are we scared yet?

[zimv20]

link (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/cheney.terror/index.html)


Vice President Dick Cheney said Friday that terrorists are "doing everything they can" to get weapons of mass destruction that could kill hundreds of thousands of Americans "in a single day of horror."


ah, remember the good ol' days, when watching the towers come down over and over was scaring us enough?

now that bush is finding public opinion turning against him, we need to be reminded that hundreds of thousands of us can be killed in a single day. thanks, cheney! way to fearmonger!

why dont'cha flip that terrorist alert switch a couple times, too?

[pseudobrit]

I wonder if "single day of horror" will be their campaign slogan.

[toontra]

It seems that terrorism is, to Bush, something to be used for political gain first and something to try and prevent second.

[Desertrat]

toontra, should Bush NOT point out what is believed to be a danger?

If he points out a danger, it's said to be for political gain. If he doesn't point out a danger and it comes to pass, he catches hell for not giving a warning.

WWtD? What Would toontra Do?

:), 'Rat

[toontra]

Rat,
It appears to me that Bush is banging on about terrorism in almost every speech he makes these days (at least all the ones I read), and what I see is a man using this subject in order to try and boost his own domestic ratings.
Whether his actions on terrorism have made it more or less likely that the US mainland will be attacked again is unclear.

In the UK we were subject to terrorism for decades from the IRA. The Conservative party played the anti-terrorist card for a long time, but it was the Labour party who quit the posturing and started the talking which lead to the present (uneasy) truce.

[Desertrat]

Hokay. However, all politicans will use anything to boost ratings. I don't see anything that the Administration can do for the economy, or, at least not in any meaningful manner. Other major issues involve having the capability of public funding, and the money just ain't there. So, what's left?

I think it's quite valied to wonder, "Whether his actions on terrorism have made it more or less likely that the US mainland will be attacked again is unclear."

It seems that a lot of the capability of Al Qaida to attack our mainland has been significantly reduced. Their upper echelons of planners and trainers are in serious disarray and their funding has been impacted, if not yet cut off. And, of course, the various police activities around the world are reducing their capabilities to operate outside the mideast.

As long as their focus is on Iraq, the "flypaper" concept seems to be working. The numbers we kill, of them, are much greater than their kills of our GIs. It might seem to be a cold attitude, but GIs have an inherently better chance than office workers in some equivalent of a World Trade Center.

I guess it's that old case of "So far, so good." "Plan for the worst, hope for the best." I, like many, am not pleased with the totality of the efforts, but about all that can be done by the average citizen is to keep one's fingers crossed.

'Rat

[vwcruisn]

Originally posted by Desertrat
Hokay. However, all politicans will use anything to boost ratings. I don't see anything that the Administration can do for the economy

Hmm... maybe less wars that cost $$$$$$$ billions might be a way to start. :confused:

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Desertrat
I don't see anything that the Administration can do for the economy, or, at least not in any meaningful manner.

But then why does Bush keep telling us his next tax cut will be the one that turns his last ones around and creates a surplus?

[Desertrat]

Because, pseudobrit, it's short-term feel-good that keeps a lot of folks from realizing just how bad things are. Have you noticed what the stock market has been doing, lately? Or wondered why folks are buying into a lousy rate of return? IMO, it's blind optimism.

Watched the decline in buying power of the dollar? If it would be seen as "good" that the dollar not have dropped against the yen or euro, then interest rates must be raised. If that happens, down goes the stock market, and down goes whatever sort of recovery is said to be happening...

Our Fearless Leaders are scared spitless, but they're also afraid to show it. Remember, back during the campaign, when Bush alluded to the coming recession? And was jumped on by both sides for saying it out loud? And sure enough, the recessionary times he mentioned have indeed come to pass and are with us and I predict will be with us for quite a while...

'Rat

[wwworry]

So your point is, 'Rat, that the president can't do anything about the economy anyway so he might as well beat the drum of terror and everyone uses fearmongering for political gain so it's OK for Bush to do it too.

I'm sorry, but I expect more from my elected leader. Oh wait...

[wwworry]

Bush was warned about Al Qeada using planes to attack the US in August 2001. What makes you think that Cheney's knowledge of possible terror operations will help us now?

[Desertrat]

"So your point is, 'Rat, that the president can't do anything about the economy anyway so he might as well beat the drum of terror and everyone uses fearmongering for political gain so it's OK for Bush to do it too."

Now just where in heck did I even begin to imply that "it's OK"? I don't see that anywhere, at all.

I'm just pointing out why I think Dubya is doing what he's doing, or why his handlers are spinning the PR as they are doing.

When will you get off the kick that trying to second-guess, to figure out the "why?" of stuff, is the same thing as advocating?

'Rat

[wwworry]

I'm sorry. It was not clear to me that it's not OK for the president to use fearmongering to hold on to power and pass domestic legislation that has nothing to do with the promoted fear.

[Desertrat]

If not "fear", how about "nervous and twitchy"?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35049

'Rat

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Desertrat

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35049


sounds plausible

[mactastic]

I don't even see the US as able to prevent a land or air based attack, let alone one from the sea. AFAIK, someone could still pull off a 9-11 style airplane attack. Airport security is still lax, and it is the best its been. Dept. of Homeland Security is sounding more and more like a bueracratic mess with little accomplished to its credit. The only thing it has going for it is that we haven't been attacked since 9-11. That could vanish any second.

How's that for scary?:D

[Desertrat]

mac, I really think that the psychology of air-passengers has changed. No longer will it be assumed that if one behaves dutifully, the bad guys will just have the plane land somewhere and begin some sort of negotiations. Any bad guy now who tries to hijack a plane will get mobbed. "Let's roll!" is a likely scenario.

So you die. So what? Others might live. Better than 100% dead from being shot down by an F-16, all things considered.

As far as the rest of airport terminal security, we're probably safer against bombs than we were before. It'll never be perfect, but it's better...

But "random searching" three out of a group of fifteen Girl Scouts, or taking away an 83-year-old man's Medal of Honor because it has sharp points on it, shows just how little thought there is on the part of the "security agents".

I'll only use commercial flight to go to Germany to visit my son. Otherwise, I'll drive. I won't subject myself to airport BS.

'Rat

[Desertrat]

If you're not upset enough over Iraq, and if you've ignored Colombia, let me add to the happiness of your day with this little tidbit from Bill Bonner, publisher of the contrarian investment newsletter, "The Daily Reckoning" (excerpted and paraphrased):

"We had lunch with the Ambassador and another guest from Venezuela. The guest described the conditions there.

It's a catastrophe. The currency has gone from 4 to the dollar to 3,000 to the dollar. Everything is on the black market because President Chavez has imposed currency controls.

Venezuela was a paradise, but it's being destroyed. Chavez is destroying the middle class. He's a close friend of Fidel Castro. We have 30,000 Cuban soldiers here, and Chavez has given them citizenship. They're all loyal to Chavez. His side has all the guns.

Why is Bush ignoring this? We're an oil country, too. Chavez is worse than Saddam. I hope that when Bush gets the Iraq thing straightened out, he will send his army here to straighten things out."

So there you have it, folks. Remember, Citgo is a Venezuelan oil company, vertically integrated, but they're buying oil from outside Venezuela...

'Rat

[Pinto]

Originally posted by Desertrat

As long as their focus is on Iraq, the "flypaper" concept seems to be working. The numbers we kill, of them, are much greater than their kills of our GIs. It might seem to be a cold attitude, but GIs have an inherently better chance than office workers in some equivalent of a World Trade Center.

'Rat

How many of these "terrorists" are Al Qeada and how many are just local resistance fighters.

It all seems a bit like WWII France. French resistance vs the Pro-NAZI Vichy Govt and Germans.

[mactastic]

People have gotten loaded guns on planes since 9-11. Don't know about let's roll, but bang bang is a pretty deadly response. I'm not saying it is the most likely, but can you guarantee me that terrorists can no longer get into the cockpit of a commercial airplane?

[Desertrat]

Pinto, I have no doubt that some of the resistance is from Baathist Party loyalists. However, it has been widely reported that people are coming in from Syria and Iran. It has been widely reported that numerous mullahs are calling for Jihad on the part of non-Iraqis. How many are actual Al Qaida, or what sort of numbers? Dangfino.

'Rat

[Pinto]

Originally posted by Desertrat
Pinto, I have no doubt that some of the resistance is from Baathist Party loyalists. However, it has been widely reported that people are coming in from Syria and Iran. It has been widely reported that numerous mullahs are calling for Jihad on the part of non-Iraqis. How many are actual Al Qaida, or what sort of numbers? Dangfino.

'Rat

Isn't that called coming to the aid of your neighbors?

Didn't quite a few Yanks volunteer to fight for Britain against the NAZIS well before the US joined the war. How is that different from Syrians helping fight for Iraq against a foreign invader?

Except of course that Yanks are always heros, while Arabs are always terrorists.

we've certainly heard from the US that all these people are coming in from other countries, but these are reports from the invaders themselves. Is there any proof?

[Pinto]

Here's a relevant and very interesting link to a reporter who has met and interviewed some of the resistance fighters that Desert Rats claims are Syrian and Iranian terrorists or Baathist hardliners.

The truth would appear to be otherwise

link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1061703,00.html)

The US-led coalition forces, frustrated by their inability to control the situation, blame foreign infiltrators for these attacks, emphasising the similarity between these new tactics and those of al-Qaida and other militant groups in the Middle East. Few seem to grasp the fact that Iraqis, who are well-trained militarily, have simply learned from others' experiences, and carried out the attacks themselves.

I first met Iraqi resistance fighters at a farm in the suburbs of Ramadi, north of Baghdad. It was several months after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, and on that day the people of Ramadi were gathering at a mosque to grieve the death of a young Iraqi killed by US forces. The man - unarmed, and driving a civilian car - had failed to stop at a checkpoint. There had been no signs warning him or other drivers of the danger they were approaching. I was taken aback by the strength of the anger felt by the local people - such deaths (this young man was not the first to die at the checkpoint, nor the last) were clearly galvanising local people to fight back against the occupation forces.

What struck me most, though, was their intense commitment to their cause: the liberation of Iraq from its current occupiers. These were no "Ba'athist remnants". On the contrary, they blamed Saddam Hussein for bringing the Americans into Iraq. They went so far as to say the capture of Saddam by allied forces would sever the links between Saddam and the resistance movement once and for all. They defined themselves as nationalists. One said: "We do not want to see our country occupied by forces clearly pursuing their own interests, rather than being poised to return Iraq to the Iraqis."

You should read the whole link.

[Desertrat]

mac, what I'm reading is that the project of strengthening cockpit doors is very, very slow. There's not standardization, no uniformity in size, for one thing. Nor is there agreement on method; whether to make the entire bulkhead stronger, as well as the door and frame.

The squabble over arming pilots is amusing--albeit a sad commentary on the foolishness extant in today's world. Originally, the law required that all pilots of planes which carried mail had to be armed.

Pinto, your interpretation of "Here's a relevant and very interesting link to a reporter who has met and interviewed some of the resistance fighters that Desert Rats claims are Syrian and Iranian terrorists or Baathist hardliners." doesn't relate to what I said. The article itself is interesting, albeit a snapshot and not a mosaic.

Nowhere did I claim that all--or even a majority--of the resistance fighters were non-Iraqi.

At any rate, the comment that 'One said: "We do not want to see our country occupied by forces clearly pursuing their own interests, rather than being poised to return Iraq to the Iraqis." ' shows our failure to really get the word out about the ongoing efforts to achieve exactly that goal.

'Rat

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Desertrat
mac, what I'm reading is that the project of strengthening cockpit doors is very, very slow. There's not standardization, no uniformity in size, for one thing. Nor is there agreement on method; whether to make the entire bulkhead stronger, as well as the door and frame.


Somehow the Israelis have managed to figure that problem out. It wouldn't have anything to do with the airline industry dragging its feet would it? Or with the government not being tough enough with it's mandate to make air travel safer?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Desertrat

the comment that 'One said: "We do not want to see our country occupied by forces clearly pursuing their own interests, rather than being poised to return Iraq to the Iraqis." ' shows our failure to really get the word out about the ongoing efforts to achieve exactly that goal.


...or the WH's success at getting the word out at home what they claim the goal is.

[Desertrat]

mac, wouldn't your Israeli example be a numbers game? Is it realistic to compare El Al's relatively few planes against the fleets of such as Delta, etc., etc.? A few tens, as compared to several thousand?

zim, from the standpoint of mayhem, what's the difference between Bush's stated purpose, and your view of "alleged" stated purpose? The sooner the resistance stops, the sooner our military's not running around Baghdad and other cities...

'Rat

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Desertrat
mac, wouldn't your Israeli example be a numbers game? Is it realistic to compare El Al's relatively few planes against the fleets of such as Delta, etc., etc.? A few tens, as compared to several thousand?

zim, from the standpoint of mayhem, what's the difference between Bush's stated purpose, and your view of "alleged" stated purpose? The sooner the resistance stops, the sooner our military's not running around Baghdad and other cities...

'Rat

Sure, but by the same token Delta makes so much more revenue than El Al as well. I can't imagine the cost/plane is much different. Probably less in bulk right?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Desertrat

zim, from the standpoint of mayhem, what's the difference between Bush's stated purpose, and your view of "alleged" stated purpose?

i'm not necessarily stating a discrepancy, only pointing out that you cite propaganda as a means to an end in one situation, whereas the same source could be effectively using its propaganda in a second.

just playing devil's advocate :-)

[Desertrat]

Mac, I'd imagine it's more the time than the money. The plane's gotta be pulled out of service, and ya gotta have folks to do the work. And it's gotta be done at some FBO with the type of tools and equipment to do the job. Quien sabe? Maybe there will be some new hires put to work.

And, of course, there's the time for the drawings and then the time for the fabrication of the parts--which precede doing the work.

I was a bit startled to read that the doorways can be different even on what would appear to be the same airframe; not all 737s, e.g., are the same. Dangfino.

'Rat