Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Why I Voted For George W. Bush

GW Bush Election Approval of Policy

  • Please log in to reply
122 replies to this topic

#81 eloisel

eloisel

    Non-sequitur

  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 23 September 2005 - 03:26 PM

Robert Hewitt Wolfe, on Sep 23 2005, 05:17 PM, said:

eloisel, on Sep 18 2005, 10:05 PM, said:

Since President Bush began the "War on Terror" how many terrorist attacks have there been on Americans and on American property outside of Iraq and Afghanistan?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


False syllogism.  In your list of previous terrorist actions, you include the many attacks on US servicemen and diplomatic personnel deployed on foreign soil (Lebanon, the Cole, etc), then you try to exclude similar attacks from Bush's record.  A fair comparison has to either exclude all attacks on US military personnel and diplomatic personnel deployed overseas or include them for both Bush and his predecessors.

First, please do not confuse me with persons who ask questions when they have already decided what the answers must be.

Second, please do not confuse me with persons who manipulate facts to argue on the internet with people they have never met.  Your assertion that I "tried to exclude similar attacks from Bush's record" is based on your belief system in how persons you do not know interact with the world.  My question still stands – "Since President Bush began the "War on Terror" how many terrorist attacks have there been on Americans and on American property outside of Iraq and Afghanistan?"

Quote

Since Bush began the War on Terror, there have been many successful terrorist attacks against the US and our allies.  Even if you exclude "military actions" in Iraq and Afghanistan (and even the administration calls these "terrorist attacks," so shouldn't you?) that still leaves the Bali bombings (202 dead in an attack targetting Western tourists), Madrid (191 dead), London (56 dead), the shoebomber, the attack on a US ship in Jordan, and many, many incidents targetting Westerners in Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

1st - My question did not include attacks against our allies' citizens or property.

2nd – I do exclude "military actions" in Iraq and Afghanistan because our military is there in declared wars.  Them that will war will find someone to war with.

3rd –Is it your statement that the terrorist attack on Bali 10/12/02 was specific to Americans and American property?

4th – Is it your statement that the March 11, 2004 Madrid train bombing was specific to Americans and American property?

5th – Is it your statement that the July 2005 London bombings were specific to Americans and American property?

6th – Richard Reid who attempted in December 2001 to down a Miami-bound airliner from Paris with a bomb hidden inside one of his shoes.  This was an attempted terrorist attack on Americans and American property.

7th – In October 2002, an American aid worker was killed outside his Amman, Jordan home — blamed on Iraq's al-Qaida point man, the Jordanian-born Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.  This was an attack on Americans and American property.

8th - The May 12, 2003 Riyadh Compound Bombings (26 dead).  This was an attack on Americans and American property.

9th - The 29 May 2004 Al-Khobar massacres (19 foreigners – 1 American - and many Saudis).  This was an attack on Americans and American property.

10th – The June 2004 attacks and kidnappings which resulted in the deaths of three Americans and an Irish reporter.  This was an attack on Americans and American property.

11th - The December 2004 storming of the US consulate in Jeddah (5 consulate employees killed).  This was an attack on Americans and American property.

12th – The August 19, 2005, attack on U.S. warships in the port of Aqaba, Jordan.  This was an attack on Americans and American property.

13th - I don't think the domestic terrorist activities of the unsolved anthrax mailings and the DC sniper attacks belongs in this particular discussion.

Any others?

Quote

Any way you cut it, the simple truth is that more Americans have died to terrorism under Bush's watch than during the administration of any other modern US president.
Please define the date when "modern" beings, state your statistics and provide your sources.  

My next question:  Do you believe these terrorists activities would have happened if President Bush did not declare a "War on Terror"?

Edited by eloisel, 23 September 2005 - 03:27 PM.


#82 eloisel

eloisel

    Non-sequitur

  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 23 September 2005 - 03:29 PM

I'll be back later when work isn't calling.

#83 emsparks

emsparks
  • Forever Missed
  • 2,426 posts

Posted 23 September 2005 - 04:21 PM

eloisel, on Sep 23 2005, 04:26 PM, said:

...

1st - My question did not include attacks against our allies' citizens or property.
...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Does your list include people holding joint Israeli and American citizenship, and or American Jews visiting Israel.
Sparky::

Think!
Question Authority, Authoritatively.

#84 eloisel

eloisel

    Non-sequitur

  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 23 September 2005 - 04:58 PM

emsparks, on Sep 23 2005, 09:21 PM, said:

eloisel, on Sep 23 2005, 04:26 PM, said:

...

1st - My question did not include attacks against our allies' citizens or property.
...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Does your list include people holding joint Israeli and American citizenship, and or American Jews visiting Israel.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I do not know if the person's attacked in the listed attacks hold joint Israeli and American citizenship.  I do not believe any of the person's killed in the attacks listed were American Jews killed while visiting Israel.


Apparently I have missed it.  Is there some reason why a number of posters are bringing up Jews in this discussion.

#85 emsparks

emsparks
  • Forever Missed
  • 2,426 posts

Posted 23 September 2005 - 05:25 PM

eloisel, on Sep 23 2005, 05:58 PM, said:

...
Apparently I have missed it.  Is there some reason why a number of posters are bringing up Jews in this discussion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Why are we mentioning Jews?
Because it’s a large number of American deaths, that do not get reported. To understand the reason it doesn’t get reported as often as it happens, you’d have to understand anti-Semitism in the United States. It seams that you only count if you’re Christian.

This is only one of many such stories. I suppose if I thought it would do any good I could look up some of the other stories.

FoxNews, on Thursday, August 01, 2002, said:

JERUSALEM — A terror bomb blew up in a crowded cafeteria at Hebrew University in Jerusalem Wednesday, killing seven people -- including five Americans -- and wounding more than 80. link to full story


Philip Crane (R-IL), on Thursday, July 17, 2003, said:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A resolution introduced by United States Representative

Phil Crane (R-IL) condemning the attacks on U.S. citizens killed in Israel by Palestinian terrorists was approved yesterday as part of a foreign aid bill that cleared the House of Representatives by a vote of 382 to 42. The resolution condemns the attacks of 41 Americans killed since the 1993 Oslo Peace Accords where Palestinian leader Yassar Arafat renounced violence as part of the peace initiative. It also offers Congress’ condolences to families of those individuals killed and calls on the Palestinian Authority to work with Israel to protect all innocent individuals regardless of citizenship from terrorist atrocities.


Crane’s amendment also calls on the U.S. Department of State to start accounting for the deaths of all U.S. citizens as the result of a terrorist act in its annual “Chronology of Significant Terrorist Incidents,” as reported in future “Patterns of Global Terrorism” reports.

Link to article

Edited to add the Crane report.

Edited by emsparks, 23 September 2005 - 05:50 PM.

Sparky::

Think!
Question Authority, Authoritatively.

#86 Robert Hewitt Wolfe

Robert Hewitt Wolfe
  • Demigod
  • 2,247 posts

Posted 23 September 2005 - 06:20 PM

eloisel, on Sep 23 2005, 01:26 PM, said:

First, please do not confuse me with persons who ask questions when they have already decided what the answers must be.  SNIP Second, please do not confuse me with persons who manipulate facts to argue on the internet with people they have never met. 

Perhaps I didn't phrase my point as well as I could.  I merely pointed out that you seemed to have different criteria for what qualified as a terrorist attack on your list pre-Bush and what qualified post-Bush.  You included military targets in war zones on your pre-Bush list but excluded them in your post-Bush list.  I have no problem discussing attacks under either parameter.  But we should pick a definition and stick with it.

Quote

1st - My question did not include attacks against our allies' citizens or property.

Why not?  Don't attacks against our allies harm our national interests?  Aren't such attacks intended, at least partially, to isolate us and punish those who cooperate with us?

Quote

2nd – I do exclude "military actions" in Iraq and Afghanistan because our military is there in declared wars.  Them that will war will find someone to war with.

Fine with me.  Then you should re-examine your list of pre-Bush attacks and prune your list to fit this criterium.

Quote

3rd –Is it your statement that the terrorist attack on Bali 10/12/02 was specific to Americans and American property?

It was aimed at a nightclub frequented by Westerners, including Americans.  Seven of the victims were American.  Over a hundred others were from nations which are traditonally our allies.

Quote

4th – Is it your statement that the March 11, 2004 Madrid train bombing was specific to Americans and American property?

5th – Is it your statement that the July 2005 London bombings were specific to Americans and American property?

Again, these attacks, though not aimed at us directly, harmed our national interests.  Clearly, if we could have helped prevent them, this would have been a major victory for US Intelligence in the WoT.  Instead, the Madrid attack precipitated Spanish withdrawl from the Coalition and hurt our efforts in the WoT.  I'll admit I'm not sure what the political fallout from the London attacks has been.
Anyone?

You next list seven attacks which you agree support my point that terrorist attacks have continued unabated since Bush declared the War on Terror, including one I forgot:

Quote

7th – In October 2002, an American aid worker was killed outside his Amman, Jordan home — blamed on Iraq's al-Qaida point man, the Jordanian-born Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.  This was an attack on Americans and American property.

You go on to ask:

Quote

13th - I don't think the domestic terrorist activities of the unsolved anthrax mailings and the DC sniper attacks belongs in this particular discussion.

Again, why not?  Do terrorist attacks by Americans against Americans not count?  I thought the President swore to protect the US against all enemies "foreign and domestic."  

Both the sniper attacks and the anthrax attacks seem to have been directly inspired by the events surrounding the War on Terror, based on targets, timing, perpetrator statements, etc.

So I would include the Oklahoma City bombings in my pre-Bush list and the anthrax and sniper attacks in my post-Bush list.  Further, we should probably add such incidents as church-bombings, the Atlanta bombings, the assassination of that DJ in Denver, various and sundry murders and attempted murders of abortion providers and other politically or religiously motivated domestically generated attacks in any serious discussion of the War on Terror.

Quote

My next question:  Do you believe these terrorists activities would have happened if President Bush did not declare a "War on Terror"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I believe that, while the war in Afghanistan and other efforts in the War on Terror (such as action in the Phillipines) have been effective attacks on the perpetrators of 9/11, the war in Iraq has been an unfortunate military and political adventure.  It was not properly part of the War on Terror and was sold to the American public and Congress via false pretenses and/or poor intelligence.  It has been poorly planned and executed.  It has siphoned away troops and money that could have been better used elsewhere.  It has seriously damaged US credibility overseas, hurt our economy, and destroyed the good will many in the World community felt toward the US and its efforts post-9/11.  Further, the Iraq War has been al-Qaida's best recruiting poster.  It has inspired an entire new generation of anti-US terrorists and directly motivated terrorist attacks that have cost hundreds of civilian lives.  I strongly suspect Madrid and London, at the very least, might not have happened if not for Iraq.

When it comes to Bush's record on terror, the simple fact remains that more Americans have died to terrorism, however you'd like to define it, on his watch than on that of any other modern president.*    Further, from all the data I can find, terrorist attacks have continued unabated in frequency and deadliness since he declared the War on Terror.

So I'd pose the question to you.  Has George W. Bush done a better job in fighting terrorism during his administration (ie from January 2001 to the present) than his immediate predecessors (for the sake of arguement, let's say Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton)?   Worse?  The same?  

* A couple non-Modern examples of "terrorism":  About 100 - 200 people died in what we'd now call terrorist attacks in Bleeding Kansas in the 1850s.  The US lost over 4000 soldiers in the Phillipine Insurrection, many to non-conventional combatants, in the early 1900s.



[EDITED to fix some (but not all) of my creative spelling and grammar]

Edited by Robert Hewitt Wolfe, 23 September 2005 - 06:25 PM.

"There are monsters, there are angels...
There's a peacefulness and a rage inside us all."
----------------------------------
Voice of the Beehive


#87 eloisel

eloisel

    Non-sequitur

  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 24 September 2005 - 12:22 AM

Natolii, on Sep 23 2005, 12:28 PM, said:

eloisel, on Sep 20 2005, 10:00 PM, said:

Somehow we've got to help Mexico make Mexico a country its citizens will stay in instead of come over here at all risks.  I don't know what that will take except that it will definitely take more than a couple of presidents.  And we're going to have to do it without invading the place or making them our enemy.   While I'm not in support of giving illegal aliens carte blanche to invade us, I am for doing something productive to make Mexico a place people can work in and live in.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


To put a fine point to this... No.

Sorry, I disagree with you.  I do not know what we can do but I do believe something has to be done.  We have a problem with Mexican citizens crossing into border towns every month to collect welfare and AFDC from post office boxes.  We have a porous border with many illegal aliens dying from exposure or murdered by vigilantes in remote areas.  We have human trafficking with many illegal aliens left to die in the cargo containers dropped off by big trucks, sometimes the truck left behind as well.  We have the exploitation of illegal aliens that make it through the ordeal alive.  We have other problems such as illegal aliens being in automobile accidents and not being insured or having any other means to make financial restitution for the damage they have caused.  At least some illegal aliens are vicious criminals - raping, murdering, running drugs, and burglarizing.  Illegal aliens are a burden on the legal, medical and education systems.  In addition to the costs of lives, misappropriated welfare benefits and the drain by illegal aliens on other systems in this country designed for the benefit of American citizens, we've got $6.7 BILLION dollars budgeted for the protection of the border for 2006 and that isn't enough.  I think it would be a better idea to do something to solve the problem at the source to free up those billions of dollars for the benefit of the people in this country.

Quote

When are we going to work on taking care of our people? Hurricane Katrina ripped the lid off a major problem that no amount of rhetoric is going to hide.

In 1996, the poverty rate was 13.7 percent and 12.2% of the budget, or $191 billion, was allotted for poverty entitlements.

Prior to the current disasters, the poverty rate was 12.7 percent, with 14.6% of the 2006 budget, or $368 billion, alloted for poverty entitlements.

Hurricane Katrina did not rip the lid off the fact that there are huge numbers of poor people in this country.  Rhetoric doesn't hide the fact that massive amounts of money has been spent in the "war on poverty" and we are still losing.

Quote

To put things into prospective, emsparks is not anti-Christian. What he is Jewish citizen that is tired of having someone else's beliefs shoved down his throat. Myself, I was raised Christian, but I have no respect for a highly hypocritical Patriarchy that seems hell-bent on advocating Illegal and discriminatory practices. Keep your eye open for a Edict from the Vatican in the coming days banning Homosexuals from Seminaries while at the same time hiding Pedophiles... Father Porter anyone!...

I'm not certain I'm catching your perspective of how race/religion/sexual preference/poverty prejudices in this country relate to the issue of the porous border problem.  Please explain.

Quote

I am unemployed, not by choice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I sympathize.  I've been unemployed and know how much it sucks.

#88 eloisel

eloisel

    Non-sequitur

  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 24 September 2005 - 12:39 AM

Lin731, on Sep 20 2005, 09:33 PM, said:

http://www.americanp...ME/ConGame.html
On February 8, 2005, Bill O'Reilly of Fox news reported that President George W. Bush's new budget called for a 90% reduction in the number of Border Patrol Agents originally planned for in the intelligence overhaul bill signed in December 2004. O'Reilly asked, "What's going on?"

This is what is going on: George Bush is playing "Good cop, bad cop" with the U.S. Senate. Bush slashes the budget for agents, thus making him very unpopular with the public. But he doesn't care about that. He isn't running for office again. On the other hand the Senate does care about public opinion, so it jumps in and restores the original budget. The public shouts, "hurray, we won!"

Not so fast: You didn't win. You lost. According to Arizona Senator John Kyl, the Border Patrol is capable of training only 1,000 new agents each year. So, at best, the Border Patrol will see an increase of about ten percent in manpower by the end of next year. Does anyone really believe a ten percent increase in manpower will solve the border problem? It won't even make a noticeable difference.

Sorry  to be late to getting to this part of your post.  Too many good conversations going on in this particular thread.  Thanks to all who are participating.

Now, what is quoted above is a wonderful example of why we are all going crazy.

1st - President Bush promises a 2,000 man power increase to the USBP per year for 5 years beginning in 2006 -  realizing, of course, that the USBP can only train 1,000 per year.

2nd - President Bush cuts the funding from 2,000 down to 210 in the 2006 budget.

3rd - the pro-increase faction of the political machine will squabble with the President to get funding up in 2006 for the 1,000 the USBP can actually train.

4th - the pro-cut side will think they've won with 1,000 cut, the pro-increase side will think they've won with an additional 790 funded.  

5th - even with an additional 1,000 agents, which is the capacity the USBP can train in a year, the border will still be porous and the USBP will complain it is because they did not receive the additional 1,000 they were promised but didn't get after all the political wrangling.

Everybody's butt is covered but the problem is still not close to being resolved.

Edited by eloisel, 24 September 2005 - 12:50 AM.


#89 eloisel

eloisel

    Non-sequitur

  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 24 September 2005 - 01:37 AM

Ports - Cargo Container Security:

1st line of defense - Customs and the Coast Guard
Customs has embarked on a computer modernization effort to better capture and process information from manifests.  It will cost more than $1 billion and won't be finished for another four years (from a 2003 report). The Coast Guard has started on a massive upgrade to its fleet, which will include new onboard computer systems that will give ship commanders instant access to its ship registry and crew databases. It will cost $17 billion and take at least 10 and possibly 20 years (from same 2003 report).

2nd line of defense - Port Managers

International and Homeland Defense

Quote

August 25, 2005
U.S. ports begin catastrophic terrorist attack drills
By Joe Fiorill, Global Security Newswire

U.S. ports are preparing for catastrophic terrorism in a major new program of security drills that began last week in the San Francisco Bay area and continues next week in Baltimore.

The federal Port Security Training Exercises Program (PortSTEP) brings together government and private-sector officials responsible for maritime transportation and commerce, emergency response and land transit in 40 port districts around the United States. Officials participate in fictitious incident scenarios intended to reflect the terrorist threat environment.

"Everyone was really, really engaged because the scenarios were very realistic" in the San Francisco Bay exercises, Universal Systems and Technology Inc. Vice President for Homeland Security David Holmes said Wednesday.

The company, known as Unitech, was the lead contractor for last week's exercises and will fill that role for most of the exercises scheduled around the country through September 2007. The Coast Guard and Transportation Security Administration are administering the program.

Holmes would not specifically say whether weapons of mass destruction figured in the San Francisco Bay scenarios.
"You certainly have to know what the realities are today, what the challenges are today" in order to design realistic exercises, Holmes said. "What are the events that could shut down, for example, transportation or the shipping industry on the West Coast?"

The 40 sets of exercises are being conducted in seaports and inland ports of various sizes and terrorist threat profiles, ranging from Chicago to San Juan, Virgin Islands. Holmes said exercises would be tailored to the ports' varying situations, potentially involving threats to cruise ships in San Juan or to sea commerce in Long Beach, Calif.

"There are different challenges based upon levels of readiness, levels of resource," he said. "A lot of it is threat-risk-based. As a contractor, we are certainly aware of the Department of Homeland Security's - particularly this secretary's - focus on ensuring that we are spending the resources correctly based upon threat-risk."

The overall goal of the program is to harmonize and improve security efforts among different agencies, companies, transportation modes and regions potentially affected by threats to ports. Last week's participants included city and state emergency management agencies, fire departments, port administrators and land transportation entities, Holmes said.

Federal and contractor officials refused to divulge specific exercise scenarios, but the Transportation Security Administration said last week that "scenarios range from how officials react to discovering a suspect cargo container to an explosion at a seaport rail yard."

"Through these exercises and other programs," Coast Guard port security head Capt. Frank Sturm said last week, "we will be continually testing and evaluating how ready we are to deal with an actual threat to our ports."

For now, the exercises are of the "advanced tabletop" variety, which involves top officials' reacting to specific attack scenarios but not actually deploying emergency personnel and resources in response to the fictitious incident. The Baltimore exercise is set to kick off Wednesday, and the first full-scale, nontabletop exercises will begin about a year from now, Holmes said.

In the two-day San Francisco Bay event, hosted by the California Maritime Academy, such techniques as live fictitious news broadcasts were used to impart realism to the proceedings. Different participants were progressively given different pieces of information.

Holmes said the exercises involved more than 100 participants and yielded valuable insights.  "The notion of testing any plan is to look for ways to improve it," he said. "We learned certain things that we needed to refine."

Here is an interesting report by The CalTrade Report dated 9/6/04:
Security Slack at Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach
some quotes:

Quote

"We are just at the point where we see more clearly in developing our five-year plan. We have a clear vision of what we think a secure port is," Cummings said. "We understand much more clearly what, in the new era, the threats and vulnerabilities are. Now we are ready to put down specifics and request funding."  - George Cummings, security director for the Port of Los Angeles

Quote

..... Vera Adams, US Customs Service port director for the Los Angeles/Long Beach seaport, responded, "The pieces of equipment we have are sufficient to do the volume we have now. It's enough to cover all of our workload."

The gamma-ray scanners, which can detect the contents of a steel container or truck, are designed to inspect as many as eight containers per hour.

Assuming all four of the ports' scanners work 24 hours a day, seven days a week, the port has the ability to inspect 280,320 containers each year. That comes to about a 10% inspection rate - higher than the current national average of about 6% but far below what experts say is necessary.

"Why should we waste our resources merely to meet a percentage goal?" she said. "Why would we distract our personnel who are trying to find a needle in a haystack by targeting low-risk cargo?"

Added Customs spokesman Michael Fleming, "It's not the total percentage, it's the right percentage."

Quote

"We need more technology to screen the containers, but we need to be aware of any threats long before the threats come into US waters," Hahn said. "It's going to take a lot more international cooperation. In the meantime, any ships that raise suspicions get extra scrutiny now."  - Los Angeles Mayor James Hahn

Again, billions of dollars are being spent on port security and yet the complaint is that the aviation and border sectors are getting more funding.

One of our Canadian posters made the remark that we are a nation ruled by fear.  To some degree I am beginning to agree with that statement.  In this little investigation I am seeing over and over again "more money, more personnel, more equipment, more technology" with the complaint "x-sector got more," and it still isn't enough.  Perhaps we could resolve our unemployment issues by putting every able bodied unemployed person in border, port, and coastline security jobs.

#90 eloisel

eloisel

    Non-sequitur

  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 24 September 2005 - 01:39 AM

Note - get back to Lin on Homeland Security issues and Police/Fire/First Responder issues - post #69, and nuclear plant security - post #76.

Edited by eloisel, 24 September 2005 - 01:51 AM.


#91 eloisel

eloisel

    Non-sequitur

  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 24 September 2005 - 01:50 AM

Lin731, on Sep 23 2005, 04:38 PM, said:

Quote

Can we agree not to use sites put up by whack job extremists to support our differing sides of this issue?

Sure but that also requires knowing the site is from "whack job extremists" doesn't it? Had I known that, I'd not have posted it since I have no use for people like that.
I understand completely.  It is a difficult time we live in when it comes to knowing who to trust and who to believe.

Quote

In terms of water supply protection, how do we know what has or hasn't been done? We aren't privy to the details are we? We know the problem has been studied at the State levels but do we know what's been done to fix it at the Fed level?
I do not know about where you live but I can tell you that they have been fixed where I live.  You might want to contact your City Manager or Mayor and ask if your city has implemented recommendations by the feds to secure your water supplies based on the Water Vunerability Assessment they had to do a couple of years ago.

Quote

What about the nuclear plants here?
That is a good question.  But, I have a question too.  On what do you base your concerns?  Do you possess some special knowledge that measures aren't being taken to secure the nuclear plants?

#92 eloisel

eloisel

    Non-sequitur

  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 24 September 2005 - 03:07 AM

Robert Hewitt Wolfe, on Sep 23 2005, 11:20 PM, said:

eloisel, on Sep 23 2005, 01:26 PM, said:

First, please do not confuse me with persons who ask questions when they have already decided what the answers must be.  SNIP Second, please do not confuse me with persons who manipulate facts to argue on the internet with people they have never met. 

Perhaps I didn't phrase my point as well as I could.  I merely pointed out that you seemed to have different criteria for what qualified as a terrorist attack on your list pre-Bush and what qualified post-Bush.  You included military targets in war zones on your pre-Bush list but excluded in your post-Bush list.  I have no problem discussing attacks under either parameter.  But we should pick a definition and stick with it.

Well, then there is part of the problem - communication and perception.  My list stopped at September 11, 2001 with respect to the Bush era.  I asked a legitimate question - "Since President Bush began the "War on Terror" how many terrorist attacks have there been on Americans and on American property outside of Iraq and Afghanistan?"

For future reference, when I ask a question, I am looking for an answer or answers.  If I believe I already know the answer(s), I will provide it/them.  Other people may have different reasons for asking questions.


Quote

Quote

1st - My question did not include attacks against our allies' citizens or property.

Why not?  Don't attacks against our allies harm our national interests?  Aren't such attacks intended, at least partially, to isolate us and punish those who cooperate with us?

Quote

2nd – I do exclude "military actions" in Iraq and Afghanistan because our military is there in declared wars.  Them that will war will find someone to war with.

Fine with me.  Then you should re-examine your list of pre-Bush attacks and prune your list to fit this criterium.

Okay.  I'll agree attacks against our allies harm our national interests and my question should be amended.  "Since President Bush began the "War on Terror" how many terrorist attacks have there been on Americans, American property, and our allies' citizens and property outside of the U.S./allies declared wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?"

For reference, do you know offhand which of the events in the pre-Bush portion of the list took place in areas where the United States was in a U.S./or allies declared war?  

And, do you (and Emsparks) know offhand of other events that should be added to the pre-Bush portion of the list?  Emsparks posted that 41 Americans have been killed in Israel by Palestinian terrorists since the 1993 Oslo Peace Accords and the he is aware of some 50 years of terrorist activity.

And, as you asked, "How many of the casualties in Vietnam were victims of terrorism?"


Quote

You go on to ask:

Quote

13th - I don't think the domestic terrorist activities of the unsolved anthrax mailings and the DC sniper attacks belongs in this particular discussion.

Again, why not?  Do terrorist attacks by Americans against Americans not count?  I thought the President swore to protect the US against all enemies "foreign and domestic."  

Both the sniper attacks and the anthrax attacks seem to have been directly inspired by the events surrounding the War on Terror, based on targets, timing, perpetrator statements, etc.

So I would include the Oklahoma City bombings in my pre-Bush list and the anthrax and sniper attacks in my post-Bush list.  Further, we should probably add such incidents as church-bombings, the Atlanta bombings, the assassination of that DJ in Denver, various and sundry murders and attempted murders of abortion providers and other politically or religiously motivated domestically generated attacks in any serious discussion of the War on Terror.

This list is going to be huge, the tallies staggering.  

Quote

Quote

My next question:  Do you believe these terrorists activities would have happened if President Bush did not declare a "War on Terror"?

I believe that, while the war in Afghanistan and other efforts in the War on Terror (such as action in the Phillipines) have been effective attacks on the perpetrators of 9/11,
What about Libya, Yemen, the Sudan and other countries that are working to root out their own terrorist sponsoring problems?


Quote

So I'd pose the question to you.  Has George W. Bush done a better job in fighting terrorism during his administration (ie from January 2001 to the present) than his immediate predecessors (for the sake of arguement, let's say Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton)?   Worse?  The same?
  

That is a complicated question.

That terrorism existed prior to Carter and existed after Clinton, I would say their actions were not as effective as one could hope.  When one applies the same test to those administrations as is applied to this administration, they were complete and utter failures in combatting terrorism - not enough money, man power, equipment, technology and not done immediately.

The answer to whether President Bush's "War on Terror" is a failure or a success will not be known until Bush is no longer in office and the methods he has put in place to combat terror are no longer in operation.

#93 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 24 September 2005 - 08:32 AM

Just as a technical matter of language, only Congress can declare war, and it has not done so in the case of either Afghanistan or Iraq.  For the sake of clarity, you might want to find some other word for this context.
Posted Image

#94 Zwolf

Zwolf
  • Islander
  • 3,683 posts

Posted 24 September 2005 - 08:39 AM

Quote

That terrorism existed prior to Carter and existed after Clinton, I would say their actions were not as effective as one could hope. When one applies the same test to those administrations as is applied to this administration, they were complete and utter failures in combatting terrorism - not enough money, man power, equipment, technology and not done immediately.

*******  There has always been terrorism, and there always will be terrorism.  A "war on terrorism" is like a "war on jealousy" -  no one's ever going to be able to stop it.  Containing it, curbing it, making it harder for terrorists to do what they do...  that's the best one can hope for.

Clinton did try to pass more anti-terrorism measures, but they were blocked by the Republican congress ( example ).  That he could have done more is obvious - one could always do more.

Cheers,

Zwolf
"I've moved on and I'm feeling fine
And I'll feel even better
When your life has nothing to do with mine."
-Pittbull, "No Love Lost"

"There are things that I'd like to say
But I'm never talking to you again
There's things I'd like to phrase some way
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'd put you down where you belong
But I'm never talking to you again
I'd show you everywhere you're wrong
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you."
- Husker Du, "Never Talking To You Again"

#95 eloisel

eloisel

    Non-sequitur

  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 24 September 2005 - 09:32 AM

waterpanther, on Sep 24 2005, 01:32 PM, said:

Just as a technical matter of language, only Congress can declare war, and it has not done so in the case of either Afghanistan or Iraq.  For the sake of clarity, you might want to find some other word for this context.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Point taken.  

As both the military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq were approved by Congress, how about a CAFR - "Congressionally Approved Forceful Response"?

Interesting reading on formal declaration of war by Congress.  Declaring War could affect insurance payouts on claims from terrorist activities.

#96 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 24 September 2005 - 09:41 AM

We use "Korean Conflict" to describe a similar situation, though we haven't settled on anything definite for Vietnam.  I imagine we'll be an equally long time determining what to call the Afghan and Iraq debacles.
Posted Image

#97 eloisel

eloisel

    Non-sequitur

  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 24 September 2005 - 09:45 AM

Zwolf666, on Sep 24 2005, 01:39 PM, said:

*******  There has always been terrorism, and there always will be terrorism.  A "war on terrorism" is like a "war on jealousy" -  no one's ever going to be able to stop it.  Containing it, curbing it, making it harder for terrorists to do what they do...  that's the best one can hope for.
Agreed.  I would liken it more to the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Poverty."  We can throw all we've got at it and we're still not ever going to "win" but we can't just quit trying either.

#98 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 24 September 2005 - 10:04 AM

Zwolf666, on Sep 24 2005, 01:39 PM, said:

Quote

That terrorism existed prior to Carter and existed after Clinton, I would say their actions were not as effective as one could hope. When one applies the same test to those administrations as is applied to this administration, they were complete and utter failures in combatting terrorism - not enough money, man power, equipment, technology and not done immediately.

*******  There has always been terrorism, and there always will be terrorism.  A "war on terrorism" is like a "war on jealousy" -  no one's ever going to be able to stop it.  Containing it, curbing it, making it harder for terrorists to do what they do...  that's the best one can hope for.

Clinton did try to pass more anti-terrorism measures, but they were blocked by the Republican congress ( example ).  That he could have done more is obvious - one could always do more.

Cheers,

Zwolf

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


It should also be noted that the Clinton Administration's security apparatus successfully thwarted several major Islamic terrorist attacks, including a plot to bomb multiple targets in New York, another to hijack multiple planes over the Pacific, and the infamous Millennium bombing of LAX which if successful could have been as devastating as 9/11.   And it should be noted that the perpetrators of the first World Trade Center bombing, the Oklahoma City bombing, and these failed attempts were all swiftly captured and brought to justice.

Clinton's record on terrorism was far from perfect, but it actually looks pretty good compared to his predecessors and his successor.
"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#99 eloisel

eloisel

    Non-sequitur

  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 24 September 2005 - 10:04 AM

waterpanther, on Sep 24 2005, 02:41 PM, said:

We use "Korean Conflict" to describe a similar situation, though we haven't settled on anything definite for Vietnam.  I imagine we'll be an equally long time determining what to call the Afghan and Iraq debacles.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We also refer to it as the Korean War.  

A "state of war" can exist without Congressional declaration of war.  Perhaps "Congressionally approved state of war"?

At this point, I don't think the list is of much use other than for reference.  It would take a long time to compile it after we come to agreements on what date to begin the list and what types of actions to include.  Are we in agreement that terrorist activities on Americans, American property, our allies' citizens and their property - including or not including Afghanistan and Iraq  - is still a serious problem at this time?  If so, then I won't amend the question.  If not, then I will to clarify.

#100 eloisel

eloisel

    Non-sequitur

  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 24 September 2005 - 10:08 AM

MuseZack, on Sep 24 2005, 03:04 PM, said:

It should also be noted that the Clinton Administration's security apparatus successfully thwarted several major Islamic terrorist attacks, including a plot to bomb multiple targets in New York, another to hijack multiple planes over the Pacific, and the infamous Millennium bombing of LAX which if successful could have been as devastating as 9/11.   And it should be noted that the perpetrators of the first World Trade Center bombing, the Oklahoma City bombing, and these failed attempts were all swiftly captured and brought to justice.

Clinton's record on terrorism was far from perfect, but it actually looks pretty good compared to his predecessors and his successor.

Do you believe that no terrorist activities have been successfully thwarted by Bush's security apparatus?



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: GW Bush, Election, Approval of Policy

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users