Like Tree0Likes

Al Queda Plans

Reply
Old 01-18-2003, 10:16 PM
  #21
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
 
Steve 1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Beautiful Fort Lauderdale www.cheetahcat.com
My Boats: Slippery when wet!
Posts: 10,833
Default

I am not going to go into the past!LBJ and all :

But it is in fact up to... Iraq (they know exactly what they have to do) not the United States to stop the War!.

We are at War now and this is just a piece of the Puzzle.

The War protesters one look at them and their Placards (I find their slogans to be of pitiful stupidity) would show they are vastly uninformed and are Stooges of the Enemy!

They look like good fun though Paint-Ball and Slingshot time.
Steve 1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2003, 11:15 PM
  #22
Tom
Registered
Thread Starter
 
Tom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: San Diego, CA
My Boats: 2000, BatBoat B24
Posts: 519
Default

I'm all for removing Saddam. I also think Muslims worldwide need some kind of policing since they seem to create a huge danger to the world and they don't seem to be policing themselves. Nonetheless I have a basic distrust of all governments and think that questioning them is the most patriotic thing we can do. There is too much history of our own government misleading the public about war. Perhaps not the best argument, but below is at least an article that mentions some of the points for consideration.

Juan Andrade: 'Bush is the latest 'wartime' president we can't trust'
Posted on Friday, January 17 @ 09:30:13 EST By Juan Andrade, Chicago Sun-Times

It was alarming to see President Bush addressing our troops at Fort Hood, Texas, the U.S. Army's largest military training base for ground troops, just one day after we welcomed in the new year. The base supplied an estimated 25,000 troops to the Persian Gulf War, and it's likely to send a comparable number for war against Iraq. The president's charade was as disturbing as it was sad. This guy is determined to send our superior-trained men and women to kick a little Iraqi ass and has yet to tell us why, for how long, at what price in lives lost, and at what expense.

Frankly, I don't trust the president. I don't trust his motives or his judgment. After WWII, Vietnam and the Persian Gulf, I've become very skeptical of what our leaders tell the American people, critical of their intellect, honesty and motives, and disillusioned by the way they make decisions when it comes to war.

Franklin D. Roosevelt was disturbingly secretive and notorious in underutilizing and undermining the very officials in his Cabinet responsible for advising him on war policy. In his book, The Conquerors, published in 2002, Michael Beschloss uses recently declassified documents to show how the president played Churchill and Stalin against each other and himself against both, and how he excessively used special envoys to create tension, rivalry and deceit among his own advisers. Had Roosevelt lived any longer, America may have won the war but lost the peace.

In Reaching for Glory, published in 2001, Beschloss again uses recently declassified transcripts of taped conversations, official memos, and personal diary excerpts to show how Lyndon B. Johnson, his senior Cabinet officials and military advisers just let us drift aimlessly into war in Southeast Asia. LBJ knew we shouldn't go in, had no idea about how to win once we did, and was clueless on how to get out. Robert McNamara, Dean Rusk, McGeorge Bundy and all the rest were arguably useless in their advice to the president.

In No Peace, No Honor, Larry Berman also uses recently declassified documents, including correspondence, meeting notes and memos from all warring parties, i.e., North Vietnam, South Vietnam and the United States, to show how Nixon and Kissinger effectively betrayed the government and people of South Vietnam. In short, the author makes a very compelling argument that, because of our senseless political posturing and diplomatic chicanery, the war was unnecessarily prolonged for four years at a tragic cost of 20,000 additional American lives.

In my view, there's no better insight into the war-making process inside the Bush White House than Bob Woodward's latest book Bush at War. It also confirms my greatest fears. The book, is based entirely on interviews with the president and his senior inner circle, i.e., Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, the joint chiefs, etc., and notes from their post-9/11 meetings.

When Cheney advised the president to appoint a war council and designate a chairman, Bush did, and inexplicably named himself chairman. Here's a guy who wouldn't even attend his pilot training sessions with the Texas Air National Guard and couldn't name his commanding officer, directing a war against terrorism! Reassuring isn't it? More than once, his chief of staff, Andrew Card, had to remind Bush that he's not a general.

Indeed, it's very apparent that Bush has difficulty distinguishing between his role as president from commander in chief. The problem is his tendency to act and try to think like a general. Card was right, and we have reason to be concerned. As a war president, Bush can't distinguish between a general and a commander in chief.

To complete anyone's distrust of presidents and U.S. foreign policy-making decisions, there's The Trial of Henry Kissinger by Christopher Hitchens. While the author makes state-supported terrorism allegations against the United States, there's sufficient veracity to make any reasonably intelligent person distrusting of decision-makers. The results can be appalling in terms of lives lost, laws broken, and profits made.

During the last year Bush has learned all the right things to say to delude us into believing that he is genuinely interested in avoiding war. He's not. Without war he has nothing. If there was ever a time to question a president's competence in committing America to war, it's now. Since 9/11, Bush's approval rating has dropped from over 80 percent to 58 percent. It's obvious more Americans are starting to catch on.

Copyright 2003, Digital Chicago Inc.

Reprinted from The Chicago Sun-Times:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/
andrade/cst-edt-juan17.html

Last edited by Tom; 01-19-2003 at 12:11 AM.
Tom is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2003, 11:45 PM
  #23
27mmLoto
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I was stationed in Thailand when the Isrealis got into it with the Arabs in '73. We were reconfiguring our B-52's for nukes and sending them to the nearest American AFB with nukes to be loaded. All the planes were set up with conventional racks as we had just quit bombing Cambodia a month or so before. We all new that if it blew over there it would spread world wide and that we may not have a home to go back to.
There was not one person there who would not have fought to the death. If the terrorists really think it will be demoralizing to our guys they are in for the surprise of their lives. Their country will become a sea of glass. Assuming this thing is true it will put a hurt on us but nothing even close to the pain they will feel.
I have been there, I know our soldiers, and I know they will not quit until it is resolved.
Dont think our gee whiz weapons are any good? Look at what happened to the strongest army in the region a few years ago in that little thing we called Desert Storm. And we didnt even need the big stuff.
All the terrorists in the world know where to find us. If they are so damn bad step up. Or you can hide in the camel barn like the chicken****s that you are.
Steve
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2003, 12:00 AM
  #24
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Trade Score: (5)
 
johnnyboatman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: NO WHERE
My Boats: FASTEST INNER TUBE
Posts: 3,358
Default

its people like that that cause people like us to turn on turbin wearing s.o.bs in the USA [email protected]@k em if they want us to take care of all of them in the USA. than keep talking that [email protected]!
johnnyboatman is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2003, 02:53 AM
  #25
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
 
Steve 1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Beautiful Fort Lauderdale www.cheetahcat.com
My Boats: Slippery when wet!
Posts: 10,833
Default

Tom since Ole Jaun has it in his head that all American Presidents are Bad !
Now my question to him would be:
Who would his example of good be?? Castro! Franco! Noriega!

Also the bashing of the Democrats Icon Roosevelt he fails to Mention Hitler, Tojo and Mussolini? Only how Awful We were/are!!Only Poor Joe Stalin!! and Churchill he needs to read a little!!

Clinton/algore were notably missing even though the war started in their term!!

Bob Woodward Is that the same Puffed up Anti American Idiot Watergate Bob??

Again I must Laugh; For during the cold war what spy would work for us when the very next day they would get their photo in the Washington Post?? Front Page no less!
Steve 1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2003, 10:19 AM
  #26
Twin screws
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

All I can say is that if everyone is as proud to be an american as I am they will have to kill all of us before they even stand a chance. After the 911 disaster this country came together like no one thought it could. I wasn't even aware that the people of this country was so patriotic untill that happened. We all need to stick together and take care of each other. Be concerened about the people around you and their welfare. Stick together. Try to be more patient with people.
I'm not sure how to put into words what I'm trying to say but, I think you get the point.
GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2003, 11:14 AM
  #27
Registered
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Orlando, FL
My Boats: 1949 Chris-Craft
Posts: 349
Default

Proud to be an American
Vietnam Vet

I think we should do "WHAT EVER" it takes to end the terroist and all their supporters. Tighten the boarders here and stop all imigration, for the time being, till we get a handle on this.

Having the country divided, over this, is doing exactly what the terroist want. They have caused an internal struggle and a sense of not trusting each other. If this continues and grows it will dilute are strength.

When your back is against the wall, you stand united and fight.
Gearhead99 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2003, 12:51 PM
  #28
27mmLoto
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dave,
I agree the internal squabbling has to end. We need to present a united front to the rest of the world.
The history channel has a good show today that discusses our lack of intelligence in the Mideast and the reasons for it. It is a must see for anyone who has an interest in the subject which should be everyone in the country.
Steve
Always American, Forever a soldier
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2003, 01:23 PM
  #29
Registered
 
Donzi38ZX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Whiting, IN
Posts: 761
Default

This area has always seemed to be a bit of a catch-22 for the US. The freedoms we fight to save, such as press and demonstration, are also our weakness in conflict. The US is often perceived to be divided on international choices and some may view this as a weakness they can exploit. Our attention span is nothing short of horrific, I recall it wasn't 6 months past September 11 before the media was airing stories protesting the fight in Afghanistan and reporting every unsubstantiated story of America targeting innocent civilians. They have to know this weakens the resolve of our nation making the job much harder for our military and leaders. And this in turn creates the need for our leaders to persuade the public in ways some obviously feel are unethical. In WWII the US had to convince the public to join in fight against Hitler. Once pearl harbor was bombed it was OK, many say today that could have been prevented, what an enormous cost to endure to sway public opinion. While I'm certain nobody believed the damage would be as bad as it was how long would it have been before the US joined the fight. What will Hussein have to do before people recognize the threat and danger? How many will have to die? I canít say I have an answer but do feel that this constant distrust of our leadership is very destructive. It is no surprise that some leaders take advantage of their position and some make genuine mistakes. To those who make it there lifeís work to bash each and every leader we have had, I have no tolerance for. I guess I'm done rambling.

Steve
Donzi38ZX is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2003, 03:17 PM
  #30
Tom
Registered
Thread Starter
 
Tom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: San Diego, CA
My Boats: 2000, BatBoat B24
Posts: 519
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by 27mmLoto
Dave,
I agree the internal squabbling has to end. We need to present a united front to the rest of the world.
I have found it great that political discussions have been more open and thoughtful on OSO lately. I know we are mostly about offshore boating, but this topic is so important to all of us. I have not seen the History Channel, thanks for the reference to it. We at OSO also find ourselves with different thoughts on the topic and it is great aht we are all trying to express our feelings without resorting to name calling.

It seems to me that we are all in total agreement about the need to take action against terrorism and the countries that harbor mass destruction. I think it is healthy to have constructive debate. It maybe makes it harder to present a united front, but it is necessary both within the US and the entire family of nations of the world. I think the freedom to question the government and protest if we disagree is our nations greatest strength. Without that debate we are loosing the support of our own citizens as well as the world community. Sure it makes it harder, but that is why we are the best nation in the world. President Bush once joked that it would be so much easier if he was dictator. That is not the country any of us want to live in.

I agree with catmando that the secrecy is what is causing the problem. If they really have evidence than show it to us. The whole world will be behind it. If they don't, than I think there is enough question that I might even join the protests.

GFrom the press:

Behind closed doors: Government openness at issue as Bush holds onto records
Posted on Friday, January 03 @ 10:05:36 EST By Adam Clymer, New York Times

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration has put a much tighter lid than recent presidents on government proceedings and the public release of information, exhibiting a penchant for secrecy that has been striking to historians, legal experts and lawmakers of both parties.

Some of the Bush policies, like closing previously public court proceedings, were prompted by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and are part of the administration's drive for greater domestic security. Others, like Vice President Dick Cheney's battle to keep records of his energy task force secret, reflect an administration that arrived in Washington determined to strengthen the authority of the executive branch, senior administration officials say.

Some of the changes have sparked a passionate public debate and excited political controversy. But other measures taken by the Bush administration to enforce greater government secrecy have received relatively little attention, masking the proportions of what dozens of experts described in recent interviews as a sea change in government openness.



A telling example came in late 2001 when Attorney General John Ashcroft announced the new policy on the Freedom of Information Act, a move that attracted relatively little public attention.

Although the new policy for dealing with the 1966 statute that has opened millions of pages of government records to scholars, reporters and the public was announced after Sept. 11, it had been planned well before the attacks.

The Ashcroft directive encouraged federal agencies to reject requests for documents if there was any legal basis to do so, promising that the Justice Department would defend them in court. It was a stark reversal of the policy set eight years earlier, when the Clinton administration told agencies to make records available whenever they could, even if the law provided a reason not to, so long as there was no "foreseeable harm" from the release.

Generally speaking, said Alan Brinkley, a Columbia University historian, while secrecy has been increasingly attractive to recent administrations, "this administration has taken it to a new level."

Its "instinct is to release nothing," Professor Brinkley said, adding that this was not necessarily because there were particular embarrassing secrets to hide, but "they are just worried about what's in there that they don't know about."

The Bush administration contends that it is not trying to make government less open. Ari Fleischer, the president's press secretary, said, "The bottom line remains the president is dedicated to an open government, a responsive government, while he fully exercises the authority of the executive branch."

Secrecy is almost impossible to quantify, but there are some revealing measures. In the year that ended on Sept. 30, 2001, most of which came during the Bush presidency, 260,978 documents were classified, up 18 percent from the previous year. And since Sept. 11, three new agencies were given the power to stamp documents as "Secret" -- the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services.

In Congress, where objections to secrecy usually come from the party opposed to the president, the complaints are bipartisan. Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat first elected in 1974, said, "Since I've been here, I have never known an administration that is more difficult to get information from." Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, said things were getting worse, and "it seems like in the last month or two I've been running into more and more stonewalls."

Mr. Cheney says the Bush policies have sought to restore the proper powers of the executive branch. Explaining the fight to control the task force records to ABC News last January, he said that over more than three decades: "I have repeatedly seen an erosion of the powers and the ability of the president of the United States to do his job. We saw it in the War Powers Act, we saw it in the Anti-Impoundment Act. We've seen it in cases like this before, where it's demanded that the presidents cough up and compromise on important principles. One of the things that I feel an obligation on, and I know the president does, too, because we talked about it, is to pass on our offices in better shape than we found them to our successors."

Mr. Bush has made similar comments. But the more relevant history may have been in Texas, where Mr. Bush, as governor, was also reluctant to make government records public. Confronted with a deadline to curb air pollution, he convened a private task force to propose solutions and resisted efforts to make its deliberations public. When he left office, he sent his papers not to the Texas State Library in Austin, but to his father's presidential library at College Station. That library was unable to cope with demands for access, and the papers have since been sent to the state library.

(continued next post)
Tom is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
bobonthis
Grand Lake/LOTO/E-Dock
20
12-30-2005 12:58 PM
HyperBaja
Baja
24
05-30-2003 01:24 PM
Waterfoul
General Boating Discussion
31
05-21-2003 12:01 AM
RiverGirl
General Boating Discussion
23
03-02-2002 12:46 PM



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:42 PM.


Copyright 2011 OffShoreOnly. All rights reserved.