Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
Power through Fear
Biggles
<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
in Zocalo v2.0
[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3885663.stm[/url]
Before everyone starts ranting about it all being speculation or lies or rumours or whatever, I know it's not necessarily true. But the fact is that it could very well be true, probably is true, and either way is just as worrying because it fits with the current climate of fear of terrorists.
Before everyone starts ranting about it all being speculation or lies or rumours or whatever, I know it's not necessarily true. But the fact is that it could very well be true, probably is true, and either way is just as worrying because it fits with the current climate of fear of terrorists.
Comments
Since they are using the terrorist "threat" in connection with the election, I bet Bush is using it for his advantage. And if no attack happens, Bush will say something like "I saved you from an attack" just before the election :)
Eventually he may "stage" an attack just to delay the election...who knows.....
Oh...I am going to see Fahrenheit 9/11 today :P
Also this is quite "revealing": (check health secretary and attorney general)
[url]http://www.opensecrets.org/bush/cabinet.asp[/url]
we had a vote during our cival war, I think we can have one due to a few fruit cakes wanting to blow us up.
well, actually i wouldn't be surprised if osama shows up again around the time of the elections. as for increasing fear, i thought that bushs state of the union address had quite a lot of "there's danger everywhere, watch your neighbour and help us hunt the terrorists which are everywhere"
No, what [i]I'm[/i] scared shitless of is what might happen afterwards. I'm truly not sure how much more of this dicking around with dictatorship the population will take, and the last thing anyone needs is a Second American Civil War.
(Gotta go, the FBI are coming. :shadow1: )
Bush has created a situation that threatens the very stability of the Middle East and therefore the very national security basis that he claims is the rationale for going into Iraq. Our action of invading Iraq has created a more dangerous world for all Americans for the forseeable future.
Re: all the terror announcements, they serve a purpous. I don't know about the population at large, but they sure haven't inspired any fear in me. I look at it this way: Say there's an impending attack. The administration gets wind of it, but not enough details to actually do anything about it. They raise the threat level, and make a lot of statements saying there might be an impending attack, but that they cannot reveal details. The would-be attackers now know that the administration knows [i]something[/i], but not what or how much. They then consider the plan too dangerous to try and back off.
The simple fact is, we can never know whether a given tactic in stopping an attack is working until it fails. And when it does fail, you can be certain that the very same people who are complaining here about all the "useless, fear-inducing" warnings will be screaming about the administration not doing its job and having failed at every point once again and how they should have known and done and [i]said[/i] something about it.
Please.
The fact is that our being in Iraq has increased their recruitment availability. Thus our being in Iraq has harmed our national security.
I suspect that the True Believer terrorist very much wishes there were no reason for his organization to exist (that is, wishes the whole world were converted to some particular fundamentalist sect of Islam so he wouldn't have to kill people to achieve that mighty goal).
[B]Re: all the terror announcements, they serve a purpous. I don't know about the population at large, but they sure haven't inspired any fear in me. I look at it this way: Say there's an impending attack. The administration gets wind of it, but not enough details to actually do anything about it. They raise the threat level, and make a lot of statements saying there might be an impending attack, but that they cannot reveal details. The would-be attackers now know that the administration knows [i]something[/i], but not what or how much. They then consider the plan too dangerous to try and back off.
The simple fact is, we can never know whether a given tactic in stopping an attack is working until it fails. And when it does fail, you can be certain that the very same people who are complaining here about all the "useless, fear-inducing" warnings will be screaming about the administration not doing its job and having failed at every point once again and how they should have known and done and [i]said[/i] something about it.
Please. [/B][/QUOTE]
I think this does raise some good points. Announcing that you know "something" can act to discourage nervous potential attackers. If you project the image of knowing a lot but never reveal exactly what you know it can be discouraging. On the other hand, it can be taken too far, as well as (if carried out for too long) damaging your reputation (which is where the failure bit Bekenn mentioned would come in).
[B]RC: Bullshit. I can't see any way that terrorists would want to keep a man who is [i]determined to hunt these people down and kill them[/i] in office. [/B][/QUOTE]
And you dont think any other U.S. president would want the same thing? The difference is in [i]how[/i] you do it. And ultimately, how well those actions succeed.
Oh yes, how inappropriate that our government should be discussing "doomsday scenarios" regarding the elections. It's not as if terrorists have never done anything around a country's time of year. Except in Spain, I guess. But that doesn't count because Bush isn't King or Prime Minister of Spain. Yet.
And if the government doen't look like it's taking terrorism seriously, what will Michael Moore can criticize Bush for it later!
On a less sarcastic note, it is a bit excessive, as that one democrat said. But it doesn't matter. They'd find something to complain about regarding the issue one way or the other.
[B]And you dont think any other U.S. president would want the same thing?[/B][/QUOTE]
Funny, I really don't recall ever saying that.
[QUOTE][B]The difference is in [i]how[/i] you do it. And ultimately, how well those actions succeed. [/B][/QUOTE]
Let me put it this way, then:
Bush has proven to be a thorn in their side. Terrorists would not be attacking US allies in Iraq (holding hostages and demanding that US allies leave -- the Phillipines actually caved in to this demand, which will probably encourage these people to do it more often, because hostage-taking has just been proven to be an effective way to get what you want) and Madrid if they weren't hurting.
The second most dangerous animal is the one you have cornered, that perceives no option but to fight back or die.
Have Bush's terrorism policies made the world a safer place?
Hell no. Not in the short term, anyway; that much is made absolutely clear by the events mentioned above. But I believe these tactics have a good chance of working in the long term (regardless of whether they're the tactics we [i]should[/i] be following; just thinking effectiveness here), and I think the terrorists do, too.
190 people died in Madrid just days before a major election, and the next thing you know, Spain recalls its troops and pulls out of all US-led anti-terror operations. Whether the two events are linked or not, terrorists learned from that that attacks around election time are effective and therefore worthwhile. It's entirely plausible that they would want to try it again, and I see nothing wrong with having a government that plans for that eventuality.
[B]RC: Bullshit. I can't see any way that terrorists would want to keep a man who is [i]determined to hunt these people down and kill them[/i] in office.
[/QUOTE]
Well.. but he and his goverment are NOT determined to hunt them down...only getting the oil and fearing the people into giving them more power.
(Oh..I watched Fahrenheit 9/11 yesterday)
If it goes the B5 Clark route, it would be the sitting president until he decides the situation is better.
If it goes the democratic route, it would be an agreement of both major parties for no more then a couple weeks.
For some reason I see Bush wanting the B5 Clark route.
-----------------
As for Iraq, I think Mundane has a very good point: Oil. How much of this War on Terror that Bush is fighting has more to do with Oil then it has to do with actually hunting down and getting terrorists?
--RC
[B]I think a lot of the concern over election postponement comes down to who would have the power to postpone it. Would it be the sitting president? Or would it require a bipartisan agreement of both party's canidates? Would it be for only 1 or 2 weeks? Or could it be "until the situation is better?"
If it goes the B5 Clark route, it would be the sitting president until he decides the situation is better.
If it goes the democratic route, it would be an agreement of both major parties for no more then a couple weeks.[/B][/QUOTE]
I agree completely.
[QUOTE][B]For some reason I see Bush wanting the B5 Clark route.[/B][/QUOTE]
Here, I disagree; even if he wanted to do that, I think he knows that he could never get arrangements for that passed through Congress.
The President of the United States is [i]not[/i] and never has been a king; he can't simply make declarations and expect them to supersede the law as it stands. He has to get either the legislature or the supreme court to agree with him, and that takes a certain amount of reasonableness.
[QUOTE][B]As for Iraq, I think Mundane has a very good point: Oil. How much of this War on Terror that Bush is fighting has more to do with Oil then it has to do with actually hunting down and getting terrorists?[/B][/QUOTE]
...Except that it hasn't been [i]fought[/i] that way. We still have a fair amount of people over in Afghanistan doing what they can to work with the people, get schools built, that sort of thing; in Iraq, we also still have troops, and yes, a fair amount of them are protecting oil sites, but keep in mind that oil sites were specifically attacked following the collapse of Hussein's regime precisely because they are vital to the Iraqi economy. Moreover, Iraq is now officially governing itself, and as time goes by, they're taking more and more control of their own situation.
We [i]didn't[/i] ever:
1) Demand war reparations from Iraq, in the form of oil or otherwise
2) Take oil from them without paying for it (though I'll confess I don't know the answer to the question of whether we paid [i]enough[/i] for it, or what would constitute "enough")
We [i]did[/i]:
1) Go out of our way during the invasion to avoid civilian and even enemy military casualties, which cost us a few lives.
2) Give ([i]not[/i] loan) literally billions of dollars to Iraq to help them rebuild, without a price tag attached; this is money that was exchanged external to any purchase of oil or other good or service.
Sorry, but the "it's all for oil" argument just seems very simplistic and wrong to me.
Bush et al have seized on the war on terror as a great political tool. Just as long as there are Osamas and Saddams to hunt they're fine. Without them, Bush falls under too much scrutiny and his detractors gain some more airtime.
That means his political death and he knows it.
Regardless of the nobility of the cause, ( or not), it really is just another political tool. While everyone is adressing the terrorists, they're not addressing Bush and his woeful leadership.
Bring on the revolution.
Mass tax deliquency, don't pay for the services you arent getting.
Start again.
The US Govt is rotten to the core.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by shadow boxer [/i]
[B]Bring on the revolution.
Mass tax delinquency, don't pay for the services you aren’t getting.
Start again.
The US Govt is rotten to the core. [/B][/QUOTE]
SB, what services am I not getting? The highways I drive on get me to work fairly well, matter of fact, a new bridge just went up that cut my commute. The schools, police and fire departments in my area do a good job. The meat I buy at the grocery store is clean and fresh, I am confident the amount of gasoline the pump tells me I've put in my tank is correct. I know the contract I make in one state is valid in another. I know that if I were to write a book or invent a product, that is my intellectual property. For the services I do receive, my tax burden is fairly insignificant.
Jake
[B]I agree that this war has not been about oil, or at least not in the direct sense that Bushes detractors have implied (that we're going to take the oil). That just hasn't been the case. Matter of fact we've had to pump more money into the Iraq economy because they could not sell enough of their own oil. In the long run could this lower oil prices once Iraq stabilizes? Maybe, since you'd have a significant oil reserve that is outside of OPEC.
SB, what services am I not getting? The highways I drive on get me to work fairly well, matter of fact, a new bridge just went up that cut my commute. The schools, police and fire departments in my area do a good job. The meat I buy at the grocery store is clean and fresh, I am confident the amount of gasoline the pump tells me I've put in my tank is correct. I know the contract I make in one state is valid in another. I know that if I were to write a book or invent a product, that is my intellectual property. For the services I do receive, my tax burden is fairly insignificant.
Jake [/B][/QUOTE]
sure, pumping a lot of money into Iraq, giving his friends the contracts for the work.
Of course, it is usual that a the people in power knows people, in all the big firms..but anyway.