2012 Presidential race

[shally]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

And the wars were the longest wars in US history. More people were directly and indirectly effected by it and a whole generation has been raised in the shadow of both wars.

Like I said: we're never going to agree on this.

between 40-60 % of returning veterans have claims for disability as a result of serving.. they average 14 claims each !!! this is as opposed to between 5-10 % for WW2 and Korea.. this is an enormous drain on the treasury now, and for decades to come.. we will NEVER stop paying for this war

[shally]

Originally Posted by Keino

That's like saying everyone remembers World War I, but nobody remebers that the assassination of Ferdinand. Just as Pearl harbor led to our joining WWII, 9/11 caused our wars in the middle east. They are irrevocably linked and will consequently be remembered.

that's because anyone who can remember the assassination of Ferdinand is now DEAD !! lol

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by Keino

I'm no history nerd at all but that is about the only thing I do know about WWI.

I bet more people know Franz Ferdinand as a scottish new wave band these days lol.

[cal_junior]

Mitt better find a way to correct this problem before Ohioans start getting happy with how things are going:

[AustinSkin]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

Thats giving everyone way too much credit for intelligence. If AQ wanted to cripple the US economy, blow up the Saudi oil terminal where nearly 30% of the world's oil goes through daily. Or major banks in Abu Dubai, where all the oil transactions go through. Or have terrorists shoot up a bunch of shopping malls in the US. As for a motivation, its generally thought that AQ attacked the US to force us out of the mideast so that they could try and take over the Arabian Peninsula(there were a # of abortive coups in all the gulf states right after 9-11).



Adjust your tinfoil hat, the reception's off lol.

I'm not being paranoid or delusional. If AQ did what you suggested, and blew up Saudi oil terminals, they would be destroying the primary source of revenue for the Middle East. There would be no place to hide. Their own people would hunt them down and stone them to death.

By targeting the World Trade Centers, the Pentagon and presumably the Capitol building and/or the White House, the people responsible for the attacks wanted to invoke a full-scale military response, which they got in spades. Why would they want to do that?

If their goal was to get us out of the Middle East, their plan was an abysmal failure. If their plan was for us to cripple the US economically, then their plan was an unqualified success. Instead of moving out of the Middle East, we have set up residence in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. This creates further resentment, and breeds the next generation of terrorists.

If we pull out, they will try to blow up something else to keep us in the fight and drain us further. They know Congress and Americans will rise up to whup-ass and occupy again.

And the cycle repeats itself.

[CNYSkinFan]

Originally Posted by AustinSkin

I'm not being paranoid or delusional. If AQ did what you suggested, and blew up Saudi oil terminals, they would be destroying the primary source of revenue for the Middle East. There would be no place to hide. Their own people would hunt them down and stone them to death.

By targeting the World Trade Centers, the Pentagon and presumably the Capitol building and/or the White House, the people responsible for the attacks wanted to invoke a full-scale military response, which they got in spades. Why would they want to do that?

If their goal was to get us out of the Middle East, their plan was an abysmal failure. If their plan was for us to cripple the US economically, then their plan was an unqualified success. Instead of moving out of the Middle East, we have set up residence in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. This creates further resentment, and breeds the next generation of terrorists.

If we pull out, they will try to blow up something else to keep us in the fight and drain us further. They know Congress and Americans will rise up to whup-ass and occupy again.

And the cycle repeats itself.

the problem is you assign logical conclusions to mad men. Terrorists actually believe if you inflict as mucgh damage as possible that a bigger power will withdraw. It worked in afghanistan with russia, and we did have weak responses for the better part of 20+ years in response to terrorist acts, including the original wtc attack.

You are right about the actual effect but wrong that this was their plan all along

[AustinSkin]

Originally Posted by CNYSkinFan

the problem is you assign logical conclusions to mad men. Terrorists actually believe if you inflict as mucgh damage as possible that a bigger power will withdraw. It worked in afghanistan with russia, and we did have weak responses for the better part of 20+ years in response to terrorist acts, including the original wtc attack.

You are right about the actual effect but wrong that this was their plan all along

I believe mad men are capable of organizing, financing and executing horrific acts, while being fully aware of the long-term consequences. On 9/11 multiple targets were selected to insure a massive response.

The bigger question I have is how to defeat this without ruining our economy. I think Obama has this one partly right. Defeating terrorism is about investing in intelligence, quietly hunting down key leaders, and making them disappear. Gather their intelligence, and keep going. There is no propaganda victory when terrorists go MIA. Hopefully, Osama Bin Laden's hard drives revealed locations of countless terrorists and sources of funds. The knowledge that we may have this information is how you terrorize a terrorist, IMO.

[RedskinsDave]

Originally Posted by cal_junior

Mitt better find a way to correct this problem before Ohioans start getting happy with how things are going:

Red Roof Inn coupon book?!! Awesome!

[Keino]

Originally Posted by RedskinsDave

Red Roof Inn coupon book?!! Awesome!

LOL. That's funny on a number of levels.

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by AustinSkin

I'm not being paranoid or delusional. If AQ did what you suggested, and blew up Saudi oil terminals, they would be destroying the primary source of revenue for the Middle East. There would be no place to hide. Their own people would hunt them down and stone them to death.

Their own people were already doing that for years before 9-11. Before they were after us, AQ was after the Saudi royal family, Saddam and the iranian mullahs.

Originally Posted by AustinSkin

By targeting the World Trade Centers, the Pentagon and presumably the Capitol building and/or the White House, the people responsible for the attacks wanted to invoke a full-scale military response, which they got in spades. Why would they want to do that?

If their goal was to get us out of the Middle East, their plan was an abysmal failure. If their plan was for us to cripple the US economically, then their plan was an unqualified success. Instead of moving out of the Middle East, we have set up residence in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. This creates further resentment, and breeds the next generation of terrorists.

A. You're giving them way too much credit
b. If this was the case, they would have targeted the US with the same level of determination post 9-11. There's not much proof of that and the central AQ leadership has targeted muslims more then us.

Originally Posted by AustinSkin

If we pull out, they will try to blow up something else to keep us in the fight and drain us further. They know Congress and Americans will rise up to whup-ass and occupy again.

And the cycle repeats itself.

You're free to believe whatever you want to.

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by RedskinsDave

Red Roof Inn coupon book?!! Awesome!

Originally Posted by Keino

LOL. That's funny on a number of levels.

I think it was the GOP gov of Iowa who publicly asked Romney to stop saying that Iowa is a mess because it hurt his standing in the state.

[cal_junior]

Originally Posted by RedskinsDave

Red Roof Inn coupon book?!! Awesome!

That's about the answer I expected, lol.

[akhhorus]

SCOTUS(5-4) rejected Montana's challenge to Citizens' united(saying that the new federal law supersedes their state law) and 5-3 strikes down all but the police checks of the SB 1070(but future challenges will be coming on that part). ACA/Obamacare ruling probably coming thursday.

[Keino]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

SCOTUS(5-4) rejected Montana's challenge to Citizens' united(saying that the new federal law supersedes their state law) and 5-3 strikes down all but the police checks of the SB 1070(but future challenges will be coming on that part). ACA/Obamacare ruling probably coming thursday.

Votes split down idealogical and political lines? No way, not for our apolitcal SCOTUS.

[shally]

Originally Posted by Keino

Votes split down idealogical and political lines? No way, not for our apolitcal SCOTUS.

as long as the Justices are appointed by the head's of the respective political parties (ie, the President) that is what you are going to get.. hanst changed much since the days of Alexander Hamilton