<p>kluge, I’m interested in why you are linking Padilla to the Patriot Act. The Padilla case is being heard by the courts where it should be. However, perhaps you can tell me what this has to do with the Patriot Act?</p>
<p>Fundingfather, I don’t think anyone disagrees that we need to prevent terrorism in all forms, but what we disagree on is the way to go about that. First, I don’t believe you can REALLY fight a war on terrorism. Its like fighting a war on envy or a war on happiness. It is really a state of mind, and the more we bomb them the more terrorists there will be. What we need to do is change the way we (the west, not just america) appear to these people. We need to really look at who we are giving money to and why, and as you might have guessed this all boils down to our actions in the middle east, which in turn all boils down to OIL!!! And as far as the % of people that will die from terrorism in the future, that’s exactly what the Cato institute is talking about. Do you want to ban bathtubs? I’ll bet more people die in bathtubs this year than in terrorist attacks in america. Well, any takers?</p>
<p>Oh, please! How can the CATO institute make any kind of calculations about future terrorist deaths. It could be zero or it could be several million. I don’t know and they don’t know. You are succumbing to a very simplistic argument regarding bathtubs. I could counter with an equally simplistic argument: More people will be wrongfully accused of murder this year than will be wrongfully investigated by the Patriot Act, so maybe we should get rid of laws against murder. Yes, this is a ridiculous statement but no more so than the bathtub analogy.</p>
<p>
And who’s model should we adopt? Have you considered that what “these people” are fighting for is the imposition of their fundamentalist religious beliefs on everyone? In this regard, even Islamic countries like Turkey are under attack by the terrorists.</p>
<p>Whose model should we adopt? Hmm, I don’t know…but since we are the most powerful country in the history of the world, I’d say we could probably come up with our own. And “these people” fall prey to the religious zealot partly because they are pushed towards them by the actions of our county. Imagine that your house was bombed by a foreign county. They kill your mom and dad and grandma. Plus, they have put sanctions on your government (even though you are only a poor merchant trying to sell produce) so now your corrupt government is tightening thier belt because their trade has been restricted. So some radical religious group comes by your house and says, “we can fight this country and win…now strap this bomb under your jacket.” You have no money, no family, and are extremely angry at the word, and you say, “what the heck, I’ve got nothing else to live for.” Ok, this is obviously a very extreme example, but you get my point. These people aren’t born hateing us, it comes from external sources. Just put yourself in the shoes of somone living in Iraq for a minute. Imagine that someone came to america and “liberated” us from W. Do you think there wouldn’t as much or more violence shown to those invaders as is being shown to us? I’ll tell you right now, if someone invaded my county I’d fight them with everything I have, and so would everyone else. So would we be terrorist insurgents?</p>
<p>Ummm… just one problem with your storyline. We didn’t bomb anyone’s house and kill mom, dad and grandma prior to 9/11, the Cole, Kobar towers, the two embassies, or the original WTC bombing. In fact, none of the terrorists were even from Iraq. Lack of a motivation never stopped them from trying to kill us in the past. How does your theory account for terrorist acts against most of the Western world and even parts of the Islamic world? Trying to reason with and understand fanatics is like trying to “understand” the fanatacism of fascist Germany, or that of Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin or any other rendition of pure evil. Sometimes you have to realize it is what it is - extreme evil that needs to be confronted.</p>
<p>Please tell me you don’t believe that. Please tell me that you don’t believe that America has never bombed innocent people. I just don’t think you get it. Understanding why someone does something is not “reasoning” with them. You’re just regurgitating the party line. Is the word that black and white to you? Is there no room in between? So, I’ll ask you again, if your house was bombed and foriegn county invaded america to “liberate” us from george bush, would you fight them? And wouldn’t that make you a terrorist? Or does terrorism only count when it is aimed at america? By the way, 90 percent of the word thinks Bush is “pure evil,” so would you defend their right to liberate the american people from him?</p>
<p>So, FF - you don’t want to address the fact that an American citizen has been held in custody, without charges filed, for three years while the American Government argues that the President has the right to seize any citizen and hold him indefinitely, without giving him a chance to face the charges (if any exists) against him, and exercise any of the rights (supposedly) granted to American citizens by our Constitution just by <strong>saying</strong> he’s a terrorist? I’ll take that as your endorsement…</p>
<p>One good way to fight the war on terror is to change our driving habits, the type of vehicles we use, and the material that fuels them. Simple. It is something that common folk can do.</p>
<p>I cringe now when I see such hopeless waste of life in Iraq. It is for oil, our national security.</p>
<p>As far as new security at airports and beefed up security at home; it was a long time coming. I fly a lot and have no problem with new measures even though I get stopped more than most. I buy tickets with cash. 9/11 was real.</p>
<p>Just got back from Israel for a medical trip with Lebanese stamps in my passport. That was interesting! They run a tight ship. The US is not in the same sort of real siege mentality as the Israelis. Talked with medical student who expressed concern over the effect of real violence on the children growing up there. Solving the Israeli/Palestinian problem is a tricky and perilous business on both sides. It is a problem for the US as well.</p>
<p>As a nation, our energy needs to be spent, not in petty politics, but in real diplomacy with the best in the field. And it will take years. That and back to my first point of trading our dependance on petroleum for alternative technologies will prove a worthwhile investment in our children’s futures. </p>
<p>And Vietnam: been there, done that. This is another beast.</p>
<p>Overseas, I really don’t think the war in Iraq was about oil, though I think that was the cherry on top of the frosting of the cake.</p>
<p>Very simply, Junior wanted to wave his willy around the Middle East to one-up Dad. 9/11 gave him the political capital to spend and the excuse to do what he already wanted to do.</p>
<p>Everything else was just “fixing the intelligence to the policy.”</p>
<p>Waving his Willy- hehehehehehe, like marking his territory!!!</p>
<p>TheDad, I agree somewhat. I definitely agree with your statement earlier on at how you feel you were tricked. I have done a lot of thinking since then. Our strategic interest in the “area” is oil. Pure and simple. And we aren’t the only country with an interest there. Although reserves are in many other areas of the globe, our entanglements began in the region for that reason including Iran etc. It is about national power and economic security. We don’t want to be held hostage to something that we are all so dependent upon. My point is we can do things as citizens to make the situation better.</p>
<p>That’s pretty mild. I feel that I’ve been f------g lied to, coming and going. And people are not coming back! Why is that every president since Eisenhower has given us a major lie? I’m personally going Liberaterian.</p>
<p>
Yes, and governments by nature have a long history of ceding authority … :rolleyes: </p>
<p>
Because the elected officials responsible for it have admitted as much. Where have you been? Watching Fox News? Dubya himself has admitted it on national TV!</p>
<p>
And your arguments sound like Rush-isms to me. Will you believe anything as long as it comes from the mouth of a Republican? Are you a parrot that has been perched atop a talk radio for too long? Sorry, but you’ve been continuously accusing people of being brainwashed by the “liberal media,” etc. and this is very typical of Republican talk radio junkies. It comes off as presumptious and overbearing and contributes nothing to the rational dissection of the issues. Youve also failed to address the questions concerning the previous abuses of McCarthyism, Vietnam, Ruby Ridge, and Waco and why they wouldnt become even more frequent and egregious with expanded powers. </p>
<p>Interesting I just did a web search trying to get a dispassionate view of the Patriot Act and could not find a single site that wasnt so painfully slanted pro or con that it was essentially worthless. It does appear that Republican claims that it is based on surveillance methods that have been in place for many years may be overly mellifluous. It appears that most of those long established methods were actually put in place in 1996 during the Clinton/Reno reign and the rest come from Reagans War on Drugs. I suppose in some peoples minds, 9 20 years counts as long established. Also keep in mind all the innocent victims of the War on Drugs who had their property seized and sold with no opportunity for judicial review on the mere suspicion of drug trafficking. This reminds me of the constant mantra I heard from my Neo-Conservative ex-stepfather and his drunken Rush Limbaugh worshipping buddies during the Clinton years when they would bellyache about the ever more intrusive Federal Government and the difficulty of exercising their Second Amendment right to own machine guns to more realistically reenact World War Two Do the ends justify the means? Hrrrmmmmmm </p>
<p>Godspeed to the ACLU in getting this matter before the Supreme Court to get it decided once and for all. May both sides argue well and may the opinion be written with no partisan political influence. </p>
<p>
OMG. You cant possibly be serious. I do suppose Republican shortsightedness can extend backwards, too. We were bombing the Iraqis and frequently killing civilians on a regular basis for the entire decade before we invaded. Not to mention all the Versailles-like sanctions that were bound to create intense hatred. Also, does Hanoi ring a bell? Oh, of course we werent bombing civilians there! :rolleyes: Were also one of three nations in the world that has ever firebombed civilian cities and the only one to have used nuclear weapons on two militarily insignificant civilian cities nonetheless. Like it or not, this does shape the world’s view of us and we have little defense for it. </p>
<p>As for the rest, our nations collective failure to address the question of why these people want to kill us to begin with does concern me. Did we completely fail to grasp the symbolism behind the chosen targets of 9/11? Perhaps it will take nuclear explosions for us to finally gain the collective introspection necessary to realize the error of our murderous, money-grubbing, oil-thirsty imperialistic incursions abroad. If you continuously rob a mans house, hes eventually going to shoot you. Since no country on earth can stand up to us in the conventional military sense, they have no alternative but to turn to terrorism. Why do I get the distinct impression we’re marching on Stalingrad? After all, the average German was led to believe the invasion of the Soviet Union was “preemptive” as well …</p>
<p>
<br>
No, I don’t think you get it. Those who performed the increasing terrorist acts against us did not have their houses bombed by us. Most of them were from Saudi Arabia plus a few Egyptians, both of who’s countries we are on friendly terms with and provide aid to. Not one of them had a home bombed by us or even came from a country that had suffered any sort of military action by us. To the contrary, a hot bed of anti-Americanism was/is Somalia the country where the US led a humanitarian mission to end starvation. The payback that we got: something like 28 dead soldiers with their bodies dragged through the street. I doubt very much that as the terrorists were about to crash into the WTC that they were saying - “this is for you, Hanoi”.</p>
<p>As for the sanctions, these were imposed by the United Nations, which according to the left, should be the ultimate authority in policing world governments. What would have been your suggestion for dealing with Saddam post Gulf War? Also, note that the Oil for food program was set up to deal with humanitarian issues, but the person that you would want to still be in control of Iraq used it for palaces and bribes for countries like France and Russia to make sure that the sanctions would not be enforced and that Saddam would not have to fear military reprisals.</p>
<p>What I hear from this thread is a lot of what we shouldn’t do or shouldn’t have done, but no specifics as to what we should do - except for granting terrorists immunity from investigative methods used against less threatening crimes by removal of the Patriot Act. Can anyone provide an ACTIONABLE list of things that we need to do to make the country and the world safe from terrorism?</p>
<p>And, just as an aside regarding how “evil” this country is and how it apparently indiscrimately bombs civilians. You have no idea about how careful we had been to avoid civilian targets in Vietnam. A friend of mine was in the Air Force in Vietnam and was shot down twice and is now permanently disabled. He said that they were under extremely strict orders as to what their targets were for each mission and that they were never allowed to deviate from them. If they got to their target and the weather was not perfectly clear, they were not allowed to drop their bombs lest they would unnecesarily hit civilian targets. The problem with this was that they did not have enough fuel for a return trip carrying their bombs. As a result, a number of planes had to fly out to sea and they would ditch the multi-million dollar airplane into the water and then have the navy pick up the pilot/navigator. Even if they saw a military convoy that they could bomb, they were not allowed to drop their bomb in case it could hit civillians. Of course civillians ultimately died, but they were not targeted. To suggest otherwise does a great disservice to those put their lives at risk to avoid civillian casualties. Avoidance of civillian casualties was the reason why the smart bombs were developed, even though they cost more.</p>
<p>Fundingfather, you just nailed it! You said, “those who performed the terrorists attacks on us did not have their houses bombs.” Yes! Yes! I know, we didn’t bomb them because the Saudi’s own america, so instead we’ve bombed civilians all over the world. As for Vietnam, how precise was the Agent Orange? No civilians hurt with that, right? Please, man, you can say that the ends justified the means, but don’t say civilians weren’t killed. Search and Destroy mean anything to you?</p>
<p>G&S: I was under the impression that you were open to a serious discussion, but you have continuously ignored and misstated what I said. Where did I say say civillians were not hurt/killed? Get your facts straight and quit trying to divert the subject. It’s obvious that you don’t have any answers for the questions that I posed, and throwing our red herrings is your only alternative. This, unfortunately, is a typical response from those on the left.</p>
<p>If you believe that killing people is a “red herring” for whatever topic it is that you believe we should be talking about then that’s fine, but I think this IS what we’re talking about, which is America’s place in the world. What am I avoiding? I’m sorry if I’m missing it, but I can assure you that its not on purpose. As for where you said civilians weren’t killed, that can be pointed out pretty easily. Yesterday you said, “We didn’t bomb anyone’s house and kill mom, dad and grandma prior to 9/11, the Cole, Kobar towers, the two embassies, or the original WTC bombing.” I would strongly disagree with that, and I don’t think it would be too hard to prove. America has been a presence all over the word for decades, and we have killed many, many people. Some of these actions were justified (in my opinion) and some where not, but people, both military and civilian, were killed. Please respond to that. What do you think about these people dying at the hands of U.S. led forces? If you choose not to concede the fact that innocent people all over the world have died because of American then I will do the leg work to prove you wrong, buy I think you’re smart enough to realize this wouldn’t be hard to prove.</p>
<p>1) Explain the relevance of bombing in Vietnam to the Patriot Act?
2) Explain the relevance of Vietnam or other wars in which civilians may have been killed to why terrorists attacked us on 9/11, and previous events prior to 9/11
3) I’ll repeat - of course civilians have died as the result of wars in which we have been involved; but name one war in modern history in which civilians did not get killed
4) Name one country which, during the lives of today’s terrorists has done a better job than the US in attempting to minimize civilian deaths in time of war.
5) getting back to point one, what, other than for obfuscation, does any of this have to do with the original discussion of the Patriot Act and the answers to the questions that I posed concerning it?
6) what actionable plan would you put in place to prevent terrorism?</p>
<p>1) I don’t know, I never tried to make that connection.
2) There’s plenty, but I didn’t bring up Vietnam, you did.
3) I’m sure there is none, but I’d like to see a tally about wich country has killed the most.
4) Canada.
5) These posts start out as one thing and move towards others. Just because you don’t like the direction that the topic is moving doesn’t mean that you can halt it.<br>
6) Much too complicated to put into an internet chat room. Plus, I don’t claim to have all the answers, but I can see when things aren’t working.</p>
<p>“Can anyone provide an ACTIONABLE list of things that we need to do to make the country and the world safe from terrorism?”</p>
<p>One good way to fight the war on terror is to change our driving habits, the type of vehicles we use, and the material that fuels them. Simple. It is something that common folk can do.</p>