http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-03-23-911-hearings_x.htm?csp=24

"The Clinton and Bush administrations' decision to use diplomatic rather than military options against al-Qaeda allowed the Sept. 11 terrorists to elude capture years before the attacks, a federal panel said Tuesday"

Interesting - diplomacy didn't work and military action should have been taken sooner. No doubt if it had the protesters would have been screaming "no blood for oil" or whatever it is they chant whenever military action is taken.

Before 9-11, it wasn't politically popular for bush or Clinton to deal with the terrorists with the proper amount of force needed to actually make a dent in their apparatus. it was something that they quietly wanted to just pass along to their predecessors. due to all the years of tip toeing around the issue we wound up getting smacked hard on 9-11. obviously the smack woke Bush up, but it didnt seem to wake everyone up. there are still who see this entire fight in political terms.

Agreed.

The main point though is that the panel reported that military action should have been taken instead of diplomatic action or appeasement. This is a key point that the let love rule crowd never understand.

Yeah we would still be where we are today, a war that will never end. (Bush words not mine)

Get your children ready. Let them know they will deal with this war throughout their life. (If Cheney and co have their way)

yes, they will deal with this throughout their lives, your right. why sugar coat it pepper? lets stop feminizing our boys and let them grow up to be men. the kids in the middle east play tug of war with goat carcases on horseback and our kids cant even play dodgeball anymore. this whole country has gone to hell on the touchy feely liberal love train.

Feminizing our boys? What do you mean by that statement?

Are you really advocating war forever?

I mean that our boys are being taught to go agaisnt their very nature. we feed them drugs to stop them from acting like boys act. if they're agressive, then it must be a mental disorder, even though by their very nature boys are aggressive. We discourage competition, rough housing, and all things that make boys into men. our boys are being taught it is basically wrong to be who they are, s they might offend someone along the line, and tehy are being taught that offending someone is the greatest crime of all. everyone must feel good about themselves and never face criticism ever, or they have been wronged.

as far as eternal war, I iwll say what I said ealier. jsut becasue there is no war going on doesnt mean there is peace. to you the absence of war is peace. that is very dangerous and leads to 9-11's. a false sense of security is more dangerous than an eternal war many times. of course I do not desire war, no one who has seen it would ever wish that, I desire a realistic and adult approach to the threats that we face, not an idealisitc college kids pipe dreams of peace on earth for ever and ever. as long as the treat exsts, we must face it, its as simple as that.

I agree with you about the kids of our nation and the drugs. Every kid is on ritalin and has about 15-20 'disorders' which need to be dealt with by giving them more drugs.

Originally posted by Travh20
I mean that our boys are being taught to go agaisnt their very nature. we feed them drugs to stop them from acting like boys act. if they're agressive, then it must be a mental disorder, even though by their very nature boys are aggressive. We discourage competition, rough housing, and all things that make boys into men. our boys are being taught it is basically wrong to be who they are, s they might offend someone along the line, and tehy are being taught that offending someone is the greatest crime of all. everyone must feel good about themselves and never face criticism ever, or they have been wronged.


It's kind of sad - but this is very true.

Wow, people supporting you Travh. Look out, if you have any more people agreeing with you, some liberals will call you a cult leader. :D


By the way, i agree with everything you posted also. Good post.

there is a common misconcepton perpetuated by the liberals on this board that I lie and dont know my ass from a hole in the ground. of course neither is true, and my quest to point out their un-ending stream of contadiction and hypocrisy will continue.

Originally posted by WindWip
I agree with you about the kids of our nation and the drugs. Every kid is on ritalin and has about 15-20 'disorders' which need to be dealt with by giving them more drugs.

It's part of the entire culture of "everything that happens to me is someone else's fault."

Originally posted by LionelHutz
It's part of the entire culture of "everything that happens to me is someone else's fault."

I don't know if that's really the case. If you could elaborate?

I think it's more a reflection of our faith in science, and it's ability to create a pill to "cure" all of life's ills.

Case in point, people would rather have a pill to loose weight then eat a healthy diet, reduce the time in front of a tv and actually get out and excercise.

Pills are quick *short term* fixes to society problems. Medicating children is just an attempt to make them (both boys and girls) more passive.

Originally posted by Pepper
I don't know if that's really the case. If you could elaborate?

Not that there aren't plenty of completely legit reasons for giving kids some drugs to fix problems, but one gets the impression that sometimes what kids need is for their parents to instill a little discipline instead of taking them to the doctor to fix the problem with drugs. I'm probably stretching my point a little here, but what the heck.

On the pill issue - I agree with most of what has been written here.
About the initial topic :


Originally posted by DrewM
[
Interesting - diplomacy didn't work and military action should have been taken sooner. No doubt if it had the protesters would have been screaming "no blood for oil" or whatever it is they chant whenever military action is taken.

Sorry Drew but things are not so simple.
First, your quote from the article does not mention the fact that it is only about action against Afghanistan and the Taliban, not about Iraq. I don't remember any demonstration against the war against talibans, which was fully justified in the fight against terrorism.

I opposed war in Iraq because I thought it was irrelevant and had nothing to do with a real threat or with war against terrorism. I have not changed my mind and every day gives me more reasons to think I was right.

Ant-war demonstrators are not the stupid sheeps you depict. I perfectly agree that military action is sometimes necessary - but that does not mean that wars can solve all the problems, especially when they are fought on wrong basis and for wrong purposes.

Originally posted by astrapol2
On the pill issue - I agree with most of what has been written here.
About the initial topic :




Sorry Drew but things are not so simple.
First, your quote from the article does not mention the fact that it is only about action against Afghanistan and the Taliban, not about Iraq. I don't remember any demonstration against the war against talibans, which was fully justified in the fight against terrorism.

I opposed war in Iraq because I thought it was irrelevant and had nothing to do with a real threat or with war against terrorism. I have not changed my mind and every day gives me more reasons to think I was right.

Ant-war demonstrators are not the stupid sheeps you depict. I perfectly agree that military action is sometimes necessary - but that does not mean that wars can solve all the problems, especially when they are fought on wrong basis and for wrong purposes.

Where did I say anything about Iraq. I was making a general point that appeasement doesn't work backed up by this panels report.

Originally posted by DrewM
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-03-23-911-hearings_x.htm?csp=24

"The Clinton and Bush administrations' decision to use diplomatic rather than military options against al-Qaeda allowed the Sept. 11 terrorists to elude capture years before the attacks, a federal panel said Tuesday"

Interesting - diplomacy didn't work and military action should have been taken sooner. No doubt if it had the protesters would have been screaming "no blood for oil" or whatever it is they chant whenever military action is taken.

its also funny how they recommended military action and not mearly more intelligence.

Originally posted by DrewM
Where did I say anything about Iraq. I was making a general point that appeasement doesn't work backed up by this panels report.

You were talking about anti-war demonstrators. But there has been no demonstation against war in Afghanistan, only against war in Iraq.
And "appeasement" is not the question. Nobody ever said it was a good idea to "appease" the terrorists. The question was : what military action is useful and what is irrelevant.
Against terrorism, as you've been writing, military action is sometimes useful but most of the fight is intelligence and police work.

I've been watching a part of the 9/11 panel interrogation of Rumsfeld on CNN yesterday. To the question "what did you do fight Al Queda during 2001 summer ", he hardly could find a better answer than "I had lunch regularly with Condoleeza Rice and the CIA leader" !!!

On the other hand I must admit I was impressed by the very fact that this rather harsh interrogation took place, and was broadcast live on TV. This is a real demonstration of democracy and efficient media information. I wish this kind of thing could happen in France.