for permanent loss of civil liberties is far greater than most realize.

        • #3325767

          “Convenient” timing…

          by jessie ·

          In reply to Respectfully disagree

          It is my opinion, that since the Patriot Act is now up for review, these fear tactics are being shoved into our faces, so we don’t “forget” that there is a very real threat out there, and we give up our civil liberties, to protect ourselves.

          Many parts of the patriot act are a good BASIS for getting better intelligence, but the fact that it’s almost entirely without any checks and balances, and NO recourse for the accused, BOTHERS ME NO END!!!

        • #3325659

          Interesting

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to “Convenient” timing…

          If the Patriot Act stopped the 9/11 attackers (and lets say one of your family members worked at WTC) what would you say then?

        • #3325655

          Now mind you I don’t entirely support the Patriot Act

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to Interesting

          I don’t. I think it is seriously flawed and infringing on my rights (bordering on unconstitutional). Thats one of the reasons I will never forgive those bastards that did this on 9/11 and it makes it very difficult for me to sympathize the Arab issues with Israel. Israel should with full US support destroy every damn city and solve this problem for once and for all.

          Having said that, I will give you one thing. The recent Iraq elections have given me hope as to the state and minds of these people. I was skeptical even though I supported the war and Bush.

        • #3322562

          To quote Ben Franklin, …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Interesting

          “Any man who would give up a small esential freedom, in order to secure a little temporary security, is a scoundrel, and deserves neither freedom nor security.”

        • #3322564

          Excellent observation; and, …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to “Convenient” timing…

          I concur with you assesment.

          Just because it’s “coincedental” does NOT mean that there is no cause & effect realtionship, as some would have us believe.

        • #3325676

          The Vietnam war. . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Respectfully disagree

          .
          …was Johnson’s war.

        • #3325597

          Quibble

          by bfilmfan ·

          In reply to The Vietnam war. . .

          The history of the Vietnam War is a long and bloody one. In January 1944, FDR wrote to Secretary of State Hull that “‘France has had the country … for nearly one hundred years, and the people are worse off than they were at the beginning. … France has milked it for one hundred years. The people of Indochina are entitled to something better than that.”

          While the U.S. was using international summit diplomacy to try to insure postwar (WWII) independence for Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh and the Vietminh were happy to receive the support of the U.S. mission in China1 especially from the forerunner of the CIA, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS). When U.S. policy makers finally decided after World War II that Ho Chi Minh was an enemy, the extent of OSS assistance became a matter of controversy. OSS officials, perhaps fearful of accusations that they had aided Communists, insisted that only a few side arms had been given. They also disputed how much help the Vietminh had given in lighting the Japanese. The Chinese, however, appeared to be satisfied with the performance of their new allies, the Vietminh. Chinese complaints concerning the lack of intelligence information from Vietnam ended in 1944.

          The Vietminh made skillful propaganda use of their new connection. Tales of Vietminh guerillas meeting with American OSS officials circulated throughout northern Vietnam. The Vietminh portrayed themselves as the chosen resistance group favored by the popular Americans. They were not entirely wrong. The U.S. clearly favored their efforts over those of the pro-Japanese and pro-French groups.

          Use of their new American “friends” was only one aspect of the Vietminh effort to secure undisputed leadership of the Vietnamese independence movement as the war neared its conclusion. In December 1943, speaking from Algeria, de Gaulle announce’ his plans for postwar Indochina. He acknowledge’ the necessity for thorough reform and an entirely new relationship between France and Vietnam but specially ruled out an independent Vietnam. The Vietminh strongly attacked de Gaulle. Although they were willing to compromise their Marxist ideology for the sake of independence, they would make no compromise on independence itself. Exactly one year later, in the mountains of northern Vietnam, they officially formed the military wing of the Vietminh, the Vietnam Liberation Army.

          The author of Vietnam?s Declaration of Independence was none other than Ho Chi Minh. As early as May 1945 Ho had sought out a young American Lieutenant who had parachuted into the northern Vietnamese mountains with the OSS. “He kept asking me if I could remember the language of our declaration,” the lieutenant later recalled. “I was a normal American, I couldn’t.” Eventually he realized that Ho knew more about the American proclamation of freedom than he did himself. On September 2, 1945, Ho Chi Minh addressed a crowd assembled in Hanoi, and indeed, the entire world, with these words:

          “We hold truths that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, among these are life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

          We, the members of the Provisional Government representing the entire people of Vietnam, declare that we shall from now on have no connections with imperialist France; we consider null and void all the treaties France has signed concerning Vietnam, and we hereby cancel all the privileges that the French arrogated to themselves on our territory.”

          The real truth is that Vietnam War was caused by our utilizing Ho Hi Minh’s insurgent forces to battle the Japanese during WWII. And then after the war, seeking the continuation of the colonial power structure that has existed for the last 100 years throughout the world. Ho Chi Minh clearly saw the US was not going to support him in seeking freedom, so he truned to the Chinese and USSR, who were more than willing to assist him, as long as he came around to their point of view.

          Even today, there is clear evidence that the first-world countries still are seeking to follow a continuation of the colonial policy which will guarantee additional wars in the future.

          Do I want to see democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan?

          Certainly, as it is my belief that only if people are allowed to live in freedom do they prosper.

          Do I want to see democracies in Kuwait, Saudia Arabia, Lebanon, Palestine, Isreal (and no not everyone can just vote there, no matter what you think the real truth is), Iran, Libya and every other country in the world?

          Damn right I do.

          Do I expect the US President to have the nerve to stand up and tell the leaders in Kuwait, Saudia Arabia and other allies that don’t allow citizens to freely choose what kind of government they have and America is looking at options for dealing with the issue?

          Not as long as we are buying oil from them.

          It is morally indefensible to tell one nation it is a dictatorship, while defending another.

          And just for the official record, I was at Dong Ap Bia in the A Shau Valley with the 101st, May 10, 1969.

          And these are just the thoughts of one old soldier…

        • #3322563

          Actually, it was Kennedy’s, but that’s beside the point.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to The Vietnam war. . .

          It was Nixon who persisted in prosecuting it past the point at which it has already been lost.

          And, it was Nixon who used every dirty trick at hand in an attempt to sway public opinion to his side, while attempting to quash all domestic resistance.

          And, it was also Nixon who was ready and willing to hand us our own “Tiennaman square” on 15OCT69, at the Vietnam Moratorium march in Washington, DC.

    • #3325682

      Sorry Max

      by oz_media ·

      In reply to US government, justification or scare tactics?

      I am unable to edit the typos because I didn’t enter a title. Now when I change the title, it says page cannot be found, if I leave the title and just fix typos, is says I must add a title?! I heard about this bug some time ago, it seems to still be an issue.

    • #3325653

      Canada monitoring the Internet? Could it be? GASP!!! NOOO!!!

      by garion11 ·

      In reply to US government, justification or scare tactics?

      Say no to Big Brother plan for Internet

      MICHAEL GEIST

      During the Internet boom of the late 1990s, Nortel Networks ran an advertising campaign that featured as its slogan, “what do you want the Internet to be?” The implications were obvious ? the Internet was a technology of unlimited possibility that could be whatever we wanted it to be.

      More than five years later, Nortel’s vision is becoming reality. The Internet has become so essential to the every day lives of millions of people ? a pillar of communication, information, entertainment, education, and commerce ? that at times it seems as if the Internet really is anything we want it to be.

      Notwithstanding the Internet’s remarkable potential, there are dark clouds on the horizon. There are some who see a very different Internet. Theirs is an Internet with ubiquitous surveillance featuring real-time capabilities to monitor online activities. It is an Internet that views third party applications such as Vonage’s Voice-over-IP service as parasitic. It is an Internet in which virtually all content should come at a price, even when that content has been made freely available. It is an Internet that would seek to cut off subscriber access based on mere allegations of wrongdoing, without due process or oversight from a judge or jury.

      This disturbing vision of the Internet is not fantasy. It is based on real policy proposals being considered by the Canadian government today.

      Leading the way is the federal government’s “lawful access” initiative. While the term lawful access sounds innocuous, the program, which dates back to 2002, represents law enforcement’s desire to re-make Canada’s networks to allow for lawful interception of private communications.

      If lawful access becomes reality, Canada’s telecommunications service providers (TSPs) will be required to refit their networks to allow for real-time interception of communications, to have the capability of simultaneously intercepting multiple transmissions, and to provide detailed subscriber information to law enforcement authorities without a court order within 72 hours.

      Moreover, Canada’s service providers will be subject to inspections and required to provide the government with reports on the technical capabilities of their networks. These activities will be shrouded in secrecy with service providers facing fines of up to $500,000 or sentences of up to five years in jail for failing to keep the data collection confidential.

      All of these changes come at an enormous cost ? both financially (hundreds of millions of dollars in new technology) and to our personal privacy. While some changes may be needed for security purposes, the government has yet to make the case for why the current set of powers, which include cybercrime and wiretapping provisions, are insufficient. There has been no evidence provided that this approach is the least privacy invasive alternative.

      Refitting the network is not limited to government initiatives. In recent weeks it has become apparent that the network providers themselves may seek to interfere with the free flow of data. For example, Vonage (the leading independent Voice-over-IP provider) recently filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission in the U.S. alleging that an unnamed Internet service provider was blocking its service. Last week, the provider agreed to stop and to pay a fine to the FCC.

      In a less publicized incident, the Communications Commission of Kenya last week ordered the state-owned Telkom Kenya to restore service to Sema VoIP, another Voice-over-IP provider which is backed by Canadian-based BMT North America. The Commission warned Telkom Kenya against taking similar action in the future.

      The issue raised by these cases is not new. Observers have long feared that ISPs would succumb to economic self-interest, engaging in “packet preferencing” by blocking or slowing data coming from competing sites or services. While service providers are quick to argue that they want merely to serve as intermediaries without regard for what traverses their networks, as they offer competing Internet phone services, music download services, and other value-added content, there will be a clear temptation to create a home network advantage.

      In fact, at the CRTC hearings into VoIP last fall, the parent company of at least one major provider gave every indication that it did not view third party services favourably. Quebecor, which owns Videotron, told the Commission that services such as Vonage contributed nothing to the development of facilities-based competition and that “the service provider’s VoIP-based service is totally parasitic on the local access facilities of other carriers.”

      As the leading Canadian ISPs roll out their own VoIP services, many may look at competing services in the same way and seek to limit the use of their network. Stopping such interference requires a strong CRTC, yet with Industry Minister David Emerson’s planned review of Canada’s telecommunications law, some industry experts fear that Canada is heading in the opposite direction.

      The Minister of Industry, together with Liza Frulla, his Canadian Heritage counterpart, are also reportedly about to finalize new rules that may reshape the availability of Internet content to educational institutions. Acting on the recommendation of a parliamentary committee that was chaired by Toronto MP Sarmite Bulte, the government may soon unveil a new “extended license” that would require schools to pay millions of dollars for content that is currently freely available on the Internet.

      While the committee recommendation excluded payment for content that is publicly available, it adopted the narrowest possible definition of publicly available, limiting it to only those works that are not technologically or password protected and which contain an explicit notice that the material can be used without prior payment or permission.

      Moreover, those same ministers are also contemplating a new system that would allow content owners to file a complaint with an ISP if one of their subscribers has allegedly posted infringing content. Canada’s rules for child pornography still require a court order before content is removed, yet if the Canadian Recording Industry Association and other well-funded interests get their way, the ISP will respond to a mere allegation of copyright infringement by “kicking the subscriber off the system.”

      With Canada conceivably ready to adopt rules that make it far easier to remove an allegedly infringing song than to remove dangerous child pornography from a new fee-based, surveillance-ready, packet preferenced Internet, it is difficult to overstate how out of touch our Internet policy process has become. Is this really what we want our Internet to be?

      Michael Geist is the Canada

      Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa. He can be reached by email at mgeist@uottawa.ca and online at http://www.michaelgeist.ca.

      Additional articles by Michael Geist

      http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar%2FLayout%2FArticle_Type1&c=Article&cid=1110150624459&call_pageid=970599119419

      *Gets ready to pimp slap*

      This is what I mean by paying attention to your own country before you go and criticize American governments, interests, citizens, and actions. The price of Freedom is eternal vigilance (I would say that whether it is a Democrat or Republican in the White House). I bet half of you Canadians either don’t know or care thinking this is all Bush’s fault anyway or the big bad USA has something to do with this. Whats next? You are going to come out with signs saying it is Bush’s fault you lost your freedoms to piss and moan??

      This is why God is so important in the American government. Although I can’t speak for the Canadian constitution, American Founding Fathers established a direct relationship of Man’s freedom with the Creator. Thus they came up with the philosphies that are in existance today…mainly inalienable rights endowed by the Creator of which are Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of happiness. So what this effectively has done is to prevent the government from passing a law to take those freedoms away (not that they haven’t or haven’t tried)…The Constitution assumes people have rights, then it limits the government from infringing on those rights. I wonder how many government’s consitutions assumes that.

      The UN charter I know has rights that are given with the deceptive phrase of “as allowed by law” as opposed to “endowed by his/her Creator”.

      How ironic indeed.

      • #3325625

        Nice post, who’s gonna read that?

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to Canada monitoring the Internet? Could it be? GASP!!! NOOO!!!

        Try using a TINY URL and reposting to stop the page widening sue to a long link.

        Better still, start a NEW discussion about whatever your personal issue with Canada is.

        THe most retarded point you are trying to make is that you want to have a shot at Canada. Go for it, in a new thread.= I couldn’t care less what you have to say, just don’t think it is justified in defense of a flame on the US. This discussion was NOT anti-US it was not Canada vs America as you automatically assume any discussion is.

        But if you have a point about Canadian politics, I am sure some Americans MAY be interested, nobody here could give a toss though, we aren’t talking about invading people and there’s no hope in hell Canada would ever police the internet. THat’s just a pile of crap that doesn’t have any substance, runny crap I suppose.

        Glancing at bit of your rant here and there, what does any of that have to do with ANYTHING we are discussing here?

      • #3325621

        Got a bit of a problem

        by neilb@uk ·

        In reply to Canada monitoring the Internet? Could it be? GASP!!! NOOO!!!

        which has come over from the evolution thread and this is the pervasive nature of God in your culture.

        “inalienable rights endowed by the Creator of which are Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of happiness”

        I can see “Life”. That one is obviously true if you’re a believer – but where do the others come from?

        Neil

        • #3325615

          Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Got a bit of a problem

          It’s an American thing, they invented God too, where have you been? 😀

        • #3325605

          Thanks Oz

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

          But I was just after the definitive answer from that well-known bastion of liberal thought, Garion. I wasn’t trying to be provocative or anything.

          I leave that to you!

          😀

        • #3325537

          Reply To: US government, justification or scare tactics?

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to Thanks Oz

          “//But I was just after the definitive answer from that well-known bastion of liberal thought, Garion. I wasn’t trying to be provocative or anything.//”

          LOL. I am not sure if you are being sarcastic or what. Please don’t put my name in the same sentence as liberal.

        • #3322616

          Well – I was having a tiny dig

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Reply To: US government, justification or scare tactics?

          Wasn’t sarcasm, though – no hurt intended.

          Didn’t work, did it? Bloody bait left untouched. Not a nibble!

          Neil 🙂

          I’ll try not to do it again. Promise…

        • #3322604

          That was just some fun

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Thanks Oz

          In light of the defense shown by one peer in this discussion.

        • #3325538

          On Second Treatise of Government

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to Got a bit of a problem

          by John Locke.

          In addition, it is quite interesting you think it is a “pervasive” that we have God in American culture. I mean wtf is that? Don’t other cultures have God, etc….?? How about those Islamic countries who seem to eat, drink, and breathe Allah?

        • #3322594

          Yes, but I knew about them

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to On Second Treatise of Government

          I’ve been to Egypt and even some of that’s a bit scary – very alien and menacing – and we get more than our fair share of mad Mullahs from Pakistan and Bangladesh coming here to “minister” their flocks in some of our big cities.

          Other than that, although the UK is nominally a Christian country, God is a lot less visible, here, than in the US. I should have said “more pervasive than here” when referring to the US. Religion in the style of the Southern Baptists we get only in tiny minorities. Tony Blair is very devout Anglican – close to Roman Catholicism, but he keeps his views to himself.

          My original question was just why the Creator – rather than your society – is considered responsible for “Liberty” and the “Pursuit of Happiness”?

      • #3325617

        okay I’ll give it a shot

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to Canada monitoring the Internet? Could it be? GASP!!! NOOO!!!

        You dug up a nice article of vague assumtions, lets see how much weight it holds.

        [i]”…represents [b]law enforcement’s desire…[/b]”

        “[n]If[/b] lawful access becomes reality,”[/i]

        from speculation and heresay to confident fact?:

        “Moreover, Canada’s service providers [b]will[/b] ..”

        “These activities [/b]will…[/b]”

        So Canadian LAW ENFORCEMENT thinks that they should have access to private information. THat doesn’t mean much at all really, they are always doing that. Yet, in Canada even banning file sharing has been deemed a breach ofCanadian Constitutional rights, yet you feel the Canadian government will allow internet policing?

        The same article goes on to show how this is actuall IN PRACTICE in the USA already though:

        [i]Refitting the network is not limited to government initiatives. In recent weeks it has become apparent that the network providers themselves may seek to interfere with the free flow of data. For example, Vonage (the leading independent Voice-over-IP provider) recently filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission in the U.S. alleging that an unnamed Internet service provider was blocking its service. Last week, the provider agreed to stop and to pay a fine to the FCC.

        In a less publicized incident, the Communications Commission of Kenya last week ordered the state-owned Telkom Kenya to restore service to Sema VoIP, another Voice-over-IP provider [b]which is backed by Canadian-based BMT North America. The Commission warned Telkom Kenya against taking similar action in the future.[/b][/i]

        A Canadian backed company had it’s service restored after being cut ny Telekom Kenya. (no point being made there that reflects on the topic of the article at all.)

        What’s your little conclusion all about though?

        YOu haven’t made a point? I can’t even see what point you TRIED to make, other than you want to throw something at Canada. YOU ASSUME everyone will blame it on Bush? Why, what part has Bush played in this? Would you suggest he DOESN’T play a role in other discussions we’ve been having,including the one you have strayed from here?

        You clearly got the wrong impression from Michael Geist’s article. Visit his website, http://www.michaelgeist.ca/

        You will soon see he is an internet lawyer that sees a lot of freedoms in Canada’s internet policing. He is throwing out comments based on a what if situation, If Canada won’t even make file sharing illegal as it infringes on Canadian Constitutional rights, how can you POSSIBLY believe that Canada will deem themselves responsible for such massive control of content?

        I could also post a few actually realistic articles about America’s hunt for oil leading to the invasion in the middle east, how much weight would it hold with you?

        SO you may want to dig out that disctionary and look up ASSUMPTION yourself.

        You get all pissed off over this stuff and start rants and flames, did you come back JUST because you saw a politically aimed thread or something?

        You don’t seem to do anything else here but jump in and rant on political threads.

    • #3325636

      I disagree

      by protiusx ·

      In reply to US government, justification or scare tactics?

      You stated that the US has had no affect on AL Qaeda and this is absolutely wrong. The US hasn?t captured UBL but he is one man and while the founder of the organization he is not the head so to speak. If he were to die tomorrow the organization would continue to rage against their perception of the great Satan.
      The war in Afghanistan was a success regarding that country being a safe haven and training grounds for Al Qaeda. That country has become the regions major producer of heroin and the poppy fields have popped up all over that country. So have we traded one evil for another? Perhaps, but time will tell what fruit the US?s efforts in that area will bear. It is a fact that AL Qaeda?s forces, efforts and means have all been severely affected by the US?s war against the organization. Will we be able to eradicate Islamo-Fascism from the earth? Probably not in the near future but the war is not over and it will eventually become a war of ideas rather a war of bullets and bread.

      • #3325622

        You’re right

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to I disagree

        It was an overstatement, yes it had some temoporary effect on al-Qaeda, OBL wasn’t what I was getting at.

        al-Qaeda has been rebuilt in more countries than before, they exist in terror sects within your OWN country, they are a threat in teh UK, they are a threat in South Africa. They STILL plan attack on the USA, they STILL grow and attract even more new members than before. It was just a few months ago that they were showing many new sects had been built in Bosnia as they were publicly handing out brochures, having ‘recruiting meetings’ etc. Bosnian’s were lining up in droves as in their eyes, Muslims have rebuilt their country. That’s what I mean by failed, not that Bin Laden wasn’t captured. It hardly seems to have slowed them, just threw a bit of a bump in the way.

        So al-Qaeda was slowed but has come back with a vengeance, even moreso now as the ‘new’ al-Qaeda is operating not specifically AS al-Qaeda but as those who are seeking revenge for the destruction of those who came before them. These guys are said to be even MORE hell bent on attacking the US than before.

        MANY people still believe al-Qaeda has been stopped, the leaders captured and all is well, except OTHER terrorists that must be stopped.

        This is just wrong, they were slowed, you gained foothold for US bases in the area, (postured well for the Afghanistan pipeline constructrion efforts and to get a major military presence into the area before China and Russia are able to).

        A seems to be a hell of a lot more behind it than just getting rid of al-Qaeda and helping Afghan women. What originally was intended as the reason for the invasion, soon seemed to become secondary to other more important issues.

        The Taliban had a grip on the area because of their control of the poppy fields, they were pushed back into Kandahar. The Afghan pipeline would have been built and Taliban would have had control over the area, now they don’t. But nobody seems to care that they are still going strong, as long as they aren’t controlling resources.

        Time will tell I suppose. But Afghanistan seemed far from over when everyone pulled out and ceased funding in order to seek other goals.

        SO you’re right, ther IS improvement, there IS a reduction in the repression of women in Afhganistan, but it’s far from the landslide success of ridding al-Qaeda (those that DID terrorism you own your own soil).

    • #3322609

      I never made any such assertion that time either

      by oz_media ·

      In reply to US government, justification or scare tactics?

      I don’t know where you come up with your ideas and rash conclusions. First, a thread that was non-imflammatory, was being very rationally discussed by parties both sides of the border was seen as an anti-American rant by you, you were wrong.

      THEN you say that I don’t own TR as if I made mach such an absurd assertion myself. I never mentioned ANYTHING to do with me owning or running TR, I didn’t tell you not to post, I didn’t try and lecture you on TR on anything remotely close to what you have claimed, again you were wrong.

      Nothing was quoted out of context, I was emphasizing KEY comments you had made. There’s a common knowledge in marketing and promotional work that you NEVER say something that CAN be taken out of context because it will seem that way no matter how used. I haven’t taken you out of context, I pointed out comments and offered my comments towards them. Once again, you are wrong.

      Next lie, [i]”LOL. You are a truthspinner as usual with your full lies and half truths. Who started this thread? YOU DID. Who asked ridiculous questions like this?”[/i]

      I started the thread, quite a few people had been discussing the issues in a fair and open manner. I had made NO derogatory comments toward the government OR America as a whole. Even Maxwell and I were sharing civil dialogue on the issue, YOU read it and figured it was Anti American and your very first reply was nothing but a heated rant to start a flame war. Just like your idiotic analogy of what that article on Internet privacy is about, which isn’t what you think it’s about at all. You see things that don’t exist through those defensive goggles of yours.

      Why didn’t anybody elsle start defending America?

      Why didn’t anyone else feel it was a slam on America?

      Why didn’t anyone else get pissed off and post some crap about a speculative issue in Canada purely in defense ? If that letter interests you, by all means start a post to discuss it, in fact I believe it WILL be a popular thread. NO need to toss it out in defense though, it’s an issue that deserves comments, they won’t be found unless people are interested in this thread now. THat doesn’t make me owner of TR or even that I am telling you what to do, just saying what I feel about your posts effect or is that too anti-American for you?

      [i]WTF is this supposed to mean? We are all sheep in America and don’t have independent thoughts and actions? WTF…how dare you assume that you shmuck??[/i]

      YOU assumed it, NOT me. I offered a possible view, a theory, an example of how much is too much, an extremity if you will, but you won’t. You just don’t get it do you?
      You are too defensive for absolutely NO reason whatsoever, you form these little conclusions in your head and think you are seing things and reading comments that simply aren’t there.

      Why has nobody else seen all this that YOU see?

      Why is nobody else taking offense to the post?

      Why is nobody else resorting to assumptions and lies to try and make a point?

      Why is nobody else arguing here other than you? You don’t HAVE to comment if you don’t think a discussion’s fair you know, or am I now telling you what to do and claiming to run TR?

      And when your very first post is titled, [b]”I say it’s none of your business”[/b], how can you POSSIBLY claim that you didn’t try to start a flame war. Fact is it IS my business, it SHOULD be your business but you seem to not care about an issue that isn’t some tiny internal thing anymore.

      • #3322588

        Well if you don’t own TR

        by neilb@uk ·

        In reply to I never made any such assertion that time either

        then I’m going to stop sending you that $5 per month you asked for when joined!

        • #3322536

          NO no

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Well if you don’t own TR

          THat just for not flaming you.

          Garion hasn’t paid up and Max is starting to become late again with his payment.

          You can always send me a couple of cans instead. Tetley makes a nice one.

          Goes good with Corrie St. on a Sunday morning.

    • #3322370

      Its more scare tactics

      by av . ·

      In reply to US government, justification or scare tactics?

      I haven’t read all of the posts to you, but you are right on. The more our government scares us, the more tax money we will give. The kicker is, that we are probably less safe now than we were before because of our foreign policies.

      The war on terror. Its a cash cow. If the US government was really concerned about our safety, they would get rid of all of the illegal aliens in this country and close our border with Mexico. I can’t believe that everyone in the US doesn’t stand up and protest what our government is doing. I know I’m not safe.

      You’re probably right. Until 9/11, we never questioned that we were safe from terrorism. It was assumed. Our government had it under control. NOT!

      Of course, our taxes will go up. They always do. But they won’t call it taxes. It’ll be a surcharge or a handling fee. Its part of the government’s Smoke and Mirrors Act. I call it being nickeled and dimed to death. Isn’t this why we left England?

      I don’t know if we’re heading to socialism. I think we have to wait until ‘2008 because right now we’re going to h*ll in a handbasket.

      • #3322321

        Well I don’t see it QUITE that harsh

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to Its more scare tactics

        But hey, that’s your take.

        I wouldn’t say the government ISN’T concered about your safety, I just think perhaps they are being irrational about addressing it with what seems to be a lack of thought or worse still, people are supporting such things due to a lack of thought.

        Oh well, like they said ‘4 more years’…make that 3 1/2. tick-tock,tick-tock.

        • #3328957

          Why harsh?

          by av . ·

          In reply to Well I don’t see it QUITE that harsh

          After 9/11, our government should have immediately addressed our illegal immigration issues. It is just one big gaping hole in our security. You may say there is a big lack of thought, but I think the government just doesn’t want to address the problem. Many people in the US are unhappy with the illegal immigration in this country.

          Its not only the security risk at having such open borders, its the fact that US taxpayers are supporting these people and their families. They receive free education, health care and take advantage of our programs without contributing anything. Enough already.

          I know, 4 more years. Thanks for listening.

        • #3342593

          THat’s none of my business though

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Why harsh?

          Internal relations and laws do not effect me and therefore I cannot offer a view, nor have I taken any interest in reviewing these matters in the US.

          As for four more years, I believe it is more like 3 and a half, keep smiling, it will all be over before you know it.

        • #3342411

          Kind of hard to accomplish

          by aldanatech ·

          In reply to Why harsh?

          Get rid of all of the illegal aliens in this country and close our border with Mexico? Gee, that would be kind of hard to accomplish. It is estimated that there are over 10 million undocumented immigrants in the country. That’s about a 24% increase from March, 4 years ago, when it was at nearly 8.5 million. On the other hand, the notion that they only come to benefit from us and don’t do anything for our country is not entirely true. Most of them are willing to take on the kind of jobs that other people won’t, such as working on farm fields and janitorial positions.

          Yes, they are in violation of a law; but you know, undocumented immigrants are not themselves the problem. The problem is that our government seems to have a harder time to either disseminate those that want to hurt our country (either from within or abroad) with those that simply want to come and work, or to pay closer attention and do proper follow up to the work of our intelligence services. Don’t forget that before 9/11, there were at least 11 intelligence reports that indicated that Al-qaeda was planning a terrorist attack by hijacking airplanes. The Bush administration simply ignored those reports, or did not properly follow up on them, and there you have the results. Our intelligence services do work, but the Bush administration just doesn’t properly follow through.

        • #3250882

          It is hard to accomplish, but they have to start somewhere

          by av . ·

          In reply to Kind of hard to accomplish

          They could start with enforcing laws to punish the companies and individuals that employ illegal aliens. We have work visa laws that just are not enforced. Everyone should have to pay taxes to have any benefits.

          I’m not totally convinced that the illegal aliens are doing jobs Americans wouldn’t do. American citizens might do the job if employers paid the minimum wage. Times are hard in the US. There are alot of kids that need jobs.

          Its in our country’s best interest to do more to help Mexico develop an economy of their own. Maybe NAFTA was supposed to do it, I’m not sure. Right now, their economy is tied to the US. The dollars sent home to Mexico from workers, legal and illegal, in the US represents the country’s largest source of income. That is truly unbelievable. Why is Vicente Fox still president?

          I have to agree with you that our government can’t discern between good and bad illegal aliens. Even if they have the information. They proved that with 9/11. I just don’t understand why our government doesn’t enforce existing laws or address the illegal alien problem with Mexico or other countries.

          I am tired of seeing illegal immigrants standing on a street corner in my town being picked up by landscapers and construction companies as day laborers. I never used to notice them; maybe they weren’t there, but now I find myself looking for possible terrorists in the group.

          Where is our government? What about our laws?

        • #3250636

          They were once one step from getting somewhere

          by aldanatech ·

          In reply to It is hard to accomplish, but they have to start somewhere

          Shortly before 9/11 the US and Mexico were about to sign a guest worker program to help solve to mass illegal immigration from Mexico, but as soon as 9/11 arrived that agreement’s priority was quickly reduced until the US determined it would not sign it, despite all of Mexico’s attempts to have this completed. This was one of president Fox’s biggest campaign promises. Everything was on schedule and according to plan, but the US backup up on the final stages.

          With the temporary migrant worker program, Mexican nationals wouldn’t of need to risk their lived crossing the border illegaly. It worked backed in the 40’s. Illegal immigration was cut down by over 90%. Unfortunately the workers reported that they received far less compensation and proper treatment than what they were promised whey they signed up.

          Why is the US and Mexico not doing more to stop illegal immigration? Well, money sent from the US actually represents Mexico’s third largest source of income, and the US seems to welcome all that cheap labor. Why Vicente Fox is still president? Well, he is still complying with many of his other campaign promises. But don’t worry, he only has about 1 more year in office and there is no re-election in Mexico.

        • #3250939

          Most are INVITED here; and, most pay taxes here as well.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Why harsh?

          It’s simple economics.

          So long as Americans provide a demand for cheap labor which exceeds the supply of available citizens, immigrants, legal or not, will fill that demand.

          Amd, while it is true that many pay no taxes, owing to the actions of their employers & not of their own choice, most pay the same taxes as do citizens & documented aliens.

          The reality is that economics trumps security.

        • #3250911

          Real security reuires trilateral cooperation.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Why harsh?

          Given the extent and porosity of our borders with our neighbors to the north and south, meaningfull security cannot be achieved without their cooperation and assistance.

          In fact, a joint task force, comprised of former officials from all 3 countries, has recently recommended a plan for a joint security zone be implemented by 2010.

        • #3250899

          Gee wonder why 2010?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Real security reuires trilateral cooperation.

          http://www.discovervancouver.com/2010/

          🙂

          I’ve already started making money on the games, can’t wait ’til 2010 KA-CHING!!!! Talk about a marketer’s gravy train!

        • #3250209

          You’re as cynical as I am!

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Gee wonder why 2010?

          The info. that I posted was from a brief item in “Government Techology News.”

          I too wondered about the 2010 suggested target date.

          You may be wrong, but it works for me.

        • #3250180

          It’s been a factor since we were given the games

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to You’re as cynical as I am!

          One of the things they had initially discussed and cost evaluated in the public meetings about the 2010 games was a major increase in border security.

          It goes without saying really, it’s not being cynical, that’s the way it is. They were TOLD they had to increase security in order to win the bid for the games, it was part of the initial bid propsed a few years ago now.

        • #3251057

          No doubt; but, …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to You’re as cynical as I am!

          the task force mentioned is suggesting a UNIFIED North American security zone, with all that such implies.

          We’re talking about BIGGER Brother.

        • #3250989

          No doubt; BUT?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to You’re as cynical as I am!

          That’s a little contradictory isn’t it?

          Your post was fine but the title, while being a common comment is quite contradictory when you think of it.

          I have no doubt about it. But….I have SOME questions/doubt about it.

          Just struck me as funny when I read it.

    • #3329119

      They even mislead allies

      by aldanatech ·

      In reply to US government, justification or scare tactics?

      Yesterday I read an article from the Washington Post that the U.S. misled allies when indicated that North Korea sent nuclear material to Pakistan instead of Libya:

      From the Washington Post by Dafna Linzer:

      In an effort to increase pressure on North Korea, the Bush administration told its Asian allies in briefings earlier this year that Pyongyang had exported nuclear material to Libya. That was a significant new charge, the first allegation that North Korea was helping to create a new nuclear weapons state.

      But that is not what U.S. intelligence reported, according to two officials with detailed knowledge of the transaction. North Korea, according to the intelligence, had supplied uranium hexafluoride — which can be enriched to weapons-grade uranium — to Pakistan. It was Pakistan, a key U.S. ally with its own nuclear arsenal, that sold the material to Libya. The U.S. government had no evidence, the officials said, that North Korea knew of the second transaction.

      Pakistan’s role as both the buyer and the seller was concealed to cover up the part played by Washington’s partner in the hunt for al Qaeda leaders, according to the officials, who discussed the issue on the condition of anonymity. In addition, a North Korea-Pakistan transfer would not have been news to the U.S. allies, which have known of such transfers for years and viewed them as a business matter between sovereign states.

      The Bush administration’s approach, intended to isolate North Korea, instead left allies increasingly doubtful as they began to learn that the briefings omitted essential details about the transaction, U.S. officials and foreign diplomats said in interviews. North Korea responded to public reports last month about the briefings by withdrawing from talks with its neighbors and the United States.

      In an effort to repair the damage, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is traveling through East Asia this weekend trying to get the six-nation talks back on track. The impasse was expected to dominate talks today in Seoul and then Beijing, which wields the greatest influence with North Korea.

      The new details follow a string of controversies concerning the Bush administration’s use of intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. In the run-up to the Iraq invasion in March 2003, the White House offered a public case against Iraq that concealed dissent on nearly every element of intelligence and included interpretations unsupported by the evidence.

      A presidential commission studying U.S. intelligence is reviewing the case, as well as judgments on Iran and North Korea. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence also is reviewing evidence on nuclear, chemical and biological programs suspected in Iran and North Korea.

      The United States briefed allies on North Korea in late January and early February. Shortly afterward, administration officials, speaking to The Washington Post on the condition of anonymity, said North Korea had sold uranium hexafluoride to Libya. The officials said the briefing was arranged to share the information with China, South Korea and Japan ahead of a new round of hoped-for negotiations on North Korea’s nuclear program.

      But in recent days, two other U.S. officials said the briefings were hastily arranged after China and South Korea indicated they were considering bolting from six-party talks on North Korea. The talks have been seen as largely ineffectual, but the Bush administration, which refuses to meet bilaterally with Pyongyang, insists they are critical to curbing North Korea’s nuclear program.

      The White House declined to offer an official to comment by name about the new details concerning Pakistan. A prepared response attributed to a senior administration official said that the U.S. government “has provided allies with an accurate account of North Korea’s nuclear proliferation activities.”

      Although the briefings did not mention Pakistan by name, the official said they made it clear that the sale went through the illicit network operated by Pakistan’s top nuclear scientist, Abdel Qadeer Khan. But the briefings gave no indication that U.S. intelligence believes that the material had been bought by Pakistan and transferred there from North Korea in a container owned by the Pakistani government.

      They also gave no indication that the uranium was then shipped via a Pakistani company to Dubai in the United Arab Emirates and on to Libya. Those findings match assessments by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is investigating Libya separately. Libya gave up its nuclear weapons program in December 2003.

      Since Pakistan became a key U.S. ally in the hunt for al Qaeda leaders, the administration has not held President Pervez Musharraf accountable for actions taken by Khan while he was a member of Musharraf’s cabinet and in charge of nuclear cooperation for the government.

      “The administration is giving Pakistan a free ride when they don’t deserve it and hurting U.S. interests at the same time,” said Charles L. Pritchard, who was the Bush administration’s special envoy for the North Korea talks until August 2003.

      “As our allies get the full picture, it doesn’t help our credibility with them,” he said.

      Pritchard, now a Brookings Institution fellow, and others had initially raised questions about the Libya connection when it became public last month. No one in the administration has been willing to discuss the uranium sale publicly.

      In testimony to Congress last month, CIA Director Porter J. Goss spoke extensively about North Korea’s nuclear arsenal and capabilities. But he gave no indication the intelligence community believed that North Korea had supplied nuclear materials to Libya, that it was capable of producing uranium hexafluoride or that it was a member of the nuclear black market.

      Two years ago, U.S. officials told allies that North Korea was trying to assemble an enrichment facility that would turn uranium hexafluoride into bomb-grade material.

      But China and South Korea, in particular, have been skeptical of those assertions and are becoming increasingly wary of pressuring North Korea.

      The National Security Council briefings in late January and early February, by senior NSC officials Michael J. Green and William Tobey, were intended to do just that by keeping the spotlight solely on North Korea.

      Pakistan was mentioned only once in the briefing paper, and in a context that emphasized Pyongyang’s guilt. “Pakistani press reports have said the uranium came from North Korea,” according to the briefing paper, which was read to The Post.

      After initial press reports about the briefing appeared last month, Pyongyang announced that it possessed nuclear weapons and would not return to the six-party talks.

      Pritchard said North Korea’s reaction was “absolutely linked” to the Green-Tobey trip.

      The United States tried to persuade North Korea to return to the talks, but without success. The North Korean leadership responded with a list of conditions, including a demand that Rice apologize for calling it an “outpost of tyranny.”

      During the first stop on her Asian tour, Rice used noticeably softer language on North Korea, telling a Tokyo audience that the U.S. offer was open to negotiation, and that North Korean leader Kim Jong Il should grab the opportunity.

      Staff writer Glenn Kessler contributed to this report from Seoul.

      Source:

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50241-2005Mar19.html

    • #3329101

      But there is even an bigger risk than terrorism

      by aldanatech ·

      In reply to US government, justification or scare tactics?

      According to economists, it would be the federal deficit.

      From USA Today:

      The budget deficit has overtaken terrorism as the greatest short-term risk to the U.S. economy, and concern about the current gap is rising, a survey of U.S. businesses shows.

      In a survey of 172 members of the National Association for Business Economics, 27% said the deficit or government spending is the largest short-term threat to the economy, up from 23% who thought so in August.

      Terrorism dropped to second on the list, with 24% saying it is the biggest threat, down from 40%. Those most concerned about the deficit in the current account ? the largest measure of U.S. trade with other nations ? tripled, to 15% from 5% in August.

      “Longer term, the costs related to the aging of the population dominate the challenges to sustaining economic growth. However, the panel is doubtful that this Congress will pass needed Social Security reforms,” said David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor’s, who conducted the analysis for the report.

      Concerns about energy costs rose to 11% from 6%, while just 6% saw inflation as the biggest short-term threat, down from 9% in August.

      Unemployment, seen as the greatest risk at this time last year, was cited by just 2% of respondents ? a clear sign of how the labor market has improved in the past 12 months. Some 2.2 million jobs were created in 2004.

      The survey, taken between Feb. 28 and March 8, found U.S. businesses had three nearly equal concerns about longer-term risks: health care, the aging population and the federal deficit.

      The panelists also gave the Federal Reserve a strong vote of confidence, with 63% saying monetary policy is about right, up from 59% in August.

      However, two-thirds of respondents believe short-term interest rates should be increased the next six months, and 97% believe they will be. Respondents were about evenly split between increases of 0.5, 0.75 and 1.0 percentage point the next six months.

      Fed policymakers have raised rates six times since June, taking their target for overnight borrowing costs among banks to 2.5%, and they have said they believe rates can continue to be increased at a what the Fed calls a “measured pace.” The Fed is trying to get rates to a “neutral” level that neither increases nor retards economic growth.

      The survey showed less confidence in the federal government, with only 17% saying fiscal policy is about right. More than three-quarters said the tax and spending of the government was too stimulative to the economy ? and 31% expect deficits to increase.

      While 69% said the Social Security retirement system has serious problems and should be fixed, the respondents rate the odds of major reform as only 36% the next two years.

      Source:

      http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/survey/2005-03-21-deficit-threat-nabe_x.htm

      • #3249614

        False comparisons.

        by deepsand ·

        In reply to But there is even an bigger risk than terrorism

        The ordered rank the named “threats”, as measured by the opinions of the panelists, the probablities that each will occur, & any measure of the potential loss, are 3 very different units of measure.

        The true measure of risk is the product of the probability of occurence and the loss incurred if such occurs.

        And, even then, it is not always possible to adequately compare risk, owing to the fact the potential losses may not be amenable to a common unit of measure.

        • #3251419

          Not quite

          by aldanatech ·

          In reply to False comparisons.

          Don’t forget that the survey shows what businesses believe poses a higher short-term risk to our economy; so the fact that you say that the true measure of risk is the product of the probability of occurence and the loss incurred if such occurs actually supports their point of view.

        • #3251349

          Not really.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Not quite

          What you reported is merely a RANKING by vote, not a weighted quantitative measure of either the perceived probabilities of specific threats and the projected losses incurred if such threats bacame realities.

    • #3249998

      Dammed if we do and dammed if we don’t!

      by dbertsche ·

      In reply to US government, justification or scare tactics?

      This is just another one of your rants against GWB. The awful truth regarding terrorism is we’re dammed if we do and dammed if we don’t. This would be the case if we were talking about Clinton, Bush, or anybody else that becomes president.

      I think we should err on the “careful” side. As soon as we cut any funds for combating terrorism if something happens the libs will come out in droves and be all over it.

Viewing 12 reply threads