posted on September 22, 2001 11:38:12 PM
The British have located Bin Laden, so what's next? The IRA? After all this IS a war on terrorism--he can't discriminate.
But Colin Powell said that he thinks that this war will never end, at least in his lifetime, or ours. So bush's legacy will be perpetual war just as Orwelle described. Computer generated casualty lists, and citizens reporting for elimination as their names come out on periodic lists. Makes me envious of my dead brothers.
posted on September 22, 2001 11:43:12 PMComputer generated casualty lists, and citizens reporting for elimination as their names come out on periodic lists.
posted on September 22, 2001 11:46:21 PM
[So bush's legacy will be perpetual war...
We can only hope that Bush will suddenly decide to fire off a few missles into the desert and call it quits so we can go on with our lives and sleep safe. It would seem Bush lacks Clinton's vision.
posted on September 22, 2001 11:57:56 PM
That’s way to funny uaru
Did you notice how Bill is sure on the defense
about that great retaliatory blunder ..I mean maneuver
posted on September 23, 2001 12:26:18 AM
Which is worse? An error of intelligence that results in a blown up pharmacuetical factory, or an error of intelligence which results in the successful destruction of the World Trade Center?
posted on September 23, 2001 12:44:32 AM
Our intelligence errors under the previous adminstration had just a few slip by, the Oklahoma City Bombing, the first attack on the WTC, the military barracks bombing in Saudia Arabia, the bombing of two embassies in Africa, the bombing of the USS Cole.
How long did they say this operation was in the planning stages? 18 months? Yes, if we only had Bill we wouldn't be in this fix. Bill could have saved us.
posted on September 23, 2001 01:28:07 AM
TSK, another finger pointing blamer of Bill Clinton for current problems?
"how long did THEY say this was planned?
Yes, THEY would say that now wouldn't THEY?
But the other they, the ones that the current THEY would sooner go away, hey, trace the Afgani terrorism in large part back to US abandonment after the Soviets left in 1989. Who was at the head of our administration then, hey?
posted on September 23, 2001 01:43:59 AM
krs, I'm with you compadre, I agree Bush is taking us to our doom (woe and grief). And as you said he'll leave us a legacy of perpetual war unless he's stopped. For Bush to not drop that little incident that happened back when (I've even forgotten the date) is a serious mistake on his part. He could have stopped it the attack before it happened but didn't, now he's wanting to lead us in George Orwell's 1984 (or Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek.)
But since the Brits know where Bin Laden is and he's been on the 10 most wanted list for a few years I say light the fuse on a few missles and dust off our hands and go back to what we were doing.
Now where were we? Oh... That Dubya is such a retardo.
posted on September 23, 2001 02:11:19 AM
Why is it that you keep thinking that I say these things? Can you read? Colin Powell is predicting a never ending war. You've heard that I'm him? I'll have to change my ID.....again.
But I don't understand. Don't you have a baby boy? Is it that you've just given up on the chance to be the first on your block to have your son come home in a box (Joe MacDonald) because of his age and have hopes for later?
There have been attempts based around the world by people of various persuasion and several nations to stop these acts without success; in actuality the attempts seem to engender more and larger acts of terrorism.
I believe that this one is like those or worse, and the result will only be an increase in anger from around the world aimed at this country. This gunslinger BS-tough little man is as transparent as a window to those people who live out a life with no hope but for a chance to achieve a momentary glory in the eyes of their god. Bill Clinton's approach was better. Of course there were exceptional acts during his time in the seat but he did foster an atmosphere of hope for a future in the world that would or could lessen people's feeling of desperation which then lessened anger and thus lessened terrorism.
Now uaru, you keep on making your cutesy little smarm comments of smirky derision if you like. You don't mean nothing to me.
posted on September 23, 2001 02:47:46 AMkrsWhy is it that you keep thinking that I say these things? Can you read? Colin Powell is predicting a never ending war.
I hate to brag but yes I can read. I never realized that Colin Powell said, "So bush's legacy will be perpetual war just as Orwelle described. Computer generated casualty lists, and citizens reporting for elimination as their names come out on periodic lists." That is scary, I hadn't realized his fears were on such a level. I admire Colin Powell and he sure wouldn't bow to theatrics.
krsDon't you have a baby boy? Is it that you've just given up on the chance to be the first on your block to have your son come home in a box (Joe MacDonald) because of his age and have hopes for later?
I have a beautiful baby girl (who just got feed), she's only 9 months old, she's my world. I don't expect her to go into battle she'll be safe here in the U.S. She'll go to school, football games, and have a career somewhere, someday. I'm glad she isn't in harms way like our military. She's a civilian and not in subject to being a casualty of war.
krsBill Clinton's approach was better.
Definitely, we could have fired some missiles off and been back to normal. I admitted to that in my last post. I see where Bush is over reacting, you've helped me see that.
krsNow uaru, you keep on making your cutesy little smarm comments of smirky derision if you like. You don't mean nothing to me.
That hurt krs but I deserved it, I didn't see how right you were before tonight. I've come into your camp of thinking. Bush is the foe, and we need to understand that. Upsetting Bin Laden or the Taliban will only bring us more grief. We should begin serious negotiations with them and learn what changes are necessary to ease their rage. I've ignored your warnings before or dismissed them, but you did make me a follower. I'm sorry for not seeing your logic earlier, forgive me.
posted on September 23, 2001 06:14:00 AM
Please feel free to flame the daylights out of me but if these terrorists want to play the fear game then even an effective round up and removal of their leaders is not going to throw fear into them. As krs says it will just irritate and move them to more and greater acts.
Unfortunatly their estimation of the situation is correct - the US leaders do not have the will to stop them.
It will take an act of violence that makes the destruction of the trade center look like a silly little prank by school children before they are motivated to be afraid of the US.
If they literally depopulated Afganistan and left the whole land empty of human and animal life and unihabitable for years then possibly that would be enough to put fear in them.
You need an act so terrible that people speak in hushed tones and shake to even talk about it for a hundred years.
Nobody has the guts to do it so we will continue to die here in the same style the Israeli's do at home because they also don't have the will to roll over the Palestinians and slaughter the lot of them.
Everyone is too civilized to remove the danger that faces them. Self made victims the lot of them. I'm nice - kill me and fear not.
Maybe after the next round when the US is hit with biological or chemical weapons they will get the resolve to remove the danger, but I would not bet on it. They are sheep and I despise their cowardice to protect their own.
I know it's not nice - it is just what it would take to work.
posted on September 23, 2001 08:11:09 AM
You missed the point in all of this there has been one common thing.
They are not just after terrorist leader(s) they are after the whole group and the countries the harbor them and at this point they don't care what it takes.
They have also said they know these people are on American soil, and then they have warned you are either on our side or you are on the side of the terrorist.
Who's side are you ON ...
Bush didnt draw some line in the sand here if you are not with America in this war, you are the enemy.
posted on September 23, 2001 08:53:05 AM
I hear the talk but I don't believe it. Did not miss the point - just flat out don't believe them.
I am in my fifties and have never seen the US try to actually win a war. Won't even declare one anymore. Might hury someopne's self esteem. They always slap a few knuckles and go home.
They had a free open road to roll into Bagdad after Desert Storm and said - "There that shows them." - and withdrew. That was a loss. They forfeited the game before the close. Of course Sadam learned his lesson and has backed off right?
Will believe all this stern talk when I see it done and over.
posted on September 23, 2001 09:02:49 AM
We wish for it to be "over" so we can have another Bill Clinton in office and all be eating and drinking and making merry with cigars again?
I am not sure that I want that. Perpetual fear is looking better all the time. It's like when the teacher is in the room instead of down the hall in the teacher's lounge.
T
Perhaps if she's in the classroom, the dunce might actually learn something.
posted on September 23, 2001 09:05:34 AM
I know where you are comeing from gravid Not sure desert storm was something you can blame on A president.
Bush was not re elected, He did warn it wasn't over but clinton was choosen instead his views and stance on war were far weaker then bush's.
Bush SR was the last of This genoration who would be president..
anyone who dislikes this president because he was elected by a minority vote and thinks clinton was better should remember that his frist term he to was voted in by minority vote..
posted on September 23, 2001 09:05:41 AM
Y'know, there was a time in my life when I was firmly convinced that Nixon could be held responsible for the Challenger disaster. But back then the local package store was dependent on me, personally, for its economic well being. That hasn't been the case for many years, and I am now able to concede that maybe it wasn't all his fault. Just because I despised the man doesn't mean that everything bad which could conceiveably be blamed on him is his fault.
Leaving the particular question at hand aside, I was wondering: CAN WE JUST SET A DATE? A date after which any plague, pestilence, intelligence failure, etc. which occurs can at least in part be considered the responsibility of the current administration? How 'bout August 2003? Y'all comfortable with that? W will have been in office for over two and a half years at that point. Will it then be OK to consider the possibility that his administration bears some responsibility for something, anything, or will we still be seeing the same lame "I hate Clinton so it must be his fault" ... er... "reasoning" which is so pervasive here?
Folks on various threads here are quick to accuse others of "Bush-bashing" for the tiniest criticism of George W. But at least such criticism has to do with events going on now.
So, honestly, seriously: after August 2003, can we stop hearing about how it's all Clinton's fault? Will that give W time to sort out the dog's breakfast of budget surpluses, minimal unemployment, high sustained economic growth rates, etc. which prevailed at the start of his administration?
Or if something bad happens, say in June 2004, is it still going to be Bill's fault?
posted on September 23, 2001 09:08:26 AMjt: It will come as a shock to you, but S-E-X, amongst politicians & the world at large, does not come to a stand-still during times of crisis and war. Neither does drinking or eating.
posted on September 23, 2001 09:15:55 AM
bunnicula
Good point it might come as a shock to many to know that nothing much in life comes to a stop dureing war, it doesn't seem to change the topic of conversasion but for a while either . http://www.Dman-N-Company.com
Email [email protected]
posted on September 23, 2001 09:20:03 AM
Let's all be honest. The fact that the US has not wholeheartedly tried to win any conflict since Korea cannot really be blamed on the Presidents. The American people are to blame for that. In order to fight & win a war, the nation must be largely united in that goal. The majority of citizens must support the the idea. And that hasn't been the case since the 50s.
Even now, when our nation itself has been attacked and thousands killed in a single stroke, a large percentage of our populace is saying "don't fight, don't win" and "we must understand why it was done." Doesn't matter who the President is under this kind of circumstance, he can not win.
posted on September 23, 2001 09:21:27 AM
I hope the Bushs have a very rewarding sex life.
For one brief moment, "immorality" is "out" and morality is "in". I think people who hadn't given their kids a sidways look in years may have glanced at them with appreciation in the last week. I think someone who gave God the finger years ago humbly prayed. In the last week, a few people who might not acknowledge a person of a different "class" as fellow human previously, may have looked at them and thought for a split second "fellow American". The "important" suddenly became very "unimportant"...just look at automobile sales and compare them with phone calls to mom. I wonder how many people sobered up and went home for 24 hours?
