Bush approval sinks to 52%

[Firestarter 0]

It's like the intelligence field (to use an analogy). Clinton wanted the U.S intelligence services to not deal with people who are "unsavory". Only problem with THAT is --- and Marney can verify this better than I ever could --- is that the people with the useful info tend to BE unsavory sorts. "Good" people rarely have useful intelligence on terrorists.

                                        -=Mike

I'm not a field agent, but this is common sense. Following Torricelli's ludicrous hissyfit, Deutch's advisory and the Clinton administration's new rules were absolutely crippling to daily operations. Ambassador Paul Bremer, now in Iraq but then serving on a commission on terrorism, put it best:

 

"Efforts to gather information about terrorist plots and get it into the hands of analysts and decision makers in the federal government are stymied by bureaucratic and cultural obstacles. For example, who better to tell you about the plans of a terrorist organization than a member of that organization? Yet, a CIA officer in the field hoping to recruit such a source faces a daunting series of reviews by committees back at headquarters operating under guidelines that start from the presumption that recruiting a terrorist is a bad thing. This presumption can be overcome, but only after an extensive process designed to reduce the risk from such a recruitment to as near zero as possible. Even if a young case officer makes it through this gauntlet, will the potential terrorist recruit still be around? Will the attack have already occurred?"

[Firestarter 0]

Justice and necessity: a critic converted by the facts on the ground.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Ah, the NY Post. What a liberal rag.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

By my sample, 90 percent of Iraqis are glad we came and the majority don't want us to leave for some time to come.

 

That's nice, but we can't afford nor manage rebuilding the whole Middle East and exporting democracy to countries over a thousand years old.

 

If Bush wants to crush terrorism under a military boot rather than do this diplomatically, then do it Cold War style. Get together a bunch of nuclear warheads on missiles we can fire at anywhere in the world. Speak loudly with a nervous tick in your eye and shout, "DON'T ATTACK ME!"

 

Terrorism on US soil will be a thing of the past when everyone is afraid that the next hit will be the one that sets him off. This is horrible from the perspective of diplomacy and foreign relations, and voters will either love you or hate you, but it'll get the job done.

 

Shit, it worked for Reagan.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Ah, the NY Post. What a liberal rag.

*Yawn* If only all media outlets were as fair and balanced *must resist urge to shout FAU...* as, say, the BBC...

[Firestarter 0]

Terrorism on US soil will be a thing of the past when everyone is afraid that the next hit will be the one that sets him off. This is horrible from the perspective of diplomacy and foreign relations, and voters will either love you or hate you, but it'll get the job done.

Cretin. Haven't we been saying for some time now that the precise problem is that following a terrorist act you can't always identify the perpetrators? Haven't a few of your lot still not recognised that Osama bin Laden was behind 9/11? Haven't you realised by now that the lives of thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of our citizens are too high a price to pay if you're wrong? Haven't you understood that you can't deter brainwashed Islamic fanatics with their eyes set on "martyrdom," that we have to pre-empt their evil? Haven't you learned anything, anything at all?

[Vyce 0]

Ah, the NY Post. What a liberal rag.

OMG NY POST LOL 2003!!!!!

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Cretin.

Oh, that's nice. Right after we've been getting along more often than not.

 

Are you really Ann Coulter, because you have a habit of throwing nasty remarks like this at anyone who doesn't believe in some one true path when it comes to this administration and foreign policy.

 

Haven't we been saying for some time now that the precise problem is that following a terrorist act you can't always identify the perpetrators? Haven't a few of your lot still not recognised that Osama bin Laden was behind 9/11?

 

So at the same time you're trying to tell me that a terrorist act may not always be committed by who you think did it but criticising those who don't see a bin Laden connection. I don't know any of those people and firmly think bin Laden did it, but it's like you're black on one sentence and white on the next.

 

Haven't you realised by now that the lives of thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of our citizens are too high a price to pay if you're wrong?

 

I do want to save lives. In particular preventing the lives of troops (voluntary or not) from being needlessly thrown away.

 

So you're telling me that nuclear deterrence is not an option? It's always been the final option, it's not one I approve of under most circumstances but in times of world crisis it should always be considered.

 

And it's certainly, CERTAINLY a lot better than making itty bitty Vietnams everywhere you go, from Afghanistan to Iraq to Iran to Syria to North Korea and beyond. Who knows what happens then. Maybe everyone gets tired of this and by that time we've spread ourselves too thin. Then again, maybe you'll get international support with Iran since the UN discoveries if you strike while the iron is hot. I hope so.

 

I don't know, maybe I'm just pissed off about how you guys choose to run off into the desert, saying you're 100% positive this is the right thing to do and it's all planned out, and then like clockwork you come back and say it's going to cost more or take longer than expected. Or maybe I'm just shocked, SHOCKED that this latest one hasn't turned up anything of what we're searching for. I'll be honest when I say that if even some sketchy details came in regarding WMD, I'd be inclined to believe them as the window for any possibly evidence planting has long passed. And yes, I know you played your cards close to your vest last time we talked about this issue, which I take as a hint that I should wait and see, but this interim CIA report doesn't instill confidence.

 

Haven't you understood that you can't deter brainwashed Islamic fanatics with their eyes set on "martyrdom," that we have to pre-empt their evil? Haven't you learned anything, anything at all?

 

Go ahead and use that one event to justify all the war you want, but it was a few men with box cutters for weapons. With all the glorifying that's been going on, few have realized that smarter security protocols at airports are doing at least 50% of as good a job as preventing another 9/11 than bombing every square inch of Afghanistan to hell.

 

Which isn't to say I didn't support the efforts in Afghanistan, or that airport seucrity doesn't have holes (hardly, as the media keeps sneaking in stuff they shouldn't just to see if they can, and every few months a "We put weapons/explosive/etc through an airport checkpoint and nothing happened" report appears.)

 

I haven't been able to get any sleep in 24 hours so I'm going to try. I know I'm going to regret opening this can of worms by the time I get back to the computer in 8-10 hours, but oh well. So it goes.

[Firestarter 0]

Cretin.

Oh, that's nice. Right after we've been getting along more often than not.

You take online insults way too seriously.

 

Are you really Ann Coulter

No, she has better hair.

 

So at the same time you're trying to tell me that a terrorist act may not always be committed by who you think did it but criticising those who don't see a bin Laden connection. I don't know any of those people and firmly think bin Laden did it, but it's like you're black on one sentence and white on the next.

Not at all. I'm showing you that some people (like Cletus the Bloody, if you remember him) will always harbour doubts about the perpetrators of a terrorist act even if they confess. I'm also saying that in the future we may not get so lucky. A small ship could easily come in 50 miles off a major coastal city and launch a 7 by 3 foot rocket equipped with a chemical or biological warhead and kill tens if not hundreds of thousands. At that range we couldn't stop it and we couldn't detect it. Our radar simply isn't that accurate. After the fact we wouldn't be able to resolve one small craft out of the chaos that would inevitably ensue on sea as well as on land. If the enemy doesn't want us to know who he is, he can simply not tell us. And it could be very difficult to prove.

 

So you're telling me that nuclear deterrence is not an option?

No. Not against terrorists who look forward to death and rogue states which can conceal their involvement. No kind of deterrence is.

 

I know you played your cards close to your vest last time we talked about this issue [WMD in Iraq], which I take as a hint that I should wait and see, but this interim CIA report doesn't instill confidence.

I didn't really expect it to, but I wasn't hinting anything about an interim report either.

 

As for the rest of it, it's nice that you want to "save lives," but you have no idea of how to do it. The President's policy of pre-emptive war is the only sane way to fight these people. Tell them that if they come after us and kill our people we'll come after them and kill theirs, and they'll LEAP at the chance. They'll be dancing in the streets, the same way they were after thousands of our citizens died under ton after ton after burning ton of broken concrete. We can't give them an option they find attractive. They welcome the opportunity to die; all the more so if they can die while killing an "infidel." We have to go after them first. It doesn't matter one whit how much it costs.

Edited September 26, 2003 by Cancer Marney

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Ah, the NY Post. What a liberal rag.

OMG NY POST LOL 2003!!!!!

Actually, I think OMG NY POST WHICH IS OWNED BY THE PARENT COMPANY OF FAUX NEWS LOL 2003!!! is a more fitting title.

 

FAUX FANS that watch the FAUX REPORT will get the joke...

[Cartman 0]

I'm also saying that in the future we may not get so lucky. A small ship could easily come in 50 miles off a major coastal city and launch a 7 by 3 foot rocket equipped with a chemical or biological warhead and kill tens if not hundreds of thousands. At that range we couldn't stop it and we couldn't detect it. Our radar simply isn't that accurate. After the fact we wouldn't be able to resolve one small craft out of the chaos that would inevitably ensue on sea as well as on land.

Why hasn't this happened yet if those people REALLY want us dead so badly?

[Justice 0]

I'm also saying that in the future we may not get so lucky. A small ship could easily come in 50 miles off a major coastal city and launch a 7 by 3 foot rocket equipped with a chemical or biological warhead and kill tens if not hundreds of thousands. At that range we couldn't stop it and we couldn't detect it. Our radar simply isn't that accurate. After the fact we wouldn't be able to resolve one small craft out of the chaos that would inevitably ensue on sea as well as on land.

Why hasn't this happened yet if those people REALLY want us dead so badly?

Why didn't 9/11 happen 10 years earlier then? Because it takes time to plan things like that, and they probably want the best, safest chance they can get. If you waste one of those things, it's like wasting your biggest trump card.

[Cartman 0]

I'm also saying that in the future we may not get so lucky. A small ship could easily come in 50 miles off a major coastal city and launch a 7 by 3 foot rocket equipped with a chemical or biological warhead and kill tens if not hundreds of thousands. At that range we couldn't stop it and we couldn't detect it. Our radar simply isn't that accurate. After the fact we wouldn't be able to resolve one small craft out of the chaos that would inevitably ensue on sea as well as on land.

Why hasn't this happened yet if those people REALLY want us dead so badly?

Why didn't 9/11 happen 10 years earlier then? Because it takes time to plan things like that, and they probably want the best, safest chance they can get. If you waste one of those things, it's like wasting your biggest trump card.

I'm pretty sure "safety" is on ZERO concern to the many seperate terrorist groups out there looking to kill Americans.

[Justice 0]

I'm also saying that in the future we may not get so lucky. A small ship could easily come in 50 miles off a major coastal city and launch a 7 by 3 foot rocket equipped with a chemical or biological warhead and kill tens if not hundreds of thousands. At that range we couldn't stop it and we couldn't detect it. Our radar simply isn't that accurate. After the fact we wouldn't be able to resolve one small craft out of the chaos that would inevitably ensue on sea as well as on land.

Why hasn't this happened yet if those people REALLY want us dead so badly?

Why didn't 9/11 happen 10 years earlier then? Because it takes time to plan things like that, and they probably want the best, safest chance they can get. If you waste one of those things, it's like wasting your biggest trump card.

I'm pretty sure "safety" is on ZERO concern to the many seperate terrorist groups out there looking to kill Americans.

Gah, you are a moron. Safety as in "Safely delivering the payload". If they get caught with this by the Coast Guard or something, then they lose one of their biggest weapons ever. You plan and replan things like this because they have the possibility of being as damaging as 9-11. But hey, nice try at ignoring what I really meant.

[Guest MikeSC]

Gah, you are a moron. Safety as in "Safely delivering the payload". If they get caught with this by the Coast Guard or something, then they lose one of their biggest weapons ever. You plan and replan things like this because they have the possibility of being as damaging as 9-11. But hey, nice try at ignoring what I really meant.

Of course, if he watched or read the news, he'd have noticed the spate of terrorist rings that we've broken up since 2001.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

The thought of a terrorist "threat" is stupid, IMO. Terrorist attacks happen, more will happen, we all know it, but to suggest that everyday we live our lives "threatened" is silly.

[Vyce 0]

QUOTE 

So you're telling me that nuclear deterrence is not an option?

 

No. Not against terrorists who look forward to death and rogue states which can conceal their involvement. No kind of deterrence is.

 

Marney is absolutely right.

 

A Cold War MAY work against a NATION - such as Iran or North Korea - but against separate terrorist groups / cells, it will make no difference. These are people bred to die for their "cause" anyway, do you honestly think the possibility of nuclear death raining down upon their heads is going to deter them?

 

but to suggest that everyday we live our lives "threatened" is silly.

 

How so?

 

I have no distinct figures, of course, but it's likely that the various law enforcement / intelligence agencies of the US stop hundreds (if not thousands) of different terrorist plots or activities aimed against the US every year. I would personally define that as living under the constant "threat" of terrorism, even if 99% of us are unlikely to be directly affected by it.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Bah. The sad thing is that exact arguement of Vyce's is my arguement against theocracies.

 

This has been a really bad week for me in this forum. Oh well, they happen.

 

Although I will take issue with the latter half. It was years between acts of terrorism.

[Cartman 0]

Gah, you are a moron. Safety as in "Safely delivering the payload". If they get caught with this by the Coast Guard or something, then they lose one of their biggest weapons ever. You plan and replan things like this because they have the possibility of being as damaging as 9-11. But hey, nice try at ignoring what I really meant.

Of course, if he watched or read the news, he'd have noticed the spate of terrorist rings that we've broken up since 2001.

-=Mike

Ahh yes, so assuming that I don't read papers everyday or watch the news makes you feel superior to me. Good for you then.

 

I am very well aware of the numerous people suspected of being terrorists that have been captured and/or killed. That doesn't mean anything when it comes to terrorism. There is honestly NO way to completely eliminate people who hate certain groups of other people or Nations altogether. As long as the human race exists there will be HATE and people who use it as fuel for intentions.

 

I'm just one of those who believe in my own mind, that if we had not gotten involved in the whole Iraq/Saudi Arabia thing...and if we weren't always kissing israel's ass...That we would not have to worry about most of the "Threats" against this country specifically. They hate us for our ways, and for our greed. They hate us because we think we are so far superior, which we are, to them and we get involved in their problems when we don't belong there.

[Vyce 0]

Bah. The sad thing is that exact arguement of Vyce's is my arguement against theocracies.

 

This has been a really bad week for me in this forum. Oh well, they happen.

Don't hurt my feelings. Is it really so bad to agree with my thought process on something?

Edited September 27, 2003 by Vyce

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

As for the rest of it, it's nice that you want to "save lives," but you have no idea of how to do it. The President's policy of pre-emptive war is the only sane way to fight these people. Tell them that if they come after us and kill our people we'll come after them and kill theirs, and they'll LEAP at the chance. They'll be dancing in the streets, the same way they were after thousands of our citizens died under ton after ton after burning ton of broken concrete. We can't give them an option they find attractive. They welcome the opportunity to die; all the more so if they can die while killing an "infidel." We have to go after them first. It doesn't matter one whit how much it costs.

I disagree.

 

Starting a war with another nation can justify terrorist attacks in the eyes of some. You're leaving a generation of children who feel as though they have a legitimate grudge with the USA.

 

Say, hypothetically, that Germany was attacked pre-emptively in 1939. German people of the next generation would be more inclined to dislike American/British people if they thougt that they were unfairly targeted, which would lead to long-term European unstability. As it is, it's a lot harder for Germans to say they were unfairly treated during the war.

 

Also, I disagree with you saying "those people". Terrorists can come from every nation, America included. By your logic, Britain should go to war with Ireland.

[Justice 0]

Ahh yes, so assuming that I don't read papers everyday or watch the news makes you feel superior to me. Good for you then.

I don't need to say I read the papers or watch the news to feel superior to you. That generally comes from reading your posts.

 

I am very well aware of the numerous people suspected of being terrorists that have been captured and/or killed.

 

Well you can't really deny facts, so good for you.

 

That doesn't mean anything when it comes to terrorism. There is honestly NO way to completely eliminate people who hate certain groups of other people or Nations altogether. As long as the human race exists there will be HATE and people who use it as fuel for intentions.

 

... And? We can't eliminate terrorism, that's blantantly obvious. But to say we can't hinder or break them down to which their effectiveness is practically null and void is idiotic. Look at Osama Bin Laden's network in the Middle East, which has been shattered and scattered, rendering him effectively useless.

 

You are thinking in terms of "Let's eliminate all the terrorists in the world", which is impossible. But we can break up terrorist rings, smash their lines of communcation and other such things to stop them from being effective at all. You can say we can't kill it all day long, but we can cut down on their effectiveness to make it practically non-existant in the end.

 

I'm just one of those who believe in my own mind, that if we had not gotten involved in the whole Iraq/Saudi Arabia thing...and if we weren't always kissing israel's ass...That we would not have to worry about most of the "Threats" against this country specifically. They hate us for our ways, and for our greed. They hate us because we think we are so far superior, which we are, to them and we get involved in their problems when we don't belong there.

 

...Not likely. We started funding Israel when all the nations around it said "You don't have the right to exist, so we will destroy you". We've funded them for so long because the Arabs kept invading and they were one of our allies, dork. Would you have said "Hey, we shouldn't give help to Korea! They're all the way over there, and it'll make people hurt us in the end!" If we didn't give this country support so as to selfishly avoid having any "threats" against us, they would have been destroyed wholesale. So hey, if you don't mind a whole democratic nation being taken down by a mass of theocracy, more power to you. But I tend to say "Uh, no" to people who say someone else doesn't deserve to exist.

 

Kissing Israel's ass? Right now we actually can restrain Israel by keeping that money flow going. It's a proverbial leash to keep Sharon from just going off on the Palestinians and anhillating them all. If they don't do what we want, we threaten to lessen the money flow. Of course, you probably didn't figure this out yet.

 

Chave:

 

Starting a war with another nation can justify terrorist attacks in the eyes of some. You're leaving a generation of children who feel as though they have a legitimate grudge with the USA.

 

Say, hypothetically, that Germany was attacked pre-emptively in 1939. German people of the next generation would be more inclined to dislike American/British people if they thougt that they were unfairly targeted, which would lead to long-term European unstability. As it is, it's a lot harder for Germans to say they were unfairly treated during the war.

 

Then again, leaving a grudge doesn't outweigh 52 million lives, ya know. Whether or not there would be some bitterness left doesn't mean a thing considering the loss of life involved. When it comes down to that, I could care less about their feelings.

 

Of course, if we go anywhere there will be people who hold a grudge against us. It's unavoidable because of the hate of Americans around the world. The only way we can hope to stop this hate is to give them more liberty than they had before, a chance for a better life than before so that they don't need to look at us like "The ones who invaded", but rather "The ones who liberated". We have to concentrate on the majority, not the small minority that would likely hate us no matter what.

[Cartman 0]

No need for name calling friend.

 

I do have a good question though.

 

Have you ever ONCE in your life formed an opinion by yourself? Or do you usually jump on bandwagons for your beliefs?

 

Do you believe everything you see on TV or read in Newspapers? If you do I feel sorry for you.

[Justice 0]

No need for name calling friend.

Okay then.

 

I do have a good question though.

 

Okay...

 

Have you ever ONCE in your life formed an opinion by yourself? Or do you usually jump on bandwagons for your beliefs?

 

Wow, that was a letdown. And a bit out of nowhere, considering the conversation is about terrorism. Oh well. Yes, I form my own beliefs. I don't jump on bandwagons. Do have any real proof that I do or are you just gonna make another vague statement about it like you did with your 9-11 post in the French Cards thread?

 

Do you believe everything you see on TV or read in Newspapers? If you do I feel sorry for you.

 

Wow, are you a Rage Against the Machine Album or something? I read the papers and run around on the internet. If the new source looks credible, is confirmed by another news service, I'll probably believe it. I don't blindly go around saying "OMGOD, FAUX NEWS SAYS BUSH IS THE AXESOMENESS!@#*$()!!@()#*)!(@*#!@" Unless presented with other facts (And hey, get this: Vague conspiracy theories about our government being evil and greedy and only doing things to hurt us aren't facts, man) or just amazingly out there, I might put a bit of faith into saying it's close to the truth.

 

Oh, and hey, don't feel sorry for me. I'm not the one suggesting that the President planned out 9--11 to raise his approval ratings. Just make sure they FBI isn't planting a skull radio in your head at night to turn you into a Republican.

 

*Waits to see if Tyler gets the reference*

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

DUDE.

[Guest Fire and Knives]

Fuck you both. That was so not my fault.

 

K.

[Guest MikeSC]

Ahh yes, so assuming that I don't read papers everyday or watch the news makes you feel superior to me. Good for you then.

 

I am very well aware of the numerous people suspected of being terrorists that have been captured and/or killed. That doesn't mean anything when it comes to terrorism. There is honestly NO way to completely eliminate people who hate certain groups of other people or Nations altogether. As long as the human race exists there will be HATE and people who use it as fuel for intentions.

 

I'm just one of those who believe in my own mind, that if we had not gotten involved in the whole Iraq/Saudi Arabia thing...and if we weren't always kissing israel's ass...That we would not have to worry about most of the "Threats" against this country specifically. They hate us for our ways, and for our greed. They hate us because we think we are so far superior, which we are, to them and we get involved in their problems when we don't belong there.

Well, as Powerplay stated, the only thing that is required to feel superior to you is reading your posts. My keeping up with events is only ANOTHER mark in my favor and against you, Corky.

 

Hmm, we can never eradicate terrorism because people always hate? Gee, then I guess all of the civil rights movements in the past were just MASSIVE wastes of time. The weakest POSSIBLE argument against attacking terrorism --- and shockingly enough, it is presented by you. Kudos to you in always sinking to lows never before considered.

 

So, if we had simply stayed out of the Middle East and allowed Israel to get overrun, we'd have fewer problems now?

 

Are you a descendant of P.M Chamberlain?

 

They hate us because we ARE superior to their shitty cultures in every conceivable way. They were miles ahead of the world for centuries --- and pissed it all away. They can either face the hard facts and blame themselves for their RAMPANT short-comings...or they could go the Hitler route.

 

Shocking which path they took, huh?

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

No need for name calling friend.

 

I do have a good question though.

 

Have you ever ONCE in your life formed an opinion by yourself? Or do you usually jump on bandwagons for your beliefs?

 

Do you believe everything you see on TV or read in Newspapers? If you do I feel sorry for you.

The BETTER question is: Have YOU ever used logic, intellect, ration, or historical precedent to develop your theories, or do you always listen to the little voices in your head?

-=Mike

[Guest JMA]

They hate us because we ARE superior to their shitty cultures in every conceivable way. They were miles ahead of the world for centuries --- and pissed it all away. They can either face the hard facts and blame themselves for their RAMPANT short-comings...or they could go the Hitler route.

I have to agree with Mike here (which doesn't happen very often). America is FAR superior to Arab countries. We don't have theocracies here and we punish those who commit acts of hate and violence. Hell, ANY democratic country is superior to most Arab ones. Which is not to say I have some beef with Arab people. On the contrary, I want to save their youth from becomming twisted fundamentalists. And I believe they CAN be saved.

[Cartman 0]

I'm stupid.

 

I know absolutely nothing about the situations, therefore I have no right to form my own opinions about it.

 

Sorry for interrupting your conversation with my inane banter.