America under siege?[just perris in a rant]

[Xie]

or police just doing their job, and the NY Times trying to spin it into more bad press about Republicans, which is what they do.

I don't see how you can argue in favor of arresting passive protesters and then those upholding the law filing false claims. What if it was the other way around?

 

[Grandmaster]

Also all these people complaining about how perris is unamerican just because he doesn't support the President on everything he does, and that he should get out.

Well you are the ones that are unamerican. He is excerising one of the fundamental freedoms that your Constitution grants you, one of the foundations upon which the United States was built, and yet his man is unamerican?

Seriously guys, he doesn't have to blindly support your President to be American.

 

[ThePatriot]

Wow, gettin uglier by the minute!

Sazar...partially correct, all those examples I made have to hold up over time, true. But, most, if not all were prompted by Coalition presence in the ME. Will they all come to fruition? No, probably not, but it's the attempt that matters in most cases. It paves the way for future attempts. Some were not new ideas, but rather renewed ones. Action causes reaction...i.e..if we don't continue to attempt to influence the ME political system like we are now, it will influence itself like it has in the past...and that is not the way to go as history proves.

No offence taken for niether you nor I were sitting next to GW when the decision was made to invade Iraq. You say...and yes perris buddy, you too, that GW was wrong and defied his advisors because they said it was wrong to invade Iraq. Well, not all of them said so(thats why they are called "advisors" and not called "controllers"), and many of them said they'd have done the same thing in his place(including our hero JK). You can believe what you want to believe from the rhetoric that constantly flows out of liberal mouths, but the truth is still all those things I stated and many more would most likely not have taken place had we not gotten the ball rolling. Sometimes there is no clear path boys...and you are required to go out on a limb to make things happen. Yes, some were influenced by other happenings also, like Lebanon. I would tend to believe they we at least partially emboldened by the emerging Democratic movements elsewhere. Come on, you don't really expect people to believe that these things just "happened" do you? Cause and effect here guys.

Perris...I think that if the Police involved in what went down did so maliciously, they should be prosecuted no questions asked. If, however, they just got overzealous in their attempt to pick out possible problems...well, that's just a different story. In order to be proactive vs reactive, you must be willing to screw the pooch and answer for it once in a while. Maybe thats all it was, maybe not...thats for the legal system to decide.

And thats what this is really all about, isn't it? Being proactive in our approach to combat terrorism rather than reactive? Reactive got Bill Clinton an easy ride and got many people on 4 planes on a Sept day giant $hit sandwich. NO MORE REACTIVE! It doesn't work. Yes, the proactive approach must be monitored, but again, we WILL make puppies on occasion, guaranteed. But in the long run it will prove to be effective.

 

[NetRyder]

I think one our (US) biggest downfalls is the large percentage of our population that believe that the US could "stand alone". They have no idea how much we depend on the rest of the world. This "we are better then you all, bow down before us as we are the mighty US" is one day going to put us in a very bad situtation I believe. </rant>

Sad, but unmistakably true, and this thread is a shining example. Well said, Xie. Pride has a fall. I certainly hope some of you realize that before it's too late.

 

[ThePatriot]

Also all these people complaining about how perris is unamerican just because he doesn't support the President on everything he does, and that he should get out.

Well you are the ones that are unamerican. He is excerising one of the fundamental freedoms that your Constitution grants you, one of the foundations upon which the United States was built, and yet his man is unamerican?

Seriously guys, he doesn't have to blindly support your President to be American.

Perris is more a Patriot than most people I know, at least he cares enough about his country to get upset, most people can't be pulled away from American Idol...

 

[Grandmaster]

I think if Bush's vision of a Democratic Middle East plays out properly (and you can see hints of it), then he will be remembered as a great President, and a great leader, but only if you exclude his economic policy.

Otherwise he's going to be remembered as one of the worst Presidents in history.

 

[fimchick]

Oh G-d. You know, if you read my first post, I wasn't rebuking Perris for what he said -- I was trying to point out the stupidity of the previous poster's claims that Bush was involved in 9/11, he orchestrated the whole deal for who knows what and that he pees sitting down.

Xie, you are absolutely right. Americans have a tendency to feel like they are better than everyone else, and on occasion I find myself in the same position and I try to avoid that mistake. But you know what? Every European country and all of its citizens are just the same! Find me one Brit, Canadian or anyone else in this thread that has not bashed America and claimed to be better than everyone else.

It's the same people who claim that they didn't need our help in WW2. That we didn't help them defeat Hitler and that they were doing just peachy on their own. Get real!

My point is, accept the fact that you and your country are NOT perfect, self-sufficient, superior and immortal -- JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. You need to wake up and realize that the real economic threat is coming from China and India with their exploding work force and their ridiculously cheap (and reliable) labor. In the future the EU, USA and Canada will *HAVE TO* work together and in harmony if we want our economies and our countries to maintain their edge in the world.

The same goes for the rising terrorist threats all over the world. In France, Spain, Germany, America, Russia and the rest of the world. If you keep rubbing your noses at the problem, it's not going to just go away. If you keep appeasing these murderers, they won't leave you alone for ever.

When you realize that the US is doing what the rest of the world doesn't want to do because it's HARD and it's a LONG PROCESS and it's economically taxing and isn't the easiest route to take, well, then you'll come to your senses and stop being so hateful towards us.

Long post, thanks

 

[Sazar]

or police just doing their job, and the NY Times trying to spin it into more bad press about Republicans, which is what they do.

Where in the article are they attacking the republicans? Did you even read the article?

 

[Un4gIvEn1]

I read the article. Someone respond to what I posted. Everyone just skipped right over what I had to say about the article.

 

[Sazar]

Sazar...partially correct, all those examples I made have to hold up over time, true. But, most, if not all were prompted by Coalition presence in the ME. Will they all come to fruition? No, probably not, but it's the attempt that matters in most cases. It paves the way for future attempts. Some were not new ideas, but rather renewed ones. Action causes reaction...i.e..if we don't continue to attempt to influence the ME political system like we are now, it will influence itself like it has in the past...and that is not the way to go as history proves.

My contention is not that there are no positives from the invasion, my contention is that we are doing the same thing we have done before, interfering in a direct manner which leads to profound consequences and unsettles the balance of power.

Using Iran, once again, as an example, we thought we were doing the right thing. What has it netted us now?

Coalition presence helped but I want to see TANGIBLE actions, not just words and token acts that imply something positive has happened. Pakistan, our key ally, has taken no steps towards democracy, instead Musharaf has continued to strengthen his position so when there is a return to democracy, his cronies will win. What has been our influence there?

No offence taken for niether you nor I were sitting next to GW when the decision was made to invade Iraq. You say...and yes perris buddy, you too, that GW was wrong and defied his advisors because they said it was wrong to invade Iraq. Well, not all of them said so(thats why they are called "advisors" and not called "controllers"), and many of them said they'd have done the same thing in his place(including our hero JK).

I don't care what JK or any other politician says on the matter. Invading Iraq was wrong and sent the wrong message. Nothing, not even the vote by the people is a valid reason for invading a soverign nation by sheer force. If this was the only rule we lived by than we would have very serious problems all round.

Political statements are one thing, actions are another. All politicians jumped on the INVADE IRAQ bandwagon because with the b.s. rhetoric put forth by the administration, not doing so would make one "un-american".

Now as we look forward to extricating ourselves from Iraq, it is no more stable than when we first went there. Kurds, sunnis and shia are still only a few actions away from civil war.

You can believe what you want to believe from the rhetoric that constantly flows out of liberal mouths, but the truth is still all those things I stated and many more would most likely not have taken place had we not gotten the ball rolling. Sometimes there is no clear path boys...and you are required to go out on a limb to make things happen. Yes, some were influenced by other happenings also, like Lebanon. I would tend to believe they we at least partially emboldened by the emerging Democratic movements elsewhere. Come on, you don't really expect people to believe that these things just "happened" do you? Cause and effect here guys.

It is ironic that people like myself are labelled liberal or liberal loving in the sense that I supposedly listen only to rhetoric from left-wing fanatics. That is utter bullsh!t. I have voted for a republican the last 2 elections and there are many elements of the base ORIGINAL republican core that I strongly advocate. The fact that I am not a far-right christian conservative willing to sell my soul for votes and power does not make me a mindless lout.

Regarding Lebanon, please tell me exactly what will happen from a complete and immediate withdrawal by Syria? Who exactly is it that enforces the law? Who is it that provides security? Who is it that, even with their negatives provide some semblance of normalcy to the major cities of Lebanon?

Cause and effect? Well and good but what about consequences and unforseen and out of control situations that arise from bone-headed moves?

Perris...I think that if the Police involved in what went down did so maliciously, they should be prosecuted no questions asked. If, however, they just got overzealous in their attempt to pick out possible problems...well, that's just a different story. In order to be proactive vs reactive, you must be willing to screw the pooch and answer for it once in a while. Maybe thats all it was, maybe not...thats for the legal system to decide.

And thats what this is really all about, isn't it? Being proactive in our approach to combat terrorism rather than reactive? Reactive got Bill Clinton an easy ride and got many people on 4 planes on a Sept day giant $hit sandwich. NO MORE REACTIVE! It doesn't work. Yes, the proactive approach must be monitored, but again, we WILL make puppies on occasion, guaranteed. But in the long run it will prove to be effective.

How did we combat terrorism by invading Iraq?

 

[Lee]

Sorry to troll but I love how compation and caring is measured in $'s.

That's a good point, that's why I posted a figure myself, I get the feeling Johnny judges people on how much they have in wealth rather than how decent they are.

 

[Perris Calderon]

...Being proactive in our approach to combat terrorism rather than reactive? Reactive got Bill Clinton an easy ride and got many people on 4 planes on a Sept day giant $hit sandwich. NO MORE REACTIVE!

first of all, Bill Clinton was more pro active against terrorism then ANY president before him...this is NOT an opinion, it is a fact as testified to by Bush's own aids...bill Clinton invented the very industry of eliminating Bin Laden (who was helped to power deliberately by reagan and bush sr)

When this president took office, he deminished the fight against terrorism...this is the testimony of the cia, clark and rice.

however, the rightn winged wealthy owned, republican spin machine actually has people believing Bush is more anti terrorst then Clinton...this is how affective the media is in shaping minds

How did we combat terrorism by invading Iraq?

we didn't combat terrorism by invading Iraq, we made the situation worse...much MUCH worse, no question about it.

this is according to the words Bush's own aids, so there is no dodging the point.

Iraq, where there was no terrorism before we attacked without provocation is now "the hub of terrorism" ..."terrrorism central"...are the words that Bush's own aids used

in addition, the forces that were needed to acrually fight terrorism in Afghanistan were diverted and the effort where it blonged was almost forgotten....these terrorists made Iraq their hub thanks to the policies of this president.

now, none of this is hind sight...Bush's own head of anti terrorisms had informed him in no uncertain terms that these would be the results if he invaded Iraq as he proposed....the fact that Bush was given this council is corroborated by rhumsfeld and by rice when they were under sworn testimony by the way...the chief if anti terrorism was absolutely correct in his advice....not hindsight.

Bush invaded Iraq in spite of the fact that he knew from his own council that he'd be hurting the fight against terrorism not helping it...though he knew otherwise, he went on to lie to the American people and made believe the attack on Iraq was about terrorism.

in addition he then lied again, this president actually had the nerve to use the bombing on 9/11 by Afghanistan as an excuse to attack a country he knew without any doubt was not involved.

he knew this not only from cllark, but from rhumsfeld and rice as well...and he knew from his own CIA reports that the two were entirely unnasociated...all of this is not disputed under sworn testimony by the way.rhumsfeld actually under sworn tetimony has actually said "yes, Iraq wasn't involved, but there were no good targets in Afghanistan, there were good targets in Iraq".

great.

this is what he did to us

This is worse then it sounds, making believe the invasion had something to do with the bombing on september eleventh, and making believe the invasion of Iraq was somehow a fight against terrorsm...the fact is the attack if Iraq exacerbated our efforts and by no measure can be considered to have helped the fight against terrorism.

and now we can see how affective the wealthy owned right wing media spin machine is.

just about everyone (in America) thinks the invasion of Iraq was somehow affective against terrorism

if you are among those that think our invasion of Iraq has helped the fight against terrorism, you are an example of how affect the the right wing wealthy owned big bussiness media spin machine.

Thsoe people affected by the media blitze will also believe Bush invaded Iraq having been given council that he would be fighting terrorism by invading...he was given council that the reverse was true

 

[Lee]

Applauds perris. 100% correct.

 

[ThePatriot]

Using Iran, once again, as an example, we thought we were doing the right thing. What has it netted us now?

Well, that situation isn't even close to resolved yet, is it? Lets see what transpires in the next year or two.

Pakistan, our key ally, has taken no steps towards democracy, instead Musharaf has continued to strengthen his position so when there is a return to democracy, his cronies will win. What has been our influence there

So, we must affect everywhere to be effetive anywhere?

I don't care what JK or any other politician says on the matter. Invading Iraq was wrong and sent the wrong message. Nothing, not even the vote by the people is a valid reason for invading a soverign nation by sheer force. If this was the only rule we lived by than we would have very serious problems all round.
Political statements are one thing, actions are another. All politicians jumped on the INVADE IRAQ bandwagon because with the b.s. rhetoric put forth by the administration, not doing so would make one "un-american".

I never said you were "un-American". Just of differing opinion. Everyone jumped on the bandwagon because it seemed the right thing to do at the time. GW didn't twist anyones arm and I'm still amazed that otherwise intelligent people think he has that kind of power.

Now as we look forward to extricating ourselves from Iraq, it is no more stable than when we first went there. Kurds, sunnis and shia are still only a few actions away from civil war.

No more stable?! Officials elected by the people and NOT threatened with death for voting wrong is not more stable? Not only is that a ludacrous, but an insult to all the men and women in uniform who work hard every day to make it better. I think you need better information.

It is ironic that people like myself are labelled liberal or liberal loving in the sense that I supposedly listen only to rhetoric from left-wing fanatics. That is utter bullsh!t. I have voted for a republican the last 2 elections and there are many elements of the base ORIGINAL republican core that I strongly advocate. The fact that I am not a far-right christian conservative willing to sell my soul for votes and power does not make me a mindless lout.{/QUOTE]
I didn't label you as liberal, I just said you believed their pompous line of crap that they constantly spew.

Regarding Lebanon, please tell me exactly what will happen from a complete and immediate withdrawal by Syria?

Maybe just what they needed was to be reomoved from under the finger of a regime that is known to be less-than-user friendly? Maybe a little freedom from dictatorship-by-proxy rule will give them the incentive to move towards democracy...maybe not. But it wouldn't do a damn bit of good leaving them the way they were. Syria will answer for their misgivings sooner or later. If Lebanon is under their own power at that time, it'll be that much easier.

Cause and effect? Well and good but what about consequences and unforseen and out of control situations that arise from bone-headed moves?

All true...as I said, being proactive means you will make mistakes and maybe big ones at times. But ignoring the problem wont make it go away. We ignored the problem for decades. Now we have to actively go out and do what we can to fix it. BEFORE it comes to our doorstep again.

How did we combat terrorism by invading Iraq?

We didn't in a direct manner. I never said we did. I never connected the invasion directly with the war on terror...but it sure did help. How, you ask? Al Quaeda terrorists, among others, are falling all over themselves trying to get a piece of the Coalition GI's in Iraq, and that keeps them away from here. Not to mention the still-evolving Oil-for-Kickbacks scandal which I am sure has money tied up in terrorism. Thats not a reaql stretch considering there is already proof Saddam funneled money to terrorist groups.

 

[mlakrid]

I don't say this president orchestrated the events that led to 9/11, I say he did nothing to at least try to protect this country.

even though he was given precise intel as to when where how and who would be attacking this country

even though other presidents were given similar warning and managed to be pro active in protecting this country, this president thought it was better strategy to enjoy his vacation

ok I wasnt gonna say anything but this is your 3rd post that I have argued with you about bush, and now you have gone TOO FAR...

First to make sure everyone has a fair shake.. and makes up their own minds:
I served in the United States Navy from 1990-1999, I worked as a Cryptologic Tehcnician Maintenance... basically we repair and performed maintenance on cryptographic devices and all other telecommunications equipment for the Naval Security Group/NSA/CIA/CSS/ and OGA's (other government agencies *the agencies so black book they choose not to have names*)

I have worked at mount weather (look it up), NSA, several NSGA (Naval security Group Activities) world wide to include: Kevlavic, Iceland, Diego Garcia Indian ocean owned by brits leased by US military, Northwest (chesapeake,va) to name the biggest ones.

I STILL work in a secured arena with a very high level DoD clearance with access to sensitive compartmented information (again look it up)

What Im trying to say without saying how I know is you are dead wrong about everyone having the information regarding the attacks... why do you think the Director of the CIA resigned??? could it have been the scandal?

Did they provide intel.. Yes... was it all correct? NO.. were they warned about possible attacks using airplanes almost 2 years prior to the 9/11 attacks? YES

so before you go running your mouth about something you know NOTHING about.. shut yer mouth, go join the military, join any job that will afford you a TS/SCI clearance, and then get in and read anything and everything you can about the 9/11 information, you will clearly find nothing is clear cut, and all the lines blurred as to who knew what and when...

I F*&K$#G cant stand people like you who believe everything they hear or see on TV and I could care what channel its on.... not everything will ever be released to the public regarding what happened 9/11

Many thing you dont hear today directly affect what will happen in the future..

you dont hear much about the stinger missles that were provided to the pentagon and white house for anti-air protection... when ground to air radio contact has no effect for planes flying in their closed air space do you??

so, to reiterate.. unless you have seen or read the information first hadn, WHICH I HAVE... then shut yer damn mouth....

Incase any of you are wondering... I work for SOCOM and CENTCOM on MacDill AFB in Tampa, FL I got out of the Navy because there was simply too much $$ to be ignored as a military contractor... I will also be in Iraq in less than 14 days for one week, so I see what has happened in the middel east first hand about 3 times a year...

for all you still reading this (besides perris) im sorry you had to read my book, I really needed to get this out of my system.



F ME you PISS ME OFF Perris....

<----- Anyone who is tired of hearing his anti-bush, bush did everything wrong.. Please press the little STAR!

 

[ThePatriot]

[perris making a mistake]

the patriot, I hit edit instead of quote.

I REALLY opologize

could you re edit this to say what you wrote?

I'll save my response for the post

very sorry

 

[Johnny]

first of all, Bill Clinton was more pro active against terrorism then ANY president before him...this is NOT an opinion, it is a fact as testified to by Bush's own aids...bill Clinton invented the very industry of eliminating Bin Laden (who was helped to power deliberately by reagan and bush sr)

When this president took office, he deminished the fight against terrorism...this is the testimony of the cia, clark and rice.

however, the rightn winged wealthy owned, republican spin machine actually has people believing Bush is more anti terrorst then Clinton...this is how affective the media is in shaping minds



we didn't combat terrorism by invading Iraq, we made the situation worse...much MUCH worse, no question about it.

this is according to the words Bush's own aids, so there is no dodging the point.

Iraq, where there was no terrorism before we attacked without provocation is now "the hub of terrorism" ..."terrrorism central"...are the words that Bush's own aids used

in addition, the forces that were needed to acrually fight terrorism in Afghanistan were diverted and the effort where it blonged was almost forgotten....these terrorists made Iraq their hub thanks to the policies of this president.

now, none of this is hind sight...Bush's own head of anti terrorisms had informed him in no uncertain terms that these would be the results if he invaded Iraq as he proposed....the fact that Bush was given this council is corroborated by rhumsfeld and by rice when they were under sworn testimony by the way...the chief if anti terrorism was absolutely correct in his advice....not hindsight.

Bush invaded Iraq in spite of the fact that he knew from his own council that he'd be hurting the fight against terrorism not helping it...though he knew otherwise, he went on to lie to the American people and made believe the attack on Iraq was about terrorism.

in addition he then lied again, this president actually had the nerve to use the bombing on 9/11 by Afghanistan as an excuse to attack a country he knew without any doubt was not involved.

he knew this not only from cllark, but from rhumsfeld and rice as well...and he knew from his own CIA reports that the two were entirely unnasociated...all of this is not disputed under sworn testimony by the way.rhumsfeld actually under sworn tetimony has actually said "yes, Iraq wasn't involved, but there were no good targets in Afghanistan, there were good targets in Iraq".

great.

this is what he did to us

This is worse then it sounds, making believe the invasion had something to do with the bombing on september eleventh, and making believe the invasion of Iraq was somehow a fight against terrorsm...the fact is the attack if Iraq exacerbated our efforts and by no measure can be considered to have helped the fight against terrorism.

and now we can see how affective the wealthy owned right wing media spin machine is.

just about everyone (in America) thinks the invasion of Iraq was somehow affective against terrorism

if you are among those that think our invasion of Iraq has helped the fight against terrorism, you are an example of how affect the the right wing wealthy owned big bussiness media spin machine.

Thsoe people affected by the media blitze will also believe Bush invaded Iraq having been given council that he would be fighting terrorism by invading...he was given council that the reverse was true

Once again you got your facts from the National Enquirer. Or was it Globe this time .. You are 100% full of gump, this is a great example of how your head is filled with the liberal views of state ... Shamefull, just shamefull ..

@lee - My views are not based on how much you donate. My vies are based on whether you are a tree hugger or not. basic Point, liberals suck. plain and simple. They are the reason you have so much bull floating around, their mission is to disagree with anything that can make a positive affect on anything, they are the ones who feel we should kiss the grass of those who attack us and those who would hurt us. They are the ones that allow themselves to get slapped. They are nothing but a bunch of wimp ass girly men, who spitshine the boots of the real fighters ...

 

[Perris Calderon]

the facts are from the sworn testimony of Bush aids.

read rhumsfeld, read rice, read tennet, read clark

read the testiomony of bush himself

facts you choose to ignore, since it challenges your belief.

 

[Perris Calderon]

thepatriot, I hit edit istead of quote, could you redit your psot please...I'll hold my response till I see it

 

[Lee]

Johnny you really have a problem with people with different beliefs.

Afghanistan nor Iraq attacked you, au contrare U.S.A. & it's allies did that.

If you're such a big shot, go volunteer for the armed forces and show us what a big hard bastard you really are.