60 Minutes

[ebbtide176]

Re: 60 Minutes

ok rolmops <br />

Originally posted by PW2:<br /> There are indeed more important things for Bush to deal with. Like the war on terror, and the threats around the world that this country faces.....<br /><br />....Tell me you don't think that somehow a Jeffersonian democracy is going to spring out of what is currently going on in Iraq??? The president, in his speech the other nite, seems to think this, and we really need someone in there with a little bit better grip on reality.

i disagree. iraq was used as a refuge & meeting place by terrorists and a had been making contacts with terrorist organizations since the 90's, with intention of gathering plans, blueprints & supplies for nuclear weapons, accdg to intelligence from numerous countries.<br /><br />and we were told we can & will be fighting on several fronts. <br /><br />and i'm sorry, but to claim our president needs to get a better grip on reality, seems to go hand in hand with the hiding in the closet to avoid the terrorists of the world. <br /><br />but for the original post, i think JB summed it up pretty well. its sensational media. but i'm surprised in the amt of dirty laundry getting out lately. well, maybe not. i guess the media can get alot of info from retired folks if the $$$ is high enough

 

[JoeW]

Re: 60 Minutes

rolmops said...this thread has once again turned into a bashing of liberal values and rational thought

Only if you characterise the defense of GWB as bashing of liberal values. Could I also characterise plywoody's criticisms of Bush as a bashing of conservative values? <br /><br />Perhaps with the exception of the cool-aid crack, I thought my post expressed rational thought. <br /><br />I know that there are liberals who support Christianity just as there are conservatives who are athiests. I was speaking in terms of the general trend. Is there any doubt that a large percentage of liberals are against any expression of Christian beliefs in the secular world? The movements to remove Christian symbols from secular areas is largely a liberal movement made under the auspices of the "separation of church and state" Supreme Court ruling. I've heard many liberal complain about GWB's use of the word "God" in his speechs. In my view, even the complaints over the release of Mel Gibson's film, The Passion of the Christ, as being anti-semetic and insensitive, are to an extent, anti-Christian. These complaints were made largely by liberals. I didn't see too many conservative complaining about it. <br /><br />Of course I intended no personal offense to Plywoody or anyone else for that matter. I respect his right to have his opinion, but not the opinion itself. Unless we are proposing the elimination of political discussions on this forum, I don't see how this thread has degenerated as you suggest. I fully expect Plywoody to come back with either an attack on my logic (impossible ) or more liberal (i.e. anti-conservative) comments. That's what political discussions are about.

 

[PW2]

Re: 60 Minutes

Thanks, Rolmops. Not to worry, though, I am pretty used to it.<br /><br />Re Joe's logic--He simply ignores the arguments and goes off on some simplistic talk radio definition of liberals--the made up liberals are easier to argue with than the ones with real ideas, and real arguments. I know lots of people that would identify with being liberal, and I don't know a soul who fits his "Liberal profile".<br /><br />And for those that feel that Saddam was the biggest threat that America faced, and was full of terrorists prior to the war...I don't know what to say--all of the rational, credible evidence that I have seen suggests that is simply wrong--and about the only evidence in support of that comes from right wing talk radio and right wing politicians.<br /><br />If Michael Savage says it is so, then I suppose it must me so. All of the empirical evidence must be wrong.<br /><br />And most of the debates finally end up calling the press a bunch of liberals, and any sort of dissent unpatriotic.<br /><br />Which probably scares me the most. It seems that the democracy they would like would control the press, and what the press says, and eliminate dissent. Which does not sound like much of a democracy to me.

 

[ebbtide176]

Re: 60 Minutes

and since none of that is a reply to my posts, what gives?<br /><br />(edited)hmmm, saddam is the biggest threat, i haven't heard that one, but if that's what is in your mind= for a conservative, sorry to hear that.<br /><br />i don't recall typing the word liberal on this topic until now, so no, i didn't condemn or condone liberals, just PW's line of reasoning.<br /><br />and since some here want to say where we get our sources, i can happily tell you all that i don't listen to (radio)any talk shows, only C&W or jazz, or (tv) stray from cartoons, movie channel, discovery & history channels. but i have learned alot right here on this website. and when i get curious, i run a search on specific topics. but i'm not a member(that i know of) to any political website, nor do i get news anywhere regularly, except yahoo.<br /><br />as far as the media goes, there are cries from both sides that the media is not balanced. i personally think media in general has reached an all time low, but at least we're not communists/socialists yet. so i ignore most of the junk.<br /><br />its gonna be a sad place when one day we force our administration to play kissbutt with other countries over this terrorist scourge... you can forget about the economy, food, retirement, even the basic needs - when we're living in the kind of environment that israel is in right now.

 

[snapperbait]

Re: 60 Minutes

"It seems that the democracy they would like would control the press, and what the press says, and eliminate dissent."<br /><br />Bingo! Give that man a Cigar!..

 

[ebbtide176]

Re: 60 Minutes

that's a good point, freedom of the press is a given, no way to stop that 400#gorilla...<br /><br />the other side of that coin is -how its presented<br />ex:<br /><br />the war has cost lives, our current losses are ***, but we are making progress, and can see the positive aspects of this conflict<br /><br />vs.<br /><br />there were 10 more american soldiers killed today, surpassing the total dead prior to bush claiming victory on the aircraft carrier, wearing the flight suit he never earned. iraqis interviewed said americans are firing into the crowd randomly, and protesters are sick of the occupation force. women & children have been carpet bombed, and the situation worsens daily.<br /><br />> now which version are we likely to hear?<br /><br />(i'd really get a good laugh if someone claims the media is fair & balanced)

 

[SpinnerBait_Nut]

Re: 60 Minutes

ebb, sorry to say but you are wasting your time with this issue.<br />They will not take the blinders off to save ya.

 

[JoeW]

Re: 60 Minutes

Okay Plywoody!<br />As for my stereotyping of liberals, of course I'm guilty of that. Just as anyone who uses the words conservative, neo-con, media, or any other name as a label for a class of people. That is the purpose of such names. Of course we don't all fit the mold, that is a given. <br /><br />For a moment, let's throw out my whole argument. <br /><br />The FBI today issued new warnings about possible large scale terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. <br />If I am to understand the arguments of the, let's call them the "anti-Bush" crowd, we have the following situation:<br /><br />1. Bush and his neo-con administration are liars and are not to be trusted. Would you say this is a fair assessment of the anti-Bush position?<br /><br />2. This administration's intellegence is also not to be trusted. After all, look how badly it failed on the WMD thing. Also true?<br /><br />3. Based on #1 & #2 we should ignore the warnings by the FBI. Would that be a logical deduction?<br /><br />Now let's suppose, Heaven forbid, that a WMD is detonated in the U.S. this summer and tens of thousands of Americans are killed. <br /><br />Logic according to the anti-Bush crowd would suggest that we can do nothing about this until John Kerry is elected and we have a new administration in the White House. Any plan for retaliation that comes from the Bush's administration should not be trusted. Is this absurd? Sure sounds that way to me. But that's because I'm left to formulate the plan based on the criticisms of the Bush administration. <br /><br />So what is the "anti-Bush" crowd's plan for fighting terrorism? I've heard plenty of criticism of Bush and his administration. Believe it or not, some of with which it (a very small portion) I agree. What I'm not hearing nearly enough of are alternate plans. <br /><br />If someone has heard even one sentence that remotely sounds like a plan coming from the John Kerry campaign, please clue me in, because I have hear nothing. Every time the question is asked, he turns the discusion into a diatribe of what Bush should have done.

 

[JoeW]

Re: 60 Minutes

Did we hear even one sentence today from Al Gore that sounded like a plan?

 

[Boomyal]

Re: 60 Minutes

Originally posted by joew94th:<br /> Did we hear even one sentence today from Al Gore that sounded like a plan?

Sure! Defeat conservatism. That's their plan. It's not about Bush or oil or Iraq or WMD's or any other subject that they are currently wailing about. They are just vehicles being used by absolutely desparate, out of power, power hungry socialist idealogues to regain the helm of this nation. <br /><br />Is there a reason why 'conservatives' have no problems being identified as such while liberals have to deny, deflect and camouflage their true identities?

 

[TPD211]

Re: 60 Minutes

Gen Anthony Zinni said it was a poorly planned operation from the start, with poor intelligence, too few troops to get the country under control (ie stop the looting, etc).<br /><br />He said civilian heads should be held responsible, and resignations demanded. He is, of course, retired, and not involved in the original planning.<br />

This was during a democratic administration ie., Clinton, that Gen. Zinni realized there was no plan for the rebuilding of Iraq post Saddam.<br /><br />General Zinni brought together a think tank discussion group to ascertain the needs to a post Saddam Iraq. Many of the power players in Washington attended but no one took the responsibility as it was not in there best interest to do so. Politics as usual. <br /><br />No one in the Clinton administration would take the ball and run with it to plan for the fall of Saddam. <br /><br />General Zinni realized the job would eventually be tasked to the military to oversee the rebuilding of Iraq and attempted to plan accordingly. He did write a plan for this but it went no where and was shelved by pentagon brass who did not want to approach the Sec. of Defense with it.<br /><br />Regardless who fingers are pointed at, I dont think Clinton or Bush's administration's had a solid plan for the rebuilding of Iraq. <br /><br />The group that was selected to be put in power by the Administration, with input from the CIA and others involved in the selection process, fell out of favor at the start of the war or shortly thereafter. Sorry, I cant remember the players that were selected for this. It was an Iraq General who lived in the U. S. in exile if I remember correctly.<br /><br />I dont think the politicians realized the depth of the resistance the forner Saddam regime would put up. <br /><br />I beleive that a majority of Iraqi people wanted Saddam out of power. The problem is, they had no plan for a post Saddam Iraq either. The different religious cultures, tribal alliances, and no form of centralized government post Saddam have put us where we are today. <br /><br />A democracy can not be put in place in Iraq if the people do not want it. The Iraqi's must come together as a nation or they can go back to tribal warfare and have another dictator emerge from this mess. <br /><br />The citizens of Iraq need to unite for the good of their country. <br /><br />History teaches this.<br /><br />Where do we go from here?<br /><br />Any thoughts on this.....<br /><br />And no....Nuke em and pave it to make a parking lot of Iraq is not an option. :}

 

[PW2]

Re: 60 Minutes

Re the FBI warnings. Exactly what new did they say yesterday? all of those people they publicized have been publicized before, sometimes years ago. What are we to do with that warning? And it was curious that Homeland security was not even at the briefing.<br /><br />And there is no political idealogy, or specific plan, that is capable of guaranteeing everyone safety. To me, that's a given. <br /> I just personally think that yesterday's briefing was a complete waste of time, and I hope they are doing more behind the scenes than what they displayed yesterday.<br /><br />As far as what Zinni said--I don't think it was Clinton's plan to invade Iraq. It seems to me this was a Bush plan.

 

[samagee]

Re: 60 Minutes

Isn't plywoody from Canada? If I lived in Canada I would hide in a closet as well. The FBI just nabbed another Canadian which is a terrorist supplying equipment to terrorist organizations. Apartently this Canadian, who was a CEO of a company, has dual citizenship. Canada and Lebanon are his homes. Why was he set up in Canada? Because trade between the two countries is so easy. Before he started trying to ship 3rd generation night vision equipment over seas, he was involved in major money laundering. Check it out on the FBI's website.<br /><br />The military made a bee line to bahgdad during the invasion. Was it lack of planing? I don't think so. I think they wanted to capture, kill, or make sadam run. All this to keep him from using his WMD's that don't exist, which are being detonated over there now. Also, to divide the country into two pieces. I would go on, but there really isn't any point to discuss military tactics with people who hide in closets, and non of us has access to upper level brass currently in office. All we can do is speculate. However, we can see that these terrorist are being drawn to a fight over there. We do not have to fight them here, even though some of us would love to bag some of these scum.<br /><br />The media obviously has their agendas. What I find amuseing is that we will probably stand up and fight and die, for them to be put back in front of the cameras after some communist regeme is thrown out of the U.S.. The media doesn't even realize how easy a pawn they are. It's a sick vicous cycle if you ask me.

 

[JoeW]

Re: 60 Minutes

Plywoody said...Re the FBI warnings. Exactly what new did they say yesterday? all of those people they publicized have been publicized before, sometimes years ago. What are we to do with that warning? And it was curious that Homeland security was not even at the briefing.<br /><br />And there is no political idealogy, or specific plan, that is capable of guaranteeing everyone safety. To me, that's a given. <br />I just personally think that yesterday's briefing was a complete waste of time, and I hope they are doing more behind the scenes than what they displayed yesterday.

So, should we just ignore the warning then?<br /><br />If it is fair to classify you among the anti-Bush crowd, without reference to Bush and his actions, what do you see as the correct way to fight terrorism?

 

[TPD211]

Re: 60 Minutes

Clinton wanted to hit Iraq hard but his cabinet was split on the idea. The softer appraoch was used instead.<br /><br />The briefing may have been a waste of time in certain peoples eyes but it does raise the awareness level that much more for the average citizen. This citizen may be the one to call in a sighting of one of the people mentioned in the warning. Waste of time, NOT.<br /><br />"More behind the scenes than was displayed yesterday"..... I could tell you but then I'd have to kill you. I just read the raw FBI data on the threat.<br /><br />I expect a attempt of terrorism on U.S. soil of some type. Biological, Nuclear, Chemical, Explosive or all the above.<br /><br />Samllpox is a real threat, dirty bomb also, chemical not as much, explosive components can be obtained here, a very real possibility.<br /><br />I'm going fishing.....

 

[TPD211]

Re: 60 Minutes

Oh, btw, to put the amount of WMD Saddam has/had in Iraq in perspective, it would fit in the bed of a pickup truck. Most people do not realize that is the amount we have been looking for. <br /><br />Now, try finding that buried in the desert in Iraq.<br /><br />I beleive its stached underground somewhere where only a handful of people know its location.<br /><br />We arent gonna find it unless someone tells us, or we stumble across it by accident.

 

[12Footer]

Re: 60 Minutes

PW, there is nothing wrong with having different opinions. Muslims certainly do not think like me or you (I pray), but they have a right in my country at least, to have thier faith, voice it, or teach it, as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's rights.<br />Now here is the rub....The mutants who attacked my country 9/11/01 were not interested in that freedom. They wanted to kill as many people as possible, who's only common thread was that they were in the United States at the time, so were ememies of Alqueda. I no longer care about thier rights here or abroad. Opinions are fine. But these days, in this land, you voice an alegiance to a flag of some kind..And so do I. <br /><br />I heard some dipsy-doodle comparing the towers,pentegon ,and that field all ablaze on that September day, as Bush's verion of the "riechstag fire"!!! (sp) PW, it get's no more twisted than that, and this guy in his own sorted mind, thought he was an American!!<br /><br />Here is where dissent sickens some conservatives-- the pure, twisted hatered for one's own country, just because of a republican majority. It's defeat is more important to them than logic, truth, while contributing to thier own (claimed) military's defeat.<br />This is wartime. This aint no party. This aint no disco.This aint no foolin around! Take your blinders off,get your head out of the dark, stinkin hole, and look around. We will win or loose. I'll die trying to win!<br />There are only two distinct "sides" in this war. Those who believe in freedom, and those who do not.<br />Islamic terrorists are surely the lunatic-fringe of the Muslim world. but they want to kill me and my family...I'll not have it.<br /><br />"60Minutes" is being used by them as a weapon of war. IOW, outlets of propaganda. If you do not believe this, listen to the host more carefully. listen to what they are saying,and also, what you know for fact, they are NOT saying.<br />If there is any propaganda going-on out there, I'll choose that generated by those on my side of this global conflct, not that of my ememy.

 

[SCO]

Re: 60 Minutes

Time for my rant. Ever coach a baseball team? A little like being Bush. The loudness of the dissent is not evidence that Bush is on the wrong track w Iraq as PW2 believes. History will tell that tale and it is yet to be written.Lets hope that the history doesnt read" Bush could have saved the USA but was thwarted by the Democrats and their supporters. After Kerry was elected, the leadership was taken out by Mustard Gas at the the "Hands Across America" rally of 2007". Liberals do not fight fair or rationally IMO. PW2 for example is yet to concede a point from my read in the last 2-3 years, so, what's the point of trying to have a fair discussion. Sames true for all the dems. Iraq is a big problem, but so is the magnitude of the threat that we face. By comparison, when you view the problem we face with these people that will one day kill millions of us if we don't effectively oppose them, the Iraq "problem" is trivial and ,agreeing w Bush, an obstacle and haven that must be removed for our ultimate success. Those people on their first try in the US almost managed to take out the White House and the Congress building too. They are engineers. They hate our guts, especially the liberals that want to "understand" them. WMDs are not that tough to master for scientists. Is the war in Iraq a big PR campaign for Alqeda? Probably, because of the lack of resolve we exhibit. They think we will fold and with good reason considering the talk of Gore, Kennedy, Charlie Rose, the Network anchors and media, hollywood types and even the everyday message board pseudo intellectuals. An election day primal scream of support for Bush will go a long way toward our success with this fight.

 

[PW2]

Re: 60 Minutes

I have not conceded any points because there was no reason to. surely you have not conceded any points either. <br />Most of the arguments regarding Iraq are simply unfounded. There was *no* evidence of any involvement with Al-qaida prior to the war (they are certainly there now) nor was Saddam any sort of an "imminent" threat nor even a "great and gathering" threat.<br />Why would I concede any points when the supporting evidence of the contrary opinion is clearly flawed, and this is not just my opinion--it was supported by the CIA, prior to the war...<br /><br />Now to how I would fight terrorism. Now I don't want to suggest that somehow this would be easy or short, as it won't, and there are no simple answers, but it going to take a mix of diplomacy, foreign aid, intelligence gathering, police type investigation, and at times, military might. We have to have the world community, and all civilized countries, on board helping us in this fight--we have to have the face of the US off the front cover of this effort somehow.<br />That means sometimes going about an effort that may not be precisely what we would like to do, and perhaps what some other country wants to do.<br /><br />We need to take a leadership role in the world, which includes involving other's ideas into our policy--and we cannot thumb our noses to every idea that isn't our own.<br /><br />We cannot win this war on terrorism without the aid of the rest of the world--we need the intelligence to call those that are not helping or aiding the terrorists, and have the credibility to be believed--we have to be honest in the world, warts and all.<br /><br />Will it be easy--Of course not. Will it not be without pitfalls--Of course not--but the notion that we can unilaterally, and militarily, win this war is pure folly, and will ultimately make us less safe.

 

[SCO]

Re: 60 Minutes

Actually, I do and will concede points. The points I am thinking of for concession are things like "all about oil". Surely everyone now realizes this is a fight against the terrorists. I also am not asking right here right now for specific concessions, just the idea that we can discuss and will concede as necessary when dictated by intellectual honesty. AKA the honor system, maybe we can set an example for our political parties right here on iboats. <br /><br />I think it is pretty clear that we are the main target of the alqeda types since we are the strongest and most formidible. Other countries know that and don't want to stick their necks out for our us, and also are trying to appease/get in bed with the bad guys, cover their oil for food tracks etc. We cant be having a show of hands when their national interests are different than ours. Leadership right now means doing what needs to be done, by ourselves if need be. But there are plenty with the guts to stand with us so far. I saw Tom Ridge on Charlie Rose last night, and he says that there is good intelligence cooperation with the likes of Germany etc. They want us to win, just not fight themselves. Why wouldnt they? They have to be nervous Nellies. Ultimately they are more vulnerable than we are.<br /><br />I think we are more safe right now. If the hand over of Iraq works without it becoming another Iran, we will have accomplished a great deal.