Major terror attack

[Philosoft]

Now THAT is laying down the smackdown.

I prefer 'largely misrepresenting the state of civil litigation.'

Bravo, and so very, very true, if not also very sad.....

Right now, I'm waiting for the mention of the McDonald's coffee spilling lady.

 

[Grizzly]

What no one here can deny is that thousands upon thousands of lives will not be lost to Saddam's brutal regime now. That's a fact. That is undeniable. You cannot politically spin that truth away.

That's true - I don't think that anyone would argue against that. But the US, as great as we are, still has a limited amount of resources. Should we go around the world and invade all the countries where people are suffering? Sure, we can save "thousands upon thousands" of lives all over the world. We could invade the Sudan, or Rawanda, or North Korea. Saudi Arabi needs to be on that list as well. There are people suffering under some very repressive regimes. Is it our place to go about nation building, when there is a war on terror that needs to be fought?

We are currenty making more terrorists by our actions in Iraq.

 

[Ampmonster]

I'm waiting for the mention of the McDonald's coffee spilling lady.

i refered to that once. quite relavantly.

can you tell what it is lawsuits create beside more laws and rich idiots?

do they build buildings or earn money?

 

[jameseb]

That's true - I don't think that anyone would argue against that. But the US, as great as we are, still has a limited amount of resources. Should we go around the world and invade all the countries where people are suffering? Sure, we can save "thousands upon thousands" of lives all over the world. We could invade the Sudan, or Rawanda, or North Korea. Saudi Arabi needs to be on that list as well. There are people suffering under some very repressive regimes. Is it our place to go about nation building, when there is a war on terror that needs to be fought?

We are currenty making more terrorists by our actions in Iraq.

No, as I was saying, I'm not here to suggest a course of action our country should take when it comes to such threats or regimes. I honestly don't know. None of us do really. All we can do is hope that the intelligence they have that we're not privy too warrants the actions our government takes. All I'm saying is that lives were saved in this war. That and there have been no WMD's found. Those are two facts that stand about this war thusfar.

 

[Philosoft]

i refered to that once. quite relavantly.

Sure. As a litigious rarity.

can you tell what it is lawsuits create beside more laws and rich idiots?

Most of them help people get additional medical care and pay their bills while they can't work.

 

[Ampmonster]

"Most of them help people get additional medical care and pay their bills while they can't work."

some yes. most? probably more sue doctors malpractice insurance ie :bottomless pits.

 

[Billnew]

They can't go long without putting us on heightened security. This will soon be ignored by people. to many false alarms.

They may try to effect our election but I don't know which party would help the terroists. we don't have a side that is going to pull out of Iraq(well except Nader, like he has a chance.)

Kerry will beg to the U.N., but he said he will do everything GWB isn't but keep troops in Iraq. (Of course he says GWB does everything, since taking office[maybe since the election], wrong, and he would have done everything right. )

 

[Philosoft]

"Most of them help people get additional medical care and pay their bills while they can't work."

some yes. most? probably more sue doctors malpractice insurance ie :bottomless pits.

Yes, most. The overwhelming majority of PI/medical lawsuits are 5- or 6-figure settlements that do nothing for the socioeconomic status of the litigant.

I worked for a personal injury firm for a couple of years in the 90s. The blockbuster verdicts simply never appear. That's probably why they're so newsworthy.

 

[Doctrine1st]

I would have loved nothing more than to see ratings on all 3 networks drop like a rock during the Presidential address, but that power belongs to the people, and the people don't care.

Actually I think the politicians and their advisors would prefer an apathetic voting public. It's far easier to present a targeted, pointed, message then to address the concerns of a larger audience. Moreover, once in office it's far easier to sneek things past the few, then the conscious masses. So I would imagine they would prefer the masses to stay asleep at the wheel. Politicians only want to energize those voting for them, rather than pursue to get the masses involved. I can't recall the government initiating a campaign in regards to the importance of it's citenzy to vote in general.

 

[Doctrine1st]

No, as I was saying, I'm not here to suggest a course of action our country should take when it comes to such threats or regimes. I honestly don't know. None of us do really. All we can do is hope that the intelligence they have that we're not privy too warrants the actions our government takes. All I'm saying is that lives were saved in this war. That and there have been no WMD's found. Those are two facts that stand about this war thusfar.

James, two questions;

1) do you think that there was a environment to find intelligence to fit the desired task in Iraq, long before 9/11?

2) although just your opinion, do you think we still would have invaded Iraq if Saddam had complied with all the resolutions and was upfront, but yet he and his sons still killed as citenzy at will?

 

[reverend B]

No, as I was saying, I'm not here to suggest a course of action our country should take when it comes to such threats or regimes. I honestly don't know. None of us do really. All we can do is hope that the intelligence they have that we're not privy too warrants the actions our government takes. All I'm saying is that lives were saved in this war. That and there have been no WMD's found. Those are two facts that stand about this war thusfar.

certainly what we are learning about the intelligence available before the war and the fact that the plans for it had been formulated by wolfowitz et al prior to the administration being elected has to put into question the ability of those same people to consider the intelligence available, as it was not available to them before they were elected. it is becoming more and more apparent to me that the intelligence was an obstacle that needed to be overcome, not a tool to be used in wise decision making. many people are coming out on this side of the debate that one would never have thought would lend their voices, including more and more military personnel at the colonel level and above, right up to 4 stars. my faith in the integrity of the intelligence and the way it was used has been stretched, for me, to the incredulous. before the war, inspections were going on and iraq was no threat as long as people were still in country poking around. why did things spin on a dime and suddenly become so imminent, so critical to our safety, that we set a few week limit on how long we would give the inspectors? the whole thing smells very bad to me, and i think history is going to prove this to be the greatest foreign policy gaff in the history of our country, and i frankly believe the truth will find the roots of this thing to be criminal. but that is just my gut, though the evidence of this is mounting daily. when pat buchanan jumps ship on you, well.........
people have praised the admin. for the lack of a repeat of 9/11 since it happened, but i have to respectfully disagree. bali was an attack on us. we have brought the targets to the marksman, and every day we see terrorism inflicted on the u.s. and sent home by satellite from iraq. the ridiculous argument that iraq harbored terrorists before the war, despite incredibly weak assertions, is provable by the insurgents fighting there now is so rancid it challenges description. of course they are there now. the target came to them. if you go fishing and you know the fish are here and not there, where do you drop your line?
another attack here is an inevitability. the borders are still wide open. access is still very easy. our actions are still encouraging retaliation and the committed fighters for the terrorists are plenty. they have an advantage, too. in making their strategic plans, they don't have to figure out how to get everyone home safe. it is not a consideration, either for the planners or the perpetrators. we have bogged down a very high percentage of the people who would protect us, making them unavailable to do domestic security. our leadership is failing us badly. i can see no other way to spin it.
jameseb, i am not as secure in the idea that the net death toll has been changed very much by our intervention. we have traded one threat to the iraqi for another, and we are not done. how many have seriously talked about using a "device" on falujah. that death toll would be significant, even given the evacuation order that would supposedly precede it. when our patience runs out trying to identify the insurgents from the locals, it will be a matter of time before we take the approach that to kill the termites we may have to sacrifice the butterflies. long shot? look at the attitude about abu ghraib and the other prisons that have caused upward of 20 iraqi deaths. people are "outraged at the outrage!" the process of desensitization has begun.

 

[Grizzly]

Once again, ReverendB - excellent post.