Hi again everyone.
First off, I think Bush means well, but probably knows no more about the Bible than Sen. Clinton does. It is astonishing the things people attribute to being in the bible that simply are not there. Anyway, here goes.
Seanus, I think we are starting to find common ground on some of these issues, even if we disagree on certain points.
Seanus wrote:
The Saudis early killings of Al Qaeda members could be interpreted as merely a token gesture on their part.
Personally, I agree. I don't trust the Saudis at any rate, and the radical left-wing portions of various American pressure groups unfortunately keep us in this dirty deal because they somehow think getting oil from Saudi (instead of our own, never mind that we built the Saudi facilities also..) is good for the environment (?)
Seanus wrote:
They reportedly told OBL that he could do his thing as long as it wasn't conducted on Saudi soil. My, such dedication to the cause!!
I've not heard this before, if it is true it wouldn't surprise me but officially, they are anti-OBL. Or perhaps the Saudi Royal family is(?).
Seanus wrote:
I am a little surprised JohnP that u r highly sceptical of an insider job.
Actually, I'm not, but not in the way you would think. I do not think 9-11 was an inside job, and I do believe Saddam had WMD's up to the day we set foot in Iraq and perhaps there are still some there. I just think the "inside job" is the ongoing attempt to weaken U.S. sovereignty as such stands in the way of any new "global" entity having any real teeth.
I believe 9-11 sort of caught them all off guard, they underestimated the enemy badly, and they are taking advantage as best they can.
I do believe Al Qaeda took down the towers. I do believe aircraft hit the buildings and caused critical damage.
I also know anyone planning such a strike, after already being unsuccessful several years before-has a back up plan.
I do not believe the strike was done by the administration, but am not surprised they are back pedalling because it is embarassing to them that they underestimated and ignored some warning signs, which prior to 9-11 was unfortunately, the norm.
We were far too smug in our delusionary belief that nobody would *actually* carry out a successful large scale attack on the U.S.
Unfortunately for them (politicians such as Clintons and Bush, etc who are not patriots but globalists) it is hard to continue quietly dismantling US forces (like 8 years of Clinton and even some under Bush Sr.) when the public is screaming for blood. Time to pretend to love one's country, at least on camera-take a lesson from the Clintons.
Otherwise, why are they still continuing with the drawdown of forces and with base closures? Sure, the Army is hurting for the moment for recruitment, but this is no surprise because (was it you who mentioned a 5th column?) networks, schools, etc. have rushed to judgment and made serving very unpopular, while treatment inside the military at hands of the latest elected officials has made veterans and experienced people vote with their feet and get out.
This is why they are hurting, not because so many are dying. Nobody likes getting screwed, and worst of all by the people you are sworn to protect and defend.
The first enlistment types are the ones who are coming in but numbers do not mean experience. I have on good authority also that Mrs. Clinton (and Bill) detest the military forces in general, so I'm hoping she does not win (the patriotic show she does is just that, a show) Hard to risk your life knowing that for instance, some schools in California were banning recruiters (only military ones mind you, not any of the various political factions, etc) but still expected to get federal funds. They can go #@#k themselves AFAIC. If I were new, and saw all this , and saw Marines getting tried for murder because some guy with a grudge in the ranks was waiting to second guess something done in combat....yeah, I wouldn't enlist either. Hard to get the best and brightest to be our officers-LEADERS-when they are too busy being indoctrinated to hate their own country while at school. Thankfully there are still some who serve that I would follow into hell.
Interestingly...that's my whole theory on leadership. If your troops are willing to follow you into hell, just make sure that they aren't only going to make sure you arrive there....
Seanus wrote:
The principle is the same, Saddam was the constant and America was the variable. The man was a danger 15 years ago, he was a potential threat a couple of years back also. Why wait all this time if the idea is the same? U want to eliminate the threat, u do it ASAP.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. This is the crux of my dissatisfaction with Pres. Clinton as well as the first Bush administration. They either did absolutely nothing, or had to be spurred there by dramatic events. I'm pretty sure that if 9-11 had not occurred, current President would have continued pretty much status quo, and left Saddam another 4-8 years. Politicians only solve problems when they absolutely have to, and then like calling attention to it after the fact as if they would have done something all along.
It's a hole we Americans have been trying to get out of since after Vietnam, and especially the damage caused by President Carter (all in the name of good will of course he screwed America and much of the world as well-Iran could easily have been a good ally, for instance). President Reagan, even with his faults, was a breath of fresh air in the right direction, to the point useless politicians to this day are arguing over who is more the "Reagan Republican" (and are nothing like). Then Bush Sr. was a different animal all together, he seemed beholden to this new world order mess more than anyone prior to him (just listen to his "thousand points of light" speeches). Clinton was even worse, and would not sneeze without UN permission, never mind US taxpayers pay the brunt of the UN's bills, even though none of it's missions in the 1990s did anything for US interests at all.
Bush is IMHO just as bad, and just as sucked into the idea some global entity could make our decisions for us as his father, and on the home side of things is rapidly doing so as fast as he can, never mind the reasons people originally voted for him.
Too often I feel politicians are voted in because someone wanted to teach their predecessor some kind of lesson, and mistakenly think this gives them a ticket to do what they want.
Just an aside on the gun control issue-armed citizens have even within the past few decades stood against tanks and helicopters, and even at times succeeded. Bad things have almost always happened historically when governments, usually under guise of "public safety" disarm the public. Even in a best case scenario this only disarms honest people (the above listed Compton, in LA, has very strict gun control, and very high crime, as opposed to areas with looser gun control and oddly enough, lower crime rates).
An armed citizenry may be no match should the government found an organization large enough to send massed attacks by tanks (perhaps invite in the UN after giving it power?) but at least for the moment any DRASTIC offenses by the government, unless the media supports them, are unlikely as they are not free.
John P.
top of page