The world is a dangerous place
My column for the West Bend Daily News is online. It’s called, “The world is a dangerous place.” And it is…
To accept your logic I’d have to say that Clinton successfully thrwarted terrorist attacks for 6 years, only to have Bush undo all of his efforts and fail to prevent 9/11. A ridiculous position to say the least.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2008 at 1025 hrs
Actually the world is a very very safe place and getting safer all the time. It’s just that the contradictions to that statement are the basis of “news.”
Billions of people lead boring lives for whatever that’s worth.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2008 at 1025 hrs
Nice to see you characterize Guantanamo Bay and spying on US citizens as evil. That’s a start, I guess.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2008 at 1028 hrs
No worries.
We can just roll through the stop signs.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2008 at 1119 hrs
Actually the world is a very very safe place and getting safer all the time. It’s just that the contradictions to that statement are the basis of “news.”
I agree that overall the world is a very very place.
As far as “getting safer”... I’m not so sure.
Are the pirate attacks off the coast of africa increasing or just being reported more?
Are there more terrorist attacks (we’ve seen them everywhere from London to Spain to Japan to India) or just more reporting of terror attacks?
If the above are just anecdotes and sensational stories that lead the news, where is the world becoming “safer”? (Besides Baghdad)?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2008 at 1157 hrs
oops, first line should be I agree that the world overall is a very very safe place.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2008 at 1157 hrs
I think our country has to be a little more careful than you, Owen, in attributing these attacks to the parties mentioned. If true we are potentially escalating the tensions between these two nuclear armed countries. Countries we don’t have a great deal of control over. It is times like these that diplomats start to earn their keep.
Posted by Mike on December 03, 2008 at 1251 hrs
Lefty -
I don’t know if you are suffering from a major case of ‘selective memory’, don’t know or are just incompetent
The Khobar Towers bombing on June 25, 1996. Members of the 440th (from Wisconsin) were there.
How about the 1993 bombing of the WTC?
There are others too…Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2008 at 1300 hrs
Clint -
Owen’s article was clearly refering to his perception that the Bush policies have kept us safe from terrorism on US soil since 9/11. To apply the standard you are, requiring the prevention of terrorist attacks not only on US soil but against US interests, US military and/or US Allies abroad, would discredit his position to a far greater extent than I have.
So, please have at it…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2008 at 1452 hrs
Lefty - NY - is on US Soil - WTC 1993.
refering to his perception that the Bush policies have kept us safe from terrorism on US soil since 9/11.
Lets change that to “the reality that the Bush policies have kept us safe from terrorism on US soil since 9/11.
Name one thing that Pelosi & Co have done to keep us safe - and appeasment doesn’t count
Your original statement was “Clinton successfully thrwarted terrorist attacks for 6 year” Maybe you have forgotten those extra two years that he was president on purpose… Or maybe you forgot about the attacks that he did’nt ‘thrwart’
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2008 at 1500 hrs
My 6 year reference was to the 1993 WTC attack. I had it in my mind it was 94. I was taking that from Bush’s 2000 election to get 6 years. Bad math and memory on my part. My most humble apologies.
Whenever you want to debate my point on the basis of merits please do so.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2008 at 1527 hrs
Whenever you want to debate my point on the basis of merits please do so.
Already have - you just have your fingers in your ears while screamming ‘naaaa naaaaa I can’t hear you.’
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2008 at 1543 hrs
To quote Rummy… “We don’t know what we don’t know”
I’m sure many of us thought that for sure Al Queda had more attacks planned “soon” after 9-11.
How safe did (or didn’t) Georgie keep us. I don’t think any of us know.
Maybe the “evil-doers” have been busy putting up resistance in Iraq. Maybe with logistics and planning Al Queda plans attacks every 8 years (93 +8 = 2001) (2001 +8 = 2009?????) Who’s to say.
I will be happy to say I think the TSA is a waste of money. I think the threat of having planes hijacked ended IMMEDIATELY after the first 2 planes hit the tower. We should have spent money fortifying the cockpits on planes which is REAL protection (in combination with passengers who now know to step in, not sit back and be victims)
Instead we waste billions on more bureacracy (the TSA) for NO additional security (I know plenty of people that have gotten knives on planes many times since 9-11)
We waste millions of man-hours in lost productivity and inconvenience because of these worthless security measures at airports.
We pat down women, old ladies, and every other tom dick and harry. We confiscate fingernail clippers, we can’t take water on planes. (though its still EASY to sneak liquid on a plane)
For all of that… I blame Bush. I would have expected a professed conservative to do a better job with REAL common sense security measures instead of more bureacracy for NO added security.
How many attacks were or weren’t prevented we plebe’s may never know.
The loss of freedom and increase in big heavy handed government is MARKED.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2008 at 1547 hrs
OK Clint, let’s start over. I’ll ignore the insults of your first response to me if you ignore the condescension of my responses to you. Deal?
Here is my argument…
Claiming that the fact we haven’t had a terrorist attack on US soil in seven years must mean Bush’s military decisions abroad and security initiatives at home have worked is terrible logic. It is akin to me say that Clinton successfully prevented terrorist attacks on US soil for seven years following the 93 WTC bombings, and that Bush must’ve f’d things up prior to 9/11. Both statements rely on the most flimsy amount of evidence.
Owen’s article is akin to the Simpson’s episode where Homer credits the Bear Patrol for keeping bears out of Springfield.
Despite our shrinking world in terms of commerce, information and technology there are still significant geographic hurdles, political barriers and resource limitations between us and terrorist who wish to do us harm.
Does that mean I think the Bush administration has had no success in stopping terrorist plots? Of course not. Do I have some major disagreements with how they went about doing so? Absolutely.
But more important than any of that, is to note that just this week the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism, a bi-partisan congressional panel, called the odds of a WMD being used in a terrorist attack against a major city as better than 50-50. Now those are not the type of assessments I like to hear, nor are they the types of assessments that make me believe we have taken the correct steps in making the world safer in the long term.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2008 at 1640 hrs
Why blame the presidents? I think the big problem with being the target, and we’re always gonna be the target by virtue of the fact that we’re the biggest kid on the block, is that you’re always fighting the last battle. TSA is still busy making us kick shoes off in security lines. They’re probably unprepared for how to combat against a Mumbai-style attack where twenty pairs of trained soldiers-out-of-uniform coordinate attacks on twenty different high school football stadiums across Texas on a Friday night in October. What would be the effect of such an event? And that’s already the last battle.
Human intelligence!
Posted by Mike on December 03, 2008 at 1648 hrs
I think the big problem with being the target, and we’re always gonna be the target by virtue of the fact that we’re the biggest kid on the block,
I’m not so sure about this one… I always hear politicians say “they hate us cause we’re free”
I’m not sure.
I think they have stated their reasons for hating us. Bin Laden did so specifically. And its not cause we are free.
Ron Paul had is pretty honest about our foreign policy, and he gets labeled a wack-job. I think the truth hurts lots of people… Just easier to say “oh they just hate us cause were free”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2008 at 1741 hrs
Ron Paul had is pretty honest about our foreign policy, and he gets labeled a wack-job. I think the truth hurts lots of people… Just easier to say “oh they just hate us cause were free”
Yet another subject on which I hold much common ground with xxpilot.
Is he turning liberal, or I libertarian? Hmmmmmm?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2008 at 1755 hrs
Don’t make it too complicated.
They hate us ‘cause we’re infidels.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2008 at 2011 hrs
The world is filled with a certain percentage of crappy people who will do bad things (or try to do bad things) to people who are doing nothing other than living their lives. This is a simple fact of life. And if something like Mumbai were to happen here on Obama’s watch, that isn’t necessarily a poor reflection on his policies.
I think it’s silly to blame Bush for 9/11, just as I think it’s silly to blame Clinton for what happened at the WTC back in ‘93. If, in a nation of 300 million people, we manage to restrict ourselves to one major terrorist activity a decade (and by major I mean an attack against civilians on U.S. soil), we’re doing better than a lot of other countries. We’re doing especially well considering how much more certain elements in the world hate us - and those elements will continue to hate us fervently regardless of which party controls the White House.
I’m not suggesting that the federal government can’t work harder or smarter to prevent attacks. But security and freedom are always, to some degree, mutually exclusive. To have more of one generally requires having less of the other. Sometimes the tradeoffs are minor. Sometimes they are not.
Fact is, if someone wants to murder you tomorrow, they probably can, because they are working harder to plot your demise than you are working at any given moment to defend yourself. But unless you want to spend your life living under your bed, that’s the chance you take when you leave the house every day.
That doesn’t mean your police chief is doing a terrible job. It just means that there’s a lot in this world that we can never control no matter how hard we try.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on December 03, 2008 at 2037 hrs
Is he turning liberal, or I libertarian? Hmmmmmm?
Hey next time you quote me can you fix my horrible grammer/typing??? jeez I need to proofread before hitting submit.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2008 at 2140 hrs
That doesn’t mean your police chief is doing a terrible job. It just means that there’s a lot in this world that we can never control no matter how hard we try.
eh… I don’t know…
seems to me most situations present us with different options. We had some pretty simple non-freedom infringing solutions to problems. Gorgeie chose the less effective freedom infringing ones. Perhaps out of fear… perhaps out of desperation… who knows. Bad choices either way.
Its funny. I think GW was a shitty president… but for FAAAAR different reasons than most liberals.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2008 at 2143 hrs
Its funny. I think GW was a shitty president… but for FAAAAR different reasons than most liberals.
Maybe not as different as you think, judging from your comments in this thread. The civil liberties infringements, especially torture, and other constitutional malfeasances are perhaps the single most convincing reason he’s our worst president.
I doubt this will become a habit, but I agree with pretty much everything you’ve said here.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2008 at 2243 hrs
History will decide what kind of president Bush was. Frankly I’m ok with waterboarding Al-Qaeda operatives to save millions of lives.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2008 at 2301 hrs
Millions? Oh dear, let’s not be theatrical here. Thousands, maybe. Aside from what’s going on in Iraq (which is really a war by definition and not terrorist activity), has Al-Qaeda even killed 10,000 in western countries yet? If we spot them 10,000, it means that, assuming a static population, they’ve killed 1 out of every 670,000 people.
According to the National Safety Council, you’d be more likely to die in your lifetime from your pajamas catching on fire (1 in 635,191), contact with venomous snakes or lizards (1 in 544,449), changes in air pressure (1 in 423,461), or even a flood (1 in 317,595).
Oh snap! Facts hurt!
Again, not saying Al-Qaeda isn’t a legitimate concern. Just providing some fact-based perspective for those who prefer to dabble in figures of speech and uninformed conjecture - which, sadly, is a lot of you.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on December 04, 2008 at 0151 hrs
If they get their hands on nukes, it will end up being millions. You can either ignore it like RS; stick your head in the sand and hope it goes away, a la Ron Paul; try to reason with them which, admittedly, may or may not work; or simply wipe out the threat. Personally, I’m in favor of the latter option.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2008 at 0930 hrs
It’s a higly dubious—but highly emotional—point to say that the Bush policies are making us safer because there have been no repeats of 9/11. Me, I worry about what reports like the NIE have said: that policies such as the invasion of Iraq have increased the danger of terrorism instead of lessened it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/23/AR2006092301130.html
Posted by scott on December 04, 2008 at 1034 hrs
or simply wipe out the threat.
Perfect. I choose this. Why didn’t anyone think of it before.
Now if you would please describe to me how we “wipe out” the threat and I’ll gladly back your plan.
I predict the war on terror will come to resemble the war on drugs. Never ending… Never successful… Always providing enough bounty to make for good show and tell on television and perpetuating the willingness of citizens to allow billions and billions of their tax dollars to be thrown down the black hole.
There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare. - Sun Tsu The Art Of War
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2008 at 1144 hrs
I predict the war on terror will rely less on the military and more on CIA, special ops, diplomacy, economics and other more subtle means.
Posted by scott on December 04, 2008 at 1236 hrs
Always providing enough bounty to make for good show and tell on television and perpetuating the willingness of citizens to allow billions and billions of their tax dollars to be thrown down the black hole.
Or, we could all hole up in our bunkers and hope they hit the other guy, right XX?
I partially agree with you scott. Hopefully, the Obama administration won’t gut the intelligence services like Clinton.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2008 at 1301 hrs
Or, we could all hole up in our bunkers and hope they hit the other guy, right XX?
Nope. Thats not what I said at all cynical.
I think we can take many steps to protect ourselves and our country while we stop jumping in the middle of snake pits and then complaining because we got bit.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2008 at 1333 hrs
How much dangerous could it be?? This is just the beggining of doom!
Posted by Fairings on December 19, 2008 at 1306 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134054
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 01:25 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 99
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 02:00 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).