[yakbladder]

Originally Posted by Ed O

You can say it, but you have no idea.

And while it's easy to say that someone could just (a) acquire radioactive waste, (b) load it onto a cropduster, and (c) fly into NYC, I have to call bull**** there. Those things aren't that easy to do on their own, and to do all three successfully? The odds have never been good for that, and I don't believe that it's at all likely it'll happen now.

Something will happen, for sure, but something would have happened after 9/11 irrespective of what we did.

Ed O.

It is my opinion, not established fact, I admit to that, but I'm not claiming it's fact either. Come on, Ed, you know I'd list it out if I had someway to back that up. But I can say for certain that various areas of security are as loose as they were pre-9-11.

No plan of any complexity has great odds unless it's well planned. Are the odds incredibly slim that any one individual could pull that off? Sure, but it's not impossible. And just so you know, I'd say #1 is the hardest one to perform, the other two are a piece of cake compared to that. Secondly, what if you had a small group of people, say 5, trying to accomplish this? I'd say your odds go up quite a bit.

Finally, to say "irrespective of what we did" is a bit of a stretch. But in order to get into that we'd have to get into why so many Mideasterners hate us to begin with...

[Masbee]

Originally Posted by sa1177

Somewhat true yet you must realize that the polarity of the cold war created stability in many ways. Two powerful nations basically holding each other in check for fear of sparking WWIII which would then lead to the ever feared and entirely real theory of Mutual Assured Destruction. Essentially the entire world was allied with one side or the other and although there was obvious tension at times both sides were doing their best to hold their allies in check for fear of sparking controversy with the other. So although we faced a much more pontentially powerful enemy during the cold war era it can argued that the world was actually a much more stable place.

I don't agree with this.

There may have been some superficial stability, and an easy way to understand the world - for some. Underneath the relationships between the superpowers and the other countries was much turmoil, blood, sweat, money and many tears. Proxy battles, massive spy activity, massive arms build-ups, dictator prop-ups.

If fact, the constant INstability led to numerous confrontations and HOT wars, Korean War, Berlin Crisis, Cuban Missle Crisis, Vietnam War, Afganistan, Africa, etc.,etc.

The world has been more stable (if MAYBE a bit more confusing) since the collapse of the Soviet Union, which thankfully coincided with the integration of China into the world economy as opposed to other, less plesant alternatives.

[Masbee]

Originally Posted by sa1177

A couple notes...it's not so much maintaining a debt that could lead us to ruin but rather the drastic increase of such a debt. Clinton is the only president since Kennedy who has managed to actually decrease the growth of the debt albeit by only a small percentage.



Of course when our current leader took office the debt began to immediately skyrocket. As usual the reliance upon the "trickle down theory" by the Repulican party caused a drastic increase in debt growth.



So if one would follow history for supposed solution you will see that the assumptions made by the current administration regarding the "trickle down model" do not work and eventually could lead to a significant recession.


http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

I don't know who wrote this thing you quote, but just for your information - it is completely clueless garbage. I won't even bother to go over it point by point. Just assume it's all wrong.

[sa1177]

Originally Posted by Masbee

I don't know who wrote this thing you quote, but just for your information - it is completely clueless garbage. I won't even bother to go over it point by point. Just assume it's all wrong.

Err right lets assume that you know more then a leading economist.... Unless you are willing to point out why you think something is wrong it's pretty pointless to do so and certainly not in the least bit credible.

[sa1177]

Originally Posted by Masbee

I don't agree with this.

There may have been some superficial stability, and an easy way to understand the world - for some. Underneath the relationships between the superpowers and the other countries was much turmoil, blood, sweat, money and many tears. Proxy battles, massive spy activity, massive arms build-ups, dictator prop-ups.

If fact, the constant INstability led to numerous confrontations and HOT wars, Korean War, Berlin Crisis, Cuban Missle Crisis, Vietnam War, Afganistan, Africa, etc.,etc.

The world has been more stable (if MAYBE a bit more confusing) since the collapse of the Soviet Union, which thankfully coincided with the integration of China into the world economy as opposed to other, less plesant alternatives.

All of that and yet the U.S. Continent was never threatened..the closest being the Bay of Pigs and CMC. Today the U.S. continent has already been attacked and is still in constant danger another attack. Hmmm seems to fit the theory if you ask me, yet it's a theory so of course some diagreement is to be expected.

[Minstrel]

Originally Posted by Blazer Ringbearer

I understand not rooting for someone's death, I feel the same way.

But at some level you have to be hoping for peace and stability for the Iraqi people. It's probably going to take a long time, but after all that they've been through and all that we as a nation have put on the line, you have to hope that it's going to work out.

What I was referring to by "I don't root for it or hope for it" was my belief that killing Al-Zarqawi will have minimal impact, because our foreign and military policies are spawning more and more Al-Zarqawis.

Yes, I absolutely hope for peace and stability. I personally think, however, that the US' actions so far have been damaging to that end, not beneficial.

A quick edit: This has nothing to do with party lines. I've disliked US foreign policy pretty much universally during my lifetime (for as long as I've been aware of international politics), and it dates back long before I was born. Under Republican and Democrat leadership alike.

[Masbee]

Originally Posted by sa1177

Err right lets assume that you know more then a leading economist.... Unless you are willing to point out why you think something is wrong it's pretty pointless to do so and certainly not in the least bit credible.

An academic wrote thaaat!!!????

Tenure. Pffffft.

I will reiterate, those quotes are so laughable, I won't even bother. Of course it is my opinion, just as it is the opinion of the biased, hateful, deceitful economist who can't write.

And just so you know, I disagree with the majority of the policies, positions and budgets of the Bush Administration, and would nitpick at almost all of the rest.

They are certainly vulnerable to criticism imo. There is no need to make **** up and throw the cantankerous left-wing, economically illiterate kitchen sink at him.

[Masbee]

Originally Posted by sa1177

All of that and yet the U.S. Continent was never threatened..the closest being the Bay of Pigs and CMC. Today the U.S. continent has already been attacked and is still in constant danger another attack. Hmmm seems to fit the theory if you ask me, yet it's a theory so of course some diagreement is to be expected.

You are kidding right?

Never threatened, oh yeah, except for that little teeny weeny thing, that almost launched WWWIII. According to recently released records, came very close, and would have been 1,000 9-11's at one time, destroyed modern civilization, etc., etc.

A terrorist group can destroy part of a city, as can a hurricane, an earthquake, etc. NY recovered easily. New Orleans will partially recover. San Francisco was rebuilt and was Kobe. Etc. Destruction of one city is bad. Destruction of a good chunk of the country is a different matter altogether.

[sa1177]

Originally Posted by Masbee

An academic wrote thaaat!!!????

Tenure. Pffffft.

I will reiterate, those quotes are so laughable, I won't even bother. Of course it is my opinion, just as it is the opinion of the biased, hateful, deceitful economist who can't write.

And just so you know, I disagree with the majority of the policies, positions and budgets of the Bush Administration, and would nitpick at almost all of the rest.

They are certainly vulnerable to criticism imo. There is no need to make **** up and throw the cantankerous left-wing, economically illiterate kitchen sink at him.

Yes apparently...and apparently many other economists agree with his principles regarding the "trickle down affect." That is based more in theory though so I would understand opposition to the theory....IMO it's pretty hard to ignore some of his numbers though.

Again if you want to suggest something is "made up" then you might consider pointing out what that specific item is..otherwise you appear to be blowing a bunch of hot air because you dislike what has been said or written. I certainly won't claim what is written there as fact but I do think's a damn good explanation for our current escalating national debt growth percentage.

[sa1177]

Originally Posted by Masbee

You are kidding right?

Never threatened, oh yeah, except for that little teeny weeny thing, that almost launched WWWIII. According to recently released records, came very close, and would have been 1,000 9-11's at one time, destroyed modern civilization, etc., etc.

A terrorist group can destroy part of a city, as can a hurricane, an earthquake, etc. NY recovered easily. New Orleans will partially recover. San Francisco was rebuilt and was Kobe. Etc. Destruction of one city is bad. Destruction of a good chunk of the country is a different matter altogether.

I suppose I should have said "never attacked" rather then "threatened."

And yet still it didn't happen....and 9/11 did. Why didn't it happen? Fear of Mutual Assured Destruction, polarity of two balanced superpowers.

NY recovered easily? you don't know anyone from NY do you? My family and friends who lived there during that period certainly haven't "recovered" nor have the 5000+ families who lost their loved ones.

[Target]

IMO the mission in Iraq has been a complete success. We have exposed our self-proclaimed enemy as the cowards they are. Our military has boldly and courageously made themselves the target of the dishonorable zealots that use the good and innocent people of Iraq as human shields. Hats off to them and to their commander's strategic genius. President Bush has scored a victory in the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people if not the opposition party here at home. The war in Iraq is the beginning of the end for Radical Islam. We have shown the people how to do it and they will prosper with our continued support and the good fight will spead to people like the Syrians, Iranians and palestinians. I foresee a day in thre near future when those european nations that failed to support Bush and Blair will see their excilusion as a missed opportunity and mistake on the part of their leaders.

[sa1177]

Originally Posted by Target

IMO the mission in Iraq has been a complete success. We have exposed our self-proclaimed enemy as the cowards they are. Our military has boldly and courageously made themselves the target of the dishonorable zealots that use the good and innocent people of Iraq as human shields. Hats off to them and to their commander's strategic genius. President Bush has scored a victory in the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people if not the opposition party here at home. The war in Iraq is the beginning of the end for Radical Islam. We have shown the people how to do it and they will prosper with our continued support and the good fight will spead to people like the Syrians, Iranians and palestinians. I foresee a day in thre near future when those european nations that failed to support Bush and Blair will see their excilusion as a missed opportunity and mistake on the part of their leaders.

Strategic genius? Do you watch the news? One of the largest problems currently facing Iraq is the U.S. militarys inability to control the country. Did you miss the Iraqi tennis player who got murdered last week for wearing shorts? Or the six women shot dead in the street last month for wearing skirts?
The country is in complete chaos, hardly "strategic genius" by it's occupiers IMO.

The War in Iraq is only the beginning of the fuel of the fire of Radical Islam...these people will not give up so easily, they have fought and existed for centuries and will continue to do so. I feel much the same as Minstrel on this issue amd think he summed it up fairly nicely.