 |
| |
|
|
Sava
|
 |
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SpencerH
During the Clinton years:
October 12, 2000: 17 American sailors are killed and 39 other wounded when a suicide bomber attacks USS Cole in Yemen's Aden harbour.
August 7, 1998: Twin bombings at the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, kill 224 people and wound thousands of others.
June 1996: 19 Americans killed and 500 people injured followng a bomb blast at the U.S. barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.
November 13, 1995: A bomb at U.S. military headquarters in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, kills five U.S. service personnel.
April 19, 1995: A truck bomb at the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, kills 168 and wounds more than 500 others.
February 26, 1993: Terrorist bombers strike the World Trade Center, killing six people and injuring more than 1,000 others.
Any idea what our responses were to all that? |
In the Bush presidency:
September 11, 2001: nearly 3,000 people die in attacks on the WTC, Pentagon, and a foiled hijacking that crashed in Pennsylvania.
His response? Attack a country where an Islamic government is harboring the spiritual leader (probably not even involved in planning or direct terrorist operations). Topple the regime, and allow the leader (OBL) to escape into a neighboring country. Ignore the problem.
Another response? Attack a country where a tinpot dictator, with no conventional military capabilities, who is contained via sanctions and harshly enforced no-fly zones... and remove a guy who has no proven direct connections to terrorism (in addition to being ideological enemies of said terrorists)...
Kind of makes Bush look like a dope when you know the truth, eh?
Bush is a danger to the national security of this nation. He's making more enemies than he's killing, and our domestic security is being starved of needed resources required to ensure our safety.
Do you remember the Republican opposition to making airline security the job of teh FEDERAL GOVERNMENT? Oh... it's okay to have government enforce the law, fight fires, and be resonders to emergencies... but when it comes to the safety of our skies... well... to possibly save a few bucks, we should privatize airline security.
HELLO??? MCFLY?????
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SpencerH
During the Clinton years:
October 12, 2000: 17 American sailors are killed and 39 other wounded when a suicide bomber attacks USS Cole in Yemen's Aden harbour. |
Moved terrorism to #1 priority and began making plans to wage a war on terrorism Earlier in the year they foiled the Millenium Bombing plot.
quote:
August 7, 1998: Twin bombings at the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, kill 224 people and wound thousands of others. |
Dropping missiles on OBLs camps in Afganistant and also a pharmaseutical plant in Sudan.
quote:
June 1996: 19 Americans killed and 500 people injured followng a bomb blast at the U.S. barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.
November 13, 1995: A bomb at U.S. military headquarters in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, kills five U.S. service personnel. |
Dunno, but it was around this time that they foiled a plot by Ramsey Yusef, one of the masterminds of the '93 WTC plot and captured him.
quote:
April 19, 1995: A truck bomb at the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, kills 168 and wounds more than 500 others. |
The perpetrators were caught, one executed, and the Omnibus Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act was written and passed.
quote:
February 26, 1993: Terrorist bombers strike the World Trade Center, killing six people and injuring more than 1,000 others. |
They caught the perps and put them in prison.
Then Bush was elected, and he immediately ignored all this.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
debeest
|
|
SH, you keep asking for answers to questions that people have already answered. Here's one for you:
What would you recommend that a President do to prevent attacks on the US?
Please bear in mind that (1) it's terribly hard to know who's actually likely to commit terrorist acts, and (2) modern misusage of the word "terrorism" almost excludes governmental actions thus almost rules out international war as a direct and effective response to terrorists acts or threats.
Note that OBL is still on the loose, the Taliban is returning to substantial power in Afghanistan, and Iraq is now far more likely to produce anti-US terrorists than it ever was before. Note also that Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and other hotbeds of anti-US fervor are still on our "friends" list. North Korea continues its acknowledged nuclear weapons program and ICBM program,
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SpencerH
|
 |
Co-Ruler of my patch of land south of Birmingham Alabama
Feb 2002
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by debeest
SH, you keep asking for answers to questions that people have already answered. |
I dont see that they have. Look back through the thread, the closest answer is that he would defend the US if it was directly attacked by a foreign power, and that does not answer my question.
quote:
Here's one for you:
What would you recommend that a President do to prevent attacks on the US? |
Its a topic for another thread, and I'm not willing to write a book here. I will say that I would recommend using military force against any target that is identified as a direct threat without regard for international opinion.
As an example, I would point to the Israeli destruction of the Baghdad reactor. They perceived it to be a threat to their security and they eliminated it. International opinion be damned. We did the same to the Taliban and Iraq.
quote:
Please bear in mind that (1) it's terribly hard to know who's actually likely to commit terrorist acts, and (2) modern misusage of the word "terrorism" almost excludes governmental actions thus almost rules out international war as a direct and effective response to terrorists acts or threats. |
Thats exactly the type of grey-zone thinking that I'm questioning with respect to Kerry. We attacked Afghanistan, in an act of war. There's no point in pretending it was anything else. There are a number of obvious countries that support terrorists and we should be prepared to deal with them militarily as well. That doesnt mean we need to invade them all, but we have to be prepared to do so if necessary. Since I believe that willingness to act in such a fashion is an important characteristic for a president, I wonder what Kerry's position would be. More importantly for this thread, I wonder how other people preceive Kerrys position.
quote:
Note that OBL is still on the loose, the Taliban is returning to substantial power in Afghanistan, and |
The Taliban will not return to any power so long as GWB is president. Clearly he is willing to commit troops if necessary.
quote:
Iraq is now far more likely to produce anti-US terrorists than it ever was before. |
All actions and inactions have consequences, we can discuss them until the end of time.
quote:
Note also that Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and other hotbeds of anti-US fervor are still on our "friends" list. |
So?
quote:
North Korea continues its acknowledged nuclear weapons program and ICBM program, |
Yet it is now willing to talk again.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
debeest
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SpencerH
Look back through the thread, the closest answer is that he would defend the US if it was directly attacked by a foreign power, and that does not answer my question. |
Well, it was half of your question, and GePap and I both answered that of course he would strike back against any identifiable attacker.
quote:
Its a topic for another thread, and I'm not willing to write a book here. |
Well, then why were you raising the initial question, if you don't have any ideas yourself about how to prevent attacks against the US? If you think Kerry will make poor choices, you must be able to identify choices better than you think he'll make.
quote:
As an example, I would point to the Israeli destruction of the Baghdad reactor. They perceived it to be a threat to their security and they eliminated it. International opinion be damned. We did the same to the Taliban and Iraq. |
Neither the Taliban nor Iraq threatened us. OBL is still in operation. Far more people in Afghanistan and Iraq now hates us then before. Both countries are anarchic and even more desperate than they were. How has our security been improved? These wars, as predicted, were not effective in reducing the risk of attack against Americans, so what was the point?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-02-2004 01:22
Clinton was nation-building just as Bush jr (now) is doing but Bush Senior wasnt. The difference is that Clinton cut and ran once the casualties started to mount but Bush hasnt (and may pay a political price for it).
do you come up with this crap by yourself? or are you believing someone who is feeding you BS? 
|