Want to listen to me George? Go ahead.

[Working Man]

Although we already have too many federal agencies playing with our personal data,, the governments collection of my phone calls from phone companies isn't earth shattering news to me. Wish they didn't have to but,, blah blah blah.

THe Census Department is a bunch of whores who collects info for potliticians and private business. Why it was ever allowed to begin with isn't clear. No,, it isn't about getting the right aid to the cities and all the rest of that sounds good, liberal thought bullshit.. It is darker than that.

Other agencies routinely sell personal data to the people who make up mailing lists. FCC, BATF, etc.. This stuff bothers me much more than the people in
Homeland Security. As a matter of fact, those agencies should be stopped from creating lists that can be accessed by the dipshit companies that don't need to know my business.

OK, if the Department of Homeland Security takes all of the phone numbers, and creates an algorithim that will help them track down the bad guys, then so be it. I would assume that they need a good database with real live data to help them make the search program work. If they do it right this time, then maybe they won't need to do large broad sweeps of private communications in the future... Wishfull thinking? Who knows.

What we do know is that the Democrats are going to use this data collection as a bat to whack Republicans at the mid year elections. What have they done to increase the real security of American Citizens?? From External foes and Internal Foes??? They had their turn at the wheel and spent eight years eating dim sum with the Chinks. :wank:

 

[1549]

What we do know is that the Democrats are going to use this data collection as a bat to whack Republicans at the mid year elections. What have they done to increase the real security of American Citizens?? From External foes and Internal Foes??? They had their turn at the wheel and spent eight years eating dim sum with the Chinks. :wank:

It is absurd to blame soley democrats for America's succeptibility to terrorism prior to 9/11. It was the result of a lack of foresight by both parties at all levels of government. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower...pick one and there is a link to American vulnerability. Don't get me wrong...the blame is not just at the Presidential level either.

Read the book Ghost Wars. It takes no political stance. It merely recounts America's actions towards fighting terrorists (and the Soviets) in the Middle East since the late-70's. You will see that the history of Arab-U.S. relations is full of blunders.

 

[Gunny]

It is absurd to blame soley democrats for America's succeptibility to terrorism prior to 9/11. It was the result of a lack of foresight by both parties at all levels of government. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower...pick one and there is a link to American vulnerability. Don't get me wrong...the blame is not just at the Presidential level either.

Read the book Ghost Wars. It takes no political stance. It merely recounts America's actions towards fighting terrorists (and the Soviets) in the Middle East since the late-70's. You will see that the history of Arab-U.S. relations is full of blunders.

I have to disagree. Liberals are far more willing to stuff their heads in the sand and playing ostrich in the presence of a possible threat. You have to go back to Johnson to find a Dem President who was willing to take a stand with force. Carter was afraid of his own shadow, and Clinton played at the aforementioned ostrich game unless absolutely forced to make some half-hearted response.

So, while you are partially correct at the career bureaucrat level, each party has shown a definite trend in what force it is willing/unwilling to use in order to meet a threat.

 

[1549]

I have to disagree. Liberals are far more willing to stuff their heads in the sand and playing ostrich in the presence of a possible threat. You have to go back to Johnson to find a Dem President who was willing to take a stand with force. Carter was afraid of his own shadow, and Clinton played at the aforementioned ostrich game unless absolutely forced to make some half-hearted response.

So, while you are partially correct at the career bureaucrat level, each party has shown a definite trend in what force it is willing/unwilling to use in order to meet a threat.

When force is necessary, there are appropriate ways to apply it. Many will criticize Carter for his rather soft presence (and those critics are probably right to a certain degree), but Reagan's stance in the middle east was a short term fix but a long term nightmare.

Reagan and his administration decided the best bet in fighting the soviets was to suppy the mujahideen with proper weapons. In some cases this worked out and the trust was not abused, Ahmed Massoud fought bravely against the soviets. But the flip-side is that Al-Queda and the Taliban have ammunition from the U.S. still sitting in wax. Nothing is worse than having a U.S. helicopter shot down by an American-made rocket.

We feel that we should always be sticking our nose overseas. In the case of Vietnam, that logic bit us in the ass on the spot. Our actions in the Soviet-Afghanistan war are impacting U.S. soldiers in 2006.

Foresight and American politics usually do not come packaged together...

 

[Gunny]

When force is necessary, there are appropriate ways to apply it. Many will criticize Carter for his rather soft presence (and those critics are probably right to a certain degree), but Reagan's stance in the middle east was a short term fix but a long term nightmare.

Reagan and his administration decided the best bet in fighting the soviets was to suppy the mujahideen with proper weapons. In some cases this worked out and the trust was not abused, Ahmed Massoud fought bravely against the soviets. But the flip-side is that Al-Queda and the Taliban have ammunition from the U.S. still sitting in wax. Nothing is worse than having a U.S. helicopter shot down by an American-made rocket.

We feel that we should always be sticking our nose overseas. In the case of Vietnam, that logic bit us in the ass on the spot. Our actions in the Soviet-Afghanistan war are impacting U.S. soldiers in 2006.

Foresight and American politics usually do not come packaged together...

Well, we won't go back into your erroneous assessment of Vietnam. You keep blaming it on the wrong thing.

And who can say that your friend today won't be your most hated enemy tomorrow? You can't. In a lot of cases, it just takes a death in the family to get brothers and sisters fighting like Palestine and Israel.

Carter's "soft presence" is called inaction ruled by fear where I come from. However, I WILL point out that our supposed "clandestine" funneling of weapons to Afghanistan, nost notable to Osama bin Laden, began during Carter's watch, not Reagan's. That's one of those Liberal Urban Myths.

 

[1549]

Well, we won't go back into your erroneous assessment of Vietnam. You keep blaming it on the wrong thing.

And who can say that your friend today won't be your most hated enemy tomorrow? You can't. In a lot of cases, it just takes a death in the family to get brothers and sisters fighting like Palestine and Israel.

Carter's "soft presence" is called inaction ruled by fear where I come from. However, I WILL point out that our supposed "clandestine" funneling of weapons to Afghanistan, nost notable to Osama bin Laden, began during Carter's watch, not Reagan's. That's one of those Liberal Urban Myths.

As far as the friend today enemy tomorrow thing goes, everybody realizes how unstable this world is. That is why you can not go around arming a group involved in a holy war. Hijackings and terror are not inventions of the last ten years, it was no secret that the same extremist muslims fighting the Soviets were involved in terror. The mujahideen served the same function to the U.S. in the early 80's as the Soviets did in WWII. They had a common goal, but clashing ideas. Working with arab nations is one thing, but giving arms to rogue groups is unacceptable.

Carter is an interesting President. I do not know what really governed his decisions. Maybe his Christian morals were too strong for the presidency? Perhaps he had a very intense fear of failure? Or was he just flat out not ready to make bold decisions? (many would argue in favor of that last one)

hmm...it has been a few years since I read Ghost Wars, so I may have messed up the weapons part. But I was pretty sure that Reagan began the program. If I'm wrong, my bad.