Richard Cheney defends his government

[THX_1138]

The pedantic Pete in me begs to say that similar to the above US involvement in WW1 was also deemed 'fake'. But now time has told us that Wilson's timely involvement saved the world from who knows what. But thats another story for another time.

au contraire... American involvement in the First World War was not as significant as one might be led to believe. it was however, the material assistance they provided to the english. furthermore, american involvement in the second world war was also insignificant viz a vie the outcome of the war. it was american material and logistical assistance that decisively broke the back of the germans. not to mention the battle of stalingrad that pretty much scorched the german military machine. after that defeat, the battle of normandy was at best a 'mop up' exercise.

[Macj]

identify one. (and i do hope you say the shoe bomber because then i would rip you a new proverbial hole)

Fort Dix Six. More for your edification: http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/09/whitehouse.plots/index.html

[Macj]

au contraire... American involvement in the First World War was not as significant as one might be led to believe. it was however' date= the material assistance they provided to the english. furthermore, american involvement in the second world war was also insignificant viz a vie the outcome of the war. it was american material and logistical assistance that decisively broke the back of the germans. not to mention the battle of stalingrad that pretty much scorched the german military machine. after that defeat, the battle of normandy was at best a 'mop up' exercise.

Sure it was - WW1 was a war that ended because of exhaustion and attrition. The Russians had pulled out and hastily signed the Treaty of Brest and ceded vast tracts of land to the Germans effectively handing them their pre War goals. So when Wilson made a case for War the American people were vociferously against fighting as most were predominantly anti British (Germans and Irish were militantly against it). Furthermore the sight of a million American soldiers and American material effecively took the war away from the Germans. Not to mention their Central power ally the Turks were to sign the Treaty of Sevres dividing up their Arab possessions to the British and French and their Armenian possessions to Armenia/USSR making it just a rump state. The above was quite analogous to the Iraq War situation. American involvement in WW2 was also very critical but on a different level, men and materials were critical not to mention funding the Soviet War machine as well, that defeated the Axis in Stalingrad.

[Lurker]

Thats making a mountain out of a molehill' date=' sure there were cases like that but the majority of checks were very moderate.[/quote'] I will let it slide as an error of judgement on your part. I mean you have a Republican Congressman trying to bring a move in Congress against what is tyically his own party stand and you think its a mountain out of molehill? Never mind the whole idea of having your skeleton in someone else's closet :winky:

[Macj]

I will let it slide as an error of judgement on your part. I mean you have a Republican Congressman trying to bring a move in Congress against what is tyically his own party stand and you think its a mountain out of molehill? Never mind the whole idea of having your skeleton in someone else's closet :winky:

As I said , im a seasoned traveller I have close to 1.2million miles on AA, ive flown out of many airports, ive seen many security checks and most times its mundane checks with a max pass through of 45 seconds. I dont know what the guys issue is but seeking publicity comes to mind.

[THX_1138]

Fort Dix Six. More for your edification: http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/09/whitehouse.plots/index.html

of the ten you listed, the voracity of 2 is disputable, the so called 2003 karachi attacks and the 2004 britain urban targets plots... of the remaining 6, four occured outside the borders of the united states. the remaining two were the product of good old investigation and were foiled by the FBI or the local law enforcement. the list is a bit outdated since there was another alleged plot in miami florida, which too was foiled by the FBI and local law enforcement. the point is, that not a single plot has been foiled by the additional arbitrary powers awarded to the department of homeland security or other intelligence agencies by the bush administration. if the case against jose padilla was so significant and his intentions so severe, why did it take over five years to prosecute him? the truth is, the reason united states does not experience terror attacks is because the local muslim population is not radicalized and that is a big thanks to the stringent process by which individuals are permitted entry into the country. true. the border with canda and mexico is anything but secure, but the majority of eventual terrorists entered europe through their lax refugee and asylum seeker programs.

[Macj]

of the ten you listed, the voracity of 2 is disputable, the so called 2003 karachi attacks and the 2004 britain urban targets plots... of the remaining 6, four occured outside the borders of the united states. the remaining two were the product of good old investigation and were foiled by the FBI or the local law enforcement. the list is a bit outdated since there was another alleged plot in miami florida, which too was foiled by the FBI and local law enforcement. the point is, that not a single plot has been foiled by the additional arbitrary powers awarded to the department of homeland security or other intelligence agencies by the bush administration. if the case against jose padilla was so significant and his intentions so severe, why did it take over five years to prosecute him? the truth is, the reason united states does not experience terror attacks is because the local muslim population is not radicalized and that is a big thanks to the stringent process by which individuals are permitted entry into the country. true. the border with canda and mexico is anything but secure, but the majority of eventual terrorists entered europe through their lax refugee and asylum seeker programs.

I KNEW youll resort to this weak defense. You asked me for one I showed you 11 from a reputable source. How do YOU know Homeland Security didnt have a part to play in it? How do YOU know that arbitrary powers allowing the US to sniff phone calls etc didnt save lives. After all it (Homeland Security) was the liaison between the CIA , the FBI and foreign agencies. Now THX gives us his opinion that the veracity of a few are circumspect , thus making them so? Accept it the Bush administration is anathema to your ideology, which is fine, just accept that had Obama come out with something similar on his watch you'd just praise him. BTW Atta and co were incognito radicals who drank beer and went to strip clubs days before 9/11 so that theory of yours needs a plunger to be resuscitated (radicals can pretend not to be so to carry out attacks). BTW2 Ibrahim Hooper the CAIR head has openly called for the US to become an Islamic nation by the turn of the next century.He of course states he prefers the change to occur by peaceful means but hes open to other means as well. Try again.

[suraj]

The whole debate about torture and its effects is useless without considering the latest advances in torture developed by India A mere threat of forcing a terrorist organization to watch "Ram Gopal Verma Ki Aag" led to its shutdown so torture does work Mumbai ishtyle!!

[h4te]

more fear-mongering, i see. what's new? why am i not surprised? during the past eight years, more than than any terrorist, the Bush administration has terrorized us more. you're eight years are up now, please GO AWAY! go far far far away :mad: Bush is just a tool. He is clueless and useless and confused (as baby in a topless bar). With only Bush, all the govt. would've done in the past eight years is run the economy into the dirt as it is now. Thanks to Dick & co., not even other democratic nations take us seriously anymore. where are the trials? how come no one was tried in a court of law? there is a Constitution, you know. You can't just go torturing willy-nilly....................that's what (erm) terrorists do. And what 'enhanced' knowledge did you gain from your 'enhanced' interrogation techniques? What terrorist plan did you unfold/stop as a result of your so called justifiable methods? Oh, that's right, you went to Iraq and attacked Saddam Hussein, thanks to your 'enhanced' knowledge......we all know how well that worked out, right?

[suraj]

more fear-mongering, i see. what's new? why am i not surprised? during the past eight years, more than than any terrorist, the Bush administration has terrorized us more. you're eight years are up now, please GO AWAY! go far far far away :mad: Bush is just a tool. He is clueless and useless and confused (as baby in a topless bar). With only Bush, all the govt. would've done in the past eight years is run the economy into the dirt as it is now. Thanks to Dick & co., not even other democratic nations take us seriously anymore. where are the trials? how come no one was tried in a court of law? there is a Constitution, you know. You can't just go torturing willy-nilly....................that's what (erm) terrorists do. And what 'enhanced' knowledge did you gain from your 'enhanced' interrogation techniques? What terrorist plan did you unfold/stop as a result of your so called justifiable methods? Oh, that's right, you went to Iraq and attacked Saddam Hussein, thanks to your 'enhanced' knowledge......we all know how well that worked out, right?

George Bush and his double tenure was bad bad bad for America

[h4te]

George Bush and his double tenure was bad bad bad for America the World

fixed.

[Macj]

more fear-mongering, i see. what's new? why am i not surprised? during the past eight years, more than than any terrorist, the Bush administration has terrorized us more. you're eight years are up now, please GO AWAY! go far far far away :mad:

This is a very inaccurate statement. So basically living under the Taliban was the same as living in George Bush's America. Great comparison.

[h4te]

This is a very inaccurate statement. So basically living under the Taliban was the same as living in George Bush's America. Great comparison.

the US doesn't live under Taliban control :hmmmm2:

[Macj]

the US doesn't live under Taliban control :hmmmm2:

But the Taliban terrorise its population , you said the Bush administration terrorised its people too. Hence terror under Bush and the Taliban are comparable per you.

[THX_1138]

I KNEW youll resort to this weak defense. You asked me for one I showed you 11 from a reputable source. How do YOU know Homeland Security didnt have a part to play in it? How do YOU know that arbitrary powers allowing the US to sniff phone calls etc didnt save lives. After all it (Homeland Security) was the liaison between the CIA , the FBI and foreign agencies. Now THX gives us his opinion that the veracity of a few are circumspect , thus making them so?

because if you read the news reports, you would have noticed that all of the plots on american soil that i highlighted were foiled by police work. moreover, these individuals were eventually tried in court. now, if you knew a lick about the law you would understand what that means: for a criminal/civil case to be tried in a court of law, it must first pass the litmus test of plausibility and due diligence. i.e. the state needs to present adequate grounds for a trial, that includes, but is not limited to, proper procedure in acquiring phone tapping warrants, proper procedure in acquiring surveillance warrants and finally giving the accused their proper miranda rights. none of the above three were violated in the above. and it is the above three that are circumvented by the patriot act, or by the arbitrary powers that were awarded (temporarily) to the DHS. the very fact that all of these cases went to court establishes that the patriot act was not utilized, and that puts the proverbial plunger in the argument or whatever you analogy was.

Accept it the Bush administration is anathema to your ideology, which is fine, just accept that had Obama come out with something similar on his watch you'd just praise him.

on the contrary, i am astonished and agitated that he is not fulfilling his promise of a withdrawal of troops from iraq, suspension of the gitmo prison and subjected the detainees to proper trials instead of the sham that are the military tribunals. though i do understand that since the interrogation techniques used on some of the detainees were so unconstitutional that a number of them would have their cases dismissed before the end of the opening statements, the only possible way to prosecute them is military tribunals.

BTW Atta and co were incognito radicals who drank beer and went to strip clubs days before 9/11 so that theory of yours needs a plunger to be resuscitated (radicals can pretend not to be so to carry out attacks).

not sure what your point is with this but it merely reinforces the idea that those with a genuinely serious intention of harming the united states would be incognito as you put it, and not careless. bumbling idiots like the fort dix six, or those caught in the northeast (canadian citizens who attempted to use phone bombs), or the foolish indian who was caught albeit by means not adjudicated as entrapment, in an attempt to sell stinger missiles to an undercover agent.

BTW2 Ibrahim Hooper the CAIR head has openly called for the US to become an Islamic nation by the turn of the next century.He of course states he prefers the change to occur by peaceful means but hes open to other means as well.

and? pat robertson has openly called for the US to become a theological autocracy, and the now dead evangelist, jerry the whale falwell openly called for the ostracism of all homosexual and pro choice individuals. and if the last election was any indicator, the message of the above two has been vehemently ignored (an oxymoron but you get the point). the thing is, ibrahim hooper can call for whatever he wants... an orgy with the olsen sisters while r kelly urinates all over jane fonda... it does not mean that he will get it. and trust me, the muslim population of united states, though disgruntled on occasion, and occasionally sympathetic to the nutters in the middle east (most of the support is actually from the pakistani-american community, and party from the palestinian-american community... the persian and most of the arabian communities are not particularly bothered, but this is all anecdotal), they are not radicalized and will probably not be so for some time to come. if anything, obama presents the glue that has re-affixed the nation into one giant conglomerate.

[THX_1138]

But the Taliban terrorise its population , you said the Bush administration terrorised its people too. Hence terror under Bush and the Taliban are comparable per you.

the taliban is the not the brimstone against whom the united states is judged. our contemporaries are other developed, free economies with stable democratic institutions. in comparison to them, we experienced eight years of violation of civil liberties and citizen's rights under the man who made nixon look like a saint.

[h4te]

THX put it better than i could. going back to this torture issue, i think the jury still out on whether torture against known & proven terrorists is justifiable or not. justifiable in the sense that all other Constitutional avenues are thoroughly explored (sound and fair trials, proper investigations, and all). Where are trials? Even India, who by no means tries to portray itself as a beacon of democracy and human rights, is putting Kasab on trial (ok, he was tortured, yes, but look above). There were no trials. There is no justification for detaining all these people WITHOUT proper trials for, what, 7 years now! The real issue, in my opinion, is not of waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or Abu Zubaida or alike, who are known terrorists (but they still should have been tried in a court of law before any such action was taken). The real issue is how many others were waterboarded without being proven guilty, without being offered a sound trial, without proper investigations. In my opinion, i am still on the fence on this torture issue....i feel that if all other proper avenues are taken first & foremost, then if it is justifiable and absolutely necessary, then torture can be explored with an open debate.

[Macj]

the taliban is the not the brimstone against whom the united states is judged. our contemporaries are other developed' date=' free economies with stable democratic institutions. in comparison to them, we experienced eight years of violation of civil liberties and citizen's rights under the man who made nixon look like a saint.[/quote'] The United States under Bush did NOT terrorise its population, if you think it did then we need to redefine the term. How exactly were your civil liberties violated?

[THX_1138]

The United States under Bush did NOT terrorise its population, if you think it did then we need to redefine the term. How exactly were your civil liberties violated?

your question as as much merit as the question... "when airborne as you claim you were for a majority of time during the last eight years, on which particular journey (time, date, destination etc etc) did the aggressive policies of the bush administration prevent you from an imminent terror attack/hijack plot?" of course you cannot answer this question truthfully and just the same way, i will forever be unaware of how many times an illegal background check was performed on me whenever i boarded a flight or who was eavesdropping in on my conversation every time i called India or Europe? Let alone local calls... the truth is that there are documented instances of individuals whose rights were grotesquely violated. some american citizens and some not. for instance, there was this one pilot from arizon, a caucassian who learnt that following his marriage to a woman of pakistani heritage and his practice of islam, he was placed on the federal no-fly list. imagine that, a pilot on a no-fly list. and this was not a rookie out of flight school but a veteran of over 15 years. and there is the infamous cat stevens instance when he was deported from the airport since he was also on the no-fly list. there are over a million individuals on the no-fly list and a minuscule number of those are security threats.

[Macj]

your question as as much merit as the question... "when airborne as you claim you were for a majority of time during the last eight years, on which particular journey (time, date, destination etc etc) did the aggressive policies of the bush administration prevent you from an imminent terror attack/hijack plot?" of course you cannot answer this question truthfully and just the same way, i will forever be unaware of how many times an illegal background check was performed on me whenever i boarded a flight or who was eavesdropping in on my conversation every time i called India or Europe? Let alone local calls...

You just made my case, if you are utterly unable to name a single incident where YOUR civil rights were impinged or violated then most probably YOUR rights weren't violated. I traveled a lot , nothing happened, Allhamdullah. Someone who was on watch, was on watch, someone who was supposed to filter out dangerous individuals on passenger manifests was doing their job. Maybe Homeland Security worked on interfacing better with Interpol and MI6. But guess what, attacks WERE thwarted like the one in JFK in June of 2007 Maybe the attack on the Jewish Synagogue was foiled because of a phone intercept, do YOU know it wasnt because of that? Now people who are of 'interest to the Government' have a reason to be worried, just like your average Mumbai don has a reason to peer over his shoulder once in a while, they contribute to terrorist organizations or they contribute to entities that are anti American, not anti-Bush or anti-Republican but I repeat anti-American.This is the reason why Obama hasnt yet closed Guantanamo because the Bush administration was right in sequestering people who upon release took up arms again against the US. You have a problem with them? Name a few we'll discuss. The law is to protect the innocent NOT to serve the guilty.

and there is the infamous cat stevens instance when he was deported from the airport since he was also on the no-fly list. there are over a million individuals on the no-fly list and a minuscule number of those are security threats.

Cat Stevens aka Yousuf Islam made contributions to front organizations that were funneling money to terrorist outfits. He was also busy stoking sentiments against British and American interests, not to mention his famous statements in support of the fatwa on Salman Rushdie.The guy needs to be watched. I say better safe than sorry, if 10% of the population have to undergo extra scrutiny to protect 90% so be it.Only a fool thinks everyone can be satisfied every time. Regarding the Fort Dix Six, you say they were bumbling fools so the threat wasnt as serious. Do you know how silly that sounds, we're not playing a chess game where the opponent is expected to be an exponent of Sicilian lines against the Ruy Lopez. A social outcast like the Unabomber caused havoc in Oklahoma City, had he been caught before the act would you have called him a 'bumbling' fool too? A neutral source: More than 100 terror attacks foiled