Fahrenheit 9/11

[thrasherfox]

Here are a couple of links also to the below pasted in article

http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps....6300332

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1163058/posts



Below article is interesting reading.. which by the way, I concur with. While I have not seen the film and I would like to at some point, I cannot pull myself to paying money that only supports the film and its creator.

There have been enough trailers, press releases and articles that I have read for free that provides me enough information to make my stance and feel justified in my stance against Michael Moore. In my personal opinion, the guy is a pig. But that is just my opinion.






Was just sent this article by Michael Niewodowski, a chef
at the Windows on the World restaurant, who was supposed
to report to work there at the top of the World Trade Center
at 9:00 a.m. The first plane hit at 8:46.

He's not a professional writer, but his take on this human
pig of a man, Michael Moore, could not be better put.
d

Michael on Michael

Sarasota Herald-Tribune
Michael Niewodowski



From Here to Eternity.
Tora, Tora, Tora.
In Harm's Way

These are three films made about Pearl Harbor.

There have been more than 20 films made about PearlHarbor,and over 200 films made about World War II. These films inspire patriotism, courage, and nationalism. They tell us about the honor and bravery of the soldiers and the nation that supported them.

Two and a half years after the attack on Pearl Harbor,
the world watched American forces fight on D-Day.
Two and a half years after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the world is watching Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11."


Moore's film is the first major motion picture about
Sept. 11, 2001. This bears repeating. When future
generations look back on the Sept. 11 massacre, their
first impression, through the medium of film, will be a
work in which the president and the government are
blamed for the attacks, and the soldiers who are protecting this country are defamed. Instead of a film version of Lisa Beamer's book, "Let's Roll," or Richard Picciotto's "Last Man Down," we are presented with this fallacy.


It would be a colossal insult to insinuate that Franklin
D. Roosevelt or the U.S. government were in any way
responsible for the attacks on Pearl Harbor.

Can you imagine the indignation of the men and women
who lived during that period?
"Fahrenheit 9/11" is indicative of a nation that has
become too apathetic, ignorant or deceived to face
the enemy at the gate.

On Sept. 11, 2001, I stood across the Hudson River,
watching the Twin Towers burn, knowing that if
the plane had struck at 9:46 a.m. instead of 8:46
a.m., I would be dead. As a survivor and witness
to the attack on the World Trade Center, I am
more than insulted by this film.
I am outraged.

This film is based on conjecture, hearsay and propaganda. At a time when this country desperately needs to rally in support of our brave soldiers and our strong leaders, Moore is content to spread discord and divisiveness. The base of his argument is that the Bush administration had strong ties with the bin Laden family. However, sound facts are conspicuously absent from this "documentary."

The 9/11 commission did not indict President Bush.
According to the report, the president's actions before,
during and after the attacks are fully justified, including the military action in Iraq. The commission did not find a direct link between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. A similar commission in the 1940s would not have found a direct link between Hitler's Germany and the attack on Pearl Harbor. In both instances, the threat was imminent; the president and the military acted decisively.

Could we have been more prepared for a terrorist
attack on Sept. 10, 2001?

Could we have been more prepared
for an attack on Dec. 6, 1941?

In the weeks and months following Pearl
Harbor, there were reports and criticisms
that the government and military should have
been more prepared. The difference is that the
people of the nation did not waste a lot of time
pointing fingers at each other. Rather, they
unified and engaged the enemy head-on. I
guess that is why we call them
"The Greatest Generation."

How will future generations refer to us?

So, how do we explain Moore's film to future generations?


More than that, I wonder how I would explain
this film to Nancy D., Jerome N. or Heather H.
I am sure you don't know their names, but their
faces haunt me day and night. How would I explain
to them that a film was made accusing the president
and vilifying the soldiers. The same president and
soldiers who are attempting to avenge their murders
and protect other citizens.

Moore has not only insulted the nation,
he has insulted the victims of the terrorist attacks.

During his acceptance speech at the Oscars, Moore said,

"Shame on you, Mr. Bush."

Well, I say,
"Shame on you, Michael Moore."

Shame on everyone who supports this travesty of a film.
Shame on a society that allows this sham of a film.
You have weakened the nation.

 

[thesnake]

ok no kerry bs this time.

Ron, sadly enough I had to endure this tragedy up close and personal. My company was located on the 10th and 11th floors (my office on the 11th) at 2 world trade  (Sun). I was standing at the Thai resaurant across the street buying some fruit on the street across from the entrance when #&$&% hit the fan. We had ~2,500 folks in the building at the time and luckily we didn't lose anyone although it was mayhem in many ways and total kaos to say the least. As we all know, many were were not so lucky. It was perhaps more stressful for my family/friends as my cell service was knocked out and family and friends couldn't get thru. When I managed to check VM, I had about 50 messages asking if I was alive. I'm not made of granite, but I've rarely shed a tear in my life for anything. However, video of that day when replayed freezes me in an instant at attention, makes me furious, and I even loss a little h2o while on autopilot. God forbid I hear anyone chuckle when in that state-- I can't explain it. When I mentioned I tried to re-enlist, it was the week following the incident and I had only one thought on my mind-- spill the blood of those responsible. It was a horrific scene of suffering, my home away from home (marriot world trade) was no more along with most of my belongings, everyone in shock and disbelief around me, and I was basically stuck in lock down mode (i.e. helpless to do anything besides tell people get the &#$&$ outa here). Family, money, kids, etc took a back seat for a while until it sunk that the corps deamed me not combat worthy anymore. Merc was an option I pondered, but a little too foolhardy at my age and considering my time away from training so I got over my rage as best I could.

Now. Do I blame Bush-- NO-- I blame the *explitive* *explitive* dogs that were involved in the hijacking and those that supported them. To this day, I dream I could just have a few minutes locked in a room with the whole lot of them. Fine give em all papercutters-- give me my hands.

Now. Do I hate Moore and the movie-- No-- I would willingly fight and die to protect the rights and freedom of speach for anyone that supports peace. Did I view the movie as slamming vets and those in combat-- No, but it did have a couple clips of soldiers that left their brain stateside when interviewed. I wasn't paying attention at the time, but they couldn't be marines-- no dicipline. However, it had many more clips of compassionate soldiers, their families, and the ecomonic situation that faces our brave men and woman in the military-- and yes I'm old enough to say, many of which are still kids, but aging fast. I may add. I didn't see it is anti military. Anti-Bush most definetely.

If I was the one in charge, beleive me carnage would of occurred once I found out who was to blame. A few countries probably would of been glass by now, but hey that's why I aint the prez.

Am I happy the way Bush is pursueing things?-- NO. We should be dealt a swift, forceful, and unrelenting attack on Afgan at the time and not let up. If Iran, Syria or whatever other country wanted help 'em fine-- take em out. I saw our action in Afgan somewhat lackluster and incomplete and IRAQ just a diversion from our more immediate objectives.

That's my rant of rants. Take it for what it's worth (.5 cents !)



<!--EDIT|thesnake
Reason for Edit: None given...|1091747312 -->

 

[thrasherfox]

As I said, I want to see Farenhiet 9/11 myself to make my own determination about the movie.

Sorry to hear you were so closely involbed in 9/11.

The closest I was involved was one of my best friends is an airline pilot and the first flight that hit the towers, he was the pilot of that exact fight the day before. But to my knowledge I didn't lose anyone I knew. And I definitely did not lose anyone close to me.

But I remember the day, it is etched in my brain, I was on my treadmill watching the news when it came on, at first I saw it and I thought NO WAY!! then after watching the news and thinking about it, knowing what I know, knowing who I know I started thinking "there is no way that plane hit that tower on accident"

I know a lot of pilots, both military and civilian, and worse case scenario a plan is going down, the pilot is going to do whatever they can to limit casualties. So looking at the video I am thinking that if there was a problem and the pilot couldn't get it to an airport, there are a lot of other options, and it looked likely the tower was hit on purpose.

And sure enough, when the second plane hit I had no doubt about what was going on.

When 9/11 comes out I will probably rent it.. due to this thread I almost went and saw it today... but I will wait.

Again, sorry to hear how close it hit to home for you..

 

[thesnake]

No apoligies needed. poop happens-- I can accept what happened. We are at war with terrorists, pure and simple. Anguish stems from feeling like I was personally attacked while in a civilian mindset (drinking coffee, eating my orange, reading the paper, thinking bout stocks) and unable to do anything about it. Instinct takes over and I wanted to go on the offensive, but I had nowhere or noone to unleash upon. I can only imagine what the pilots and passengers went through psycologically.

As for the movie, like said it is definetely anti-bush and slanted. I put it in the food for thought category, not a rallying call against the prez. It'll be on tape soon, save your cash for a couple gallons of petrol

No sense making Moore any fatter.

 

[Aughtsix]

Marco - Do I understand you to say that you don't find President Bush's response strong enough? You my friend are an enigma...

I read the thread where you call truce to the political rancor, and I don't want to put you in a position of possibly being seen as going back on your word, but if I may ask; When you put yourself back at the Thai restaurant on September 11, 2001, would you have preferred to have AlGore as President along with his administration, or would you have preferred to have George W. Bush as President along with his administration?

Then, to follow, come the next September 11th, and I firmly believe another is imminent, would you prefer George W. Bush as President along with his administration, or would you prefer John Kerry as President along with his administration??

To allow you to hold your line I won't engage your answer any further - just curious.

Steve

 

[thesnake]

Aughtsix,

Darn-- lost my response in the browser as I was finishing!

First off, I called the truce with regards to creating new topics. I'll respond to any post as I see fit tho. My "Bush lies" topics were censored and removed by the admins. Comment-- most people don't like to hear ideas and/or facts, which don't support their own notions. I agree politics may bore some to death, perhaps anger some. My answer, don’t read the posts or disallow both views.

Now on to your questions:

"Do I understand you to say that you don't find President Bush's response strong enough?"

Response to what? Response to terrorism? Definitely not. The war against the afgani's was a halfhearted effort and left unfinished. We left behind largely reserve and guard units with not enough personnel, ordinance, and supplies to achieve the original objective/s. The country has porous borders, is sparsely settled, and mountainous. The force there now is largely as a public image face. IMHO achieving military victory in a campaign requires focus, discipline, commitment, and just as importantly good leadership. Ultimately, one wins wars by increasing strength to a point of eliminating the enemy or breaking their will to fight (i.e. surrender). This 1/2 finished job to me indicates bad leadership, poor judgment, and strains the morale of an already overburdened reserve force, which facing an impossible task (assuming one meant to achieve the objectives set forth).

As for IRAQ, I view it a complete waste of military lives, while distracting us from more immediate threats, not to mention costing us billions.


"When you put yourself back at the Thai restaurant on September 11, 2001, would you have preferred to have AlGore as President along with his administration"

No, and that is why if you checked my previous posts, I mentioned I voted for bush jr (and bush sr). Al Gore was a bumbling fool, which was easily discernable in the debates. Bush ran roughshod over him and got my vote. Bush Sr. earned a good deal of respect from me. Bush jr. has done nothing but to inspire me to vote for JK and hope Powell runs for the GOP next time. In fact, since the 80's I voted DEM once. Folks here may confuse my defense of JK as an assault against the GOP. Not so. I do take issue with a particular side scrutinizing one candidate while casting a dull eye on the other tho. Insulating oneself with the same ideology does nothing, but weaken the logic and reasoning capacities. For example, posting swiftvets to rouse support for Bush, seems foolhardy. It invites one to inquire what Bush's military record is. That is why major republicans have distanced or denounced the swiftvets site. In fact, today the whitehouse/Bush personally came out against the site, which was a class move. Is Kerry a "war hero" not likely. But he did in fact serve his country and enter combat willfully when he could of opted out like GW. That deserves some respect in my book at least.

Now looking back using what I know about GW, would I voted for Gore-- dunno. Bush in my esteem has dropped to around Al Gore levels. However you never know. Think of this scenario: Gore elected. 9/11. Gore has a Coronary at 10AM. Lieberman takes over. Perhaps that wouldn’t have been too bad.


"Then, to follow, come the next September 11th, and I firmly believe another is imminent, would you prefer George W. Bush as President along with his administration, or would you prefer John Kerry as President along with his administration??"

I fully agree we are under constant threat. With that said, at this point in time I would not hesitate for a moment and say now I prefer JK. Things may change, but as of now that's my stance. Now if Jk comes out looking like a squid with no information (ala Gore) in debates my vote will be in flux. If not, I hope he wins and becomes a fine commander and chief. Will he-- dunno, but I'm willing to place a stake on him now.

"To allow you to hold your line I won't engage your answer any further - just curious."

 I welcome questioning of any idea and comments I may post-- if I can't defend a position intelligently, then it isn’t worth it's salt is it? Whether someone or anyone actually agrees is not particularly important to me (I’m not running for office nor ever would).

Cheers,
Marco (daughter calls me that now)



<!--EDIT|thesnake
Reason for Edit: None given...|1091766776 -->

 

[thesnake]

Aughtsix and whomever else,


Now for some of my own questions:


1. Do you beleive the US is a safer place now than on 9/10/01?

2. Do you think the war in Afganistan is won and over? Does the administration's current military strategy support your answer?

3. Do you think that Iraq posed an immediate threat to our nations' security at the time of the invasion?

4. Do you think that by alientating most of Europe and the muslim world we can even begin to win the war on terrorism?

5. Do you think anti-american sentiment through the world has increased or decreased since Bush took office?

6. Do you think that cutting taxes (mostly for the wealthy) is prudent given our debt and deficit is spiraling out of control?

7. Meanwhile, do you think that cutting benefits to veterans is a way to show support for our troops and help reduce "costs"?

8. Do you believe that outsourcing benefits American's and will spur them on "to be more competitive" since they have to compete with developing country labor force wages? Yes, do you believe outsourcing is "Patriotic"?

9. Do you believe that learning from mistakes and amending your position is a character flaw?

that's it for now.

-snakeoil



<!--EDIT|thesnake
Reason for Edit: "typos--what else.."|1091806940 -->

 

[thrasherfox]

Aughtsix and whomever else,


Now for some of my own questions:


1. Do you beleive the US is a safer place now than on 9/10/01?

2. Do you think the war in Afganistan is won and over? Does the administration's current military strategy support your answer?

3. Do you think that Iraq posed an immediate threat to our nations' security at the time of the invasion?

4. Do you think that by alientating most of Europe and the muslim world we can even begin to win the war on terrorism?

5. Do you think anti-american sentiment through the world has increased or decreased since Bush took office?

6. Do you think that cutting taxes (mostly for the wealthy) is prudent given our debt and deficit is spiraling out of control?

7. Meanwhile, do you think that cutting benefits to veterans is a way to show support for our troops and help reduce "costs"?

8. Do you believe that outsourcing benefits American's and will spur them on "to be more competitive" since they have to compete with developing country labor force wages? Yes, do you believe outsourcing is "Patriotic"?

9. Do you believe that learning from mistakes and amending your position is a character flaw?

that's it for now.

-snakeoil

Reply to your questions

1. Do you beleive the US is a safer place now than on 9/10/01?


YES



2. Do you think the war in Afganistan is won and over? Does the administration's current military strategy support your answer?


That is two questions.

No, it is not over now and will not be over for a long time


3. Do you think that Iraq posed an immediate threat to our nations' security at the time of the invasion?

I do not feel they posed an immediate threat. But I do feel Iraq posed a threat and the sooner we addressed it the less lives would have been lost.

In my opinion as I stated before, Iraq's government hated us, Bin Laden hated us. We were a mutual enemy with hatred growing more and more towards us every day. (and I am talking before 9/11) I don't think before 9/11 Iraq and Bin Laden were working together. There were fundamental differences between Saddam and Bin Laden.

Bin Laden was and is a religious fanatic. I honestly believe what he is doing, he thinks he is doing for his people, the Muslims. I honestly think Bin Laden is a hard-line Muslim and that is what all his plans revolve around.

He looks at the U.S as dogs and pigs and a vile society that corrupts his religion and Muslims all over the world..

Guess what, he isn’t too far off. I am not Muslim and my loyalty is to the United States

But there is a lot of bad and a lot of corruption in the U.S. everyone can see it. but there is a lot of good also. So we just kind of have to accept the good with the bad..

Bin Laden doesn’t.. he doesn’t want anything to do with us, he was kicked out of Saudi Arabia and probably a lot of it had to do with the United States.

Saddam on the other hand mains focus was not really religion based in anyway, he was a dictator and thrived on power. Religion was a secondary issue for him, something to wield as a tool towards his ultimate goal which was power / money etc.

These were the main differences between Saddam and Bin Laden. However if you look at the two they had maybe a dislike for each other, but they both had a hatred towards the U.S. And there were signs that Bin Laden and his followers we beginning to cozy up to the idea of Bin Laden and Saddam joining forces against the U.S. and Saddam and his followers were heading towards the same conclusion.

So, while I do not believe there was an immediate threat, I honestly believe there was an immanent threat. And if we would have waited any longer, it would have provided ample time for Bin Laden and Saddam to join which would have provided Bin Laden with better technology and more followers and it would have provided Saddam with a way to strike the United States in a way that was never possible to him before.



4. Do you think that by alientating most of Europe and the muslim world we can even begin to win the war on terrorism?

We did what was needed. Very few others had the balls to do what we did. A big reason is a reasonable reason. We are the hardest to strike. Most of the other countries are in that area of the world and are not as isolated as the United States is.

And as far as France goes. There allies with Iraq. They were working with Iraq on different technology's.

And I am not saying that in a bad way, it was just different business ventures that Iraq and France were working on. France could not very well turn their back on Iraq, but in light of what was going on, they could not really step up and assist in attacking them either.

With the ousting of Saddam and his regime, France has lost a crap load (is a crap load equivalent to a metric ton alfalfa?) of money. Saddam and Iraq owed France a lot of money, France knew if Saddam and his regime fell, they had a snow balls chance in hell of ever colleting on that money.

Even in the end, Saddam still had a lot of money until he was captured, so it was always in Frances best interest for Saddam NOT to ever have been captured, but they could not really overtly assist him either. France was catching enough crap as it was for not helping the coalition.

Yes, eventually after bad feelings die down and time goes on, the European country's willl stat stepping up to the plate more. They have to, these terrorists pretty much hate anyone who is not Muslim. Hey are Muslim extremists.


5. Do you think anti-american sentiment through the world has increased or decreased since Bush took office?

It has increased; this however is due to propaganda crap and people in the united States not being United. When the rest of the world is questioning our motives (which is not a bad thing) it is not good to have tree huggers inside the United States criticizing what we are doing.

Just like who was that freak Bill Mahor or what ever his name is.the guy that had his own tv show and lost it because a week after 9/11 he referred to the terrorists who flew the planes into the towers as "freedom fighters" and basically gave them a thumbs up for ingenuity and finding a way to hurt the U.S.

This guy was an American, on American soil on American T.V. a week after 9/11 attacks and siding with the terrorists, or at least presenting the terrorists point of view.

What the terrorist did sucked, there was no honor, they attacked civilians, unarmed civilians.

And then Michael Moore's poop. How can the rest of the world back us up when we have these freaks in our OWN country questioning our leadership. I know if I was questioning another country about something, even if the other country was right in what they were doing, I would still think maybe I didn’t know something if the country's own people were protesting.

When you family has a dispute, do you make a big scene and argue in front of strangers? Or do you show unity and handle it behind closed doors?

If you are working for a company and you dispute how they handle things? What happens if you express your feelings to a client that reflects badly on the company? You usually get fired.

Same way with our country, but on a larger scale We need to show Unity to the world and use the voting systems to quietly express out attitude and make the changes needed



6. Do you think that cutting taxes (mostly for the wealthy) is prudent given our debt and deficit is spiraling out of control?

This is a concept that has been used through history with the U.S. the concept is if you cut taxes, you put more money in the pockets of the people who in turn will have more money to spend, and the more money they spend the more money you can collect in taxes. It has worked in the past, our history allways cycles like this.

7. Meanwhile, do you think that cutting benefits to veterans is a way to show support for our troops and help reduce "costs"?

Cutting benefits to Veterans suck, cutting anying towards those that have served or do serve sucks. But I am biased on that issue.


8. Do you believe that outsourcing benefits American's and will spur them on "to be more competitive" since they have to compete with developing country labor force wages? Yes, do you believe outsourcing is "Patriotic"?


No, I think outsourcing is wrong, so send a letter to Hienz telling her to move all of her plants back to the U.S

9. Do you believe that learning from mistakes and amending your position is a character flaw?


No, I think if anyone makes a mistake, and acknowledges shows a strong character


Done...

that's it for now.

-snakeoil

<!--EDIT|thrasherfox
Reason for Edit: None given...|1091811542 -->

 

[thesnake]

Ron,

Thanks for taking the time to answer. Comments in-line.

1. "Do you think the war in Afganistan is won and over? Does the administration's current military strategy support your answer?

That is two questions.

No, it is not over now and will not be over for a long time:"


COMMENT: we agree on question 1a, now how bout the follow-up question which is the actually meat?


2. "Do you think that Iraq posed an immediate threat to our nations' security at the time of the invasion?

I do not feel they posed an immediate threat. But I do feel Iraq posed a threat"


COMMENT: Agreed-- Saddam didn't like us. However, what evidicence that is both accurate and in the public record has been produced that supports your notion there was a threat? I'm all for consistent foreign policy. There are many leaders, Nations, and people who don't like Americans-- are we to attack them also in order to stem off possible future transgressions? Going to war should not be based on unsubstanciated speculation, but on the presense of a direct and immediate threat to our nations security and national interests.


3. "Do you think anti-american sentiment through the world has increased or decreased since Bush took office?

It has increased; this however is due to propaganda crap and people in the united States not being United"


COMMENT: Ron, do you really think people hate us cuz of Michael Moore? I'll agree with propiganda as one source of hatred. This propiganda is often fueled by duplicity in our foreign policiy though. There is also socio-economic reasoning behind it, but that is far too complicated to get into.


4. "Do you think that cutting taxes (mostly for the wealthy) is prudent given our debt and deficit is spiraling out of control?

This is a concept that has been used through history with the U.S. the concept is if you cut taxes, you put more money in the pockets of the people who in turn will have more money to spend, and the more money they spend the more money you can collect in taxes. It has worked in the past, our history allways cycles like this."

COMMENT: The concept of supply-side economics/trickle down (aka voodoo economics), is bogus. Proof is looking at looking at Gov. cash flow during this period. Unlike what you mentioned, cash inflow diminished, while outflows that burgeoned. It's simple economics, if you spend more, you need to take in more.


5. "Do you believe that outsourcing benefits American's and will spur them on "to be more competitive" since they have to compete with developing country labor force wages? Yes, do you believe outsourcing is "Patriotic"?


No, I think outsourcing is wrong, so send a letter to Hienz telling her to move all of her plants back to the U.S"

COMMENT: I take it this was in jest. Hienz does not run the company, not one of the top shareholders, and does not sit on the board. It makes for a nice soundbit, but holds no credibility. It is, as you say, "propiganda" for the right.

cheers!

snakeoil



<!--EDIT|thesnake
Reason for Edit: None given...|1091817969 -->

 

[Lazerblade]

 

[thesnake]

Ron, for simplicity sakes, let's say DEMS raise taxes (they often do) and GOPs cut it (they often do). Then how is your comment:

"you put more money in the pockets of the people who in turn will have more money to spend, and the more money they spend the more money you can collect in taxes. It has worked in the past"

Supported by the actual data?:



<!--EDIT|thesnake
Reason for Edit: None given...|1091818341 -->

 

[thrasherfox]

Mark -

My comment about the taxes was based on information from a documentary I watched in regards to this topic. I found the theory interesting.. And from what this documentary stated. this way of manipulating cash flow has supposed to have worked in the past.

And again, I do not have documented proof to substantiate my conjecture in regards to the following, but if you look at your own bar graph, doesn’t it seem odd that all the presidents had a deficit while Clinton miraculously had a surplus?

I have also learned from watching reports and documentaries on our government that Clinton's "surplus" was more of a paper shuffle than a real surplus.

However. Even if President Bush HAS taken us from a surplus to a deficit, I don’t really think it can be blamed on President Bush OR the administration.

President Bush got into office and I believe part of his campaign promises was to cut taxes. If he didn’t cut taxes everyone would have blasted him for not doing what he promised, supporters and non-supporters alike.

I would like to point out however the majority of this deficit HAS to be from the fronts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Any person that would have been president during these times who made the same decision would probably be faced with the same financial dilemma's due to the cost of combat, not only are we having to pay extra money for ammo, ordinance transportation, but hazard pay, combat pay etc. AND we are having to funnel money into rebuilding those countries because that is part of our responsibility.

And I will more than likely ALWAYS support our decision to enter Afghanistan and Iraq and to do what we have done.

President Clinton did not have to worry about. I believe Clinton served 2 terms without any real military requirements, hence no large burden.

War is Hell (to coin a paraphrase) to Quote "The Art of War - by Sun Tzu"

"When the Army engages in protracted campaigns the resources of the state will not surfice

When your weapons are dulled and ardour damped, your strength exhausted and treasure spent, neighboring rulers will take advantage of your distress to act. And even though you have wise counselors, none will be able to lay good plans for the future

Thus while we have head of blundering swiftness in war, we have not yet seen a clever operating that was prolonged"


The point I am trying to make from the above quote is that wars suck a country dry. N the good old days of Sun Tzu, and Genghis Kahn, when an army traveled, they usually traveled light, killing everyone on its way and taking those resources, that way the campaign did not suck to much from the home state.

Now, in our time we cant plunder what we have conquered without catching a bunch of crap, so we have to absorb the entire cost of a campaign.

I honestly do not think any other president or administration could have done better, the most anyone else could have done was ignore our attack on 9/11 and hope it didn’t happen again. Any other options probably would have placed us in the same place we are today.

As far as your comment tat there are many countries and leaders in the world that don’t like us, should we attack them all?

Hmm maybe. The United States is currently, and forever living in different times, like we have never experienced in the past. In order for us to survive we need to adapt and overcome. You know what that means right Marine

We currently have terrorist in the states, waiting to attack. We have never experienced this type of threat before. We no longer have the luxury of waiting to be attacked like we have in the past. IF we keep our policy as we have in the past and only attack when we are physically attacked, the United States will without a doubt not make it and we will fall.

Hey started it (all of our enemies) we have to adapt to combat them or our country has no future.

No, people don’t hate us just because of Michael more, but he is part of the larger problem. We are the UNITED (let me state that again) U N I T E D STATES. And when we have Michael Moores, and Bill Maher's and all these others making these loud noises, we are not being very United.

And from the beginning of time, there is a truth that still holds true and always will, a house divided will not and cannot stand.

What we did to Iraq to have such a decisive victory, is now being done to us. If you have not done so, read the Art of war. The enemy is getting into our heads, they are dividing us, terrorists are effectively destroying alliances and causing internal corrosion within countries, including the United States

If we do not stay United we Will fall..

If two brothers fight all the time they still will join each other to fight an outsider.

If a police officer goes to a family dispute (which they hate usually) it is a no win situation, a man can be beating the crap out of his wife, but if the police get involved, now it is the wife and husband against the police.

In the United States, we are a family, as such we should act like a family unit and stay United.

If we continue down this path of increasing quarreling and fighting and not standing United against outsider threats, we will fall

And again, I do not have documented prroof to substantiate my conjecture

"Semper Fi" Bro

 

[thesnake]

Ron,

I know the Art of War well. Any warrior present and future should study it closely.

To my point:

"Move not unless you see an advantage; use not your troops unless there is something to be gained; fight not unless the position is critical."

"No ruler should put troops into the field merely to gratify his own spleen; no general should fight a battle simply out of pique. Anger may in time change to gladness; vexation may be succeeded by content. But a kingdom that has once been destroyed can never come again into being; nor can the dead ever be brought back to life."

"Thus the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy's plans; the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy's forces; the next in order is to attack the enemy's army in the field; and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities."

"To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself. Thus the good fighter is able to secure himself against defeat, but cannot make certain of defeating the enemy."

COMMENT: I have no qualms following you into battle, however I doubt if Bush is well versed in Sun Tzu and could use some wisdom. Bush hasn't done anything to secure our own borders and hunting down illegals in this country. Would I re-enlist now as a basic marine under Bush, of course. Not for Bush, but to stand beside my brothers who are in battle.

Politicians should not run the military. The current political administration, (and ones prior) have attempted to initiate social programs into the armed forces and played with budgets, in order to provide the disenfranchised with a platform and dilute the power of the warrior. Fortunately this perverse attitude had not cloulded such units as the Marine Force Reconnaissance. Marines should be used for killing, not policing.


............

"As far as your comment that there are many countries and leaders in the world that don’t like us, should we attack them all?

Hmm maybe. The United States is currently, and forever living in different times, like we have never experienced in the past. In order for us to survive we need to adapt and overcome. You know what that means right Marine

COMMENT: That's fine by me-- let's go. Initiate the draft, ease up the age restrictioins, and set us loose both with respect the our methods and weapons on Iran, Syria, Iraq, N. Korea, and France. Then let us hunt down the vermin where ever they run. Otherwise, we need to play the chess game carefully. I am angry at Bush not for fighting, but who and how we fight. I would not trade one Marine to save the life of any/all Iraqis.

------------
As for finances, yes one can twist the #s how they like. I'll leave it at that as there's more opnions then .... on the subject.

---------
Opinions may be divided, but the blood and sweat of America is united. We are like that family dispute, we quarrel, but when an outsider threatens, watch out. Enemies will find that out soon enough.


semper fi!

-snake




p.s. Instead of lobbying for a politician, while Bush was in the reserves, he should of been reading this:

http://www.nadn.navy.mil/Library/Marineread.htm

 

[thrasherfox]

Great!! all this discussion has made me want to send a personal invite to Mr. Powell and ask him to run for president doah....

I feel like we are all alone in this thread Mark, no one else is jumping in and joining.. I guess we have bored everyone to death at their keyboards lol

 

[thesnake]

If Bush loses this time, Powell will run next elelection (and win).

You heard it hear first. As for folks boredom, let's hope complacency doesn't get the best of us in time.

Over n' out on the thread--it's been fun. Time to eat. Time to ride.

 

[thrasherfox]

Yep, this thread has been informative. It has been a pleasure conversing with you on these issues.

It is nice for two people to be able to share sometimes different view points and neither of them get upset or bent out of shape and each can accept the others positions, not necessarily agree, but accept.

However it seems the more we discussed these issue the more like minded we are, maybe a different view point as to how to get to the same end. But it is apparent we do share the same goal.

Yep, I am pretty sure I am taking the bike to the coast tomorrow. we have a family reunion there.. Think the wife and the kids are going to drive in the van.. And I will tag along on the bike......

Be safe my friend....

Ron

 

[Aughtsix]

Cryminy sakes - don't you two work??

Boring? Heck no. I figure the Lord gave me two ears and two eyes while only giving me one mouth for a reason. I tend to prefer to read and absorb.

Marco - May I suggest to you that you may be voting against something rather than for something. And, based on what information or experience do you suppose Kerry's performance would be superior to President Bush's come the pending trouble? What administrative experience does Mr. Kerry have? What genuine leadership experience does Mr. Kerry have?? I certainly don't discredit Mr. Kerry his military service, but nor do I give him extra credit for it. It was what it was.

As far as pointing out Mr. Kerry's silver-lined military service, this in no way needs a comparison to President Bush's military service - the two being completely different issues. They each stand on their own - your basis in Philosophy should bear this out. Again, Mr. Kerry's military experience was what it was and, by his own doing, IS currently at the forefront. It's really a shoddy redirect, obfuscate and escape tactic to attempt a comparison; e.g. it's no defense of speeding simply because other cars are speeding.

And Ron - Powell?? Oh my...

Steve

 

[Charlesbusa]

wow!!! too many words to read.....

however, comparing 9/11 to pearl harbor is clever. In both cases, after the fact, evidence was found that some people in our gov. knew something was up before both attacks. And you have to admit, Bush has gotten way more grief than F. Roosevelt. Plus, fahrenheit 9/11 did come out during the election year.
My view, all politicans are corupt, its a prerequiste

 

[thesnake]

heh now, don't be startin' an anti powell thread... I don't even like JK all that much.... just imagine the energy I would consume defending our only hope in politics. That's right, the big gun, the one, the only, President Powell!

Augh-- you creationists have a way of always askin' questions, but never answering them

Happy riding this weekend, and no-- I didn't work this week. Ohh my bad, I worked from home this week... that's better.

cheers.

-snakeoil

 

[thesnake]

augh-- btw. The doc asks me to choose between a mumps shot or a good ole tube of frozen pennicillian up the arse Parris Island style. Regardless of whether I enjoy the mumps shot more or dislike the pen. shot more, the choice is the same. The logic of "vote for" doesn't hold water this time around or last-- neither are worthy of my "for" vote. I voted against gore last time and this time it will be against bush jr.

How's the weather out there in the NW?