Election Results/Discussion

[mary_bobo]

I’m waiting as well

I hope you are not holding your breath. Post #293-already explained previous post. Post # 290 how is this not related to abortion?

 

[MikeWM]

Yes, how evil those republicans are, what with their not wanting to murder babies and all.

And yet the rate of decrease of abortions went down to basically nothing whith Republicans in control of everything. Whatever they wanted to do, they weren’t doing a good job.

And how foolish they are to think that going to war is an appropriate way to protect themselves and other innocents.

It’s downright foolish of them to have disregared Just War Theory, as it’s the best theory we’ve got for matters of war.

We all know that the only reasonable and productive course of action is politely asking terrorists to stop hating everybody.

Welcome to the strawman part of the argument.

Mike

 

[a_cermak]

Actually, I heard a lot yesterday about problems with touch screens around the country. And the complaints weren’t coming from Democrats.

Not to mention “Tony’s Hooligans” (Peracia, the Republican candidate for County Board President) here in Chicago who walked down Michigan Avenue and to the County Administration Building to “Protect the Ballots”. The problems we had with counting the votes (after spending 60 million dollars to resolve the same problem in the March Primary) was the height of incompetance.

Not Tony.

suntimes.com/news/metro/128713,peraica110806.article

suntimes.com/news/128175,110706march.article

And let’s not forget that there’s a Virgina Senate seat which will likely not be sorted out for weeks.

I don’t know about Diebold but the new companty sure seems to be in deep doo doo.

What was with Tony? I saw it on TV early on Wed. morning but when I woke up in the light of day on Wed. I was half concerned it had all been a surreal dream brought on by too much beer and pizza. Only to read Brown’s column in the Sun Times and laugh uproariously.

Honest to goodness all they needed were a couple of gardening implements.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

November 9, 2006: America falters

…the most likely outcome of these mid-term elections is another major terror attack on America… The American public… does not by and large seem to think the war was illegitimate. President Bush’s crime was simply not to have won it…

Such an attitude shows an absence of either maturity or historical awareness. Insurgencies take a long time to defeat. As I have previously written, the British took four years to work out what they were doing wrong in trying to defeat the insurgency in Malaya, and when they finally arrived at the right strategy took a further eight years actually to wrestle the insurgency to the ground. The US has been in Iraq for only three years…

To vote in a bunch of people who have no stomach at all for fighting for the country’s defence, simply through impatience that the country hasn’t fought for it effectively enough, betrays serious confusion and lack of resolve. And it is precisely that which will now give such heart to our enemies. Have they not said, over and over again, that the west no longer has the determination or staying power to fight for its beliefs?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

COMMENTARY November 8, 2006: Abandoning Iraq

If Iraq is abandoned, the credibility of America and the West is lost. Iran’s hopes of regional hegemony are assured. The Americans will have cut and run after enduring less than one-twentieth of the casualties they suffered in Vietnam; and from a battle more consequential, for it is against an Islamist enemy that is rising, instead of a Communist enemy in decline…

James Baker… was the man who, in 1989, secured an American exit from Lebanon by effectively surrendering the country to Assad’s Syria. Lee Hamilton… joined him in stacking the Commission’s study groups with men and women representing the pre-9/11 foreign policy consensus, which could be summarized in the phrase, “stability through disengagement”. On the Baker-Hamilton plan, Congress will take the war in Iraq out of President Bush’s hands, as Congress took the Vietnam War out of President Nixon’s. Iraq will then be delivered into the hands of Iran’s ayatollahs…

So far as President Bush can be blamed, it should be for showing insufficient ruthlessness in a task that could not be accomplished by half-measures. Alternatively, for failing to grasp that America was psychologically unprepared for real war, not only by the memory of Vietnam, but by the grim advance of “liberal” decadence in domestic life over the generation since…

 

[Al_Masetti]

It seems as though the Republicans did do some meaningful things while in office.
Let me pose this question then:
Can you tell us how many soldiers would still be alive with their families today if we had not gone to war with Iraq if the Democrats had been in control?

This is a good question.

First of all, the strategies and tactics and the geopolitics are dynamic… not static. If they do A, then we might do B or something else. And if we do B then they might do C or D or E or all of the above. But it is unlikely they would be “static” and do nothing.

So, immediately after 9/11, the United States went into Afghanistan and routed the Taliban and al Qaeda. Some of them went to Iraq. Saddam was actively supporting the “terrorists” we are forbidden to use certain accurate descriptive words here ].

According to “Sadam’s Secrets” by Georges Sada and “Spying on the Bomb” by Jeffrey Richelson, Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program. As well as other WMDs. And, at Salman Pak, a large terrorist training program. And Saddam was subsidizing the families of terrorists who died in the line of duty.

So… had the United States not gone into Iraq, we might have expected to see further 9/11 style attacks. Smaller or larger.

We did intercept the smuggling of explosives from Canada into the U.S. We did experience “the DC sniper”. We did experience anthrax attacks.

As a result of the U.S. going into Iraq, thousands of “Islamic” terrorist fighters I am prohibited from using the accurate word] have moved into Iraq and they are being killed in large numbers.

If the U.S. had NOT goine into Iraq, those thousands of fighters might have migrated to other places to continue the Jihad.

Maybe the U.S., maybe elsewhere.

The U.S. borders are porous. People move in easily.

There was a plot to blow up a dozen airliners in the middle of the Pacific which was broken up by lucky accident when the terrorists set fire to their apartment.

There was a plot to blow up an airliner over the Atlantic which was broken up by the passengers. The terrorist had already been detained but the airline was ordered to allow him to board. The crew told the passengers to keep an eye on the guy and they did.

Other plots have also been interrupted.

What if Saddam could apply his oil billions to support the terrorists??? Smuggling a nuke into the U.S. is one of the commonly discussed scenarios.

But Saddam could just as easily have set up a truck driver training program at Salman Pak and have terrorists enter the U.S., acquire a fleet of 18-wheelers and pack them with conventional explosives. Legal street weight of an 18-wheeler is 80,000 pounds. Trucks (illegally overweight) of rock salt have been weighed by the police as heavy as 132,000 pounds… that I know of. So, it’s possible to load a truck with 30 or 40 tons of high explosives and detonate one or several of them together near a high-value target.

How many people (military or civilian) would that kill?

That’s just one scenario.

If the terrorists have already demonstrated that they are able to manufacure ricin or sarin or non-nitrogen explosives (using simple hair coloring), then what else are they capable of doing? [Explosive detectors commonly in use are able to detect nitrogen in explosives; so the terrorists have figured out how to make non-nitrogen explosives using common household chemicals. That’s apparently what they used in the London subway bombings.]

I’m not making this stuff up.

And it’s not secret information.

The “terrorists” are very smart. And intelligent. And well educated (university level engineers, for example). And resourceful. And flexible. And resiliant. And dedicated. And well financed.

How would objectors propose to stop them?

 

[mrs_abbott]

Havent ya heard? Missiles cause death in order to BRING life!

I think I saw that in a sci-fi movie once. It didn’t quite work out that way in the movie either.

 

[Al_Masetti]

In my previous (overly long) post, I suggested that a truck bomb could be packed with 30 or 40 tons of explosives.

But what if … the terrorists acquired a cargo ship … and increased the weight of explosives from 30 or 40 tons to 30 or 40 THOUSAND tons… Now you would have a nuclear sized explosion… without using a nuke.

You could take out a city that way.

It’s already been done, by the way.

It was an accident, but it happened.

A small ship full of ammonium nitrate fertilizer.

Texas City, Texas.

Famous case.

Nowadays the ships are MUCH larger.

And there are newer and more modern cargoes such as liquid natural gas.

But if you were to buy a ship, you could just as easily put a bulky nuke on it (instead of a highly engineered compact nuke) and just run it into a harbor.

We do have inspection facilities but do we want to detect a nuke after it has already entered the U.S. I mean, like, terrorist could even set it off right there at the detection station … just a short distance from downtown New York, or Newark or Long Beach or Seattle.

None of this is far fetched.

All the transportation publications discuss these scenarios constantly. There are almost constant endless seminars that discuss these situations and endlessly discuss and debate answers to the questions.

And it gives our anti-terrorism people the night sweats.

Please think about it.

What is your reaction?

What would you do if you were entrusted with stopping or preventing terrorist attacks?

 

[Sheeniac]

Indeed Al, we (military) fight them in the Middle East, or we (civilians) “fight” them here.

 

[Fitz]

If anyone wants to reflect on the results of the election in terms of the prolife issue, please go to the Culture of Death forum and click on my thread. It is Fr. Pavone’s letter to us on his reflections of the election in terms of prolife issues. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=118817

 

[mrs_abbott]

The “terrorists” are very smart. And intelligent. And well educated (university level engineers, for example). And resourceful. And flexible. And resiliant. And dedicated. And well financed.

How would objectors propose to stop them?

Yes, the terrorists definitely know what they are doing or we wouldn’t be at war right now.
I’ll give you what I believe to be, the best form of “diplomatic” action to be taken to better protect the United States from further home-front attacks and to keep the world from firing missiles at each other.
1.) close the borders, especially since we are at war, and don’t re-open them until terrorism is under control
2.) get the U.N. involved!!! Why do we have the U.N. if it’s the U.S. running the world how THEY see fit?
That’s my opinion, anyways.

 

[gilliam]

2.) get the U.N. involved!!! Why do we have the U.N. if it’s the U.S. running the world how THEY see fit?
That’s my opinion, anyways.

How is that going to happen with Russia and China supporting Iran, and Europe wanting to be neutral? We have NATO in Afghanistan and there is very little support in the EU to continue there.

 

[mrs_abbott]

How is that going to happen with Russia and China supporting Iran, and Europe wanting to be neutral? We have NATO in Afghanistan and there is very little support in the EU to continue there.

Well, if negotiations aren’t working, I say let’s do to them what we did to Japan after they bombed Pearl Harbor in WWII. We haven’t had any problems with them since.
If people are scared of bullies, let’s bully them then! The sissy approach isn’t working and if nothing else, it’s buying terrorists more time to counteract.

 

[MikeWM]

How is that going to happen with Russia and China supporting Iran, and Europe wanting to be neutral?

It’s better that they do that in the debating chambers of the UN than on the battlefield.

Mike

 

[mrs_abbott]

It’s better that they do that in the debating chambers of the UN than on the battlefield.

Mike

The diplomatic approach is always better than the bully approach. I only wish they could somehow utilize the U.N. for the purpose that it was intended for and end the War on Terror.
United we stand, divided we fall.

 

[Al_Masetti]

It’s better that they do that in the debating chambers of the UN than on the battlefield.

Mike

Tell us about the UN and Darfur.

And the UN and the Oil for Food program.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Yes, the terrorists definitely know what they are doing or we wouldn’t be at war right now.
I’ll give you what I believe to be, the best form of “diplomatic” action to be taken to better protect the United States from further home-front attacks and to keep the world from firing missiles at each other.
1.) close the borders, especially since we are at war, and don’t re-open them until terrorism is under control
2.) get the U.N. involved!!! Why do we have the U.N. if it’s the U.S. running the world how THEY see fit?
That’s my opinion, anyways.

What precisely might the UN do? How would the UN stop the Jihad?

 

[jman507]

What precisely might the UN do? How would the UN stop the Jihad?

Simple don’t call it Jihad.

 

[Al_Masetti]

It seems as though the Republicans did do some meaningful things while in office.
Let me pose this question then:
Can you tell us how many soldiers would still be alive with their families today if we had not gone to war with Iraq if the Democrats had been in control?

My previous posts were long winded.

So let me respond briefly.

Had the United States NOT gone into Iraq, the number of U.S. deaths would have been in the 100,000 to 1 million range. My estimate.

The WTC attack in 1993 was INTENDED to produce 50,000 dead. it didn’t work out that way. The plan was to topple the North tower into the South tower. They actually came closer than you’d think. Because … although the two towers weren’t structurally damaged, the next door 22-story Vista Hotel had its structure severely damaged and it could have buckled and fallen into the North tower.

The WTC attack in 2001 was more successful. Still short of the 50,000 number. But the crater (16 square blocks and 70 feet deep after five years) is still there.

 

[mary_bobo]

In my previous (overly long) post, I suggested that a truck bomb could be packed with 30 or 40 tons of explosives.

But what if … the terrorists acquired a cargo ship … and increased the weight of explosives from 30 or 40 tons to 30 or 40 THOUSAND tons… Now you would have a nuclear sized explosion… without using a nuke.

You could take out a city that way.

It’s already been done, by the way.

It was an accident, but it happened.

A small ship full of ammonium nitrate fertilizer.

Texas City, Texas.

Famous case.

Nowadays the ships are MUCH larger.

And there are newer and more modern cargoes such as liquid natural gas.

But if you were to buy a ship, you could just as easily put a bulky nuke on it (instead of a highly engineered compact nuke) and just run it into a harbor.

We do have inspection facilities but do we want to detect a nuke after it has already entered the U.S. I mean, like, terrorist could even set it off right there at the detection station … just a short distance from downtown New York, or Newark or Long Beach or Seattle.

None of this is far fetched.

All the transportation publications discuss these scenarios constantly. There are almost constant endless seminars that discuss these situations and endlessly discuss and debate answers to the questions.

And it gives our anti-terrorism people the night sweats.

Please think about it.

What is your reaction?

What would you do if you were entrusted with stopping or preventing terrorist attacks?

All very good questions and unless I missed something, I have not read any responses.