And you are worried about the government tapping (Page 2)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() This user's post has been ignored. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Master![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I thikn you would be very hard pressed to find anyone who is opposed to wire-tapping terrorists. The problems occur when you start listening in to everyone without any oversight, which is what is happening now. Thats the whole purpose of the FISA court - to make sure we are only listening to people who need listening to. Do you really trust the government to "do the right thing" when there is no one watching over them? Absolute power currupts absolutely. The government keeps telling us that the only way the terrorists can win is if they change our way of life. And to me, the diminutation of our freedoms, even if done by our own goverment, and even for a little bit of security feels like a change in the way of life. |
![]() ![]() |
Giver![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I like that. I also like the other poster that commented about how despite our troops fighting for our freedom overseas, the POTUS is taking them away here. Maybe they should turn their guns on the real enemy.
drewb8 - 2006-01-12 11:07 AM And to me, the diminutation of our freedoms, even if done by our own goverment, and even for a little bit of security feels like a change in the way of life. |
![]() ![]() |
Master![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() gullahcracker - 2006-01-12 5:09 AM why are we in Iraq and not Saudi Arabia. i want to be clear about iraq. we are not in iraq, BC they had anything to do with 9/11. we are there BC we need to take the first strike, before saddam attacked. in the pre 9/11 days we only went to war once attacked, we waited and relaxed. if we continue that pattern we will have more 9/11 attacks. saddam was in no way involved in 9/11; but had he been left in power he would have become a serious threat. although he did not have WMDs, the UN concluded that he was planning on restarting his programe since he had seen how well he could bully the UN inspectors. honestly i am suprised that the UN is so comfertable with the fact that he bullied the inspectors he cheated on the food-for-oil programme. that to me is one fo the saddest things about this whole situation. the Un has turned to soft, it can no longer do its job effectivly. this can be evidenced by the fact that it isnt the UN leading the way on these issues with north korea. the UN has become like enron, they started in one buisness and ended up in another. although the majority of the hijackers were saudis, (the case made in farenheight 9/11) does that mean we should attack saudi arabia? unless we can show that they trained, or that al quada had a major dealing within saudi why would we go to war? just BC the terrorists were citizens of that country? i cannot imagine how a "world case" could be viably made for saudi arabia. my point about vietnam was simply that it was a war being fought in terms of WW2. American leadership saw it as a cold war fight. the vietnames saw it as a civil war, in which they thought we were there to enslave them (like the french). had our military leadership actually researched it, they might have seen that. we failed to understand our enemy, had our leadership been able to empathize with our opponent things would have gone very diffrently, and alot of american and veitnames losses would have not occured. |
![]() ![]() |
Pro![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() tyrant - 2006-01-12 12:37 PM if we continue that pattern we will have more 9/11 attacks. saddam was in no way involved in 9/11; but had he been left in power he would have become a serious threat. How do you know who will be the next threat? Somebody said of Saddam when Iraq was under sanctions "Iraqi dictator? The guy is barely the mayor of Bagdad!" In any case, I hope that nobody in power in the US decides that Canada poses a potential threat. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() But G the II said he had WMD's when many of us knew he didn't. The place (Iraq) was crawling with CIA, DIA, UN Inspectors(many who were prior US military officers) aerial surveillance, etc. Just how was he to launch this proposed attack against us? But Tyrant don't miss my point here and that is that our current enemy (Muslem terrorist) doesn't hate us because of our constitution or our form of Gov. It's much deeper than that and G the II knows it, he just won't confront it. When it's all said and done we will know that Saddam was really a non-player in this part of world history. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Master![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() gullahcracker - 2006-01-12 12:07 PM The place (Iraq) was crawling with CIA, DIA, UN Inspectors(many who were prior US military officers) aerial surveillance, etc. actually it wasnt. he expelled UN inspectors for periods of time. CIA maybe, but not much. gullahcracker - 2006-01-12 12:07 PM But Tyrant don't miss my point here and that is that our current enemy (Muslem terrorist) doesn't hate us because of our constitution or our form of Gov. It's much deeper than that i agree that hate us for so many reasons. they hate that their little pile of sand is polluted with our pop culture, and that we will exploit it for anything. they hate the fact that we tought their kids the word 'I' and the phrase 'what i want.' they hate us to the bone. they hate the fact that next to china we have the most superior military, and there for we can take and do what we want (even if we arent actually invading someone). they hate our imperialism. gullahcracker - 2006-01-12 12:07 PM done we will know that Saddam was really a non-player in this part of world history. depends on who is wriitng the history books. im sure he will make it into ours, and im SURE in iraq. but then again thats a personal perspective. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() The real reason goes much deeper and no it's not oil. |
![]() ![]() |
Giver![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Huh. I thought we were in it for the oil.
tyrant - 2006-01-12 12:37 PM i want to be clear about iraq. we are not in iraq, BC they had anything to do with 9/11. we are there BC we need to take the first strike, before saddam attacked. |
![]() ![]() |
Pro![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() tyrant - 2006-01-12 1:29 PM they hate that their little pile of sand .... Oh, I think I spotted one of the reasons why they may hate us! |
![]() ![]() |
Elite![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() lol, it's like it's a contest and only I ANSWER MAN has the correct answer. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Buttercup![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() There's a much larger geopolitical dynamic at work in the mid-east than whether Syrians want their teens watching MTV. A very simplistic overview: About 100 years ago, the Ottoman Empire was in the final stages of decay. The victors of WWI carved up the remains of the Ottoman Empire (the Ottomans picked the wrong side to back in WWI), creating the relatively new nations we see in the Middle East. (The Kurds, a huge ethnic group, were split into 5 different nations and we are still seeing much discord as a result.) Some people in the Middle East see the European-created nations as illegitimate and arbitrary. There are collective, cultural - BIG culture, not minor nationalities - egos yearning for a return to Ottoman glories. You really have to read at least one history book on the topic to get an appreciation for the dynamics at play. This is not a holy war; that's a superficial, simplistic, knee-jerk and historically ignorant view of the forces at play. Geopolitical tectonic plates are moving and grinding against each other and we are experiencing the resultant earthquakes and upheaval. |
![]() ![]() |
Regular![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Okay, I am going to sway clear of the political debate about the issues surrounding the Middle East as this thread is probably already being watched by big brother because of all the 'key' words and phrases used...... Back to the original $150.00 for your phone history..... I the USA and in some larger centres here in Canada, anyone can go into a RadioShak type store and buy a scanner. that scanner can then be used to listen to every phone conversation you are making on a cordless phone or a cell phone. No need to just see a list of numbers, you can hear the entire content. Did I mention that most store clerks will show you haw to set up the scanner to be able to access this info..... A trained monkey can do it. Take this one step further, with these same scanners, people can listen to Police, Ambulance, Fire and Military communications. Don't think it's true, well tell me why the media always know where to go for the Breaking News story? |
![]() ![]() |
Veteran![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Renee, you're just about dead on. The only thing that you wrote that I do not completly agree with is taht it is not a holy war. Their are a small number of people yearning for a caliphate who will sell the struggle as a culture (holy) war. Even though the initial insult was the post WWI carve--a geo-political one--the "fix" according to the charismatic leaders of the middle east (Bin Laden et al) is one of a culturalistic or holy nature--the restoration of a calaphate. So ina sense it is both a geo-political war and a holy war. Sorry, I can't spell. |
![]() ![]() |
Buttercup![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Tyler, I see this claim of holy war within the same context that Spanish Catholicism was used to unify the bickering, disparate kingdoms within Spain in order to finally throw the Moors out of Spain during Isabel & Ferdinand's reign. Religion was used as a pretext for unifying the nation to accomplish national goals. |
![]() ![]() |
Veteran![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() First of all I don't know nearly as much about Spanish history as I do about the the rise of Middle Eastern terrorism. However, how can a nation have national goals without being a nation. It seems that maybe a religious war can unite and lead to the creation of a nation (rhyme intended). You indicated that it might not have been Spain at the time, but rather, many kingdoms. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Buttercup![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Spain had trouble throwing out the Moors because the princes bickered and lacked unity. Isabel used Catholicism as a rallying point to bring them together and create one unified nation with a national identity wrapped around the Roman Catholic Church. The national goal (for Isabel) was to create a unified Spain and overthrow the Moors from the last Muslim stronghold (Granada) and she did it under the guise of religion. The Spanish Inquisition - a religious "cleansing" - was instigated as a means to cleanse Spain of perceived national threats (Spanish Muslims who might covertly support the reconquest of Spain by foreign Muslims). Which came first - the chicken or the egg? The answer is Isabel. Sidenote: The reconquest of Spain is one of the goals of some Muslim warriors. Hard to believe that, 500 years later, they still see the loss of Spain as a point of contention. Edited by Renee 2006-01-12 2:38 PM |
![]() ![]() |
Elite![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Renee - 2006-01-12 3:31 PM Sidenote: The reconquest of Spain is one of the goals of some Muslim warriors. Hard to believe that, 500 years later, they still see the loss of Spain as a point of contention. Shhh don't tell the Basque. |
![]() ![]() |
Veteran![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Sounds like Indonesia with Suharto (or Sukarno, I can never remember who came first). Regardless, it became a holy war (I imagine). Regardless, when when a leader sells a war to a populis the actual causes of the war become irrelevent. This is certaintly true when the inital cause of the war cannot be undone as in the post WWI carving of the mid east. I believe that war has one cause--securing enough power for yoursef so that your neighbor can't now or ever kill you. Since we will always have neighbors that can ponentaily kill us, war doesn't seem likley to go away. So what do you do? You identify how the war is sold to the people and how its going to be fought--I think the two are probably closley linked. Once you realize how its going to be fought you adapt to that and try to kill more of them that they kill of you--assuming staesmanship fails . Knowing that this is being sold as a culture war will help to identify where, when and how the battles are fought. I guess it comes down to whats more practical--reality or perception. |
![]() ![]() |
Buttercup![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() tsmith - 2006-01-12 2:52 PM So what do you do? ... Once you realize how its going to be fought you adapt to that and try to kill more of them that they kill of you--assuming staesmanship fails . Knowing that this is being sold as a culture war will help to identify where, when and how the battles are fought. I guess it comes down to whats more practical--reality or perception. There is another way - engaging in a war of ideas. The pen, as the saying goes, is mightier than the sword. The West is losing the war of ideas in the Middle East and that is why the extreme zealots in the Middle East have support of any kind. Israel and Palestine must resolve their land dispute. Remove Palestinian discord from the equation and everything changes. |
![]() ![]() |
Veteran![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I am all for statesmanship. However, history has shown time and time again that when a Weberian charismatic leader (Hitler, Nepoliean, Bin Laden...) Statesmanship will not work. Their power derives from the conflict they lead their people into. In these cases debates appeasment and the like do not work. Moreover, there are certain regions that lend themselves to this type of leader. The mid east is one of those places. I just realized how increadably hijacked this thread is, and how increadably conservitive I sound. Please note, I am a raging moderate. |
|
|