Airline Workers Should Have Known About Threats

I do wonder if you read my inital post. There, I clearly said that the Dept of War/Defense created by G Washington was a larger beuracracy,
I just wanted to clarify where it stood. Also I see the "D of HS" as a good thing.

as well as pointed out that GWB was not the 1st US president to "order an unprovoked, pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation" citing examples. My previous post was a summation.

Sorry, I just didnt see any examples of an "order an unprovoked, pre-emptive attack"
I saw a couple that fit into "attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation"
I think it was the first part if the statment that matteres here.
So, name one. To be fair, I'll accept any where we manufactured evidence to go to war.
chexfan said:
Comments on the Bush "resume"...

"I graduated from Yale University with a low C average. I was a cheerleader."
-Obviously this stems in jealousy from someone who didn't have ivy growing on their college's buildings. So what if he was cheerleader?
Good point. Let's focus on that C average. As a graduate student, one thing I have learned is that a C in graduate school is equivalent to a D in undergrad...they don't offer Ds in grad school. Thus, he had the lowest possible grades that one could have and still "earn" the degree. Furthermore, you can get a C average by doing little more than having a pulse. Even in an Ivy League.

"I am the first President in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal record."
-Irrelevant. Clinton was the first president in history to play sax on the Arsenio Hall Show. Reagan was the first president in history to act with a monkey. The only thing in common between these three is that they have nothing to do with his job as president.
The relevance here is that a criminal record is quite different from saxophone playing. One has much more relevance to the kind of job one is likely to do.

"My largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my best friends, Kenneth Lay, presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S. History, Enron."
-Enron was also the largest democratic contributor
Yup, but he wasn't a business partner of Gore.

"I've broken more international treaties than any President in U.S. history."
-Name one. And don't count treaties that the US has chosen not to participate in, but are still in force in other nations - because they weren't dissolved.
Geez, only one? OK, how about ABM? Oh, wait, you guys already mentioned about NPT? Need more?

"I set the record for fewest number of press conferences of any President since the advent of television"
-He also hasn't had to go on the air to say he didn't get blown by an intern, or that he wasn't a crook.
So what? He has a responsibility to face the nation frequently.

"I am the first President in US history to order an unprovoked, pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation."
-You might want to re-read your history books. Panama and Hawaii, among others, were sovereign at the time of their US invasions, too.
Yup. And Philippines, too (sentrido, did you know that?). Of course, that still doesn't make any of those attacks right.
The more I read this thread (and any other message board on any other forum) I am continually blown away that ANYONE would vote for Bush. Am I seeing something wrong here? Is this just a political partyline loyalty or do you people really think he is good for the country? I, personally, find him to be the biggest danger to Americans and our way of life than ANY, and I do mean any, terrorist group in this world. I have never felt as unsafe and unsure of our future than I have since he has been in office. It's not a question of if he will or won't win the election, it's more of a question of: Can we afford another 4 years of this, or will the castle come crumbling down?
Im looking for a "pre-emptive attack". I do know about the "unprovoked" ones. Sorry if I didnt make myself clear.
A10Pilot said:
No, I have not forgotten.

That is but one reason that supports my belief that the country needs a new leader. We simply cannot afford four more years of a president who is unable or unwilling to learn from his mistakes; remember, he could not think of making any. :rolleyes:
A10Pilot Posted on Apr 21 2004, 11:13 AM
This is the kind of warped thinking that amazes those of us in the military fighting the terrorists.

No, be honest now. This is the kind of "warped" thinking that amazes YOU. Everyone in the military, luckily, doesn't agree with you. They have a job to do, and they do it to the best of their ability. I have plenty of friends out there at this minute, and they think this is nuts too. So please don't come on this board and try to insinuate that everyone in the military believes that Bush is the man. Many people realize that the military is their career, so they carry themselves with complete professionalism, even when they don't agree with the reason they are there. Bush managed to take the incredible worldwide sympathy and support we had after 9/11 and turn it around into an anti-American sentiment within a year. That's no small feat. Luckily, we all get to vote! (something tells me you're going to be amazed at the turnout. It stinks to win by over half million vote and still lose the election......the more apathetic will probably show up this time around)
A10Pilot said:
This is the kind of warped thinking that amazes those of us in the military fighting the terrorists.

A10 Pilot
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"You're right, Mr. Ashcroft, it doesn't say anything about 'ThoughtCrime'. Maybe we can declare him an 'enemy combatant'!"

A10Pilot, your continued attempts to imply that the military travels in an ideological lockstep are both humorous and ominous. Having had the honor to have given this country long and faithful service,I know enough of the fine men and women who defend this country - both Active and Guard/Reserve, Enlisted and Officer, and yes, even pilot - to know that isn't true; however not everyone is so fortunate and they may actually believe you.

The implication of your statement is that anyone who could have such an opinion is somehow opposed to those 'fighting the terrorists' when nothing could be further than the truth. Not supporting the war in Iraq or the President who (mis)led us into it DO NOT equate to not supporting the troops fighting there. Indeed, seeing the lives and limbs of the outstanding men and women who have sworn to protect America being wasted in a war to give Democracy to people who don't care about it, don't want it and hate us for trying to give it to them make many of us even more determined to see that such waste is ended and those who caused it removed from power. We see such a tragic waste as a betrayal of the American armed services and, by extension, the people they are sworn to protect.
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #44

Your post makes sense to me but I vacillate between why we are in Iraq and why we shouldn't be there.

The Viet Nam war history shows that we were fighting to keep communism from spreading. We lost the war, and communisn has shrunk instead of spread further. The wall in Germany went down, and the world is changing to a global market.

So we could conclude that the war was senseless. Who knows because we only have that senario.

What if we never fought that war or dropped the atomic bomb. The present could be very different today.

There are so many terrorists ( young children ) who have been brainwashed by these fanatic mental degenerates, that we will be living with the threat of terror for a long time to come. It is like unleashing a bunch of little Hitlers out there, with the only difference being, they are willing to kill themselves along with as many lives as they can take out.

What's the answer?

It may surprise some but I don't subscribe to the 'Iraq equals Vietnam' analogy. In Vietnam we were attempting to keep an (ostensibly) external force (North Vietnam) from taking over an (ostensibly) independent nation (South Vietnam) whereas in Iraq we are the external force.

In the larger scope we were attempting to prevent the spread of Communism and it is possible that by our sacrifice we indirectly did so, whereas in Iraq we are trying to stop the spread of nothing. Nowhere in the world were Baath Party cells springing up or Peoples Liberation Fronts swearing allegiance to the Baath creed.

Our rationalization for attacking Iraq was the strategy of preemption but events have proven that the 'evidence' used to justify the act was at best erroneous, at worst a criminal fraud. If premption is our strategy then a far stronger case could have been made for invading Saudi Arabia - (funding terrorists, providing manpower); Pakistan - (providing training centers for terrorists, conspiring to distribute WMDs (nukes) and harboring terrorists); or North Korea - (multiple WMD offenses). Instead we chose a nation that, while an enemy, was a relatively minor threat.

While we have succeeded in removing Saddam Hussein, what have we created? Jeffersonian Democracy will not spring forth whole from the Iraqi soil nor will centuries-old religous and social grievances be set aside. (Just because they hated him doesn't mean they like us or want our help.) In his place we will leave uncertainty and we may well leave Iraq worse than we found it. We forget that not everyone wants to be like us, live like us or wants the social upheaval our way of life would entail for them.

All this and none of it effects Al Qaeda negatively in any way - indeed, their recruiting is up. Meanwhile we must be careful what we create in Iraq - keep in mind we created the core of Al Qaeda to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. They say the path to hell is paved with good intentions and this is, in many ways, an illustration of the unintended consequences of those good intentions.

The war against terrorism is not a new one nor is the use of terrorism against the U.S. new. (However, when the Federal Building in Oklahoma City was bombed we did not attempt to nullify large portions of the Constitution with allegedly necessary laws passed under the guise of 'patriotism' nor did we invade Iraq.) The fact is that we underestimated our adversaries and we allowed ourselves to be lulled into a sense of security that was only an illusion. Remember, under the rules in place on 9/11/01 the box cutters the terrorists carried were permitted, as were the various penknives and pocket knives we took for granted and took through security.

I don't have all the answers but I do know that invading Iraq wasn't the even addressing the right question. Our real enemies are not of the sort we can fight with armored divisions or fighter wings; however, if we must fight them we can fight them on their own terms and succeed. Unconventional Warfare forces, for instance, have repeatedly proven an effective means of dealing with such organizations. The ability of such forces to operate in varying strengths allows us the speed and flexibility necessary to defeat terrorists and when coupled with a real and effective intelligence operation would allow us the preempt and eliminate those who threaten us.

Unlike many I don't blame Bush for not being ready on 9/11 because none of us were. I do, on the other hand, blame him for his actions after 9/11; his actions, in the arena of foreign policy, have only helped create more terrorists while expending the post-9/11 goodwill of the world. Meanwhile his sadly misnamed 'Patriot Act' has done more damage to the Constitution than any law since our nation was founded.

We will always have enemies but it is not necessary to change the very nature of our nation to defeat them. In fact, by making those changes we give them a victory.