|
Post by Robb Klaty on May 19, 2004 23:56:41 GMT -5
no name,
I commend you on your posts.
You are right on IMO.
Robb
|
|
|
Post by inatent on May 20, 2004 0:40:28 GMT -5
Inatent -- is there no way you can legally pursue recompense from the company for their actions? Perhaps if I had enough money to hire a good lawyer. Anyway, I was happy to leave - saw it coming for months. Why bother? inatent
|
|
|
Post by Bertine Louise on May 20, 2004 4:25:58 GMT -5
I see several on these threads that keep comparing the acts and situation of the US to the extremes. The abuse in Abu Graihb prisons is compared to Saddam's regime and 'real' terrorists. Poverty in the USA is compared to poverty in India. What kind of attitude is that? Shouldn't you have higher standards? Putting everything in 'perspective' is not going to help those who suffer! It's true that America can be complimented on her many charity organisations, but I do feel more secure with the way things are run over here. I think it's better to have structural welfare instead of having to depend on charity. We still like to complain a lot, but no one here has to live in poverty, everyone can get healthcare, everyone can get higher education, and education is good too if not better! I'm sure glad i don't have to join the army just to have a chance on a decent education! I don't think poverty in the USA should be downplayed. www.usccb.org/cchd/povertyusa/tour2.htmThe wealthiest nation in the world should not have as much ppl living below the poverty line as they have. And you can't write it off with: they're all lazy! They are not *all* lazy. There are also ppl holding down several jobs and still struggle hard or can't make ends meet. And then being unable to find a job is not an uncommon scenario either, is it. I've seen housing in ghetto's that strongly remind me of the housing (if you can call it that) in the very poor parts of eastern europe or something. At least not something you expect to see in the wealthiest nation in the world.. Well i suppose that is a big thing for Americans! It was one of the headlines on the dutch news sites i visited. They also mentioned that a high functionary of the coalition had told the BBC that the shell wasn't any proof for the WMDs and that it was prolly a left over from the Iran/Iraq war from the '80s. Did anyone read that? It does not seem too significant after all..
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 20, 2004 22:20:31 GMT -5
Putting everything in perspective removes the emotional reaction that isn’t always feasible or realistic. The majority of “poor” people in this country are very, very well off. They may not live the millionaire lifestyle, but they live in relative comfort and have most if not all of society's modern conveniences. Check out that report link I posted somewhere above or on a previous page. And many of those in “extreme” poverty can be in such a situation for various reasons – some of them totally beyond their control, but I would wager that most of it is within their control. Many who are in extreme poverty have put themselves in that place because of their own poor choices in life – substance abuse, financial irresponsibility, having children out of wedlock, etc.
Actually, most everyone here has a chance at a decent education; where our educational system has too many faults is in lower education – grade school (K-12). Our higher level education facilities (colleges/universities) are among the best in the world.
Socialism is an easy out for people, and imo does not promote individual success and growth. There are many people in our country who would love to see our great nation become a completely Socialist state. IMO, that will help lead to the downfall of our country as a successful Capitalist nation. People used to come to this country because they knew that with hard work and dedication, they could rise to great heights. Now, a lot of people come here to obtain our welfare assistance. This puts an undue strain on the taxpayers. Eventually, there will be more people sucking resources out of our system, than there are people who contribute to it. Socialism was not what made the U.S. the most prosperous country in the world.
* When the "War on Poverty" began, only 7.7% of American people were born out of wedlock -- in 2002, that figure was 34.5%.
* We've spent $8 trillion in social services, and it hasn't improved on the good advice of: "Go out and get a job."
* We now spend ten times as much on welfare as was spent when Lyndon Johnson launched the "War on Poverty". The "War on Poverty" is LBJ's domestic Vietnam -- yet we don't hear the liberals/socialists in our country hollering about "what's our exit strategy" in the "War on Poverty".
Much like the failures of our lower level government schools, throwing more and more money at the "poverty" situation doesn't make things better -- and can in fact make things worse.
I don’t think true poverty should ever be downplayed. The problem is, it is also over-exaggerated in this country.
Did you read those reports of all the extraneous things those in “poverty” have in their lives here in the U.S.?
My husband and I are considered to be living below the "poverty” line!
I’ve seen “public housing” areas in our country also. I’ve noticed that in those areas (where the government has basically “given” housing to poor people), the conditions are pretty atrocious. Contrast that with those who participate in Habitat for Humanity. These are poor people, but they have to work, in essence, to earn their affordable housing – it is not just given to them. Contrast Habitat for Humanity communities with public housing communities, and you will see that when something is given too easily to someone without their own sacrifice to obtain it, they don’t appreciate it like someone who has the desire to get it through their own hard work and sacrifice. THEN, it is truly appreciated and taken care of!
Yep, I’ve read that as well. I know that because there have been findings before that ended up being a dead end, and this is one of the reasons some of our higher-ups aren’t so quick to jump on this.
You should see how quickly the media will jump on less info that this, however – especially when it is something that may appear to negatively affect Bush.
Does anyone really think those 2 shells with the sarin gas AND the mustard gas find are isolated materials just left around? Well, perhaps some people do . . . . I don’t.
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 20, 2004 22:21:18 GMT -5
Why Socialism Is the People's Choice by James Ostrowski, June 2003 James Ostrowski is an attorney in Buffalo and serves as a policy advisor for The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Why is socialism more popular than capitalism? We have had 150 years to dissect socialism in theory. We have had 100 years to see socialism in action. Socialism, extensive government control over the economy, is a disaster in theory and a disaster in practice. The superiority of capitalism over socialism has been amply demonstrated by Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Murray Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and others. Yet it continues to be the dominant political philosophy, even in the United States. Here, in what the rest of the world sees as an anarcho-capitalist jungle, we have socialized medicine, socialized education, and socialized retirement. The state seizes 40 percent of our income and tells us what we can and cannot do with what we keep. Virtually every aspect of the economy is regulated. The long-term trend is toward ever-greater government control over the economy, our property, and our lives. This trend continues even though capitalism works and socialism does not.
Capitalism works by protecting private property and freedom of contract, thereby encouraging people to use their abilities and resources to produce goods and services that are most likely to be urgently demanded by others. Capitalism works because, unlike competing systems, it does not depend on the quality of its overseers. Capitalism’s overseer is the price system, which, far from being dependant on the will of a small number of politicians, is the expression of the totality of all human knowledge about the value and scarcity of goods, services, and resources. Capitalism works by harnessing, through the principles of specialization and the division of labor, human diversity and inequality, allowing people with different backgrounds and talents to trade for mutual advantage.
Capitalism works because it does not require central planning; rather, capitalism is what happens naturally and spontaneously when there is no such planning. As seen, for example, in prison-er-of-war camps, markets arise spontaneously from individuals acting to advance their own interests. Markets are natural; they just happen. The formula for establishing a capitalist system is: don’’t just do something, stand there. Which leads into my last point that capitalism works because it requires no change in human nature and works just fine with the natural tendency of people to act to further the welfare of themselves and their families. Here is a system that arises naturally and spontaneously, is governed by the price system, not by politicians or dictators, encourages people to be productive and cooperate with others, and works well with people as they are.
In contrast, socialism does not work, because it acts, as it must, through the coercive apparatus of the state. Therefore, in its interactions with people, there is always at least one party forced to participate and who is, therefore, abused and exploited.
Socialism does not work, because, while capitalist decisions are made by individuals and firms that know more about their particular circumstances than anyone else could possibly know, socialist planners cannot know nearly as much about the persons and institutions they deal with and thus are forced to make and enforce arbitrary general rules that apply the same to different people and different circumstances, regardless of the absurd or unjust consequences.
Socialism does not work, because, in the words of Fréédééric Bastiat, people are not clay. They always react and respond to the state’s use of power against them (or for them) in ways that result in unintended and negative consequences from the state’’s point of view. This is called blowback in foreign-policy matters; however, domestic examples of blowback include the crime wave unleashed by the “war on drugs” and the Great Society’s destruction of the family structure of the poor.
Socialism does not work, because, instead of allowing the price system to be a vehicle of rational economic planning, it sabotages the price system as much as possible. In its extreme form, socialism would eliminate prices for capital goods —— by seizing them —— and thereby cause economic annihilation. Even socialism’s less extreme interventions injure the price system. Taxation, inflation, subsidies, occupational licensure, collective bargaining mandates, and so on all distort market prices and cripple their ability to convey accurate information about preferences and scarcities.
Socialism’s popularity
Why then is socialism so popular? The reasons are not complicated. First, socialism allows people to spend other people’s money[/b]. Let’s avoid the phrase “steal other people’s money,” because only libertarians see it that way.
Nevertheless, however socialists justify this spending, even they realize they are taking other people’s money. Yes, I know some socialists deny the very concept of private ownership. But even they realize that socialism takes money and property that is possessed by some and transfers possession to others so they can spend or use it[/b].
REASON NO. 1: Socialism allows people to spend other people’’s money without feeling guilty about it.
Second, there is a related but distinct craving that animates socialism, as noted by many commentators. Envy is a strong emotion that has always had a powerful impact on society and politics. Envy is “a painful or resentful awareness of an advantage enjoyed by another joined with a desire to possess the same advantage” (Webster’’s New Collegiate Dictionary). Because no one admits to acting on the basis of envy, the term “equality” – robbed of its original and legitimate meaning in classical liberal thought – is used instead. Socialism is the perfect political expression of envious people because it purports to rein in greedy and wealthy capitalists and usher in social equality[/b].
REASON NO. 2: Socialism satisfies the deeply felt and widely held emotion of envy.
Third, free-market capitalism emphasizes the individual’s responsibility for his own economic welfare. Socialism professes to place this responsibility outside the individual and with the state. Many people are happy to be rid of this burden and glad to be able to blame others for their problems[/i]. Unlike Reasons No. 1 and No. 2, this reason for the popularity of socialism is one trumpeted by its proponents. They do not see the obvious downside of the structural reduction of individual economic responsibility: laziness, profligacy, and passivity.
REASON NO. 3: Socialism purports to relieve people of the burden of worrying about their economic well-being.
Fourth, in a secular age, socialism acts as a religion-substitute. Traditionally, religion would offer solace to people facing the numerous traumas of life. Now, for millions of people, socialism plays that role. “For who would bear the whips and scorns of time, the oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely, the pangs of despised love, the law’s delay, the insolence of office and the spurns that patient merit of the unworthy takes, when he” could overcome all these problems with socialism?
Utopian socialism – all socialism is utopian – purports to offer a solution to virtually all human problems. In contrast, the claims of capitalism are seen as too modest, and hard work is required as well.[/b] There is no need to quote a Marxist on the all-encompassing promises of socialism. Lyndon Johnson will do fine. In a speech given on May 22, 1964, Johnson promised that his Great Society would “pursue the happiness of our people,” conquer “boredom and restlessness,” and satisfy the “desire for beauty” and the “hunger for community.” All this and beat the Viet Cong too. Amazing!
REASON NO. 4: Socialism is a secular substitute for religion and offers people (false) solace against the traumas of this life.
I considered giving intellectuals their own special reason for worshipping the state, but I decided that to explain why 95 percent of intellectuals have a ferocious love for socialism you merely have to combine and intensify all four reasons already stated.
These are some of the main reasons that socialism, which is silly in theory and lethal in practice, remains so popular, even in a society such as ours, whose fabulous wealth is the result of the shrinking capitalist remnants of the economy.
“To liberals, "compassion" means giving less productive people the fruits of the efforts of more productive people. But real compassion means enabling less productive people to become more productive themselves. That way, the poor have not only more material things but also more self-respect, as well as more respect from others, and the society as a whole has a higher standard of living and less internal strife.” -- Thomas Sowell
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 20, 2004 22:29:10 GMT -5
Remembering SaddamDon North’s documentary film As Iraqis emerge from the dark ages of Saddam Hussein’’s dictatorship, the staggering dimensions of his cruel atrocities are becoming known. Remembering Saddam is the story of seven Baghdad merchants who incurred the wrath of Saddam. Nine years ago, after spending a year in the infamous Abu Ghraib prison, their right hands were surgically removed as part of an effort to blame small businessmen for Iraq’’s collapsing economy. Each man tells his story and friends, wives and children recall their experiences under the former dictator. Join us for a look at this powerful and poignant documentary, which as of now, no U.S. broadcast or cable network has chosen to air.Whatcha wanna bet Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 will get wider distribution anywhere before the above film does? As I said, Anti-Americanism is very in vogue. It’s “hip” to hate America, and not "cool" to be proud of her.
|
|
hinds
Junior Member
Posts: 142
|
Post by hinds on May 20, 2004 23:24:13 GMT -5
"This subject reminds me of a day I spent in Bogota a few years ago, waiting in line with a friend who was trying to get a visa to go to the United States. When we got into the long line, two hours before the Embassy opened, the sky was clear. There was a man walking up and down the line trying to sell umbrellas for $1000 pesos, but no one wanted one. Awhile later some clouds came up and people began to buy umbrellas - for $1200 pesos. The clouds got darker, the umbrellas sold faster - at $2000 pesos. When the rain began he sold the last umbrellas - I think it was $5000 pesos! " Very smart man. I would do the same thing. Here is what he got for his sales as of todays currency rate exchange. Mexican Pesos vs. US Dollars. $1000.00 = $86.44 per umbrella $1200.00 = $103.73 per umbrella $2000.00 = $172.89 per umbrella $5000.00 = $432.22 per umbrella Not a bad days work at all. Now if only I can keep hoping for rain... Bertine, How are you? Hope all is well in your neck of the globe. I wanted to address a bit of your post also. "It's true that America can be complimented on her many charity organisations, but I do feel more secure with the way things are run over here. I think it's better to have structural welfare instead of having to depend on charity. We still like to complain a lot, but no one here has to live in poverty, everyone can get healthcare, everyone can get higher education, and education is good too if not better! I'm sure glad i don't have to join the army just to have a chance on a decent education! I don't think poverty in the USA should be downplayed. www.usccb.org/cchd/povertyusa/tour2.htmThe wealthiest nation in the world should not have as much ppl living below the poverty line as they have. And you can't write it off with: they're all lazy! They are not *all* lazy. There are also ppl holding down several jobs and still struggle hard or can't make ends meet. And then being unable to find a job is not an uncommon scenario either, is it. I've seen housing in ghetto's that strongly remind me of the housing (if you can call it that) in the very poor parts of eastern europe or something. At least not something you expect to see in the wealthiest nation in the world.." First off, going into the military to get a college education is not the only way we have here to go to school. Its a fair trade off for some who may not qualify with obtaining a grant, or winning a scholarship, or by working their way through school (as many many do) or by having the good fortune to have Mom and Dad help them. Now, as to the "lazy" poor people. Have you ever lived here in the USA? There are more lazy people than you might think. There are jobs here. You have to be willing for change. You may have to adjust to pay or position cuts. But in the end from what I have experienced here in this country during my lifetime is that many many people would be far better off financially if they would only do with less. Live within their pay range. The misuse and abuse of using Credit is ramped in this country. People need more education starting in elementary school about handling money and learning budgeting and how to perform the basic of all money handling - balancing a checkbook, paying your bills - especially your utilities, rent or mortgage, and keeping your lifestyle according to your earnings. I am a loan officer, and personal account specialist for a financial institution. I understand fully well how bad things can happen to good people. I also see the ignorance and stupidity of others who just don't take care of their responsibilities. Period. Oh, and btw, where I work, we do score enhancement and budgeting along with free financial planning for every single customer. We are here for the "rich" and for those who have some work to do to improve their financial lives. But the success storys are wonderful, and many! From my experience, lazy people (who do apply for credit all of the time) really don't pay their bills. They only work one job, and have more need of having the "hog wild" lifestyle. You cannot have what you are not willing to work for. Our court system is overfilled with bankruptcys and its costing billions. Our welfare system is organised. It just isn't accountable. This is where the politicians WE vote in have to make the changes. In order for the system to work, the laws must be held up, the corruption within it must be exposed, and all those who are illegally using it must be held responsible in a court of law. I would rather see my tax dollars go to work in putting unemployed or misplaced working men and woman through training and schooling and job placement programs. I would expect to see many fight having to work harder because they are so used to getting a free hand out, but perhaps that is where the buck should stop. Education can come at any age, and we can all better ourselves. One need only look at the business that is going overseas. Put the jobs in the hands of the unemployed or those on welfare. Large companys that choose to take their business to India or other countrys - maybe I will take my hard earned dollar to a company who hires those who live in America. Government - take care of your own. Enforce the laws. And for those who have jobs that pay large amounts of money per hour for the simple tasks that are being done in Mexico or India now - Maybe you need to not be so greedy - you and the greedy company you work for need to work together on fair concessions and wages that would better yourselves as employees and also make good sense for the company. Companys should get tax incentives if thats what it takes to keep Americans working and keep those jobs from going overseas. As for ghetto housing, man that is everywhere in the world. A person can only feel as good in their home as they do about themselves. I have seen some very poor neighborhoods - very poor - but the homes are clean, the children are fed, loved, and the homes show a peace that they are improving their lives - even if it takes time. I see so many people buying their first home in the last couple of years. This means people are learning. People are saving, and people are becoming more educated. This makes me so happy. To see someone I know only a year or two ago - working a part time job, realizing that they must work more - even if its only to pay the "regular" bills, and have them start a budget, a savings plan and then loan them the money to start their most expensive purchase and dream. Its wonderful. The system stinks - yes. There are many lazy people - yes The government needs much improvement - yes There is hope for any of them - yes yes It's not only "poor" people that abuse the system - oh yes Well, I have spouted a lot - please forgive if I rambled a bit. I am passionate that anyone can get out from under a bad way of living if they have the true desire and guts to stick to it and work it out! Peace.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on May 21, 2004 9:19:35 GMT -5
Very smart man. I would do the same thing. Here is what he got for his sales as of todays currency rate exchange. Mexican Pesos vs. US Dollars. But Bogotá is in Colombia. A US dollar is worth about 3,000 Colombian pesos (COP) That brings the COP5,000 price down to less than US$2.00
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on May 21, 2004 9:52:30 GMT -5
The majority of “poor” people in this country are very, very well off. They may not live the millionaire lifestyle, but they live in relative comfort and have most if not all of society's modern conveniences. Followed by: Living in atrocious relative comfort? And they never bothered to learn to read or even do the simple math needed to make change. What world do you live in? How do you get into one of these colleges or universities if you cannot read? Does anyone have any evidence that there are more? As was pointed out elsewhere, shells with mustard gas were discovered just outside Washington, DC. Should we panic and assume there are more? Is a plot to destroy the US? I think not. So far there is nothing to indicate that these were not just 4 misplaced shells. The shells in Uraq could very well be ones that a local fighter had cached to use as a weapon. They do it with US UXO all the time.
|
|
Kathy
Junior Member
my mugshot
Posts: 98
|
Post by Kathy on May 21, 2004 13:05:04 GMT -5
I'm really confused. I thought we were defending our country against terrorism. Could someone straighten me out here? Isn't the issue about terrorists? These things come to my mind when I hear or read about WMD in the media.
What do you think it requires being a terrorist? Do you need WMD? Do you think you need WMD to brutalize and kill hundreds of thousands of people? What does it take to plan a terrorist attack? How do we defend ourselves against it? Do you think the WMD issue is really worthy of this much hoo ha? If a nasty man or group of terrorist is brutalizing innocent people, should it be none of our concern? If we know that a particular character is spawning terrorists and those terrorist are "sneak'in" around... oh I don't know maybe flying plains in to buildings.... do we not find the source of the problem? We do it in the US all the time with drug dealers and nobody has a problem with that - I mean finding the source of the problem not just the little guy.
Why would the media think that gagging the public with possible Presidential closet skeletons (WMD and Monica L. for instance) is intelligent journalism? To me that stuff should be in the tabloids with the Bat Boy. Isn't the real issue about terrorists and innocent people? And why shouldn't we stop it? No one had a problem with stopping terrorism when they kamakazied into our towers - or am I wrong about that too?
Why is defending ourselves and other innocent people around the world such a huge taboo? I don't get it! You'd think that saving lives and freedom world wide would be a major hit. And shelve the argument about our lost soldiers cause it's weak at best. No body wants to lose our soldiers but it's a pretty small number considering. If I could negotiate my life for all of theirs I would without hesitation. If I could take the place of all the innocent people in Iraq I would do that too. I can't do that and neither can the President. What we can do is what we are doing. Ya! Some SHTF, but there are positive things come of this and we can't just pull out now. If we did the President would get blamed for that too.
BTW - my bad comparing the prisoners with the Nick Berg beheading. They are both bad and wrong.
|
|
|
Post by ha on May 21, 2004 14:09:27 GMT -5
So do the managers of big corporations in capitalist states.
So does the capitalist system
So does the capitalist economy - you work hard and instead of getting happy you must ... work still harder to maintain a decent standard of living.
This is also true for capitalism ... and any other ideology or practice when people consider it the ONE and ONLY way.
These are some of the main reasons that capitalism, which is silly in theory and lethal in practice, remains so popular ...
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on May 21, 2004 15:39:25 GMT -5
I'm really confused. I thought we were defending our country against terrorism. Could someone straighten me out here? Isn't the issue about terrorists? These things come to my mind when I hear or read about WMD in the media. Terrorists, by definition, engage in terrorism with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments. The acts may be killing innocent people at random, capturing people and threatening to kill them unless some demand is met, threatening to cause damage to property, threatening to distupt society, or anything that they think enough people will fear/care about preventing that their demands will be met. Ecoterrorist groups like the Earth Liberation Front engages in ecoterrorism in the name of environmental causes. In November of 2001 they 'spiked' trees. This will result in damage to machinery when these trees are processed. They have also burned down buildings. Animal rights terrorism costs run to millions as researchers and others cope with arson, bombs, and animal releases. Countless people could be out as risk if the development of a drug is delayed. They also throw paint on people's furs. The idea is that i people are afraid that their fur will be ruined they will not wear it and it will decrease the need for furs. Extreme Christian groups engage in terrorism here in the US by killing doctors who perform abortions, bombing clinics, and intimidating people as they go to the clinics. Their stated goals are to shut down the clinics. The Muslim terrorists strap bombs on their bodies, fly planes into buildings, blow up trains, declare jihads, and commit other acts of violence in an attempt to get people to rise up against their governments and demand that the US and its allies get out of Muslim countries. It is simple. You commit acts of terrorism. Nope. In the case of PITA a can of red paint did the trick. In the case of the ecoterrorists a hammer and nails was all that was required.. Bin Lauden used the declaration of a jihad to create terror. Nope. Man is very inventive. There are lots of ways to kill people. To kill hundreds of thousands you really need a government's help, They all have some really effective weapons. In the case of the people who bombed the abortion clinics - all it took was a couple bottles of gas and a match. Not much skill involved. If you listen to Bush, the answer is invading a country thousand of miles away. In reality - without removing personal freedoms there is very little than can be done. If a person is willing to die for their cause it is difficult to stop them. Nope. We supplied many of the pieces of the WMDs. The anthrax, for example, was ordered from the US by Iraq. It is our concern. And there are ways to take action. However the international agreements that the US promoted and signed say that there are very few times that one country can invade another. If there is a clear and present threat is one of the reasons. I do not think there is another. That is why the US did not have a lot of backing. Many did not see the threat. The administration said the WMD were there and that they knew where they were. Maybe they were hidden. And that is why the US is in Afghanistan. They have already flown the planes into the buildings. A little late to shut the door on that one. It wouldn't have been on August 6, 2001 when this was mentioned in the president's briefing but he probably had a lot on his mind. (on the lighter side: www.whitehouse.org/news/2004/041104.asp)Do you think the war on drugs is being won? How many years? How many billions? For the most part the media is a business. They deliver what people want to hear. Monica L. is a better seller than other things. Yes it is. But how much can you write about it? It would be good to have a plan. We went to war in Iraq. One of the many reasons was terrorism. So we killed the leaders sons, captured the leader, captured the top people, and then picked someone to be in charge. But look at who the US picked?? Before he has taken office it is discovered he is so currupt that we now need to get another person. Does anyone think the second choice prson will be better than the first choice? There was some protesting about the US going into Afghanistan but by in large the world was behind us. Then we invaded Iraq. Well, there was really no threat against which we were defending ourselves. We invaded Iraq. Think about a foreigh army invading your town saying that the US government was being unjust and had threatened them. How happy would you be? A small number compared to what? The 3,000 killed in the WTC is a small number when compared to he number killed in the Gulf war. That is not the way it works. But there are many jobs in Iraq that need to be done. You could go and help out. Did you ever think that maybe we should have asked the citizens of the country what they wanted? What we can do is leave. Of course you are far from that fan. And as I said, we can lea Sometimes before you invade you have an exit plan. In 40 days the country is supposed to be turned over to... Do you know who it will be? Do you think Bush does? If we start qualifying brutal acts we are going to get into trouble. Of course there is a scale. Most people squash an insect without thinking. Some will step on a mouse. Some will step on people. Where is the line? Is killing killing? Or is it bad only if it is a human? It is terrible when a plane crashes into a building and people die. People die just the same when a bomb crashes into a building. This started out about terrorism. Terrorism is part of war and most leaders know it. Winston Churchill, memorandum to Air Marshall Arthur Harris (28th March 1945)
It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land. We shall not, for instance, be able to get housing material out of Germany for our own needs because some temporary provision would have to be made for the Germans themselves. I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives, such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction. Are terror attacks ever justified? The Allied leaders approved of the attacks but then had second thoughts. If my family lived in London and has been bombed 57 days in a row I can not say with certainty that I would not have been in favor of the bombing of Dresden.
|
|
|
Post by Cindi on May 21, 2004 16:07:26 GMT -5
LOL @ me....I didn't see Bogota - of course it's in Columbia...lol! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Bertine Louise on May 21, 2004 20:00:52 GMT -5
I'm gonna be short cos its way past bed time here!
it just struck me as odd that some young people have to go such a way to get an education. Higher education is very expensive in the US isn't it? I heard about that. If i would live in the US in the situation I'm in I might not be able to go to uni, let alone follow 2 studies as i do now. Over here everyone can get a scholarship that should suffice to complete a study and the less your parents make the more you get. You don't have to win it, let alone be good at sports for it! lol. Everyone here get's a chance on decent higher education, all you need is your high school diploma. Oh, and we get to travel by public transport for free too all across the country;D
At least not where I live! You might get a different perspective when you see what life's like in Holland, or Scandanavian countries for example, where social security is among the best. We don't have such a big gap between rich and poor. Might be hard to compare, but anyway, Americans (the poor ones excluded i think) )are happy with the way things are there, and we are happy with the things are here (well we do love to complain), and so be it!
|
|
|
Post by bub on May 21, 2004 20:06:14 GMT -5
At the expense of living in a pro-socialist state.
No thank you!
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on May 22, 2004 13:37:08 GMT -5
At the expense of living in a pro-socialist state. No thank you! What do you see as the downside? Would there be a cost to you? Just think - free education. You could take advantage of it.
|
|
|
Post by Guarp on May 22, 2004 16:59:03 GMT -5
Isn't it wonderful to see how Google Ads even manages to add an interesting contribution to this thread?
|
|
|
Post by Guarp on May 22, 2004 18:01:31 GMT -5
In the article about Socialism, written by Ostrowski I read a couple of interesting statements which could possible give you enough material to start up a new message board. I won't go that far, but as socialism failed in the practice, capitalism isn't perfect either, and therefore you need some of both.. Socialism, extensive government control over the economy, is a disaster in theory and a disaster in practice. In this article extensive government control seems to be a synonym for socialism and the impression is made that this has to be avoided at all costs. Only capitalism brings forth the best in us. Keep in mind that Adam Smith, the Founding Father of capitalism wrote that regulation and governmental control is very important and that most public works can beter be left in the hands of governments. Besides some basic economic reasons I wonder how you would see your freedom from government control in relation to the US Patriot Act, in which Americans seem to have lost a lot of civil liberties. (some of them constitutionairy rights) This act gives a lot more power to the government and the president himself, which now can act without any significant checks and balances. There is hardly anything you can do about it.. All you can do is pray and hope if the decision made by your government is the best for you and your country. And I just got the opinion that you don't trust governments at all, for example when it comes to the provision of public goods. Public goods like education, healthcare and public transport can only provide a satisfactory level of service if they are actively supported and coordinated by the governments. (which doesn't mean privatizing and let markets do their work) I read the complaints about primary education, you know that the US can hardly pay for its public healthcare in the coming years, and still you feel that an economy should work without "central planning". Something is obviously going very wrong...
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 23, 2004 18:20:01 GMT -5
Not everyone who is considered “poor” lives in public housing. Nowhere did I make such a comment. Sounds like an agreement Oh good grief Did you not read the whole post? You know, where I talked about our faults in the lower education system? And not everyone who graduates from high school is illiterate, btw. As far as the lower educational system – I say, open up some good competition to the government schools – better yet; let the private sector manage education. And how about some more parental responsibility to make sure their kids are learning? Many parents/kids here in the U.S. don’t value education very much. Corporations don’t force me at gunpoint to turn over my money to them. Capitalism is founded in the individual’s own work and progress, the spirit of entreneurship – it is not based on taking away the majority of their earnings from them and giving it to someone else. Ah yes, it’s SO unfair and WAY too difficult to have to actually work for one’s own way, isn’t it? Yeah – the U.S. became the strongest and most powerful country in the world (in a relatively short amount of time) because of capitalism and individual prosperity, while maintaining a fairly low tax burden. Pretty silly. No kidding: U.S. taxes are a bargain moneycentral.msn.com/articles/tax/basics/9196.aspI knew the cost of Socialism was expensive – here’s just how much: Sweden (52.38%) Denmark (49.42%) Finland (46.27%) (The data do not include state (or provincial) and local taxes.) We have it relatively “easy” here in the U.S. with regard to taxation. More from the article regarding European Socialist countries:For all the array of free services, cost of goods isn't the only drawback. Not surprisingly, expectation of a significant tax burden isn't what you would call an incentive for entrepreneurs and others looking to start and build a business.
To illustrate: According to 1997 figures from the Union of Industrial and Employers Confederation of Europe, companies in the European Union spent an average of 60% less on research and development than stateside firms -- evidence, say economists, that high taxes strangle startups and overall incentive.
"You definitely find less entrepreneurial activities in Europe," notes Shackelford. "The thinking is ‘‘What's the use of it?'"
It also helps explain why European-based companies are interested in expanding in the United States and elsewhere where the cost of doing business is less than in their home counties. It may also explain why the dollar has been consistently strong against the euro even as interest rates in this country have fallen.
Don't look for things to change much in the foreseeable future. While the United States has maintained a fairly steady tax rate (26.75% in 1982, versus the current 26.02%), other countries' rates have steadily risen. Over the same timeframe, Sweden's taxes rose some four percentage points, while Italy's jumped nearly nine percentage points.
Still, there are signs of change. Except for France, most European nations since 1990 have reduced the government's share of the economy.
"A lot of the social programs in Europe are getting attention because people are realizing they're frightfully expensive," says Pike. Costly they may be, but the bottom line to the disparity between Americans' tax burdens and those of other countries really addresses a more salient topic -- the fundamental difference between Americans as a people and others. Tax rates may rise and dip, but Americans' core values, even some 200 years down the line from the Founding Fathers, manifest themselves in our view of government and the ongoing role it should have in its citizens' everyday lives.
"This reflects the roots of the people who came to this country," notes Michael Donihue, an economics professor at Colby College and a former senior economist on the Council of Economic Advisors. "We've always had a generally negative attitude toward our government."
"We tend to forget that we were founded from a rebellion over taxes," adds Shackelford. "Americans love the fact that we do get to take home most of what we earn. I see the United States as a 22-year-old who makes mistakes but has unbounded energy. Europe is the 52-year-old who's kind of tired and accepts that what he has is what he has."I have heard some worries expressed about the Patriot Act – what I’ve read does not seem to indicate loss of civil liberties . . . can you be more specific? There are various sites that address and clarify the misconceptions about the Patriot Act. I just strongly feel there are things the government can only mess up when they are involved in it – like education and healthcare. From what I understand, Canadians are so fed up with their socialized form of medicine, they come to the U.S. so they can get adequate and timely care. (At the same time, drug prices can be so high here that Americans take advantage of Canada’s price-fixing of drugs.) As far as education – well, it does seem to be failing and has for years. And it’s not for lack of money thrown at it, either. The whole system (in general – I realize there are some excellent government schools out there) is too beauracratic, too controlling, and doesn’t seem to be producing very well-educated children. Private schools (and homeschools), on the other hand, have generally produced better results with less money. Because, Kathy – didn’t you KNOW: “Those poor terrorists are just misunderstood people, we should just give them a change to vent their rage and intentionally kill more innocents; after all, this is their belief, right –– who are we to judge whether what they do is right or wrong? Bad United States! Bad country! Bad country! How dare you try to stop them, because after all, it’’s you’’re fault! The U.S. is the reason for everything that’’s wrong in the world! Communism, Nazism, Fascism, dictatorships (disguised as democratically-elected leaderships –– Saddam was “elected” too!!), only killed a few hundred million people! Give peace a chance for it to kill millions more!!!”I seem to recall many declarations from Iraqis that they wanted to be free from Saddam. Now they are. They just didn’t have the power to do it themselves. People don’t deserve to live under such tyranny and brutality. I’m glad they are free from the man. I do believe that plan is in the works.
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 23, 2004 19:12:19 GMT -5
www.jihadwatch.org/archives/2004_04.phpOne of the main things that makes the global jihad network morally reprehensible is that it targets civilians – chiefly in Israel but also all over the world. It justifies the attacks by a provision of Islamic law that prohibits the killing of women and children "unless they are fighting against the Muslims" ('Umdat al-Salik o9.10, cf. al-Mawardi, al-Akham as-Sultaniyyah, 4.2). This has been interpreted as allowing civilians to be killed if they are somehow aiding the war effort – hence the common assertion that "there are no civilians in Israel." Aware of this and media-savvy as ever, the jihadis and their allies have tried to make much of the U.S. forces supposedly targeting civilians in Iraq. And the mujahedin themselves have used women and children as shields to try to make sure the U.S. would target civilians – the easier to discredit American claims of the moral high ground. And of course the Kerryite Left, following their leader's example of hysterical claims of American soldiers running amok in Vietnam, piles on happily. But in an interview with Iraq Coalition and Pan-Arab print reporters, Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage was having none of it, and spoke with rare and refreshing candor. From the State Department website, with thanks to Ruth King: [/b] We are the most humane military in the world. We punish our people when they exceed bounds, and we do it transparently. We regret every single civilian life which is lost, and we do our utmost, even putting our soldiers at risk, to prevent those. It is true that there are civilian casualties and it is true that these scenes are shown over and over, particularly on our Arab friends' television networks. Now we spend enormous amounts of time and put our soldiers and Marines at risk in order to try to prevent it. War is dangerous and it is difficult times, but when you ask that question, I would hope that you'd reflect on your own writing over the past, say, 30 years and see what you've said about human rights in Iraq. Thank you all very much. [/ul] ============================== Special Dispatch - Saudi Arabia/Reform in the Arab and Muslim WorldNovember 30, 2003 No. 617 Saudi Columnist: 'We Have Bred Monsters ... We Are the Problem and Not America' On November 30, 2003, Dr. Muhammad Talal Al-Rasheed, columnist for the English language daily The Saudi Gazette, wrote an article titled "Senseless Violence, Senseless Death." The article is in reaction to the murder of Saudi Prince Talal Bin Abdul Aziz Al-Rasheed of Hail by 'Islamists' in Algeria. The following are excerpts from the article: (1) "...A few days back Prince Talal Bin Abdul Aziz Al-Rasheed of Hail was murdered in Algeria while on a camping trip. He was 40 years old and his son, Nawaf, 13 years old, was with him. At the time of this writing, we only know that the father was killed, while the son's condition is to be verified. "It is easy to get on one's soap box and pontificate; to tell humanity that we suffer from terrorism too. That is too easy though; and perhaps too intellectually cowardly. Talal was a well-known poet in Saudi Arabia. He comes from a family that ruled Arabia long enough to be recorded in history. He was and will always be a beacon of Art, whatever that word means. "Those who killed him are those who want the word silenced. The young man left it open whether he was with this or that, but he was adamant to tell all and sundry that to be is to talk and exchange. I grieve, I must admit, and am beyond reason because of the trauma of it all, but I do maintain a semblance of reason to see where all of this is leading. " We have bred monsters. We alone are responsible for it. I have written as much before my personal tragedy and will continue to do so for as long as it takes. We are the problem and not America or the penguins of the North Pole or those who live in caves in Afghanistan. We are it, and those who cannot see this are the ones to blame." Castrated as we are, we look to America. Why? Because they went into Iraq and made a difference. Better or worse is another point. Once America has demonstrated its willingness to do something, the moral imperative is that it should not stop at the first station along the road. The majority of us are sick and tired of this carnage and President Bush, wrong on just about everything else, is right on this one. Does he have the (courage) to finish the job? I wonder. "I don't think this will be published in the Arab News, as it should be. If not, I understand their point of view and their perpetual selectiveness. But one thing is sure, we are here to stay even if it takes giving our best to the madness of religion and the wrong of fanaticism. Nothing, but nothing, is worth the life of an innocent... may the Americans add Talal to their list of loved ones lost to the same indiscriminate madness that took 3,000 on a certain day in September."
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 23, 2004 19:12:41 GMT -5
How the U.N. Helped Saddam Buy Allies By Evan Coyne Maloney Posted: 17 February 2004 www.brain-terminal.comUnited Press International recently reported the discovery of documents from Saddam Hussein's oil ministry that show the Iraqi dictator "used oil to bribe top French officials into opposing the imminent U.S.-led invasion of Iraq."And according to ABC News, allies of Saddam Hussein profited by pocketing the difference between the price of oil under the U.N.'s "Oil for Food" program and the price of oil on the open market. Some of these allies included "a close political associate and financial backer of French President Jacques Chirac", "Russian political figures" including "the Russian ambassador to Baghdad" and "officials in the office of President Vladimir Putin", "George Galloway, a British member of Parliament", and even some– gasp!--"prominent journalists". Because the U.N. allowed Saddam Hussein to decide who received contracts under the "Oil for Food" program, he was able to use it as a personal slush fund to pay off his defenders. France and Russia were two of the most stubborn supporters of the Hussein regime, and their friendship was rewarded well: Russian interests got the biggest cut of the loot, while the French came in second. British politician George Galloway, who likes to refer to Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice as "the three witches", personally pulled in nearly $10 million while defending Saddam. In all, some 270 companies, organizations and individuals in 50 countries profited through the arbitrage of Saddam Hussein's oil, the price of which was fixed below market by the United Nations. Crickets and a Faint CoughSounds pretty scandalous, right? Kind of makes you wonder why you're not hearing a little more about it... Meanwhile, scarcely a day passes without news coverage of our apparent intelligence failures in locating Iraqi weapons. Certainly, we must investigate why we haven't found anything yet, because we desperately need to plug the holes in our intelligence network before a foe like al Qaeda gets its hands on some devastating weapon. We'd damn well better fix our intelligence apparatus before a suitcase nuke is set off in Times Square. But it isn't exactly news that our intelligence is sorely lacking. If I recall correctly, a certain event in the fall of 2001 demonstrated quite vividly the inadequacies of our intelligence systems. It is news, however, when our so-called allies are caught stabbing us in the back while patting Saddam Hussein on his. But instead, the nightly newscasts prefer to focus on President Bush's service in the National Guard, something that's been investigated thoroughly in two previous election cycles even though nobody has produced one credible shred of evidence showing that the president failed to serve any of his obligations. You'd think Peter, Tom or Dan could take just one night off that non-story to investigate why our former allies sold us out. At least then we'd be hearing something new on the news. In Business with Saddam Since long before the start of the war, there was plenty of evidence that Saddam Hussein had many beneficiaries in France, Russia and Germany, the three countries that fought hardest to prevent his removal. Our networks just chose not to cover it:Not only did the French help the Iraqi nuclear program as recently as 1990, they actively undermined the U.N. weapons inspection team, and they even kept the Hussein regime informed of discussions between Jacques Chirac and President Bush. And last October, when 40 rockets were fired at an American government office in Baghdad, it appeared that at least half of them were made by France after the U.N. weapons embargo went into effect in the wake of the first Gulf War. In other words, someone was sneaking French weapons to Saddam Hussein after the U.N. declared it illegal. Who would have done that? Could it have been the French?
In January 2003, two German businessmen were convicted of supplying weapons-making equipment to Saddam Hussein in violation of the U.N. embargo. Apparently, this was just the tip of the iceberg: according to an Iraqi weapons report to the U.N., over 80 German companies were involved in supplying Saddam's military, some of which were still doing so just months before the war. "Of further embarrassment to Germany is that [...] German companies make up more than half of the total number of institutions listed in the [Iraqi weapons] report," the BBC noted.
Not surprisingly, Russian military hardware also found its way into Saddam's hands despite the U.N. ban. Days after the war started last March, President Bush called Russian leader Vladimir Putin to voice concern over evidence that recently-made Russian military equipment was being used against U.S. forces. If true, it wouldn't be the first time that Russia violated the arms embargo. According to a 1998 article in The Washington Post, "[an] investigation by Russian and American nonproliferation specialists" showed that "top missile experts from Iraq went on a shopping trip to Russia in late 1994 and signed documents to acquire missile engines, technology and services despite the U.N. sanctions against Iraq [...]"
They Were Called Weasels for a Reason
Did Iraqi oil money pay for Russia's opposition to the U.S.? Is it possible that German businesses lobbied their government to go easy on Saddam? Could it be that Saddam's payoffs ensured the French would never have supported taking him out, no matter what the circumstances?
If so, then it's quite a flimsy argument to say that "inept diplomacy" on the part of the Bush Administration is the reason these governments didn't help us rid the world of one of the most brutal men in human history. Yet the Democratic opposition continues to criticize President Bush for not convincing Saddam Hussein's trading partners to get off the gravy train. If a President Kerry would have been any more successful at corralling the weasels, I'd like to know how. Bigger bribes? His wife doesn't have that much money.
Face it: sometimes the interests of other nations are quite different from ours, no matter how much diplomatic hand-shaking and ego-stroking is applied as a lubricant. That's why it's so dangerous to follow politicians who think we should let the rest of the world veto our foreign policy decisions.
The United Nations will not defend you. Nor will the Russians, French or Germans. Only the United States will, and only if we continue to control our own destiny. When you pull the lever next November, keep that in mind.
|
|
Guarp
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by Guarp on May 24, 2004 15:10:16 GMT -5
I have heard some worries expressed about the Patriot Act – what I’ve read does not seem to indicate loss of civil liberties . . . can you be more specific? There are various sites that address and clarify the misconceptions about the Patriot Act. On the website of the American Civil Liberties Union (who state that their job is to conserve America’s original civic values - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights) you can find an interesting article about it. You can read the whole article here: www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=13081&c=206Some points of this article: - Government agents can now obtain educational, medical, financial, sales, librarian records even if they have no probable cause of a crime.
- The Patroit Act allows the government to search your home and not even tell you.
- The Patriot Act and changes to government investigative guidelines permit a vast array of information on U.S. citizens to be collected and shared with the CIA without proper judicial oversight or other safeguards.
I can understand that these acts were taken for the prevention of possible future terrorist attacks, but it seems that, as I stated before, there is not a proper system of checks built into it, so security services can almost do whatever they want with your personal records or belongings. I cannot see how that wouldn't mean a loss of your liberties and privacy.
|
|
|
Post by bryan2 on May 24, 2004 15:24:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 24, 2004 15:46:11 GMT -5
Repeal the Patriot Act? By Clifford D. May Scripps Howard News Service January 29, 2004 www.defenddemocracy.org/in_the_media/in_the_media_show.htm?doc_id=205007If you've seen The Godfather, Scarface or The Sopranos, you're familiar with the routine: Federal agents know who the crime bosses are, and what crimes are being committed. But the rules are strict, so there isn't much they can do about it. We accept these restrictions when dealing with wiseguys involved in loan-sharking, prostitution, gambling - even drug dealing. But are you really willing to accept the same paradigm for terrorists? Is it okay if, say, the top New Jersey-based agent for Osama bin Laden waves to the FBI agents in their car outside his house - confident they can't touch him as he goes about his business? In fact, those now opposing the Patriot Act are arguing not only for such limitations on law enforcement - they are arguing for far tighter restrictions. The basic idea behind the Patriot Act is simple: Give those investigating terrorism the same tools already used by those going after mobsters and drug lords. The Patriot Act does not give the government more tools or allow laxer standards for investigations. For example, it is true, as The New York Times complains, that sections of the Patriot Act “expand the government's power to conduct secret searches and wiretaps.” But does the Times really believe the government should not have the power to search the homes of terrorist suspects – as it has the power to search mobsters' homes? Or is the fact that the FBI can search secretly that troubles the Times? If so, consider: How long would evidence – anthrax or rincin, for instance -- remain on a terrorist's premises if FBI agents were obligated to phone ahead to say they were dropping by with a search warrant? And don't be misled: Under the Patriot Act, a search warrant is required and must be granted by a federal judge.[/i][/u] Is that really “a threat to civil liberties” or a “serious excess” as the Times says? And as for wiretaps, Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DEL) has put it well: “The FBI could get a wiretap to investigate the Mafia, but they could not get one to investigate terrorists. To put it bluntly, that was crazy! What's good for the mob should be good for terrorists.” What about ordering libraries to hand over records? Again, the FBI can do that now to learn what their local drug dealers are reading. The Patriot Act enables the government to do the same to terrorist suspects – but first a federal judge must determine that the information is relevant to an investigation of international terrorism or foreign spying[/b]. The Patriot Act also allows law enforcement agencies to share information with intelligence agencies. That was not permitted before the Patriot Act. The answer to the 9/11 intelligence question: “Why did no one connect the dots?” is this: It was forbidden for the FBI and the CIA to share their dots. It's true, too, as the Times notes, that a federal judge “has just struck down, as unconstitutionally vague, the act's ban on giving advice and assistance to groups designated as foreign terrorist organizations.” That means that Congress should be less vague and more specific about what is to be banned. It doesn't mean – as the Times says – that the entire Patriot Act is “constitutionally suspect” or even that any such a ban would violate constitutional rights. How would you react if you saw Chris Mathews interviewing a biological weapons advisor to al Qaeda – who would say: “Chris, I have a constitutional right to advise any group I want about anything at all.” Would you say, “Yep, I'm sure that's the way Tom Jefferson would have wanted it”? Some people cannot grasp the difference between fighting gangsters and fighting terrorists. For those so challenged, here it is in a nutshell: Organized criminals are rational. They want to make money and they want to stay alive. By contrast, terrorists are not interested in getting rich, and suicide-terrorists look forward to their deaths -- so long as they have an opportunity, in the process, to murder you, your children and your neighbors. Who would help them by repealing the Patriot Act? The American Civil Liberties Union, a handful of libertarian Republicans and, most likely, those Democrats who applauded when President Bush said in his State of the Union that the Patriot Act expires in 2005. Others did not. For example, Sen. Biden has been clear and principled: “I stand by my support of the US Patriot Act,” he said not long ago. Much of the criticism against it, he added, “is both misinformed and overblown.”And Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has said: “I have never had a single abuse of the Patriot Act reported me. My staff e-mailed the ACLU and asked them for instances of actual abuses. They e-mailed back and they had none.” Similarly, an investigation this month ((1/27/04)) by the Department of Justice's Inspector General – a Democrat appointed by President Clinton -- found exactly zero civil liberties abuses under the Patriot Act.In America today, you accept a certain level of lawlessness. Are you willing to accept a similar level of terrorism? Since Sept. 11, 2001, we have had not a single successful terrorist attack on American soil. The Patriot Act is probably one of the reasons why. But if you want to test that proposition, The New York Times, the ACLU and many of the politicians seeking your vote in November have an offer they think you can't refuse.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on May 24, 2004 17:24:37 GMT -5
Just keep thinking that the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 doesn't trample on The First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eigth, and Fourteenth amendments.
Who needs things like due process and the right "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" whereby warrants - only to be issued upon "probable cause" - must be specific as to place to be searched and persons or things to be seized."
And when was there one before that?
A better question might be - how many were prevented? I have yet to read any reports that the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 has prevented.
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 24, 2004 17:35:06 GMT -5
Quote: Since Sept. 11, 2001, we have had not a single successful terrorist attack on American soil. PresentAnd when was there one before that? February 26, 1993 (carried out by Militant Islamics) April 19, 1995 (for different "reasons" than the core goal of Militant Islam, but a "terrorist" attack nonetheless).
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on May 25, 2004 9:10:32 GMT -5
February 26, 1993 (carried out by Militant Islamics) April 19, 1995 (for different "reasons" than the core goal of Militant Islam, but a "terrorist" attack nonetheless). My point was that we are not under constant attack. Looking at the frequency of attacks before we lost our freedoms there is no reason to suggest that the USAPATROIT Act has prevented any attack.
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 26, 2004 0:27:45 GMT -5
September 11 was enough of an attack for me, thank you – I don’t feel the need to be under “constant attack” before steps need to be taken to confront Radical Islamic terrorists.
And if we don’t keep up the vigilance against them, we may eventually have to deal with the horror that Israel goes through all too frequently.
What are you unable to do today that you were able to do before 9/11? I live in the same “freedom” that I did before – I can still carry on my life in the same manner . . . so I’m not quite sure what you mean here . . .
|
|