BuffettNews.com

bravedave wrote:If Bill Clinton KNEW that bin Laden was going to kill Americans, don't you think he would have defied legal opinions from the United States Department of Justice (as well as Congressional critics and Republican witch-hunters) to send more than oh, let's just say handfuls of cruise missiles and steamer trunks of smart money after him?

Prescience... ya can't beat it.

Bill Clinton knew Al Queada was behind the embassy bombings, was behind the USS Cole attack and the atttack on Khobar Towers. An intel agent offered Bin Laden to Clinton when Bin Laden was in the Sudan. What was the result? An explanation that he could not take Bin Laden because there was nto enough evidence. Yeah there is judgement worthy of emulation.

This is a war. The same as WWII and WWI and Vietnam and every war that has occured. As awful as it truly is, bad things will happen to innocent people. That will never change in warfare. As much as we try to minimize it, it will occur. If a middle eastern man, runs away from authorities who order him to stop, he will get shot. This is as much that guys fault as the person who pulled the trigger. I don't knwo Spanish very well, but when I was in Mexico and the federales started yelling I turned to see if they were speaking to me, I didn't pick up and run away.

buffettbride wrote:

flyboy55 wrote:

buffettbride wrote:

flyboy55 wrote:Can't find bin Laden? That's OK - spy on Americans instead.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12734870/

It wasn't a requirement for telecommunications companies to provide information, although it likely put future government contracts at risk. (sorry for the long link)

Former Qwest CEO Joe Nacchio - someone in corporate America with balls, and fine appreciation for the LAW.

Qwest executives were to busy overstating financials and dumping stock to be concerned with national security.

Can I retract that statement, or is it too late?

green1 wrote:

bravedave wrote:If Bill Clinton KNEW that bin Laden was going to kill Americans, don't you think he would have defied legal opinions from the United States Department of Justice (as well as Congressional critics and Republican witch-hunters) to send more than oh, let's just say handfuls of cruise missiles and steamer trunks of smart money after him?

Prescience... ya can't beat it.

Bill Clinton knew Al Queada was behind the embassy bombings, was behind the USS Cole attack and the atttack on Khobar Towers. An intel agent offered Bin Laden to Clinton when Bin Laden was in the Sudan. What was the result? An explanation that he could not take Bin Laden because there was nto enough evidence. Yeah there is judgement worthy of emulation.

This is a war. The same as WWII and WWI and Vietnam and every war that has occured. As awful as it truly is, bad things will happen to innocent people. That will never change in warfare. As much as we try to minimize it, it will occur. If a middle eastern man, runs away from authorities who order him to stop, he will get shot. This is as much that guys fault as the person who pulled the trigger. I don't knwo Spanish very well, but when I was in Mexico and the federales started yelling I turned to see if they were speaking to me, I didn't pick up and run away.

so in wartime, it's always acceptable to sacrifice the very same rights at home we are supposedly fighting to uphold abroad; especially in an "open-ended" war with no formal declaration such as our declarations of war against the Central Alliance or the Axis in WWI and WWII...

I hope I am also misreading this.. because it comes across as "if a swarthy, olive-skinned guy runs, he's guilty and DRT. If a pale, pasty guy runs, we chase him down. The former doesn't have the rights of the latter in any event because of his skin tone and possible national origin." That sounds a lot like the same line of thinking we had toward German-Americans in 1915-1919, and the Nissei from 1942-45...

RinglingRingling wrote:so in wartime, it's always acceptable to sacrifice the very same rights at home we are supposedly fighting to uphold abroad; especially in an "open-ended" war with no formal declaration such as our declarations of war against the Central Alliance or the Axis in WWI and WWII...

I hope I am also misreading this.. because it comes across as "if a swarthy, olive-skinned guy runs, he's guilty and DRT. If a pale, pasty guy runs, we chase him down. The former doesn't have the rights of the latter in any event because of his skin tone and possible national origin." That sounds a lot like the same line of thinking we had toward German-Americans in 1915-1919, and the Nissei from 1942-45...

What are you atlking about. According to Clinton there was no war in the 90's yet he was doing this same thing, even more thoroughly. Again I will say this. Why the uproar now and not when it began 10 years ago?

You are not misreading, simply putting your spin on this. My point was that even though you may not know the language somewhere, you do know when the police are upset. If you cooperate you won't get shot. If you run away and hop over barricades as this guy did you will.

green1 wrote:

bravedave wrote:If Bill Clinton KNEW that bin Laden was going to kill Americans, don't you think he would have defied legal opinions from the United States Department of Justice (as well as Congressional critics and Republican witch-hunters) to send more than oh, let's just say handfuls of cruise missiles and steamer trunks of smart money after him?

Prescience... ya can't beat it.

Bill Clinton knew Al Queada was behind the embassy bombings, was behind the USS Cole attack and the atttack on Khobar Towers. An intel agent offered Bin Laden to Clinton when Bin Laden was in the Sudan. What was the result? An explanation that he could not take Bin Laden because there was nto enough evidence. Yeah there is judgement worthy of emulation.

This is a war. The same as WWII and WWI and Vietnam and every war that has occured. As awful as it truly is, bad things will happen to innocent people. That will never change in warfare. As much as we try to minimize it, it will occur. If a middle eastern man, runs away from authorities who order him to stop, he will get shot. This is as much that guys fault as the person who pulled the trigger. I don't knwo Spanish very well, but when I was in Mexico and the federales started yelling I turned to see if they were speaking to me, I didn't pick up and run away.

The three wars you mention all had different historical contexts and rationales and I don't know if I'd lump them all together in the same statement. As far as calling the threat from terrorists a war, you tread on thin ice. What are the goals/objectives? When is the war declared won? Are you talking about the battle currently raging in Iraq? When that's over will the War on Terror be over?

True - in time of war certain measures which restrict freedoms may be temporarily necessary, within the framework of the constitution and the law, but I don't see that the NSA's current activities can be entirely justified by that line of thinking. The administration had at its disposal a perfectly workable solution for surveillance within the FISA framework and it chose to completely ignore it. The question we should all be asking is why?

Also, the unfortunate guy that was shot and killed by agents in London was from Brazil, he wasn't from the Middle East. In addition, he was being chased by plainclothes agents who may have looked like muggers to him. They never identified themselves. They chased him down, held him down on the floor of the subway car, and shot him in the head with no questions asked because they thought he might have a bomb. For you to suggest that his tragic death is in some way his own fault sounds eerily like the kind of Orwellian goodthink that Winston Smith was subjected to in the novel 1984.

This isn't about Bush-bashing - this is about the incremental erosion of your rights and liberties. Throughout history, tyranny has always been ushered in under the guise of some imagined external threat. I guess they don't teach history in school anymore.

green1 wrote:

RinglingRingling wrote:so in wartime, it's always acceptable to sacrifice the very same rights at home we are supposedly fighting to uphold abroad; especially in an "open-ended" war with no formal declaration such as our declarations of war against the Central Alliance or the Axis in WWI and WWII...

I hope I am also misreading this.. because it comes across as "if a swarthy, olive-skinned guy runs, he's guilty and DRT. If a pale, pasty guy runs, we chase him down. The former doesn't have the rights of the latter in any event because of his skin tone and possible national origin." That sounds a lot like the same line of thinking we had toward German-Americans in 1915-1919, and the Nissei from 1942-45...

What are you atlking about. According to Clinton there was no war in the 90's yet he was doing this same thing, even more thoroughly. Again I will say this. Why the uproar now and not when it began 10 years ago?
You are not misreading, simply putting your spin on this. My point was that even though you may not know the language somewhere, you do know when the police are upset. If you cooperate you won't get shot. If you run away and hop over barricades as this guy did you will.

a) so because it was wrong 10 years ago, and no one really mentioned it (tho I doubt that); that set the precedent to let it ride this time? Even tho it is wrong?
b) are we talking about the shooting in London 12-18 months or so back, or are we talking in general "If you look Middle Eastern..." If it is the former, Flyboy mentions the details very well and I gotta say that tasering him would have been a lot better for all involved rather than putting a round thru his head. If it is the latter, thank god I am the pale and pasty type.

flyboy55 wrote:This isn't about Bush-bashing - this is about the incremental erosion of your rights and liberties. Throughout history, tyranny has always been ushered in under the guise of some imagined external threat. I guess they don't teach history in school anymore.

We can debate what this guy did or did not do in the subway station relatively soon after a terrorist bombing to
a. Initially stir the interest of the police
b. Cause the police to want to question him
c. Cause him to flee from the police
you may call it Orwellian, I call his actions stupid.

You say this is not Bush-bashing and yet you have refused to answer my question. WHy are you screaming about this now when a more intrusive program was enacted and carried out under the last administration? If you answer that than I will accep that you are not "Bush-bashing".

You mention many things and I would liek to address two in paticular. You say that in war, and we are in a war, it is necessary to sometimes a abridge (my word) freedoms. Then you decry the incremental loss of freedom later on. I wonder what is your opinion of Lincoln's suspension of Habeus Corpus during the Civil War? In part, this allowed civilians to be tried under military courts? Yet at the end of the hostilities, Habeus Corpus was reinstated.

RinglingRingling wrote:a) so because it was wrong 10 years ago, and no one really mentioned it (tho I doubt that); that set the precedent to let it ride this time? Even tho it is wrong?
b) are we talking about the shooting in London 12-18 months or so back, or are we talking in general "If you look Middle Eastern..." If it is the former, Flyboy mentions the details very well and I gotta say that tasering him would have been a lot better for all involved rather than putting a round thru his head. If it is the latter, thank god I am the pale and pasty type.

It wa nto mentioned in the press 10 years ago. I had no problem with it then, and I don't have a problem with it now. So why are you screaming now and did not scream then?

We are talking about the shooting in London immediately after the London bombings. Did they have tasers? If he had a bomb would a taser have prevented him from detonating it? Or would the electrical charge, from the Taser, have ignited the primer as many charges are fired with electronic switches now?

green1 wrote:

RinglingRingling wrote:a) so because it was wrong 10 years ago, and no one really mentioned it (tho I doubt that); that set the precedent to let it ride this time? Even tho it is wrong?
b) are we talking about the shooting in London 12-18 months or so back, or are we talking in general "If you look Middle Eastern..." If it is the former, Flyboy mentions the details very well and I gotta say that tasering him would have been a lot better for all involved rather than putting a round thru his head. If it is the latter, thank god I am the pale and pasty type.

It wa nto mentioned in the press 10 years ago. I had no problem with it then, and I don't have a problem with it now. So why are you screaming now and did not scream then?

We are talking about the shooting in London immediately after the London bombings. Did they have tasers? If he had a bomb would a taser have prevented him from detonating it? Or would the electrical charge, from the Taser, have ignited the primer as many charges are fired with electronic switches now?

I believe it was mentioned in the press. I find it hard to believe that it was not. After all, there were so many witchhunts going on to find dirt on Clinton...

I have no idea if a taser would have worked or not. I am thinking that pinning the guy to the floor of a subway car and shooting him in the head was a bit extreme, especially in light of the facts.

bravedave wrote:Wino, I have more respect for your morals and common sense than just about anyone else I can name. (It's just one of the reasons i can argue with you and pholks like you -- I don't feel like I'm getting dumber by osmosis.)

In your line of work, did you ever put the cuffs on somebody who turned out to be clean? Maybe they weren't perfect, hell who is, but they didn't do what you wanted them for? You can open the cell, give them their stuff, slap them on the back and say Sorry. A team of deltas hunting a terrorist don't often have that option. Remember the guy who got shot to death in London after the bus bombings? He was the wrong guy. He was clean. He didn't do what they thought he did... and now he's dead.

Even if you have nothing to hide, you still have the responsibility of protecting your liberties. And it's always going to be a group effort.

Thanks, Dave-I'll try to respond without ME sounding stupid. I suppose that's possible
I'm not saying I'm perfect-nor would I want to be. Only one person was EVER perfect, and HE was crucified.
Did I ever arrest the wrong person? No. Fortunately for me, when I'm about to make an arrest, most of the facts have either been provided for me or are clearly evident so that a reasonable person would make the same conclusion I would.
THAT BEING SAID-you ask if I ever handcuffed the wrong person?
I've never handcuffed the wrong person per se, but I HAVE handcuffed many people I had NO INTENTION of arresting but only planned on questioning. Anyone who rides in MY patrol car gets handcuffed with their hands placed in back. WHY? Simple. BECAUSE WHEN MY SHIFT ENDS, I'M GOING HOME!
If you don't want to ride in my patrol car, don't be in the wrong place at the wrong time, don't screw up, and DON'T hang with the wrong crowd.
Does that sound elitist?
I'VE never ridden in the back of a patrol car or paddy wagon. HAVE YOU? Has ANYBODY here?
Bottom line is I have a few more "luxuries" than the Delta Force. They're ALWAYS having to make split-second decisions. I've never so much as had to fire my weapon in the line of duty in 30 years. Praise God Allmighty
I HAVE drawn my weapon and prepared to fire if I had to COUNTLESS times.
WHY? Simple. BECAUSE AT THE END OF MY SHIFT, I'M GOING HOME!

Now to the topic at hand-yes, I DO have a responsibility to protect my liberties, and I think I do a damn good job of doing that. EVERY Senator and Congress person from the state of Iowa knows me VERY well after countless phone calls from me to tell them my thoughts on everything from aspirins to airplanes. WE hire these people, therefore, WE'RE their bosses, therefore they hear from me. (Ask either Senator Chuck Grassley or Tom Harkin who "Garry" is).
As for this N.S.A. "issue," I'm sorry-I do respect your opinion on the matter and always willing to hear whatever YOU have to say about it, but I just don't feel threatened if someone hears me place a call to Dominoes Pizza. Or any conversation I have with anyone, for that matter. All I can say is if people DO feel threatened by having someone hear what they talk about with others is WHY? I'm not saying I want ALL my conversations heard-sure, some are meant for only the ears of the person I'm talking with, but so far, the worst thing that's happened to me because of my big mouth is that I got a bit embarrased when a couple people overheard me telling my mother how much I love her. Do I want people hearing me tell my mother that over the phone? Probably not, but what's the big deal if someone in Washington, D.C. knows I truly love my mother? Or what's the big deal if someone in Washington, D.C. knows I'd be willing to drink a pint of Sandra Bullock's p*ss just to see where it came from?
It's a different era than our grandparent's time, Dave. There are people who want us dead just because we are who we are. MY feeling is to hunt them down by any means necessary. If it means someone accidently hears me calling Dominoes, so be it. If this will help capture these a-holes who want to kill all Americans because their friggin' toilet doesn't face Mecca, I say GO FOR IT!
And I'll do whatever it takes to help catch these bas--rds.
Because I have too much living left to do.

green1 wrote:

flyboy55 wrote:This isn't about Bush-bashing - this is about the incremental erosion of your rights and liberties. Throughout history, tyranny has always been ushered in under the guise of some imagined external threat. I guess they don't teach history in school anymore.

We can debate what this guy did or did not do in the subway station relatively soon after a terrorist bombing to
a. Initially stir the interest of the police
b. Cause the police to want to question him
c. Cause him to flee from the police
you may call it Orwellian, I call his actions stupid.

You say this is not Bush-bashing and yet you have refused to answer my question. WHy are you screaming about this now when a more intrusive program was enacted and carried out under the last administration? If you answer that than I will accep that you are not "Bush-bashing".

You mention many things and I would liek to address two in paticular. You say that in war, and we are in a war, it is necessary to sometimes a abridge (my word) freedoms. Then you decry the incremental loss of freedom later on. I wonder what is your opinion of Lincoln's suspension of Habeus Corpus during the Civil War? In part, this allowed civilians to be tried under military courts? Yet at the end of the hostilities, Habeus Corpus was reinstated.

I don't know what else to say about the Brazilian guy - if he had been your brother I don't think you'd be saying he was stupid.

I must have missed Clinton's illegal NSA surveillance program - I don't remember hearing anything about this when Kenneth Starr had carte blanche to try to find something to hang Clinton with. I guess Clinton's enemies were too interested in his sex life.

With reference to the return to Habeus Corpus after the Civil War, do you think the NSA will simply stop building a surveillance database if and when the so-called War on Terror ends? Do you think the many government agencies who use the database will let them. You are either very trusting or very naive.

RinglingRingling wrote:I believe it was mentioned in the press. I find it hard to believe that it was not. After all, there were so many witchhunts going on to find dirt on Clinton...

I have no idea if a taser would have worked or not. I am thinking that pinning the guy to the floor of a subway car and shooting him in the head was a bit extreme, especially in light of the facts.

Facts which were not known at the time of the shooting. I agree that this wa a horrible tragedy, but I believe the police acted appropriately. You are looking at this as though the police knew he had no bomb, that he was no threat. And then you glibly throw out comments about equipment you don't know if they had, or what the effect that equipment would have on a bomb, which the police believed he had.
The police saw this man run away, ignore their commands, jump a turnstile to get away from them and go towards the subway. Which had just been bombed by terrorists. They acted in a manner that they, through training, believed would save the most lives. They did their jobs, and I am glad to say their bosses saw it the same way.

flyboy55 wrote:I don't know what else to say about the Brazilian guy - if he had been your brother I don't think you'd be saying he was stupid.

I must have missed Clinton's illegal NSA surveillance program - I don't remember hearing anything about this when Kenneth Starr had carte blanche to try to find something to hang Clinton with. I guess Clinton's enemies were too interested in his sex life.

With reference to the return to Habeus Corpus after the Civil War, do you think the NSA will simply stop building a surveillance database if and when the so-called War on Terror ends? Do you think the many government agencies who use the database will let them. You are either very trusting or very naive.

It would not happen to my brother. We have taught him to be respectful of people in positions of authority and to do what the police tell you.

It was called Echelon, search Bill Clinton Echelon on any search engine and read the results, but I will include a link to the 60 minutes story from February 2000.
http://cryptome.org/echelon-60min.htm

Clinton's enemies did not care about echelon because it is not illegal. Just as this is not illegal. Please read the link and then answer my question of why you are screaming now and didn't scream then. Your hypocisy is getting tiresome.

I think that the NSA will obey the courts of the US. If not they should be disbanded and tried for illegal activities. As it stands right now, and as it has been adjudicated for the past 20+ years this is not illegal.

Wino you know wrote:. Only one person was EVER perfect, and HE was crucified.

No I wasn't.

rednekkPH wrote:

Wino you know wrote:. Only one person was EVER perfect, and HE was crucified.

No I wasn't.

So that wasn't you I saw on TV Easter Sunday?

green1 wrote:

flyboy55 wrote:I don't know what else to say about the Brazilian guy - if he had been your brother I don't think you'd be saying he was stupid.

I must have missed Clinton's illegal NSA surveillance program - I don't remember hearing anything about this when Kenneth Starr had carte blanche to try to find something to hang Clinton with. I guess Clinton's enemies were too interested in his sex life.

With reference to the return to Habeus Corpus after the Civil War, do you think the NSA will simply stop building a surveillance database if and when the so-called War on Terror ends? Do you think the many government agencies who use the database will let them. You are either very trusting or very naive.

It would not happen to my brother. We have taught him to be respectful of people in positions of authority and to do what the police tell you.

It was called Echelon, search Bill Clinton Echelon on any search engine and read the results, but I will include a link to the 60 minutes story from February 2000.
http://cryptome.org/echelon-60min.htm

Clinton's enemies did not care about echelon because it is not illegal. Just as this is not illegal. Please read the link and then answer my question of why you are screaming now and didn't scream then. Your hypocisy is getting tiresome.

I think that the NSA will obey the courts of the US. If not they should be disbanded and tried for illegal activities. As it stands right now, and as it has been adjudicated for the past 20+ years this is not illegal.

Thanks for the link. I read it. I'm already familiar with Echelon. I've actually read Mike Frost's book. Yes we have been spied on by NSA for years - illegally as was outlined in your link. Various allied intelligence services have been using Echelon to circumvent domestic surveillance laws by doing each other's dirty work.

The current expansion of NSA's activities into building a surveillance database with the collusion of telephone and internet service providers is a new and also illegal activity. The telephone companies who cooperated with NSA by giving them access have arguably broken the law.

I'm not alone in worrying about this. Sen. Arlen Specter, the Republican head of the Senate Judiciary Committee is also concerned at the administration's lack of accountability and has threatened to cut NSA funding if they don't submit to Congressional oversight. Guess he must be one of those Dems on a witch hunt.

http://news.com.com/NSA+spying+comes+un ... 66123.html

While you might wish to maintain that Bush is just doing what Clinton did, your argument wouldn't be supported by the facts. However, I didn't start this thread to bash Bush or defend Clinton. I started this thread to bash NSA. If Bush happens to support the illegal activities of NSA and gets bashed, well I'd just call it collateral damage.

Furthermore, it isn't a question of whether or not your brother respects people in positions of authority, or obeys the instructions of police officers. The question is, should your brother (or anyone's brother or sister for that matter) submit to having his privacy regularly and routinely invaded by the government?

There is a convenient label for people who think that the needs and priviledges of the State should come before the needs and priviledges of the citizens, or that the citizens' first duty is towards the State. Back when I studied history we called these people Stalinists or Nazis. Take your pick.

flyboy55 wrote:

green1 wrote:

flyboy55 wrote:I don't know what else to say about the Brazilian guy - if he had been your brother I don't think you'd be saying he was stupid.

I must have missed Clinton's illegal NSA surveillance program - I don't remember hearing anything about this when Kenneth Starr had carte blanche to try to find something to hang Clinton with. I guess Clinton's enemies were too interested in his sex life.

With reference to the return to Habeus Corpus after the Civil War, do you think the NSA will simply stop building a surveillance database if and when the so-called War on Terror ends? Do you think the many government agencies who use the database will let them. You are either very trusting or very naive.

It would not happen to my brother. We have taught him to be respectful of people in positions of authority and to do what the police tell you.

It was called Echelon, search Bill Clinton Echelon on any search engine and read the results, but I will include a link to the 60 minutes story from February 2000.
http://cryptome.org/echelon-60min.htm

Clinton's enemies did not care about echelon because it is not illegal. Just as this is not illegal. Please read the link and then answer my question of why you are screaming now and didn't scream then. Your hypocisy is getting tiresome.

I think that the NSA will obey the courts of the US. If not they should be disbanded and tried for illegal activities. As it stands right now, and as it has been adjudicated for the past 20+ years this is not illegal.

Thanks for the link. I read it. I'm already familiar with Echelon. I've actually read Mike Frost's book. Yes we have been spied on by NSA for years - illegally as was outlined in your link. Various allied intelligence services have been using Echelon to circumvent domestic surveillance laws by doing each other's dirty work.

The current expansion of NSA's activities into building a surveillance database with the collusion of telephone and internet service providers is a new and also illegal activity. The telephone companies who cooperated with NSA by giving them access have arguably broken the law.

I'm not alone in worrying about this. Sen. Arlen Specter, the Republican head of the Senate Judiciary Committee is also concerned at the administration's lack of accountability and has threatened to cut NSA funding if they don't submit to Congressional oversight. Guess he must be one of those Dems on a witch hunt.

http://news.com.com/NSA+spying+comes+un ... 66123.html

While you might wish to maintain that Bush is just doing what Clinton did, your argument wouldn't be supported by the facts. However, I didn't start this thread to bash Bush or defend Clinton. I started this thread to bash NSA. If Bush happens to support the illegal activities of NSA and gets bashed, well I'd just call it collateral damage.

Furthermore, it isn't a question of whether or not your brother respects people in positions of authority, or obeys the instructions of police officers. The question is, should your brother (or anyone's brother or sister for that matter) submit to having his privacy regularly and routinely invaded by the government?

There is a convenient label for people who think that the needs and priviledges of the State should come before the needs and priviledges of the citizens, or that the citizens' first duty is towards the State. Back when I studied history we called these people Stalinists or Nazis. Take your pick.

at least I'll be a Nazi that won't be attacked by terrorists

green1 wrote:

RinglingRingling wrote:I believe it was mentioned in the press. I find it hard to believe that it was not. After all, there were so many witchhunts going on to find dirt on Clinton...

I have no idea if a taser would have worked or not. I am thinking that pinning the guy to the floor of a subway car and shooting him in the head was a bit extreme, especially in light of the facts.

Facts which were not known at the time of the shooting. I agree that this wa a horrible tragedy, but I believe the police acted appropriately. You are looking at this as though the police knew he had no bomb, that he was no threat. And then you glibly throw out comments about equipment you don't know if they had, or what the effect that equipment would have on a bomb, which the police believed he had.
The police saw this man run away, ignore their commands, jump a turnstile to get away from them and go towards the subway. Which had just been bombed by terrorists. They acted in a manner that they, through training, believed would save the most lives. They did their jobs, and I am glad to say their bosses saw it the same way.

their job was not to be judge, jury, and executioner. their job was to prevent him from exploding what they thought (incorrectly) to be a bomb. Having subdued him on the floor of the subway car, shooting him in the head was NOT part of the job.

And this is the part of it that scares me the most in your whole line of reasoning: "They did their jobs, and I am glad to say their bosses saw it the same way". Evidently as long as you have a belief that someone is doing something wrong, which was reached by subjective means, it's ok to execute them when taken to a ridiculous conclusion. You're almost saying, "What the heck, he was innocent, but what's one innocent life really worth?"

green1 wrote:

Quiet and Shy wrote:If that's your measure of success, your answer is correct. However, I'd suggest that one measure provides a very narrow and short-term view. The world is just more complicated than that....

How, in your opinion, is it a "narrow, short term view." This is the end purpose of our government. Protect the citizenry from all enemies.

If you define our government's purpose as solely one of protecting the citizenry, then yes, you are indeed defining things much more narrowly. What about Medicare, Social Security, Education, Economic and Monetary Policy, Trade, National Parks, etc.?

green1 wrote:This is a war. The same as WWII and WWI and Vietnam and every war that has occured.

Operations in Afghanistan to go after Bin Laden (a specific target based on data)? Yep, no question. The war in Iraq (based on the data the US had at the time and no Bin Laden link)? No. It's a horrible mistake that has served to alienate and pour more fuel on the terrorists' fire, upset the balance of power in a strategically volatile yet important region, and cost significant diplomatic power and leverage with allies and other more neutral countries around the world. And, because it's been so poorly planned and managed, it's a US-made mess...and we have a responsibility to try and clean it up...so I completely support our troops through this effort.

In my voting life I've always leaned Republican, but George Bush has proven to be an arrogant and inept imperialist who continues to demonstrate poor judgement that just puts us at further risk. This is why I have a problem with Bush's selective obedience to and enforcement of existing law -- he's a loose and very dangerous cannon that someone needs to reign in and keep an eye on.

The NSA thing...it's being discussed this week because it's in the news. Honestly, I really don't care too much about that particular point. It's just another piece of the big picture.

e three wars you mention all had different historical contexts and rationales and I don't know if I'd lump them all together in the same statement. As far as calling the threat from terrorists a war, you tread on thin ice. What are the goals/objectives? When is the war declared won? Are you talking about the battle currently raging in Iraq? When that's over will the War on Terror be over?

Always tickles me when someone calls a threat from terrorists less then a wartime state of mind. Hell, I've been out of the military for nearly 30 years and we were lockin horns with those fu**ers then. Buddy of mine carries the scar of a bullet sent to into his right thigh from the Bader-Manheim org in Germany all those years ago.

Terrorists consider this a war, because its 4th generation warfare does not make any less a war. Trust me, they had an opportunity to aerate your head.....they would.

Say what you will about Bush and Iraq and Iran or Clinton and his actions....terrorists are here to stay with the simple goal of making your (an American) life, a short lived one.