Ram Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 The proof is in the pudding? If you consider 'No occurences of 9/11 type of incidents' since then as 'proof', then thats a really half-baked way of looking at it. America has been creating new enemies all over the world. It has been giving people new reasons to hate them. Now, they maybe weak and powerless to do anything about it today, but it may not be the case all the time. Just like how their rotten policies in 80s and 90s, especially with regards to turning a blind eye to Islamic Jihad because it benefited from them in Afghanistan led to 9/11, their rotten policies of today by which they have waged an illegal war that has led to the deaths of 2,00,000 innocent Iraqi civilians and 5000 coalition soldiers lives and also their policy of turning a blind eye to Israel’s excesses in the middle east, will at some point in the future, come back to haunt them. Of course, I am not for one wishing that would happen. I’d never consciously wish harm on another human. But, that does not mean I don’t think it will wont happen.
cochise Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Study "The decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" by Edward Gibbons. Then use it as a reflection for the USA. The understanding will deepen.
triam Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Clinton Administration developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator of anti-terrorist efforts. Clinton Administration stopped the Al Qaeda millennium hijacking and bombing plots. Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to kill the Pope Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to blow up Boston airport Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania -- Tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.). -- Brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice. -- Did not blame Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after Bush left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively -- and successfully -- to stop future terrorist attacks. --Named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism. -Clinton Administration sent legislation to Congress to TIGHTEN AIRPORT SECURITY. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines. -Clinton Administration sent legislation to Congress to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF TERRORIST FUNDING. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests. -Clinton Administration sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF EXPLOSIVES USED BY TERRORISTS. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA. -Clinton Administration increased the military budget by an average of 14 per cent, reversing the trend under Bush I. -Clinton Administration tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism -Clinton Administration detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries -Clinton Administration created national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine. -Of Clinton Administration's efforts says Robert Oakley, Reagan Ambassador for Counterterrorism: "Overall, I give them very high marks" and "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama" -Paul Bremer, current Civilian Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley as he believed the Clinton Administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden. -Barton Gellman in the Washington Post put it best, "By any measure available, Clinton Administration left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him" and was the "first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort" Under Clinton there was a similar bombing in wtc 6 dead and 1000 injured, after that for the next 8 years there were no attacks within the US. So going by your "proof is in the pudding" statement, Clinton acheived this far effectively AND improved the economy, as opposed to Bush.
punjabi_khota Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 So I see everyone concerned conveniently ignored the NYT article link given by BB
triam Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 No I have not, as it stands today they are looking at ways to manage the closure of Gitmo, I dont think they have decided that every criminal being held in Gitmo will be released to their home countries. So if that happens then that article will be relevant. Btw, do you have anything to say about the "effectiveness of torture" links I have posted?
Ram Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Under Clinton there was a similar bombing in wtc 6 dead and 1000 injured' date=' after that for the next 8 years there were no attacks within the US. So going by your "proof is in the pudding" statement, Clinton acheived this far effectively AND improved the economy, as opposed to Bush.[/quote'] To be fair, I doubt if your comparison of Bush with Clinton is totally proper either. Because, for pure arguments sake, one can always manipulate facts/figures to present a case, either on behalf of Clinton, or Bush, as to who improved homeland security more. But this isn’t about facts, this isn’t about numbers. The truth is out there for all to see. Because of America’s short-sighted war on terror, the whole world is more dangerous than it was before. And the Americans themselves are recognizing its a failed policy, which is why they’ve made a commitment to pull out of Iraq. Afghanistan will follow soon.
cochise Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Which one? This one? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/world/middleeast/23yemen.html?_r=1&ref=world Bhai...what news is this to us Indians? It's no news at all...we know this implicitly. If you have a direct point, put it across....if we are remiss, I will make amends.
Brainfade Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Study "The decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" by Edward Gibbons. Then use it as a reflection for the USA. The understanding will deepen. I see your point, and I have an understanding of the fall of the Romans, but that is the "big picture." As an individual family-man, one tends to worry more about the now and the here. Like this headline: Ex-Gitmo detainee joins al-Qaida in Yemen http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090123/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_yemen_al_qaida
triam Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 To be fair, I doubt if your comparison of Bush with Clinton is totally improper either. Because, for pure arguments sake, one can always manipulate facts/figures to present a case, either on behalf of Clinton, or Bush, as to who improved homeland security more. But this isn’t about facts, this isn’t about numbers. The truth is out there for all to see. Because of America’s short-sighted war on terror, the whole world is more dangerous than it was before. And the Americans themselves are recognizing its a failed policy, which is why they’ve made a commitment to pull out of Iraq. Afghanistan will follow soon. I agree MM, the only reason I posted is to counter the claim that Bush managed to protect US.
veer Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 IRAQ war is a different issue.. it was a mistake to go in.. but this is a different issue..first get fimiliar with your enemy.. what it boils down to is if you dont bring war to them... they will bring war and destruction to you.. US falls in first category and India, on other hand, falls in second.. India is not taking war to pakis so they are bringing destruction to us.. its upto individual choices on which category you want to be in... I would like to be in first..
punjabi_khota Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 No I have not' date=' as it stands today they are looking at ways to manage the closure of Gitmo, I dont think they have decided that every criminal being held in Gitmo will be released to their home countries. So if that happens then that article will be relevant. Btw, do you have anything to say about the "effectiveness of torture" links I have posted?[/quote'] I have read some other articles which point to the same thing. About 6 months ago, there was an article in NYT about how psychological interrogation were far more successful in getting information from the captured terrorist in Gitmo, and they mentioned the name of one guy in CIA who was especially good at tha, and actualy made 'friends' with those hardcore criminals. So while I agree that toture is most definitely not the preferred way to go, but you cannot totally discount that option. Also, regarding the release of those terrorists, I don't know what the solution is. I think the main guys in 9/11 have apparently confessed and asked for a reduced sentence based on that, but there is a whole bunch of others whom you just cannot let go in the name of liberty.
cochise Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 As an individual family-man, one tends to worry more about the now and the here. Well...this is more what you should worry about if you live in the anglo-sphere: http://www.321gold.com/editorials/willie/willie012009.html Like this headline: Ex-Gitmo detainee joins al-Qaida in Yemen http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090123/...yemen_al_qaida Have you considered the possibility that he is an intelligence operative. I am sure they have. Regardless...the ideology of hate will fail. It always has and always will. But I take your point...the damage it does in it's throes of mortality, can hurt many.
cochise Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 So while I agree that toture is most definitely not the preferred way to go, but you cannot totally discount that option. One must not fear...nor breed fear so much that such desperation arises. It is not necessary for those who are assured in themselves of victory.
punjabi_khota Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 One must not fear...nor breed fear so much that such desperation arises. It is not necessary for those who are assured in themselves of victory. Morality 101 ?
coffee_rules Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 One more attack on USA anywhere in the world, the conservatives in the hill will start hounding on Obama to reopen several Gitmos (not just GBay). Unless they amend the Patriot act, these so called HR violations will not go away.
cochise Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 How did Bheem kill Duryodhan ? who gave the instructions ? Never the detail. Capture the spirit.
cochise Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 anyone interested in reality 101 ? Please do expound further. Introduce me to reality.
Recommended Posts