So when's the final whistle

[Seshmeister]

It pisses me off to see the US and to a lesser extent the UK to bang on about 'The war on terror'

"Hey bud we're at war that's why we lock people up at Guantanamo"

"We need some martial law legislation because we're at war now"

The war on terror is a sham. There was a brief little action in Iraq and that was it. It's not a war.

You guys need to be really careful about what freedoms you agree to give up because let me tell you there will never be a ceasefire.

At what point is a US president going to turn around and say 'That's the war on terror won, we can go back to normal now.'

Never...

Cheers!

:gulp:

[ELVIS]

All we need is a good terrorist attack to keep it going.. right FORD ??

[Seshmeister]

It'ss been nearly 3 years now.

This thing seems to be burning along quite nicely without one...

[ELVIS]

~Ha!~

:elvis:

[FORD]

Originally posted by ELVIS
All we need is a good terrorist attack to keep it going.. right FORD ??

The BCE has pretty much guaranteed it will happen.

And the "war on terror" is every bit as effective as the "war on drugs". For the exact same reason.

Drug smuggling and terrorism are both sideline industries of the Bush Criminal Empire.

[ELVIS]

Isn't terrorism their main industry ??

[Big Train]

Fear and Consumption, I see. I thought that was Michael Moores bag. Scare them, lie to them, make them just scared enought to purchase my ticket and get slightly angry enough to rant.

The thing I don't get with all of these things, especially in that movie is that he makes Bush out to be Satan himself, while simultaneously being a complete buffoon, along with his crew. So I ask you, which is it? Omnipotent, all media and nation controlling stringpuller, or complete simpleton doofus who got lucky and is making the best of it.

Choose your anwser carefully: I will hold you to it from this point forward.

[ELVIS]

That's where FORD's stories get crossed...

How could an "idiot son of an asshole" pull off the biggest caper the world has ever known ??

[FORD]

Originally posted by ELVIS
That's where FORD's stories get crossed...

How could an "idiot son of an asshole" pull off the biggest caper the world has ever known ??

The idiot son is just a puppet. The asshole is the one who built most of the machine, then he turned it over to Cheney.

[ELVIS]

So you think Bush Sr. is that much of an evil mastermind ??

[FORD]

Originally posted by ELVIS
So you think Bush Sr. is that much of an evil mastermind ??

Yes I do.

[ELVIS]

LMAO!

:D

[Big Train]

OK, so why not focus ALL of your effort on Bush Sr? He is obviously the Mr. Burns in this scenario, as laid about by you. You know, cut the head off. Thats too neat and easy though right? So the evil, neboulous beast must grow and be more vague so that can remain ever vigilant against shadow forces.....ohhhhhhhh, I like it, very dungeons and Dragons...

[Big Train]

Ford, for our education, give me a BRIEF rundown of who you think are the most omnipotent and evil. Let's cut out the BCE bullshit and be exact and specific. I want to learn here, want to get inside your head (although I am wearing protective gear). Tell me exactly and specficially who is running the game and why. Maybe I will help you run them down.

[Seshmeister]

To be fair to FORD Bush snr was head of the CIA during a time when many think it acted if not evilly then in a very 'end justifies the means' way and undermined democracy and freedom where it wasn't in the US's(their) interest.

This isn't some white haired fluffy rabbit we're tallking about. Plus he vomits on people which is hardly nice.

Cheers!

:gulp:

[John Ashcroft]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
It pisses me off to see the US and to a lesser extent the UK to bang on about 'The war on terror'

"Hey bud we're at war that's why we lock people up at Guantanamo"

"We need some martial law legislation because we're at war now"

The war on terror is a sham. There was a brief little action in Iraq and that was it. It's not a war.

You guys need to be really careful about what freedoms you agree to give up because let me tell you there will never be a ceasefire.

At what point is a US president going to turn around and say 'That's the war on terror won, we can go back to normal now.'

Never...

Cheers!

:gulp:

You're getting your view of the "Average American" from the BBC again I see... In fact, I've never even heard anyone request martial law here. So your categorization of our citizens is flawed at best.

However, I agree 100% with your warning about subverting freedom in the name of security. It's been necessary from time to time in all free societies, but only for temporary periods. I personally don't believe Americans have given up any freedom in the name of our security (although I'm sure Padilla would differ). There's always going to be the rare case, but the wonderful thing about our society is that it's open. The public is aware of what's going on, and can make an educated assessment of just what governmental behavior is acceptable during war time.

And about the duration of the war? Until it's finished. I know that's hard for a somewhat impatient society to understand, but it's the only way to ensure no more airplanes become missles at the hands of a fanatic (recieving state assistance naturally), killing 3000 of our countrymen. Although I am pleased that you can at least acknowledge that the war on terrorism has been thusfar successful. You may be coming around after all...

[Dr. Love]

Hey bud we're at war and that's why we lock up threads like these.


Closed.

[Dr. Love]

...just kidding. ;)

[John Ashcroft]

Ignore 9-11 at your peril

WASHINGTON — Thank God for Hans Blix. Whenever we become lax and forgetful about how the world changed on 9-11, former chief inspector Blix is there to make the case for mindless complacency.
In a recent speech in Vienna he warned that one should be wary of the claim that "the risk that reckless groups and governments might acquire weapons of mass destruction is the greatest problem facing our world today." Why? Because "to hundreds of millions of people around the world, the big existential issue is hunger, and also that wherever you live on this planet, the risk of global warming and other environmental threats are existential."

Here we are at the crux of a debate over America's aggressive interventionism of the last few years. Is Islamic radicalism in potential alliance with WMD-bearing terrorist states a threat to the very existence (hence: "existential") of America and of civilization itself?

On Sept. 12, 2001, and for many months afterward, that proposition was so self-evident that it commanded near unanimous support. With time — three years in which, contrary to every expectation and prediction, the second shoe never dropped — that consensus has evaporated.

The new idea, expressed by Blix representing the decadent European left, and recently amplified by Michael Moore representing the paranoid American left, is that this existential threat is vastly overblown. Indeed, deliberately overblown by a corrupt/clueless (take your pick) President Bush to justify American aggression for reasons of ... and here is where the left gets a little fuzzy, not quite being able to decide whether American aggression is intended simply to enrich multinational corporations (or maybe just Halliburton alone) with fat war contracts, distract from alleged failure in Afghanistan, satisfy some primal masculine urge, or boost poll ratings.

We have come a long way in three years. The idea that 9-11 was a historical turning point, a wake-up call to a war declared by our enemies but ignored by us, has begun to fade. The week after 9-11, the late-night comedy shows went dark — and upon returning to the air they were almost apologetic about telling jokes, any jokes, ever again. Today, Moore produces a full-length film parody of 9-11 and its aftermath that is not just highly celebrated but commands a huge popular audience.

To be sure, Moore's version is not quite as crazed as the French bestseller claiming that the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center were remotely controlled by the CIA at the behest of the president. Moore merely implies some sinister plot, citing connections between the Bush and bin Laden families.

Unlike the French book or the Moore movie, Blix is not deranged. He is merely in denial, discounting the uniqueness of the WMD-terrorism issue by comparing it to global warming and hunger. Yes, hunger is an existential issue to the people suffering it. As are car accidents, heart disease and earthquakes. But they hardly threaten to destroy civilization. Hunger is a scourge that has always been with us and that has not been a threat to humanity's existence for at least 1,000 years. Global warming might one day be, but not for decades, or even centuries, and with a gradualness that will leave years for countermeasures.

There is no gradualness and there are no countermeasures to a dozen nuclear warheads detonating simultaneously in American cities. Think of what just two envelopes of anthrax did to paralyze the capital of the world's greatest superpower. A serious, coordinated attack on the United States using WMDs could so shatter the United States as a functioning advanced industrialized society that it would take generations to rebuild.

What is so dismaying is that such an obvious truth needs repeating. The passage of time, the propaganda of the anti-American left and the setbacks in Iraq have changed nothing of that truth. This is the first time in history the knowledge of how to make society-destroying weapons has been democratized. Today, small radical groups allied with small radical states can do the kind of damage to the world that in the past only a great, strategically located industrialized power like Germany or Japan could do.

It is a new world and exceedingly dangerous. Everything is at stake. We are deeply engaged in a breastbeating exercise for not having connected the dots before 9-11. Yet, here we are three years after 9-11, the dots already connected themselves, and we are under a powerful urge to ignore them completely.

Link: here (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2001977175_krauthammer12.html)

[Seshmeister]

Haha!

I can't believe people are having a go at Blix when he has been proved entirely right. He was doing a great job until Bush got worried he wasn't going to get a chance to get at Saddam.

Cheers!

:gulp:

[John Ashcroft]

Yep, great job. You have heard of the sattelite photos showing Iraqis moving truckloads of equipment out just days (or sometimes hours) before the U.N. "dream team" under Blix were due to inspect. I'm quite sure the news even made it to the BBC... I wonder if Blix himself wasn't the one tipping them off.

Regardless, the point is not Blix, so don't try to divert attention. The point, while using Blix's latest idiocy for support, is that terrorism can't be appeased away (or at least it's extremely dangerous to try and do so).

[FORD]

Charles Krauthammer complaining about "propaganda" is like Sammy Hagar complaining about shitty lyrics.

[knuckleboner]

the war on terror can NEVER be won. anyone who says differently is an idiot or a spin doctor.

you can diminish the threat, but you can't ever completely remove it.

as we do better or worse, our response will change. we may, in the future, reach a time where we don't need soldiers actively involved.

but i challenge anyone to envision a scenario where we can conclusively say, "there. no more terrorist threats, ever. we've won."

to be honest, i don't think the bush administration is doing itself any favors in its terminology. they keep talking about winning the war on terror. yet, in 10 years, when we still have the threat, even if it's greatly diminished, people will start to question it.

[John Ashcroft]

Originally posted by FORD
Charles Krauthammer complaining about "propaganda" is like Sammy Hagar complaining about shitty lyrics.

Heh heh heh... That was a pretty good one, I'll give you that. :D

And KB, I guess I'll just leave it to the lawyer to play with semantics...(SP?) ;)

The threat of terrorism will never be completely gone. But I believe the public realizes this, and are not mincing words with the Pres here. "Winning" the War on Terror essentially means to the average American that the U.S. is doing everything in it's power to minimize the threat. Part of "winning" will be to clean up places like Libya, Syria, Iran, North Korea, and yes even Saudi Arabia. I believe the public realizes the enormity of the task at hand, and are therefore willing to handle the verbage used to describe our plight. But face it, the term "winning" inspires optimism. It's much stronger than saying "hey, we're doing our best!".

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft

And KB, I guess I'll just leave it to the lawyer to play with semantics...(SP?) ;)

The threat of terrorism will never be completely gone. But I believe the public realizes this, and are not mincing words with the Pres here. "Winning" the War on Terror essentially means to the average American that the U.S. is doing everything in it's power to minimize the threat. Part of "winning" will be to clean up places like Libya, Syria, Iran, North Korea, and yes even Saudi Arabia. I believe the public realizes the enormity of the task at hand, and are therefore willing to handle the verbage used to describe our plight. But face it, the term "winning" inspires optimism. It's much stronger than saying "hey, we're doing our best!".

oh, that i accept completely.

but i just kinda get the impression that there are people out there that expect the situation to eventually go back to pre 9/11 times.

sort of why the public opinion polls have been stagnating and even declining a little on the perception of dealing with the on-going nature of the so-called "quagmires." i mean, we're not talking a lot of time. and in an indefinite timeframe, i think we've made some strides in a short period (even if i'm not so sure about iraq ;)).

but overall, i just get the impression that we're talking about winning on a more definite timeframe, rather than an ongoing conflict.

(of course, then again, i COULD be playing semantics. they do completely ingrain it during, how to seem more smart by using words like, 'aforementioned' 101...)

[John Ashcroft]

:D

Good one.

Honestly, I truly haven't met anyone who seriously thinks terrorism will be done away with completely. The focus of all discussion on the matter is simply what means the world should employ to minimize the threat.