YASNY Posted September 27, 2003 Share Posted September 27, 2003 To oppose the policies of a government does not mean you are against the country or the people that the government supposedly represents. Such opposition should be called what it really is: democracy, or democratic dissent, or having a critical perspective about what your leaders are doing. Either we have the right to democratic dissent and criticism of these policies or we all lie down and let the leader, the Fuhrer, do what is best, while we follow uncritically and obey whatever he commands. That's just what the Germans did with Hitler and look where it got them. I'll give you this one. I do agree with you on the right of democratic dissent. That does tend to keep our leaders a bit closer to the straight and narrow than would otherwise be the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted September 27, 2003 Share Posted September 27, 2003 Nuke, in my eyes Osama has already beat us. You know why? Look at how easily the majority of Americans have been scared. Duct tape and plastic sheeting, anyone? Color coded alert systems? The PATRIOT Act...nothing beats giving the ability to have search and seizure power without a warrant to cops for no reason. Americans allowing the preventative arrest of random people with no trial and allowing them to be held without charges something a NY judge recently described as "odious to democracy". Look how fast Americans embrace fascism by putting a guy with a turban on TV. And how difficult is it to find a 6 ft. tall man hauling a dialysis machine? Oh wait Bush said catching Osama "is not a priority." That's why it's been nearly 800 days and we haven't gotten him. George had some oil to steal for Halliburton [of which a Congressional investigation just found Cheney still has business interests in Halliburton] 9-11 was actually PREVENTABLE, Nuke. It's called if Cheney or Bush read the report on their desk or listened to the British intelligence in August that said Al Qaeda was planning a 9-11 type attack, then it's quite possible that it would have NEVER HAPPENED. But leave it to our "fearless leader" to read to children after being notified that we were under attack. On the day of 9/11, our President failed in his duties to even try to stop it. http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/timelin...n/dayof911.html NUKE, with Bush in office, THE JETS SAT IDLY BY WHILE PLANES FLEW INTO THE BUILDINGS BECAUSE BUSH THOUGHT IT MORE IMPORTANT TO READ TO CHILDREN. And maybe they are taught to hate America because we have troops stationed over in Saudi Arabia protecting the highly unpopular House of Saud? Just sayin'. Or how about the unconditional support for Israel even after they ran over a human rights worker with a bulldozer and they shot one in the head when he went to get two children that were playing near a hill? So, all they understand is force...that's why there has been a spiked INCREASE in Al Qaeda membership and even more groups are getting angry at us. That's making us so much safer from terrorism. Oh yes, blame it solely on Bill Clinton. Here's a newsflash: IT WAS BOTH CHIMPY AND CLINTON'S FAULT. But way to play partisan like the good little Karl Rove indoctrinated boy you are. What I would have done different? I would have read the Terrorism 2000 report. I would have stopped reading to kids and got off my ass to defend the country by sending out planes. I'd move the troops out of Saudi Arabia and get us to kick our oil habit by creating a better, cleaner, more efficient energy source or even make it so our cars get a lot more mileage so we are less dependent on foreign oil. And if the Taliban was as evil as they were, I wouldn't give them over $100 million in aid before 9-11. To oppose the policies of a government does not mean you are against the country or the people that the government supposedly represents. Such opposition should be called what it really is: democracy, or democratic dissent, or having a critical perspective about what your leaders are doing. Either we have the right to democratic dissent and criticism of these policies or we all lie down and let the leader, the Fuhrer, do what is best, while we follow uncritically and obey whatever he commands. That's just what the Germans did with Hitler and look where it got them. --Michael Parenti I'm gonna have fun with this one. Subverted democratically elected governments in S. America? I hear you cry about what the CIA did back in the 70's and 80's but I never hear you utter 1 word of complaint about what the Soviets did to the Hungarians, or the Czechs or the Poles, or the Latvians, or the Estonians or the Yugoslavs or the East Germans etc...etc...etc. They didn't really have any government beyond the walls of the Kremlin & anyone who dared deviate from the communist party line had tanks sent down main street to remind them who was in charge. They suffocated nearly a whole continent for 50 years and would have done so with the rest of us had it not been for the U.S. and its big, bad awful military. I just love your pinpoint selection of a few historical events to tell us how awful America is. Osama has beat us? Nope. Osama has not beaten anything except himself. He did manage to pull off the greatest terrorist attack in history, but all it served to do was piss us off. Now he is underground, the government that supported him doesn't exist anymore and he cannot threaten us in any greater capacity than making blustering tapes talking about death to America that most of us make jokes about now. Since you obviously know nothing about what happened on 9-11 allow me to refresh your memory and educate you about military operations. What would you have had Bush do? Jump into a waiting F-16 outside the school and haul ass to NYC? (Laughing at this point) Nah. Instead he did what he was supposed to do and what any other president would have done. He ordered the FAA to ground all commercial flights and land those that were in the air, he also ordered the Air Guard to scramble fighter jets to begin intercepting and, if necessary, shoot down suspect flights. He did all this in minutes and then went aboard Air Force 1 a short time later when he was thought to be at risk. By the way, it does take time to get planes in the air when there is no previous threat and pilots are not on ground alert (i know you are clueless about military operations but I'm trying to help you here). They have to be called in, the planes have to be pre-flighted and armed and then they have to travel from air force bases scattered throughout the region to the Combat Air Patrol area. Does this help you? Probably not as myopic as you are but I tried. To say Bush did nothing while we were under attack is as stupid and baseless in fact as it is mean-spirited. A few last points. Slick willie had Osama there for the taking and let him go. PERIOD. He does his job and the rest of the "intelligence failures, which by the way were caused in large part by onerous federal restrictions on the sharing and collection of intelligence placed on their heads by the democratic congresses in the '60s, would have been moot. The patriot act, by the way, corrects a lot of these problems and if Patriot 2 which is in the works gets passed we will have gone farther. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 27, 2003 Share Posted September 27, 2003 Hey Nuke, out of curiousity, how long does the process of scrambling non-armed planes take? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yossarian Posted September 27, 2003 Share Posted September 27, 2003 Nuke glad your back home and healthy. I can't offer you my personal thanks but offer you my cyber thanks instead. I don't think your reality based posting is going to do much good here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted September 27, 2003 Author Share Posted September 27, 2003 Since you obviously know nothing about what happened on 9-11 allow me to refresh your memory and educate you about military operations. What would you have had Bush do? Jump into a waiting F-16 outside the school and haul ass to NYC? (Laughing at this point) Nah. Instead he did what he was supposed to do and what any other president would have done. He ordered the FAA to ground all commercial flights and land those that were in the air, he also ordered the Air Guard to scramble fighter jets to begin intercepting and, if necessary, shoot down suspect flights. He did all this in minutes and then went aboard Air Force 1 a short time later when he was thought to be at risk. By the way, it does take time to get planes in the air when there is no previous threat and pilots are not on ground alert (i know you are clueless about military operations but I'm trying to help you here). They have to be called in, the planes have to be pre-flighted and armed and then they have to travel from air force bases scattered throughout the region to the Combat Air Patrol area. Does this help you? Probably not as myopic as you are but I tried. To say Bush did nothing while we were under attack is as stupid and baseless in fact as it is mean-spirited. A few last points. Slick willie had Osama there for the taking and let him go. PERIOD. He does his job and the rest of the "intelligence failures, which by the way were caused in large part by onerous federal restrictions on the sharing and collection of intelligence placed on their heads by the democratic congresses in the '60s, would have been moot. The patriot act, by the way, corrects a lot of these problems and if Patriot 2 which is in the works gets passed we will have gone farther. Nuke, read the timeline of what happened on 9/11 and the quotes of pilots at the Air Force bases that were READY to go up and intercept, but they could not because Dubya was reading to children. They were there and ready to go, just awaiting Dubya's order. But, he was reading to kids instead. I've done quite a lot of reading about it, Nuke. In 1993, the Pentagon commissioned, via the DoD's office of Special Ops and Low Intensity Conflict, a think tank study of the ways that terrorists could commit large scale acts of terrorism on the US. Participants included 41 experts from the CIA, FBI, State Dept, Rand Corp. officials, an ex-KGB general and an Israeli intelligence agent. Even then they thought that terrorist would target multiple places and the WTC was one of the highest on their list of possible targets. And they believed that airplanes would be used to blow up national landmarks. All the way back then there was a report to the DoD, Justice Dept, State Dept, etc. that said there was a high possibility that the WTC would be hit with planes acting as bombs....but Condie told us that it could have never been forseen, yeah right. In June 2001, the German intel agency BND warned the US and Israel that Mid Eastern terrorists were "planning to hijack commercial aricraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American culture." On June 13, Egypt sent an urgent warning that a plane could be used as a weapon against George W. Bush. It was assumed that he meant the G8 summit. Vlad "Pooty-Poot" Putin was so certain of the info he had received in summer 2001 that he instructed Russian intel to tell Bush in the "strongest possible terms" of an impending attack involving airports and airplanes. The Russians told CIA that 25 terrorist pilots had been specially trained to conduct suicide missions. It was around this time that the CIA was first receiving tips about suspicious men in US flight schools. In August 2001, the Mossad warned the CIA and FBI as well. In February 2001, according to government admissions and reports, The National Security Agency had broken OBL's communications encryption system. We know this because the Bush admin reported AFTER 9/11 that it had intercepted calls of OBL telling his mom "In two days you're going to hear big news and you're not going to hear from me for a while." So we had 6 months worth of encrypted data and did nothing with it? As of September 7, the CIA knew about the suspicious stock trading and could see that United Airlines and American could be in trouble of a possible terror attack, given all the previous intel data we had received. If Bush put airports on high alert after he was warned in August, maybe the transponders getting turned off and Boston Ground Control losing contact with Flight 11 would have sent off some red flags and there could have been a different response [assuming the guys could even get on the plane] 8:24 am: Flight 11 accidentally broadcasts over it's radio "Everything will be OK. If you try to make any moves, you'll endanger yourselves and the airplane." One minute later, Boston air traffic control calls other air traffic control stations but NOT NORAD. It is not until 8:38 that NORAD is contacted about Flight 11. At 8:43, NORAD is notified that Flight 175 has made a U-turn and has been hijacked. The day of 9/11, it was known by 8:55 that Flight 77 had been hijacked. F-16s were sent up by they were scrambled out of Langley 130 miles southwest of the Pentagon where as Bolling AFB is 5 miles away and Andrews just 10 miles. Why send them from so far away to protect the Pentagon? On the Andrews AFB web page it says that "Training for air combat and operational airlift for national defense is the 113th's primary mission. However, as part of its dual mission, the 113th provides capable and ready response forces for the District of Columbia." So why did Bush choose Langley? And so because the Soviets subverted countries washes the US of the blood on it's hands? Two wrongs don't make a right, Nuke. And hell, we're subverting human rights currently in S. America with our training of Colombian paramilitary death squads that have been implicated in the murders of human rights workers and labor organizers. And it's only a few historical events Nuke? China 1945-1960s Italy 1947-1948 Greece 1947-1950s Philippines 1940s-1950s Korea 1945-1953 Albania 1949-1953 Eastern Europe 1948-1956 Germany 1950s Iran 1953 Guatemala 1953-54 Costa Rica mid 1950s Syria 1956-1957 Middle East 1957-1958 Indonesia 1957-1958 Western Europe 1950s-1960s British Guinana 1953-1964 Soviet Union 1940s-1960s Italy 1950s-1970s Vietnam 1950-1973 Cambodia 1955-1973 Laos 1957-1973 Haiti 1959-1963 Guatemala 1960 France/Algeria 1960s Ecuador 1960-1963 The Congo 1960-1964 Brazil 1961-1964 Peru 1960-1965 Dominican Republic 1960-1966 Cuba 1959-1980s Indonesia 1965 Ghana 1966 Uruguay 1964-1970 Chile 1964-1973 Greece 1964-1974 Bolivia 1964-1975 Guatemala 1962-1980s Costa Rica 1970-1971 Iraq 1972-1975 Australia 1973-1975 Angola 1975-1980s Zaire 1975-1978 Jamaica 1976-1980 Seychelles 1979-1981 Grenada 1979-1984 Morocco 1983 Suriname 1982-1984 Libya 1981-1989 Nicaragua 1981-1990 Panama 1969-1991 Bulgaria 1990 Iraq 1990-1991 Afghanistan 1979-1992 El Salvador 1980-1994 Haiti 1986-1994 And let's not forget Somalia, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Liberia... Maybe you would like to amend your comment that it was just a few instances. And yes, in my eyes Osama has won. We have quashed democracy and it is now "Un-American" to dare question the policy of Rove & Bush. Constitutional rights have become an 'inconvenience'. We allow the government to detain people at will without letting them have contact with their families or lawyers, even if they are innocent which many of them have turned out to be when they are later released. There are actually a lot of personal accounts of this in the book "It's a Free Country: Personal Freedom in America after September 11" "Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither." -- Ben Franklin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonkeyKongerko Posted September 27, 2003 Share Posted September 27, 2003 All I'm going to say is no president shoots that plane down. Not George W. Bush, not Al Gore, not Bill Clinton, nobody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniBob72 Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 And so because the Soviets subverted countries washes the US of the blood on it's hands? Two wrongs don't make a right, Nuke. And hell, we're subverting human rights currently in S. America with our training of Colombian paramilitary death squads that have been implicated in the murders of human rights workers and labor organizers. And it's only a few historical events Nuke? China 1945-1960s Italy 1947-1948 Greece 1947-1950s Philippines 1940s-1950s Korea 1945-1953 Albania 1949-1953 Eastern Europe 1948-1956 Germany 1950s Iran 1953 Guatemala 1953-54 Costa Rica mid 1950s Syria 1956-1957 Middle East 1957-1958 Indonesia 1957-1958 Western Europe 1950s-1960s British Guinana 1953-1964 Soviet Union 1940s-1960s Italy 1950s-1970s Vietnam 1950-1973 Cambodia 1955-1973 Laos 1957-1973 Haiti 1959-1963 Guatemala 1960 France/Algeria 1960s Ecuador 1960-1963 The Congo 1960-1964 Brazil 1961-1964 Peru 1960-1965 Dominican Republic 1960-1966 Cuba 1959-1980s Indonesia 1965 Ghana 1966 Uruguay 1964-1970 Chile 1964-1973 Greece 1964-1974 Bolivia 1964-1975 Guatemala 1962-1980s Costa Rica 1970-1971 Iraq 1972-1975 Australia 1973-1975 Angola 1975-1980s Zaire 1975-1978 Jamaica 1976-1980 Seychelles 1979-1981 Grenada 1979-1984 Morocco 1983 Suriname 1982-1984 Libya 1981-1989 Nicaragua 1981-1990 Panama 1969-1991 Bulgaria 1990 Iraq 1990-1991 Afghanistan 1979-1992 El Salvador 1980-1994 Haiti 1986-1994 And let's not forget Somalia, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Liberia... Maybe you would like to amend your comment that it was just a few instances. This list is a joke. In fact, reading it, I'm trying to figure out what the hell it's a list of. A list of U.S. foreign policy actions? Somalia? Good Lord. Yeah, the big bad bully United States goes in to remove warlords that are starving their people in a sort of power blackmail. The nerve of those intrusive Americans! Iraq 1990-1991? Yup, you're right again. How dare the U.S. evict a murdering madman that invaded a neighboring country. The terrors unleached upon Kuwaitis were unspeakable. Yugoslavia? Again, damn Americans trying to end ethnic cleansing. Bastards! Australia? What evils have we perpetrated on the Aussies? Eastern Europe? You're joking right? The Soviets march in and take over the whole damn thing and somehow we have blood on our hands? Of course, I'm sure that list is cut and pasted from some other truth telling website you adhere to. Though I'm sure that list can't be from your GOPbastards site, since the majority of those horrible events in your list came under Democratic presidents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmr31 Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 And so because the Soviets subverted countries washes the US of the blood on it's hands? Two wrongs don't make a right, Nuke. And hell, we're subverting human rights currently in S. America with our training of Colombian paramilitary death squads that have been implicated in the murders of human rights workers and labor organizers. And it's only a few historical events Nuke? China 1945-1960s Italy 1947-1948 Greece 1947-1950s Philippines 1940s-1950s Korea 1945-1953 Albania 1949-1953 Eastern Europe 1948-1956 Germany 1950s Iran 1953 Guatemala 1953-54 Costa Rica mid 1950s Syria 1956-1957 Middle East 1957-1958 Indonesia 1957-1958 Western Europe 1950s-1960s British Guinana 1953-1964 Soviet Union 1940s-1960s Italy 1950s-1970s Vietnam 1950-1973 Cambodia 1955-1973 Laos 1957-1973 Haiti 1959-1963 Guatemala 1960 France/Algeria 1960s Ecuador 1960-1963 The Congo 1960-1964 Brazil 1961-1964 Peru 1960-1965 Dominican Republic 1960-1966 Cuba 1959-1980s Indonesia 1965 Ghana 1966 Uruguay 1964-1970 Chile 1964-1973 Greece 1964-1974 Bolivia 1964-1975 Guatemala 1962-1980s Costa Rica 1970-1971 Iraq 1972-1975 Australia 1973-1975 Angola 1975-1980s Zaire 1975-1978 Jamaica 1976-1980 Seychelles 1979-1981 Grenada 1979-1984 Morocco 1983 Suriname 1982-1984 Libya 1981-1989 Nicaragua 1981-1990 Panama 1969-1991 Bulgaria 1990 Iraq 1990-1991 Afghanistan 1979-1992 El Salvador 1980-1994 Haiti 1986-1994 And let's not forget Somalia, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Liberia... Maybe you would like to amend your comment that it was just a few instances. This list is a joke. In fact, reading it, I'm trying to figure out what the hell it's a list of. A list of U.S. foreign policy actions? Somalia? Good Lord. Yeah, the big bad bully United States goes in to remove warlords that are starving their people in a sort of power blackmail. The nerve of those intrusive Americans! Iraq 1990-1991? Yup, you're right again. How dare the U.S. evict a murdering madman that invaded a neighboring country. The terrors unleached upon Kuwaitis were unspeakable. Yugoslavia? Again, damn Americans trying to end ethnic cleansing. Bastards! Australia? What evils have we perpetrated on the Aussies? Eastern Europe? You're joking right? The Soviets march in and take over the whole damn thing and somehow we have blood on our hands? Of course, I'm sure that list is cut and pasted from some other truth telling website you adhere to. Though I'm sure that list can't be from your GOPbastards site, since the majority of those horrible events in your list came under Democratic presidents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted September 28, 2003 Author Share Posted September 28, 2003 The list is from research done by William Blum, a former member of the State Department who used his connection in the government along with his research to compile a highly detailed list of what we have done with US military and CIA interventions in his two books "Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions" and "Rogue State:Policing the World's Only Superpower". Many of these interventions were also verified in the memoirs of 25 year CIA veteran Ralph McGehee. And FYI, about 1990-91 Iraq, Iraq actually invaded because the "innocent" Kuwaitis were actually slant drilling into Iraq's oil supply and stealing their oil. Saddam may be an evil bastard but put the blame for starting the war where it's due. Yugoslavia, we killed plenty of civilians [the high civilian body count is something being used against Clark's campaign saying that he is indeed a war criminal] and the effects of our weapons are still being felt in the region [unexploded cluster bombs, anyone?] Eastern Europe: Operation Splinter Factor. It goes into much detail in Blum's research than I could go into here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 I'm gonna have fun with this one. Subverted democratically elected governments in S. America? I hear you cry about what the CIA did back in the 70's and 80's but I never hear you utter 1 word of complaint about what the Soviets did to the Hungarians, or the Czechs or the Poles, or the Latvians, or the Estonians or the Yugoslavs or the East Germans etc...etc...etc. They didn't really have any government beyond the walls of the Kremlin & anyone who dared deviate from the communist party line had tanks sent down main street to remind them who was in charge. They suffocated nearly a whole continent for 50 years and would have done so with the rest of us had it not been for the U.S. and its big, bad awful military. I just love your pinpoint selection of a few historical events to tell us how awful America is. Osama has beat us? Nope. Osama has not beaten anything except himself. He did manage to pull off the greatest terrorist attack in history, but all it served to do was piss us off. Now he is underground, the government that supported him doesn't exist anymore and he cannot threaten us in any greater capacity than making blustering tapes talking about death to America that most of us make jokes about now. Since you obviously know nothing about what happened on 9-11 allow me to refresh your memory and educate you about military operations. What would you have had Bush do? Jump into a waiting F-16 outside the school and haul ass to NYC? (Laughing at this point) Nah. Instead he did what he was supposed to do and what any other president would have done. He ordered the FAA to ground all commercial flights and land those that were in the air, he also ordered the Air Guard to scramble fighter jets to begin intercepting and, if necessary, shoot down suspect flights. He did all this in minutes and then went aboard Air Force 1 a short time later when he was thought to be at risk. By the way, it does take time to get planes in the air when there is no previous threat and pilots are not on ground alert (i know you are clueless about military operations but I'm trying to help you here). They have to be called in, the planes have to be pre-flighted and armed and then they have to travel from air force bases scattered throughout the region to the Combat Air Patrol area. Does this help you? Probably not as myopic as you are but I tried. To say Bush did nothing while we were under attack is as stupid and baseless in fact as it is mean-spirited. A few last points. Slick willie had Osama there for the taking and let him go. PERIOD. He does his job and the rest of the "intelligence failures, which by the way were caused in large part by onerous federal restrictions on the sharing and collection of intelligence placed on their heads by the democratic congresses in the '60s, would have been moot. The patriot act, by the way, corrects a lot of these problems and if Patriot 2 which is in the works gets passed we will have gone farther. The governments that support Al-Qaeda aren't all dead. After all, there is Saudi Arabia, which finally seems to be taking a stand against Al-Qaeda. Pakistan is also at fault... we think Bin Laden is there... and Musharraf is including fundamentalist Islamic parties in his own governing council. Al-Qaeda may not have attacked US on its own soil, but it has attacked soft interests across the globe, including troops in Iraq. Our own government has testified that the network, although damaged, is still capable of catastrophic terror attacks. I won't fault the behavior of George Bush on September 11. However, I will fault him before. George Bush knew of terror threats against the US as early as his inauguration and did little to combat it. In fact on Sept 10, the Bush administration threatened to veto a defense spending bill that would have diverted money from a questionable missile shield to increase anti-terror spending. I will fault Bill Clinton as well. Although he did some things, he didn't do nearly enough. However, in 2000 he did draft a counter terror plan that was not implemented because of impending transition to the Bush administration. The plan was presented to Rice, supposedly of the highest priority from Sandy Berger. The blue ribbon panel that Congress ordered to study the risks a few years ago. Recommendations that came out by the panel in 1999 were ignored by Congress, the Clinton administration and the Bush administration. I know this, not because of any revisionist history article I read, but rather because of an interview with Gary Hart, a member of this panel, on a radio show that I produced in June of 2001. Further, the offer to turn over Osama Bin Laden is an urban myth and never actually happened. However, it is to be noted that two days before the attack on Afghanistan, the Taliban did in fact offer to deliver Bin Laden as well. It may have been a hoax or stalling tactic, but the Bush administration also refused to take delivery. Nuke: A question for you... if another major terror attack happens in the US within the next year, whose fault will it be then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rafacosta Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 Brazil 1961-1964 Hey Apu, that's true. In this period, we had a democracy that would put João Goulart as the President. But João Goulart was a president that had some connection with China and others countries from the communist side. He was a man that defended the lowest classes and poor people in Brazil. The USA had a direct participation, after a lot of data showed that CIA, American Department of State, embassy and US multinationals firms in the process that wanted João Goulart out of the post of president. After the coup (1964), we had a Miltary Dictatorship thanks to the US through 1985. The US put the a dictatorship here in Brazil saying that it would do good to Brazil to avoid a comunist system. They helped to input a dictatorship in here but ddint help to put Democracy back again. That's funny huh? Apu, 90% the things that you write are correct and truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 Hey Nuke, out of curiousity, how long does the process of scrambling non-armed planes take? Can't say for sure, I'm Army not Air Force, but look at it like this. It takes time to call in the pilots, brief them on their mission, (planes are armed and preflighted while this is going on) and get them to the CAP (Combat Air Patrol) area. This takes time & we didn't know we were under attack until the second tower was hit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 Nuke glad your back home and healthy. I can't offer you my personal thanks but offer you my cyber thanks instead. I don't think your reality based posting is going to do much good here. It's ok, I try. Thanks for the thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 I'm gonna have fun with this one. Subverted democratically elected governments in S. America? I hear you cry about what the CIA did back in the 70's and 80's but I never hear you utter 1 word of complaint about what the Soviets did to the Hungarians, or the Czechs or the Poles, or the Latvians, or the Estonians or the Yugoslavs or the East Germans etc...etc...etc. They didn't really have any government beyond the walls of the Kremlin & anyone who dared deviate from the communist party line had tanks sent down main street to remind them who was in charge. They suffocated nearly a whole continent for 50 years and would have done so with the rest of us had it not been for the U.S. and its big, bad awful military. I just love your pinpoint selection of a few historical events to tell us how awful America is. Osama has beat us? Nope. Osama has not beaten anything except himself. He did manage to pull off the greatest terrorist attack in history, but all it served to do was piss us off. Now he is underground, the government that supported him doesn't exist anymore and he cannot threaten us in any greater capacity than making blustering tapes talking about death to America that most of us make jokes about now. Since you obviously know nothing about what happened on 9-11 allow me to refresh your memory and educate you about military operations. What would you have had Bush do? Jump into a waiting F-16 outside the school and haul ass to NYC? (Laughing at this point) Nah. Instead he did what he was supposed to do and what any other president would have done. He ordered the FAA to ground all commercial flights and land those that were in the air, he also ordered the Air Guard to scramble fighter jets to begin intercepting and, if necessary, shoot down suspect flights. He did all this in minutes and then went aboard Air Force 1 a short time later when he was thought to be at risk. By the way, it does take time to get planes in the air when there is no previous threat and pilots are not on ground alert (i know you are clueless about military operations but I'm trying to help you here). They have to be called in, the planes have to be pre-flighted and armed and then they have to travel from air force bases scattered throughout the region to the Combat Air Patrol area. Does this help you? Probably not as myopic as you are but I tried. To say Bush did nothing while we were under attack is as stupid and baseless in fact as it is mean-spirited. A few last points. Slick willie had Osama there for the taking and let him go. PERIOD. He does his job and the rest of the "intelligence failures, which by the way were caused in large part by onerous federal restrictions on the sharing and collection of intelligence placed on their heads by the democratic congresses in the '60s, would have been moot. The patriot act, by the way, corrects a lot of these problems and if Patriot 2 which is in the works gets passed we will have gone farther. The governments that support Al-Qaeda aren't all dead. After all, there is Saudi Arabia, which finally seems to be taking a stand against Al-Qaeda. Pakistan is also at fault... we think Bin Laden is there... and Musharraf is including fundamentalist Islamic parties in his own governing council. Al-Qaeda may not have attacked US on its own soil, but it has attacked soft interests across the globe, including troops in Iraq. Our own government has testified that the network, although damaged, is still capable of catastrophic terror attacks. I won't fault the behavior of George Bush on September 11. However, I will fault him before. George Bush knew of terror threats against the US as early as his inauguration and did little to combat it. In fact on Sept 10, the Bush administration threatened to veto a defense spending bill that would have diverted money from a questionable missile shield to increase anti-terror spending. I will fault Bill Clinton as well. Although he did some things, he didn't do nearly enough. However, in 2000 he did draft a counter terror plan that was not implemented because of impending transition to the Bush administration. The plan was presented to Rice, supposedly of the highest priority from Sandy Berger. The blue ribbon panel that Congress ordered to study the risks a few years ago. Recommendations that came out by the panel in 1999 were ignored by Congress, the Clinton administration and the Bush administration. I know this, not because of any revisionist history article I read, but rather because of an interview with Gary Hart, a member of this panel, on a radio show that I produced in June of 2001. Further, the offer to turn over Osama Bin Laden is an urban myth and never actually happened. However, it is to be noted that two days before the attack on Afghanistan, the Taliban did in fact offer to deliver Bin Laden as well. It may have been a hoax or stalling tactic, but the Bush administration also refused to take delivery. Nuke: A question for you... if another major terror attack happens in the US within the next year, whose fault will it be then? If we get attacked again it will be because the government has not done enough to stop it. I don't think that will happen because all the major players are running for their lives right now looking over both shoulders for someone wearing U.S. Army on his shirt or a hovering Predator drone. Not only that but now we've got the major players in law enforcement and Intel talking like they should be (FBI, NSA, CIA, DIA) (Thank you Patriot Act) and these same bodies now have more power to go after these scumbags (thanks again Patriot Act). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 This list is a joke. In fact, reading it, I'm trying to figure out what the hell it's a list of. A list of U.S. foreign policy actions? Somalia? Good Lord. Yeah, the big bad bully United States goes in to remove warlords that are starving their people in a sort of power blackmail. The nerve of those intrusive Americans! Iraq 1990-1991? Yup, you're right again. How dare the U.S. evict a murdering madman that invaded a neighboring country. The terrors unleached upon Kuwaitis were unspeakable. Yugoslavia? Again, damn Americans trying to end ethnic cleansing. Bastards! Australia? What evils have we perpetrated on the Aussies? Eastern Europe? You're joking right? The Soviets march in and take over the whole damn thing and somehow we have blood on our hands? Of course, I'm sure that list is cut and pasted from some other truth telling website you adhere to. Though I'm sure that list can't be from your GOPbastards site, since the majority of those horrible events in your list came under Democratic presidents. I have nothing to add to that one. Except a few laughs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 The list is from research done by William Blum, a former member of the State Department who used his connection in the government along with his research to compile a highly detailed list of what we have done with US military and CIA interventions in his two books "Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions" and "Rogue State:Policing the World's Only Superpower". Many of these interventions were also verified in the memoirs of 25 year CIA veteran Ralph McGehee. And FYI, about 1990-91 Iraq, Iraq actually invaded because the "innocent" Kuwaitis were actually slant drilling into Iraq's oil supply and stealing their oil. Saddam may be an evil bastard but put the blame for starting the war where it's due. Yugoslavia, we killed plenty of civilians [the high civilian body count is something being used against Clark's campaign saying that he is indeed a war criminal] and the effects of our weapons are still being felt in the region [unexploded cluster bombs, anyone?] Eastern Europe: Operation Splinter Factor. It goes into much detail in Blum's research than I could go into here. Oh wow the Kuwaiti's stole some oil so lets flatten their country and take down Saudi Arabia while we're at it. HELL YEAH!! LETS GO!!! Oh wait...we pissed off the Americans and 82'nd Airborne is taking up positions along the Saudi Border. WE'RE f***ED Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 Nuke, read the timeline of what happened on 9/11 and the quotes of pilots at the Air Force bases that were READY to go up and intercept, but they could not because Dubya was reading to children. They were there and ready to go, just awaiting Dubya's order. But, he was reading to kids instead. I've done quite a lot of reading about it, Nuke. 8:24 am: Flight 11 accidentally broadcasts over it's radio "Everything will be OK. If you try to make any moves, you'll endanger yourselves and the airplane." One minute later, Boston air traffic control calls other air traffic control stations but NOT NORAD. It is not until 8:38 that NORAD is contacted about Flight 11. At 8:43, NORAD is notified that Flight 175 has made a U-turn and has been hijacked. The day of 9/11, it was known by 8:55 that Flight 77 had been hijacked. F-16s were sent up by they were scrambled out of Langley 130 miles southwest of the Pentagon where as Bolling AFB is 5 miles away and Andrews just 10 miles. Why send them from so far away to protect the Pentagon? On the Andrews AFB web page it says that "Training for air combat and operational airlift for national defense is the 113th's primary mission. However, as part of its dual mission, the 113th provides capable and ready response forces for the District of Columbia." So why did Bush choose Langley? And so because the Soviets subverted countries washes the US of the blood on it's hands? Two wrongs don't make a right, Nuke. And hell, we're subverting human rights currently in S. America with our training of Colombian paramilitary death squads that have been implicated in the murders of human rights workers and labor organizers. And it's only a few historical events Nuke? Maybe you would like to amend your comment that it was just a few instances. And yes, in my eyes Osama has won. We have quashed democracy and it is now "Un-American" to dare question the policy of Rove & Bush. Constitutional rights have become an 'inconvenience'. We allow the government to detain people at will without letting them have contact with their families or lawyers, even if they are innocent which many of them have turned out to be when they are later released. There are actually a lot of personal accounts of this in the book "It's a Free Country: Personal Freedom in America after September 11" "Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither." -- Ben Franklin The calls about what units go where is not made by the president. (Once again displaying lack of knowlege about military operations) He doesn't micromanage it like that. The order is given to the Air Force to handle the situation and an Air Force general makes the call about what units get the tasking. Maybe instead of blindly attacking Bush you should ask the general in charge of the operation why he tasked the units he tasked. Training of paramilitary death squads. Come on now. The purpose of that school is to teach counterinsurgency to our friends down south. It's just that their being taught how to deal effectively with communist and leftist guerillas that's pissing in your corn flakes. Quashed Democracy? Far as I can tell there haven't been any cancelled elections since 9-11, those people detained have been done so either as enemy combatants or as material witnesses. As for as I'm concerned they can f***ing rot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted September 28, 2003 Author Share Posted September 28, 2003 Training of paramilitary death squads. Come on now. The purpose of that school is to teach counterinsurgency to our friends down south. It's just that their being taught how to deal effectively with communist and leftist guerillas that's pissing in your corn flakes. Quashed Democracy? Far as I can tell there haven't been any cancelled elections since 9-11, those people detained have been done so either as enemy combatants or as material witnesses. As for as I'm concerned they can f***ing rot. So Coca-Cola workers that want a fair wage and organize to get it have their children murdered and they "disappear" is "leftist guerillas" Or how about church workers that speak out against the government murder of 900+ civilians in El Mazote or the murder of an Archbishop whose research showed the government of Guatemala was responsible for the majority of human rights abuses? Once again Nuke, you show a lack of knowing the facts of what graduates of the school has done, so please become better educated on the subject instead of just labeling anybody who gets murdered a "commie". So Oscar Romero was a "dirty commie" or how about Ita Ford or how about the Jesuit priests, their housekeeper and the housekeepers daughter? Or how about the 900 civilians over half under age 12 that were slaughtered in El Mazote? What communist threat does a CHILD have Nuke? Quashed democracy. That's why Chalabi wants to have the council take over and the Iraqi people are wanting elections, but Bush and Co. told him that they won't allow elections there and they won't turn over 1 iota of power to the new Iraqi government. And lots of innocent people that have been detained can rot in prison. Wow, I'm glad you're defending our freedoms as Americans then Nuke. Because you obviously love the Constitution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 Nuke, read the timeline of what happened on 9/11 and the quotes of pilots at the Air Force bases that were READY to go up and intercept, but they could not because Dubya was reading to children. They were there and ready to go, just awaiting Dubya's order. But, he was reading to kids instead. I've done quite a lot of reading about it, Nuke. 8:24 am: Flight 11 accidentally broadcasts over it's radio "Everything will be OK. If you try to make any moves, you'll endanger yourselves and the airplane." One minute later, Boston air traffic control calls other air traffic control stations but NOT NORAD. It is not until 8:38 that NORAD is contacted about Flight 11. At 8:43, NORAD is notified that Flight 175 has made a U-turn and has been hijacked. The day of 9/11, it was known by 8:55 that Flight 77 had been hijacked. F-16s were sent up by they were scrambled out of Langley 130 miles southwest of the Pentagon where as Bolling AFB is 5 miles away and Andrews just 10 miles. Why send them from so far away to protect the Pentagon? On the Andrews AFB web page it says that "Training for air combat and operational airlift for national defense is the 113th's primary mission. However, as part of its dual mission, the 113th provides capable and ready response forces for the District of Columbia." So why did Bush choose Langley? And so because the Soviets subverted countries washes the US of the blood on it's hands? Two wrongs don't make a right, Nuke. And hell, we're subverting human rights currently in S. America with our training of Colombian paramilitary death squads that have been implicated in the murders of human rights workers and labor organizers. And it's only a few historical events Nuke? Maybe you would like to amend your comment that it was just a few instances. And yes, in my eyes Osama has won. We have quashed democracy and it is now "Un-American" to dare question the policy of Rove & Bush. Constitutional rights have become an 'inconvenience'. We allow the government to detain people at will without letting them have contact with their families or lawyers, even if they are innocent which many of them have turned out to be when they are later released. There are actually a lot of personal accounts of this in the book "It's a Free Country: Personal Freedom in America after September 11" "Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither." -- Ben Franklin The calls about what units go where is not made by the president. (Once again displaying lack of knowlege about military operations) He doesn't micromanage it like that. The order is given to the Air Force to handle the situation and an Air Force general makes the call about what units get the tasking. Maybe instead of blindly attacking Bush you should ask the general in charge of the operation why he tasked the units he tasked. Training of paramilitary death squads. Come on now. The purpose of that school is to teach counterinsurgency to our friends down south. It's just that their being taught how to deal effectively with communist and leftist guerillas that's pissing in your corn flakes. Quashed Democracy? Far as I can tell there haven't been any cancelled elections since 9-11, those people detained have been done so either as enemy combatants or as material witnesses. As for as I'm concerned they can f***ing rot Nuke: I'll agree that enemy combatants , or rather PoWs should be held as long as necessary... however American citizens that are at Gitmo, and there are a handful, have to be treated differently. Further, once we know that the connections with terrorism aren't there, we should release them promptly. The justice department held some of these people for several months after conclusive proof that there was no tie to Al-Qaeda or other terror organizations by their own admission. I'm all for protecting our population, but we have to do it by respecting the rights of our own citizens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.