The Most Dangerous Man Alive?

[Oscar]

then again, when nation's are too busy ensuring their big business is funded, why would we pay attention to what else is going on.

Or better said, the war continues to be funded.

/me runs!

I'm sorry, who's signing the checks now? !

[Oscar]

No one because I am not getting one, thank you very much.

[Coasterkidmwm]

Don't you think it's a bit selfish to burn your retirement check? If you don't like the money at least let it rot in a CD for your kids or something.

[Oscar]

Also Clinton's "inability to lead nationally" gave the USA a huge surplus, which let's see, who killed that, oh yeah, Bush!

True dat ... here is the location of the complaint department:

1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20500

[Coasterkidmwm]

You mean Camp David for the appropriate time period.

Originally posted by Coasterkidmwm

Don't you think it's a bit selfish to burn your retirement check? If you don't like the money at least let it rot in a CD for your kids or something.

You are an ass. The retirement certificate is NOT the same thing as the retirement check. I earned the check. The certificate is a form handed to me in a ceremony signed by O. Duh.

[Oscar]

Why are you burning it? What has Obama done to you? If Bush signs it you wont burn it?

I need to go eat so I'll address your whole post later, but let me just say that the 9/11 hijackers had box cutters. An M16 and the ability to board cruise ships and large freighters, some of which carrying very dangerous cargo (see here where a ship transporting 33 decommissioned Soviet tanks was boarded) is a pretty significant problem. This is quickly becoming just as big of a threat as terrorism, as we've seen over the past few days. While the hostage was returned, it still shows what they are capable of.

The biggest difference in our favor is that they're actually willing to work with us as their only agenda at the moment is money, rather than being anti-western world. Still, I think this is going to be a major defense issue over the next few years.

[Coasterkidmwm]

Originally posted by TConwell
You are an ass. The retirement certificate is NOT the same thing as the retirement check.

Okay I make a mistake sorry jeez.

[Oscar]

OMG! You admited a mistake? That's it, I am converting to whatever I wasn't

Originally posted by Freddie

I need to go eat so I'll address your whole post later, but let me just say that the 9/11 hijackers had box cutters. An M16 and the ability to board cruise ships and large freighters, some of which carrying very dangerous cargo (see here where a ship transporting 33 decommissioned Soviet tanks was boarded) is a pretty significant problem. This is quickly becoming just as big of a threat as terrorism, as we've seen over the past few days. While the hostage was returned, it still shows what they are capable of.

The biggest difference in our favor is that they're actually willing to work with us as their only agenda at the moment is money, rather than being anti-western world. Still, I think this is going to be a major defense issue over the next few years.

Of course, 9/11 was a "surprise" (even though the intelligence agency was telling Clinton this would happen - again his ability to lead on a global level) ... but nevertheless ... we still have the ability to defend ourselves against pirates on the high seas.

Put 2 or 3 coast guard/marines on each cruise ship and let the pirates come. I would gladly match their renegade style and up against the training of the military. And as info ... Iran was only interested in our money/training as well in the 80s when they were willing to work with us, and now we see what they have done with the cash.

Seriously, I understand what you are saying, however for that day the news of was the fact that our President put himself in a position of subserviance on the national stage lower than that of the Saudi's. You may not consider that a big thing ... but as an active duty man for the last 19 years (scheduled to retire next year), we have gone through some real issues in the Middle East (which before anyone jumps began with Clinton's inability to lead nationally), and so, I know the underlying tone.

Then you could say that Bush did the same thing by showing his gesture of respect by holding the Prince's hand. That's just what Obama's bow was; a gesture of respect, not "lowering himself and the American people below their level." It's not that I don't think it's a big thing, it's that I think the media is blowing it out of proportion considering that there are bigger things happening in the world and on our soil.

Regardless of all this the G20 summit/President Obama's trip was a meeting of the highest diplomatic leaders in the world. Respect signs need to be given on both sides during something like this (and they were). The fact that the summit was considered highly productive in terms of public image and diplomatic relations is more important than gestures that were made in the long run.

The Saudi's love us in public, but get them in private and we are infidels who do not deserve to breathe. Trust me on this one, I have witnessed it. They love that we protected them from Sadaam, but outside of that we are good for nothing else than giving them our money.

And showing signs of respect is a way to improve this. I'm not sure what else I can say here regarding the subject. I do wonder why you left out any mention of Bush's shady oil deals with the Saudis though.

And so my friend, on a national stage, Obama did us no favors with this "its not a big deal" gesture. Seriously.

But there was an attempt to, and again, the summit was considered highly productive, so maybe on a world stage, he did.

Let me say this again because I feel it is worth it. I am active duty. Way underpaid and asked to give my life so that people like yourself can have whatever opinion suits you. However, to see our leader put himself in a position of sub-serviance is offending, and degrading.

Next year I will have O's signature on my retirement certificate and I have already made plans to burn it. I dont want it. His name and his "thanks" for my service are empty, completely devoid of meaning, and not worth the paper it will be printed on. And that's the bottom line.

And I thank you for that service. I'm sure you've been through more than I ever will and I'm glad that we have people like you willing to do such service. I have to wonder why you consider a retirement certificate meaningless however, especially if only due to the bow. Again, I don't see this as a gesture of lowering himself below them, I see it as a sign of respect, in an attempt to smooth relations, so that future servicemen don't have to give their lives fighting for something, somewhere that could have been resolved diplomatically. Maybe you see that as empty, and I really have no standing as I'm not in the service, but I just can't make that connection.

Of course, 9/11 was a "surprise" (even though the intelligence agency was telling Clinton this would happen - again his ability to lead on a global level) ... but nevertheless ... we still have the ability to defend ourselves against pirates on the high seas.

I'm more scared of the ability than the means, so surprise or not, they have the capability. What happens when we get a cell of pirates who board a cruise ship carrying 2,000+ civilians, who have a much more sinister agenda than ransom? We then have the possibility of 2/3rds the death toll of 9/11 (and the largest cruise ships currently entering service have a capacity of about 5,400 (source)). This to me is a huge threat that needs to be dealt with, and goes beyond "our Navy will take care of it" I think. Having a Navy detail on every major ship sailing is simply unrealistic and definitely wouldn't help the world's economic situation.

And about Bill Clinton having the intelligence about 9/11, indeed he did, but this intelligence was passed on to Bush who chose to ignore it at the time, so the point is null. The fact that the attacks came nearly a year after Bush entered office says nothing about Clinton's ability to lead on a global level, but rather Bush's.

And as info ... Iran was only interested in our money/training as well in the 80s when they were willing to work with us, and now we see what they have done with the cash.

I'd again go back to the fact that Iran indicated that they were interested in diplomatic relations with us which would almost certainly require a condition of them giving up any nuclear weapon capability, especially if they're wanting this in the near future since the US and Russia, the two countries with the most nuclear weapons have reached an agreement to reduce their stockpiles. There will never be a civil relation with a country like Iran when they have the capability for these weapons. So in summary, if the diplomatic relations that Iran is wanting were ever to happen, I'd be willing to bet that a condition of this would be surrendering any weapons or capabilities to make weapons as well as very close monitoring of their nuclear power facilities.

[Coasterkidmwm]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DI7u-TytRU

Fast forward to 4:15. Then watch the second link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L2513JF ... re=related

[Kev]

Originally posted by TConwell


Next year I will have O's signature on my retirement certificate and I have already made plans to burn it. I dont want it. His name and his "thanks" for my service are empty, completely devoid of meaning, and not worth the paper it will be printed on. And that's the bottom line.

I am sorry TConwell, but that is a really crummy attitude. You have obviously served this country for many years through many administrations, and planning to do something like this just because the Commander in Chief isn't to your liking is just f'd up. This is what is wrong with the US today. Too much separation and division between different groups of people. Just take your damn certificate, hang it up on the wall, and be proud of your many years of service. Forget about who signed the damn thing.

After reading up a bit about the piracy in Somalia and Somalia in general, I have kind of a new outlook. While I still maintain my view that it is a major threat that they are able to board our ships with such crude weapons and boats, I now have a bit of an understanding (and sympathy?) of why they do what they do.

These people are not terrorists as I've put it in my previous posts, but Somali fishermen who are trying to deter western boats from entering their waters. Why? Because after the collapse of the Somali government in the 1990s, European companies were using Somali waters as toxic waste dumps. On top of this, they were fishing in Somali waters robbing the locals from one of the few resources they had. These men do not think of themselves as pirates, but a volunteer coastguard.

As a result of the dumping, local health has been greatly effected, especially since the tsunami in 2004 washed the barrels with these toxins ashore.

I've read a few articles tonight but this blog post backed up by a Huffington Post article sums it up nicely. While again, I think what's happening is wrong and of large concern to our safety, I'm understanding the other side of it and can completely understand why they're doing what they're doing.

Kev, It has nothing to do with a bow. I have no respect for the man period, this is merely just another issue to pile onto that lack of respect and disdain that I feel.

Freddie, I can see your point on the Obama "respect for leader" issue and will not try to regurgitate mine again - simply suffice with I've said how I look at it; and now we shall see the ramifications.

I fully understand the Somali reasoning for trying to protect their resources, but capturing vessels in international waters is what they are doing. It's not like we are being boarded while in their docks leaving them lots of "goodies"; we have ships from all nations being taken hostage in international waters and that has to be dealt with. My Dad was a Navy man and perhaps my perspective on this might be a little different. We have active duty Navy personnel sitting in shore now doing almost nothing, and these would be the best candidates to be on cruise ships as a deterrent and as a protecting force.

When 9/11 happened, admittedly we entered a totally new age for the US, a world that will never be the same, and we need to act like it. I travel to some other city in the US about every three weeks for work (getting ready for Grand Forks, ND next week) and you would not believe how lax airport security is getting. We have slipped into the "same old, same old" mindset; almost the same that we had on Sept 10, 2001. This worries me my friend, this worries me.

Summary: If we as a nation don't start to protect ourselves and our resources and continue to be vigilant, the next attack will, not could, be far worse.

Here is an article to view

I agree airport security is a mess; the inconsistency of it is not making us any safer, so all it's doing is costing us money and making us miss flights. I believe one of the things Obama proposed (either in his budget or an independent proposal, I can't remember) was airport security reform. I rarely fly (4 times total in the last 2 years) but have seen the inconsistency in person. It's nothing more than a waste of money at this point.

I read your article but to me it was the same fear based, pro-gun, anti human rights right-wing stuff I've read and heard on Fox and out of the previous administration, none of which I can take seriously. Not that I'm downplaying the threat, but when we're repeatedly told that the next one will be bigger, more lives lost, we must always be in fear, etc....I'm sorry but that in itself is terrorism. I've had enough of that for the time being.

You're right about the US being in a new age.....but I'd say were in yet another one since 9/11. Diplomacy now outweighs brute force, the President working issues out instead of invading countries by tricking the American people and Congress into believing there were WMDs when the real reason was a personal agenda/vendetta....Those times are over for now as far as I'm concerned.

a spectacular attack with a weapon of mass destruction, such as a dirty nuke

Dirty nukes have been proven to be a ridiculous idea that would never work, why people keep talking about them is beyond me.

They are too busy assuring the comfort and legal rights of enemy combatants.

After WWII the US had Japanese officials executed after being found guilty of torturing soldiers with what was basically identical to today's waterboarding. Why is this not a crime anymore? We shouldn't be trying to make the "terrorists" we have in prison love us and be our best friends, but they're people too and there's never been any reason not to treat them as such.

It is not enough to have special training for police forces and employees of public places. The whole population has to be aware of terror threats, as they can be a good source of intelligence. For example, people may observe suspicious activity, objects or personnel that should be reported to authorities. They should also have some appreciation of how to react in the event of a terrorist attack.

This is straight out of Orwell, all I can picture is the guy's own kids reporting him to the government as a thought criminal. People see what could be called "suspicious activity" every day but 99% of it is not worth reporting and people know that.

Another of the most important lessons is that these terrorist attacks are not just quickie attacks by a few freelancers. An article in the same issue of Counter Terrorism titled ?????????Understanding the Mumbai Attack????????? by Stefan H. Leader, a senior intelligence analyst with the Analytics Corporation, explains the terrorists are organized and planning attacks just as enemy nation might.

This is simply not true. Yes the people involved in each specific attack are usually very well organized, but there is no "global terrorist network" to be afraid of. Each small group is united by the same ideology of Jihad, but there's no "upper management" so to speak, just a lot of kids that have been made to think that their branch of Islam is what can make the world a better place. This whole article is just more **** to make people afraid.

http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-drivi ... stics.html

In 2006, there were 13,470 fatalities in crashes involving an alcohol-impaired driver (BAC of .08 or higher) ????????? 32 percent of total traffic fatalities for the year.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/22/schust ... index.html

Just how many people died from terrorism in 2006? So far, according to Ellis, "the 2006 toll already is 10,107

In the US alone, I'm more likely to get killed by a drunk driver than I am as a citizen of the world by a terrorist (that's about a 1 in 23,000 chance of getting hit by a drunk, and a 1 in 600,000 chance of being killed in a terrorist attack). Not that terrorism isn't a real threat, but it's something that's never go away completely and isn't something to be as scared about as the neocons want us to be.

Very well said. Average everyday republicans, at least the ones that are just followers of the big names, don't seem to realize that the scare tactics used when talking about terrorism play right into the terrorist's hands, and that's the way the big names want it for some reason. The constant talk about how we need to be prepared and how we need heightened security measures in every public place in themselves are terrorism.

The republican party we're going to see in 2012 is going to be either very close to the center, much too close for the hardcore conservative's liking, or on the extreme end, in which case they have no chance at ever regaining congress or the presidency. Of their new names, Micheal Steele is the only one who's somewhat moderate, but he's an idiot. The "puppet effect" is even more prevalent with him than it was with Bush. He originally took a pro choice stance, but then a day later he "corrected" himself changing to pro life. This was so clear cut that if he wasn't coached after he made the statement, he has a really bad case of short term memory loss.

OK, lemme clarify this one. I am not interested in or swayed by scare tactics, because the 9mm under my bed answers that issue.

What I am interested in is protecting my family from someone else's hatred of our way of life. I have been hoping for a more close-knitted Republican party that would emerge to at least bring control back to the Congress in 2012, but since everyone seems bent on nodding "yes" when Nancy Pelosi speaks I doubt that will happen. See .... this is what gets me. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor the entire nation went on the offensive to repel them and take back what was taken from us. Now, 60 years later we are attacked by a much more precision-based enemy (they went after specific targets and removed them) and what do we have in this nation as a response or in support of those fighting against it?

Anyone seeing any yellow ribbons on trees anymore (even though there are hundreds of thousands of troops still in harms way)? The answer is no. And why? Because as Americans we have become complacent, self-centered fools who blindly follow what the idiot box tells us too. This is at the heart of what is wrong with this country -- and I know, "damn those who dare speak against the Administration" and I am sure I will take heat for pointing out the obvious. But, something has got to change, and I don't think our current leaders in the entire DC Metroplex are the ones to do it. I am not lining up with the party here fellas, I am saying damn them all because there is not a one who really cares about the nation.

We are a product of our leaders, and our selfishness is evidenced in the life we lead. Divorce, crime, obesity, insurmountable debt, children not being raised properly, lives in ruins, veterans not being cared for, etc., ... it's all a product of what has gone on in the last 40-50 years in this nation, and it's time to stop playing games with my grandchildren's futures.

Guys, I am not living in fear ... but I am fearful of what this nation has become in just 60 short years. If your grandparents are still alive and "with it" (that is they are engaged in events in this nation); ask them to tell you about life in the 40s and 50s. Tell me you cannot honestly admit and see the decline of our way of life throughout history and I will gladly take it back. But the truth, no matter who wants to argue against it ... is still the truth.

Edit: On a real personal note, I have enjoyed chatting with you guys about this. It's been the first real conversation I have seen in years here that is not aimed at taking pot shots at members.

Originally posted by TConwell

See .... this is what gets me. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor the entire nation went on the offensive to repel them and take back what was taken from us. Now, 60 years later we are attacked by a much more precision-based enemy (they went after specific targets and removed them) and what do we have in this nation as a response or in support of those fighting against it?

This is the problem though. The 9/11 attacks were organized by a very very small group of people that cannot be compared to a nation such as Japan. The idea of Al Qaeda as a true "terror organization" was one created by the Bush administration as a way to actually prosecute anyone who could be linked to the 9/11 hijackers. If you're willing to put the time into it, the BBC did a great documentary series in 2006 called The Power of Nightmares about the rise of Neo-Conservatism and radical Islam, following them through the last fifty years or so. All three episodes are up on google video for anyone interested.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... ightmares+

[Oscar]

Bush's lie of WMD's in Irak has killed more american's than 9/11 itself. For a President to lie just to get revenge on his daddy's war and get thousands of Americans killed is just wrong. He should be tried for perjury and account for each death occured. Do you prefer this man's signature on your certificate over Obama's?

I am more concerned with the relative passive attitude of America and general agreement that if it's on TV it must be true today; vice who's fault was what in years gone by (from about 1978 to 2008). Honestly, we cannot change the past. But, certain people have been touting the word "change" for a year now and well ... show me the money.

It has been said that the definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing and expecting a different result.

Hence, this takes me back to Post #1 of this thread ...