Next Terrorist Attack

[Broompilot]

Just maybee it will never happen again in our life time?

I am more of a realist, I heard on the 8PM news about plans our enemy is making for some kinda of attack here in the U.S.

This after someone very close to me called me the day before telling me the same thing, that Homeland Security and the first guy who tipped us off weeks before 9-11 is telling us once again an attack is being planned.

Now I refuse to change my life style, but I will make a few precautions like keeping my fuel high enough as if an attack came that at least I could make it back without having to worry about running out. (just in case they attack fuel terminals)

If you ever think peace is possible with these people than I would encourage you to read the book Why I left Hessbolah by Walter Shobolt. Some of our leaders have tried their darndest to understand there thinking but in this book explains why that is never possible how can one reason with people who think that by blowing themselves up they will be rewarded with 72 Virgins? (Male or Female?) One can only assume. Or reason with people who send in Mentally Handicapped Women with bombs strapped to them. Reason with these people?

When we left Vietnam our enemies had no plans on following us, that was than this is now.
I am not a late night Theoriest follower on the Radio, those facts cannot usually be proven 9-11 was real that is a fact.

 

[layoutshooter]

We WILL be attacked again, when, who knows? I spent 20 years in the intell business. 3 years in the Army Security Agency(now disbanded) and 17 with the National Security Agency. We would stand a much better chance of stopping these things if we were ever to take our intell needs seriouslly. I quit when Slick Willy was elected. I could not work for a boss who would not be able to get the security clearences needed on his own. At no time in my career was I able to do the job asked of me by congress, they NEVER funded us enough to cover the needs. All of you remember, it takes 15-20 years to make a really good intell agent. Slick Willy gutted the intell agencies and the military. It will take years to recover from that. It is a very slow business that plays out over years. Remember the so called *Peace Dividend*? Well, 911 was the return on that lack of investment. We have an election comming up. The primary job of the President is that of Comander in Cheif. Not health care, welfare and all those other feel good socialist programs. Our security is THE most important thing. Without it nothing else can be done. Keep this in mind. It is a shame that there are no really good people running again, but we have to work with what we have. If you vote for a weak person, one with no defense background, US citizens WILL DIE!! There may anyway but the numbers will be greater if we allow our defenses to weaken further. I scares me to think that I have more experience in the defence of this nation than all of the candidates that started this race, combined!!! What a pathetic weak bunch. Layoutshooter

 

[pelicn]

I agree, we will be attacked again it's just a matter of time. I believe we can take precautions, but we can never be fully "safe" unless we live in a cage. I don't wish to live like that.

 

[arrbsthw]

I also agree..it's just a matter of time before another attack. We have no one running
for President that will protect us. I know a lot of people dislike Bush but we haven't
been attacked again...now have we?

 

[layoutshooter]

The president in onlyh part of it. The congress funds the military and intell services. They have NOT been honest with the American people for the last 30 years that I know of. They have been under funding for at least that long. DO NOT TRUST WHAT THEY SAY!!!! They do not take your best interest to heart. They are only interested in power. Nothing more. It is out fault, we do not demand qualified people. We just vote as we have always done. They know that and count on it. They count on us being dumb. We fall for things like the *economic stimuliss package*. A election year give away that will do little to improve things.I want to see a thing on this years ballot, a if you could vote for them all to lose, would you question. What a riot that would be. Layoutshooter

 

[geo]

all we need is one more clinton in office
i agree just a matter of time
i don't see anything worry with water broading
if it works we should keep using it

 

[Robsdad]

With all the corruption in the administration over the past 7 years anything is possible. I would not put it past this administration to plan such a thing if claiming the White House for 4 more years was assured. I am sorry for being so negative but the crooks we have in Washington and this includes both parties and their blatant disregard for the American people just plain suc*s. I vote for both parties to loose and we start all over using the Bill of Rights as a platform.

 

[hdxpedx]

Terrorist attacked American interest in NYC "93,Africa, Mogadishu,Sudan,USS COLE(17 SAILORS),911 and Nigerian OIL Fields..
Senator you attacked WACO,BIMBO'S, Rightwing conspiracy,a janitor AND OIL REFINERY'S!! YOU FAILED!!

 

[LDB]

We will be attacked again. The question is when. The election likely determines the answer. Will we elect a "change" that will sit down face to face with our potential enemies and sweet talk them into playing nice or will we elect a warrior who will take the fight to them? I'd much prefer the fight remain outside our nation.

ANYTHING they do to us becomes fair game. Waterboarding should be the starting point. Beheading should not be off the menu. All should be smeared with pigs blood and buried face down when executed. That should be SOP both here and there. Nowhere should be off limits, including mosques known to be used as terrorist sanctuary. Just as their goal is annihilation of infidels, ours should be the complete elimination of radical Muslims.

 

[greg334]

You know that you all can say that Clinton did this or Bush did that but the blame sits on the shoulders of one man - Jimmy Carter. No other time has there been a dismantling of our intelligence organizations and turning our back on the middle east to let radical Islam flourish.

Yes it is true that Clinton did less than other presidents, He did less to fight overseas except in Serbia where we made more enemies. Yes it s true we have a corrupt administration in place but in absolute truth, we have had a corrupt administration for the last 15 years, not the last 7.

I have to tell you also that we don't need a president like;

Billy Clinton in office, or for that matter hillary or even an obama because the Dems view terrorism as a police/court action - we'll issue a writ and try them in abstention.

McCain in office because he views torture as something that we should never do. He has no nerve to stand up and say "what ever it takes to protect our country, we will do". I question his need to involve us in other areas, like expanding our involvement in Kosovo through NATO if the Russians decide that they are going to move troops into Serbia to support them on this rouge nation. Someone wrote that he has no real grasp on foreign affairs. So the Terrorist would love him as much as they would Hillary.

Now I would like to see someone who is really lead the country with strong convictions, someone who will say something like what Reagan said "My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you I just signed legislation which outlaws Russia forever. The bombing begins in five minutes.", who is not afraid to say to the world, "we will do what ever it takes to protect our country" You got to realize that the terrorist leadership are not dummies they know that if we have someone like Reagan in office (that is someone who does not care what others think), they will not attack because they know that the leader will go after them.

 

[arrbsthw]

Right on Greg. That's exactly what we need. I really don't feel like we
have anyone running for President that is capable of the job we need done. I am really worried about our safety when the new President is
elected.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

My question is this.....Why has it come to this?

Would it be like this if the U.S had of just stayed neutrel on foriegn policy and tended to business at home?


If you asked a Roman in year 0 if the Empire would fall...you'd be laughed at.

 

[Critter Truckin]

My question is this.....Why has it come to this?

Would it be like this if the U.S had of just stayed neutrel on foriegn policy and tended to business at home?


If you asked a Roman in year 0 if the Empire would fall...you'd be laughed at.

We tried that before WWI. Whatever we didn't do there, could have cost us more than a merchant vessel and the threat of someone helping Mexico to take back California (OK, like it's not theirs anyway, but that's a different episode).

Point is this, if the only thing we do is nothing, then nothing is what we gain from it. It's going to happen, only a matter of when. And when it happens, we need someone like Reagan to stand up afterwards. However, if the only thing that we do is react and not try to stop it, then we're only going to invite it.

 

[greg334]

My question is this.....Why has it come to this?

Would it be like this if the U.S had of just stayed neutrel on foriegn policy and tended to business at home?

Why?

Well let's blame Europe, more specifically France.

Let’s stop responding to their need to get us involved to start with. It is them, not us who shaped the world as we see it today. It was them, who used colonialism to keep people suppressed. You look at Africa today and most of the problems are directly related to their attempt to setup western style governments with cultures that can’t evolve into western style anything.

All the major wars we were involved with in the twentieth century were wars either on European soil or had a direct causal effect from the actions of the Europeans.

We were happy to meddle in our own affairs until 1902, when we fully got involved with the Panama Canal and the P*ssing off Columbia by setting up Panama to declare independence. The Canal was Frances project but as the French could not do a thing because of their political situation, we took over and built the thing by 1914. We can thank Carter for another mess, giving back the Canal, Panama should have bought it back from us.

Then there was the russo-sino war, technically not a European thing but France was at the time known for their ability to be a diplomatic problem solver but TR didn't stand by and while France drag their feet. It p*ssed off France enough to have them denounce us for years until we save thier a** in 1917.

And of course we have WW1, where the survival rate of a typical soldier was a few days in the trenches. We did what we could but the reason that the war ended had little to do with us fighting directly but had to do with the German’s knowledge that if the US would step into the war, Germany would be lost. By 1918, Germany was lost and it was France that led us to 1939 with their demands for war reparations in 1922/23 and the occupation of the Ruhr Valley that set Germany on a course to dictatorship and war. We tried not to have the pain and humiliation happen to the German people but France was trying so hard to humiliate Germany and they succeeded. When France capitulated in June of 1940, the armistice was signed the same railroad car used to sign the surrender of Germany in 1918 and the second thing that Hitler did was to blow the thing up.

We had a very strong neutrality movement here in the 40’s and until Japan attacked us and Germany declared war on us (which by the way Japan didn’t expect them to do that), we were happy being left alone. It was Europe’s war, not ours. Of course we supported GB but we were also planning on invading Ireland if the IRA would ask for assistance from the Germans in gaining full independence from the UK.

And then we had to rebuild Europe, with aid starting in ’44 to relieve the Dutch Famine, ending in the mid 50’s after the Marshal Plan ended three years prior. The thing is we didn’t have to do this but France needed our help and the UK was in such dire straits that either of them would collapse without our help. There was such a disparity in how the plan was setup that countries like Austria who received relatively nothing flourished while the UK and Sweden (who was really pro-German) got a ton of money but mismanaged all of it. We forgave the loans, we forgave lend-lease and we forgave the criticism that was leveled at us for exporting our way of life all the while we propped up France and Belgium but DOES Europe remember who saved them twice?

Then there is NATO. At first it was a creation of the Europeans to defend against the Soviets but the defense would only be possible if WE were involved, so they came up with a way to keep us involved and we signed the treaty. At this point the Soviet Union is gone, finish, history but we are still involved with NATO and that is because they need our involvement for strength and especially money.

Then we have the UN and Korea, it was not our place to be there, it was not our war – it was the UN’s war. To many the UN is an extension of the French Diplomacy, nothing less. Even the official language of the UN is French. So indirectly Europe got us involved with Korea.

And later, at the end of the Korean conflict we agreed to help France out with Vietnam – a country that should have been let them become a country after WW2.

Is that enough reasons why?

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Greg...so Europe or France specifically twisted the U.S's arm and made them to decide to get involved? Come on now.....The U.S got involved to spread some ole fashioned western industry and democracy....

Greg your a smart person ...what kind of country tells others what they can have or not have and try to control the way they do things?
Example: You can't be nuclear. You can't have WMD's? An invasive country does that.

If another country wants to be nuclear and feels it need to defend itself without relying on others ...fine so be it....They have a right to defend themselves just like we do....
To threaten with embargos and sanctions is just wrong. Its Britian and France as well doing these things.

 

[greg334]

Greg...so Europe or France specifically twisted the U.S's arm and made them to decide to get involved? Come on now.....The U.S got involved to spread some ole fashioned western industry and democracy....

Yes OVM, most of the conflicts we were involved had more to do with Europe’s involvement in them first than it was done to spread any ideology. You really need to read the causes of issues and conflicts we were involved with, like Algeria or Lebanon in the ‘50s. We are the world’s police and primarily source of aid, even today. We didn’t start using the word Democracy or even consider spreading it until Wilson, a president who wanted us to be involved in the world’s affairs, be the police for the League of Nations. The failures of the League of Nations were corrected with the UN and look at how much money we give to the UN and how many of our forces fall under them.

Greg your a smart person ...what kind of country tells others what they can have or not have and try to control the way they do things?
Example: You can't be nuclear. You can't have WMD's? An invasive country does that.

I don’t know about that, but anyway….

Well I point to the one source of limiting countries sovereignty – the UN. No other entity has entered the world stage as the UN has and when you ask “what kind of country tells others what they can have or not have and try to control the way they do things?” you got to understand that the US has not done really a lot in comparison. The issue for us is stability of the world, the issue for the UN is control.

If you want to understand more, read about Wilson, read his speeches and look at his position about the need to have intervention on behalf of the world. It is really odd that people miss how destructive this guy was but hey when you have a president who believed that our system of checks and balances was the cause of the problems in American and our political system. Talk about dictatorial rhetoric. Once you get a grip on the League of Nations and the mindset of the 20’s to control and prevent war, famine and hatred, you can see where we have been going since. Wilson was the most vocal and the most prolific champion of this form of governance. Once you get that, read about the founding of the UN, what ER and LaGuardia did to set it up, who was advising them, and look how it grew.

It used to be that there were systems in place beyond the control of any centralized governance system (UN) that worked to a point but mechanized warfare changed everything. The UN does not want countries working out the solutions without their involvement.

But applying your question to today’s situation, I think that we need to retract ourselves from the world stage to a point; I think that Iraq was not as much as a mistake as not bombing Iran during the Carter administration. The former was a mistake not because of the invasion but because our ‘leaders’ didn’t read Lawrence, didn’t heed the warnings from the Iraqi community in the country and didn’t secure the country as the conqueror, but as a liberator. We lost the respect of the people not because of our harsh treatment but because of our compassion. We didn’t follow our experience that we gained after WW2 but decided to dismantle the military but left the political parties in place.

If another country wants to be nuclear and feels it need to defend itself without relying on others ...fine so be it....They have a right to defend themselves just like we do....
To threaten with embargos and sanctions is just wrong. Its Britian and France as well doing these things.

Ok, let’s let other country to use large destructive weapons. Look at India and Pakistan for a moment. Do you think that they have not destroyed each other because of a lack of outside forces forcing them to play nice? Here we have an issue with a disputed area of both countries, both claim the Kashmir area for their own, they have fought two wars over it. China has a stake in it too, with a third being under China’s control. We have a serious economic stake in the stability of all three countries, India and Pakistan especially. If either India or Pakistan starts a war with the other, we suffer.

But back in the mid-90’s there was a cry of how we stood by and allowed Serbia to kill all the Muslims and how we allowed them to mine areas in Kosovo. We were expected to get involved and prevent the killing but like Africa, we get involved we are criticized, when we don’t we are still criticized.

 

[Turtle]

If another country wants to be nuclear and feels it need to defend itself without relying on others ...fine so be it....They have a right to defend themselves just like we do....
To threaten with embargos and sanctions is just wrong. Its Britian and France as well doing these things.

Wow. First of all, nuclear weapons are offensive weapons, not defensive. They are defensive only with regard to a deterrent against others using them against you. Mutually Assured Destruction, A.K.A. MAD. "If you launch your nuclear missiles at me, I'll launch mine at you, and we'll both be dead. Is that what you want?"

Iran, for example, is a country with a government largely based on and operated by radical Islam. Do you want them to have a nuclear arsenal for defense? Do you think for a split second that knowing that we'll retaliate will deter them from launching a first strike to take a large step in riding the world of infidels?

Embargoes and sanctions are the only diplomatic alternative to conventional war in order to eliminate the very real chances of a nuclear war.

 

[Pilgrim]

Originally Posted by OntarioVanMan
"If another country wants to be nuclear and feels it need to defend itself without relying on others ...fine so be it....They have a right to defend themselves just like we do....
To threaten with embargos and sanctions is just wrong. Its Britian and France as well doing these things."

To see what happens when the English speaking peoples adopt this live-and-let-live posture toward a fanatical adversary, one has to go back in time only seventy years to the late 1930's and see what Germany did under similar circumstances. As Saddam Hussein was being penalized by no less than fourteen different UN sanctions, so was Germany supposedly bound by post WW1 treaties NOT to re-arm or build offensive weapons. They did it anyway, all the while claiming that they weren't and meanwhile France and England dithered and appeased. Before long they were in the Rhineland and France capitulated while Neville Chamberlain appeased some more. We all know what happend after that. All this time they were building up armaments while Europe and the rest of the world stood by not wanting to cause trouble by taking an aggressive stance toward the soon-to-be Nazis. One of Churchill's lamentations in his historical account of WW2 was that it could have been prevented if the European nations had only enforced the treaty signed by Germany at the end of WW1.

Back to the present: it's easy to see the similarities between the rise of Nazi Germany and today's Islamo-facists. Dedicated fanatics that believe theirs is a superior race/religion and everyone else must submit, convert, be enslaved or die. We dealt with Iraq - granted, it could have been done a lot more effeciently but it was necessary. If we don't diplomatically nip this Iran nuclear problem in the bud we'll find ourselves in a military conflict there also. Dealing with Iran might also take care of a lot of terrorist problems - but that's another subject.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Question asked, question answered...Thank you for the lesson.

 

[arkjarhead]

Question asked, question answered...Thank you for the lesson.

Actually you haven't gotten the full lesson yet. This deal with United States forgein policy goes farther back than WWI. I would say it dates back to 1823. In 1823 there was a document written called the Monroe Doctrine. This U.S. doctrine basiclly stated three things.

1. The US would respect all European colonies in the Western Hemisphere.
2. The US would not allow any new European colonies in the Western Hemisphere.
3. The US would be the police force of the Western Hemisphere.

This doctrine also said that any fighting between European nations and their colonies in the Americas would be seen as a threat. This partly explains US involvment in the Spanish-American War which began in 1898.

So basiclly one could say the US has always been one to meddle in other countries affairs. Alot of times it has been for good reason i.e. WW2. IMO, that war had to be fought. If we would have kept to ourselves nothing would have stopped Hitler and the Japenese.