Time for a new patriotism?

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-09-11 09:31am

On the second anniversary of the attacks against New York City and Washington, DC, the old cry of "My country, right or wrong" has seldom sounded with less strength or authority.

If we who call ourselves Americans wish to honor the 3,000 people who were murdered in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington two years ago, we should take a look at ourselves, not in narcissistic admiration but in hard analysis.

It's time to ask some hard questions, and to answer them honestly.

The dead demand no less.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-09-11 09:49am

lovely post. and what would you find?

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-09-11 09:50am

Ho hum, nice post, reminds me of Lucky Lindy.

Major America Firster, hated FDR, etc etc, yet the day after
Pearl Harbor was bombed, he and the rest of America First
dissolved the group marched into lockstep behind FDR and
saluted.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-09-11 09:58am

Enforcer Talen wrote:lovely post. and what would you find?

Who knows? It certainly hasn't been tried very much.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-09-11 10:10am

MKSheppard wrote:Ho hum, nice post, reminds me of Lucky Lindy.

Major America Firster, hated FDR, etc etc, yet the day after
Pearl Harbor was bombed, he and the rest of America First
dissolved the group marched into lockstep behind FDR and
saluted.

The "War on Terrorism" is NOT a war in the same sense that World War II was. It has more in common with the War on Drugs (and we know what a smashing success that has been).

The continuing occupation of Iraq is growing more expensive virtually daily, in money, lives and foreign relations. Neither of these are sterling successes of American foreign policy, and President Bush is and should be called on it.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-09-11 10:26am

Iceberg wrote: The "War on Terrorism" is NOT a war in the same sense that World War II was.

I'd say it's a war, this time, against fanatical islamofascists instead of
fanatical Japanese.

The continuing occupation of Iraq is growing more expensive virtually daily, in money, lives and foreign relations.

Uh huhm, Perhaps you missed the point about how LBJ would have
given his left nut to get these kind of casualty figures, and how
your idol, Clinton, spent $50 billion to bomb Serbia to save a bunch
of Islamic terrorists' asses.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-11 10:27am

The "War on Terrorism" is NOT a war in the same sense that World War II was. It has more in common with the War on Drugs (and we know what a smashing success that has been).

Except the war of terror has ironclad justification, (and no I don't extend that to Iraq

) and it's something that needs to be done. It's not a war like WW2 but it's a war none the less. If we want to prevent another September 11th we need to hunt down and destroy the terrorists, their support bases and their supporters. Because until that's done we are under constant threat.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-09-11 10:32am

Stormbringer wrote:and no I don't extend that to Iraq

I just view it as cleaning up the mess that Bush I made back in 1991 when
he didn't get rid of Saddam when he had the chance to.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-09-11 10:42am

Stormbringer wrote:Except the war of terror has ironclad justification, (and no I don't extend that to Iraq )

But was not the War in Iraq part of the War on Terror? That seems to be the position that the Bush Administration has always held. You can't exclude Iraq when it was supposed to be biggest operation of the whole thing.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-09-11 10:46am

Iceberg, here is a tibit of info concerning Clinton you might enjoy.

In 1999, the CIA (I think...) had a bead on where Bin Laden was. A strike group was ready to go to take him out and end it once and for all. Clinton, was, at the time watching a golf match. When approached to be asked for permission to go ahead with the strike, they were told that the President was watching a golf match and could not be disturbed at the moment. When they finally got through to him, it was too late, bin Laden had already moved to another location. While 9/11 hadn't occured at this time, bin Laden was still a wanted terrorist who had sponsored numerous attacks on the US. Slick Willy had the chance to take the bastard out, but was too busy watching a golf match...

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-11 10:48am

Gil Hamilton wrote:But was not the War in Iraq part of the War on Terror? That seems to be the position that the Bush Administration has always held. You can't exclude Iraq when it was supposed to be biggest operation of the whole thing.

It's not. Bush might have initially tried to have sold it as that, though they've backed off that some, but that doesn't make it so. You and I both know that Iraq wasn't harboring horde of Al-Queda.

What I'm talking about is the actual War on Terror in my post. Not whatever Bush and Fox News want to call the war on terror.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-09-11 10:50am

Nathan F wrote:Iceberg, here is a tibit of info concerning Clinton you might enjoy.

On par...

I wonder how many things the US has missed because Dubya was watching Blue's Clues.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-09-11 10:53am

Nathan F wrote:Iceberg, here is a tibit of info concerning Clinton you might enjoy.

In 1999, the CIA (I think...) had a bead on where Bin Laden was. A strike group was ready to go to take him out and end it once and for all. Clinton, was, at the time watching a golf match. When approached to be asked for permission to go ahead with the strike, they were told that the President was watching a golf match and could not be disturbed at the moment. When they finally got through to him, it was too late, bin Laden had already moved to another location. While 9/11 hadn't occured at this time, bin Laden was still a wanted terrorist who had sponsored numerous attacks on the US. Slick Willy had the chance to take the bastard out, but was too busy watching a golf match...

Source?

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-09-11 11:03am

HERE ya go BS... http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/P ... _laden.htm

Doubting Liberals want to know...

[/quote]

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-09-11 11:04am

SirNitram wrote: I wonder how many things the US has missed because Dubya was watching Blue's Clues.

The difference is, Dubya is more of an aggressive personality. Clinton's
response to the various acts that were committed against America and
Americans in his 8 years in office was....tepid and lukewarm at best.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-09-11 11:08am

MKSheppard wrote:
SirNitram wrote: I wonder how many things the US has missed because Dubya was watching Blue's Clues.
The difference is, Dubya is more of an aggressive personality. Clinton's
response to the various acts that were committed against America and
Americans in his 8 years in office was....tepid and lukewarm at best.

That's hardly deniable, and I'm certainly not defendable. It's simply on par for politicians in general to be dumbasses.

Alex Moon · Post by **Alex Moon** » 2003-09-11 11:10am

Stormbringer wrote:
Gil Hamilton wrote:But was not the War in Iraq part of the War on Terror? That seems to be the position that the Bush Administration has always held. You can't exclude Iraq when it was supposed to be biggest operation of the whole thing.
It's not. Bush might have initially tried to have sold it as that, though they've backed off that some, but that doesn't make it so. You and I both know that Iraq wasn't harboring horde of Al-Queda.

Please point out to us where Bush has stated that the war on Terror was simply against al-Queda. He has stated openly that the war would extend beyond hunting down al-Queda at least once.

Iraq may not have harbored al-Queda, but it is a supporter of terrorism, such as paying Palestinian suicide bombers. Furthermore, al-queda is merely a symptom of a much larger problem in the middle east. Tyrants and dictatorships use terrorist groups and anti-western attacks to focus social pressure outward, in order to prevent their subjects from revolting. Case in point: Saudi Arabia's support of terror. By removing Saddam, we not only remove a man who we believed to be a threat, we also set the stage for a change in the way things work over there. When Iraq becomes a fully stable democracy, it will become a real alternative to the thugocracies that currently exist all around it. Even now, neighboring states are making changes in response. They're doing this because if they don't, they will see a mass exile in a few years, as decent citizens head towards Iraq, where they can have a life of freedom. Essentially, by invading Iraq and setting up a stable democracy, we are neutralizing the helplessness and fear and anger that allow groups like Hamas and Al-Queda to flourish.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-09-11 11:14am

theski wrote:HERE ya go BS... http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/P ... _laden.htm

Doubting Liberals want to know...

[/quote]

I'm a Liberal eh. What are you, Snoopy? BTW, your link had no refernce to Clinton watching Golf.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-09-11 11:20am

theski wrote: Doubting Liberals want to know...

*peers at the top of page*

Yep, still SDN. Not Spacebattles. Not any other webboard. That means you're expected to back it up, Theski, not act like a request for a source is the evil centrists coming for you.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-09-11 11:20am

The war on Terorism has several points to it and the one that people forget is that we would strike out in whatever manner we deemed neccessary at those that harbor terrorists or support them. Unless you'd loke to slap on the blinders that the UN has had on for the last decade or so, Iraq has without a doubt harbored and supported terrorists. Syria has suddenly become quiet and complant with many of our wishes and Libya has just accepted judement against it for the Lockerbie bombing. Hmmm...I winder whether that was because of stern and unyielding diplomacy or because we have two divisions in the region and have shown a willingness to strike at a nation we percieve to be a threat.

Are we striking fear and terror into the hearts of terrorists and the naitions supporting them? It certainly looks that way and I do so love it when the worm turns on these fuckers.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-09-11 11:32am

Stravo wrote:The war on Terorism has several points to it and the one that people forget is that we would strike out in whatever manner we deemed neccessary at those that harbor terrorists or support them. Unless you'd loke to slap on the blinders that the UN has had on for the last decade or so, Iraq has without a doubt harbored and supported terrorists. Syria has suddenly become quiet and complant with many of our wishes and Libya has just accepted judement against it for the Lockerbie bombing. Hmmm...I winder whether that was because of stern and unyielding diplomacy or because we have two divisions in the region and have shown a willingness to strike at a nation we percieve to be a threat.

Are we striking fear and terror into the hearts of terrorists and the naitions supporting them? It certainly looks that way and I do so love it when the worm turns on these fuckers.

Bravo Stravo, Bravo. While it may sound callous, we surely have made an example of Iraq that we don't take any BS anymore. Clinton would screw around, lob a few missiles maybe, but never actually DO anything. Those years are now over.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-09-11 11:36am

BoredShirtless wrote:
Nathan F wrote:Iceberg, here is a tibit of info concerning Clinton you might enjoy.

In 1999, the CIA (I think...) had a bead on where Bin Laden was. A strike group was ready to go to take him out and end it once and for all. Clinton, was, at the time watching a golf match. When approached to be asked for permission to go ahead with the strike, they were told that the President was watching a golf match and could not be disturbed at the moment. When they finally got through to him, it was too late, bin Laden had already moved to another location. While 9/11 hadn't occured at this time, bin Laden was still a wanted terrorist who had sponsored numerous attacks on the US. Slick Willy had the chance to take the bastard out, but was too busy watching a golf match...
Source?

The book Dereliction of Duty. Written by Clinton's USAF aide, Lieutenant Colonel Robert Patterson, who carried around the nuclear launch codes from 1996 to 1998.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-09-11 12:52pm

Dereliction of Duty was so well-researched and well-supported that its author had to go to Regnery Publishing, a conservative publishing house whose stock in trade was anti-Clinton attack books, in order to publish it.

Try again.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-09-11 12:57pm

Sir Nitram Wrote:

Yep, still SDN. Not Spacebattles. Not any other webboard. That means you're expected to back it up, Theski, not act like a request for a source is the evil centrists coming for you.

He asked for a source and I gave him one.. and don't try and tell me.. BS doesn't doubt a quote without one.. I guess it was the

that got to you..

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-09-11 01:05pm

Our descendants can pay for the war for us! Why did I not see the light earlier!?