A Sincere and Heartfelt 'Thank You!" to the Bush Administration...

[amicus]

To the Bush administration, to the Defense Department, to the CIA and all the Intelligence and Surveillance agencies of the US Government, to the million men stationed in more than 600 locations around the world, to the men and women who remain on alert 24/7/365, thank you for keeping the terrorists away from American shores for seven long years.

A special acknowledgment for all those, a son in law included, who have served and risked life and limb, in Iraq and Afghanistan and all the other 'hot spots' around the world, subject at any moment to terrorist attack.

You are the best!



Amicus...

 

[CharleyH]

To the Bush administration, to the Defense Department, to the CIA and all the Intelligence and Surveillance agencies of the US Government, to the million men stationed in more than 600 locations around the world, to the men and women who remain on alert 24/7/365, thank you for keeping the terrorists away from American shores for seven long years.

A special acknowledgment for all those, a son in law included, who have served and risked life and limb, in Iraq and Afghanistan and all the other 'hot spots' around the world, subject at any moment to terrorist attack.

You are the best!



Amicus...

No offence Ami, but I am sure that Bush didn't do much more than any President before him, especially his father. The only hot spots IN THIS WORLD, are the ones we are told about. Frankly? America.

 

[Safe_Bet]

To the Bush administration, to the Defense Department, to the CIA and all the Intelligence and Surveillance agencies of the US Government, to the million men stationed in more than 600 locations around the world, to the men and women who remain on alert 24/7/365, thank you for keeping the terrorists away from American shores for seven long years.

A special acknowledgment for all those, a son in law included, who have served and risked life and limb, in Iraq and Afghanistan and all the other 'hot spots' around the world, subject at any moment to terrorist attack.

You are the best!

Amicus...

I will agree with you and add my own heartfelt thanks, as amended:

To the millions of men and women stationed in more than 600 locations around the world, to the men and women who remain on alert 24/7/365, thank you.

A special acknowledgment for all those who have served and risked life and limb, in Iraq and Afghanistan and all the other 'hot spots' around the world, subject at any moment to terrorist attack.

You are the best!

Come home safe and soon.

 

[freshface]

I will agree with you and add my own heartfelt thanks, as amended:

To the millions of men and women stationed in more than 600 locations around the world, to the men and women who remain on alert 24/7/365, thank you.

A special acknowledgment for all those who have served and risked life and limb, in Iraq and Afghanistan and all the other 'hot spots' around the world, subject at any moment to terrorist attack.

You are the best!

Come home safe and soon.

Shhh Ami doesn't like admitting that at least 15% of those serving in those 600 locations are women. He absolutely doesn't like admitting that those women are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan with distinction. In his world, they should all be home, ignorant and in the kitchen.

 

[amicus]

It is partially true that I do not favor placing a womb in harm's way; men are expendable you know, and rather fancy conflict and combat.

Add also, that 'men' is a generic term, as I used it in one sense and I did include, men and women, in the second reference. Very thin and shallow criticism, m'dear, ya gotta axe to grind or sumpin, ya little feminist twit.





Amicus the amorous one...

 

[Belegon]

http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/political-pictures-george-bush-jr-sr-russia-georgia.jpg

 

[sr71plt]

Given that amicus is congenitally chavinistic on the gender issue, I, for one, take his sentiment in posting this well. I appreciate what he's pointing to--that everyone involved (including George Bush and his administration) did and has done all they can to prevent the recurrence of what happened on 11 September. (I think the Bush adminsitration's was wrongheaded and misguided, but I don't think they thought it was.)

(I did give a little laugh on the gender issue, though, knowing that the three top agents in the field at the time working against the 9/11 perpetrators were women.)

 

[gauchecritic]

and while you're there perhaps you'd like to congratulate him and his predecessors for creating the situations in the first place.

 

[sr71plt]

and while you're there perhaps you'd like to congratulate him and his predecessors for creating the situations in the first place.

I think that's grossly unfair. This stuff happens. There is no person or administration that can protect against it all--especially not while keeping the United States an open society. That's a terribly naive statement, I think. And that's a major reason we have all of this turmoil in the United States. The common citizen who has no capability of getting his/her mind around all that is involved thinks they themselves are so bright. And they aren't.

 

[gauchecritic]

I think that's grossly unfair. This stuff happens. There is no person or administration that can protect against it all--especially not while keeping the United States an open society. That's a terribly naive statement, I think. And that's a major reason we have all of this turmoil in the United States. The common citizen who has no capability of getting his/her mind around all that is involved thinks they themselves are so bright. And they aren't.

And I think bigging up the prez as though he is blameless and merely re-acted to a situation is also naive.

That's also a major reason why there is turmoil amongst the enfranchised; believing what the Govt tells them. (and politicians being genetically incapable of admitting and apologising for mistakes.)

 

[sr71plt]

And I think bigging up the prez as though he is blameless and merely re-acted to a situation is also naive.

That's also a major reason why there is turmoil amongst the enfranchised; believing what the Govt tells them. (and politicians being genetically incapable of admitting and apologising for mistakes.)

Yes, well, I think that's the difference between those who just sit back and criticize and those who actually accept the reponsibility to work with such issues. Those actually stepping up to the responsibility have a better feel for how complex and difficult it is--and how much of it spins out our control.

 

[vividimaginings]

I think that's grossly unfair. This stuff happens. There is no person or administration that can protect against it all--especially not while keeping the United States an open society. That's a terribly naive statement, I think. And that's a major reason we have all of this turmoil in the United States. The common citizen who has no capability of getting his/her mind around all that is involved thinks they themselves are so bright. And they aren't.

I don't argue that terrorism is a terrible thing to be exposed to, and that the people that suffer are innocent civilians, but one thing that I do not understand is why of all the "open societies" on earth, including most of europe, japan, Australia and NZ to name a few, only america has such high levels of hostility directed towards it? Do you think it is because America is so activly involved with pursuing its interests overseas with such aggression?

PS Whilst I do not agree with the Iraq war at all I have no animosity directed towards the soldiers that are there, they are there because they have to be.

 

[gauchecritic]

and how much of it spins out our control.

control being the operative word.

 

[jomar]

To those who serve and who have served.

 

[sr71plt]

I don't argue that terrorism is a terrible thing to be exposed to, and that the people that suffer are innocent civilians, but one thing that I do not understand is why of all the "open societies" on earth, including most of europe, japan, Australia and NZ to name a few, only america has such high levels of hostility directed towards it? Do you think it is because America is so activly involved with pursuing its interests overseas with such aggression?

PS Whilst I do not agree with the Iraq war at all I have no animosity directed towards the soldiers that are there, they are there because they have to be.

Well, having lived most of my life in those other areas, I think I have some insight into that. Those other societies haven't been kept on the frontburner by what is expected of them as the United States has been. The U.S. has been the "resource-rich support area" since WWI. For two wars, the Europeans got themselves into a mess and expected the U.S. to bail them out (which it did, being the proverbial "I want to be loved" society). Even in Vietnam, the United States was essentially trying to bail the French out--and in the Middle East, the British. And in Afganistan, the Afghanis themselves. And by the time of Iraq, the U.S. thought (falsely) that it was expected to lead the Western powers into cleaning up a mess (which was really rather a small mess that the other Western powers didn't really give two figs for--and the wrong mess in terms of the real mess the United States faced at the time--but the U.S. administration wasn't paying any attention to any of that).

The problem of the United States, as I see it, is a willingness to play chump in the search of "being loved." When, in fact, no one loves whoever is number 1 and has more toys than anyone else. And I think that what the United States does as a result helps make it a high-level target.

And I think you miss the hostility angle on the Twin Towers attack. The WORLD Trade Center was a symbol of all of those countries you mentioned combined. This was a purposeful, greater than the United States target. Al-Qaida has been operating against a lot more targets than American ones. People of a whole range of nationalities were targetted by 9/11. (And I admired Tony Blair at the time who said it wasn't just the United States being targeted--Britains died that day too. Purposely.)

 

[vividimaginings]

Well, having lived most of my life in those other areas, I think I have some insight into that. Those other societies haven't been kept on the frontburner by what is expected of them as the United States has been. The U.S. has been the "resource-rich support area" since WWI. For two wars, the Europeans got themselves into a mess and expected the U.S. to bail them out (which it did, being the proverbial "I want to be loved" society). Even in Vietnam, the United States was essentially trying to bail the French out--and in the Middle East, the British. And in Afganistan, the Afghanis themselves. And by the time of Iraq, the U.S. thought (falsely) that it was expected to lead the Western powers into cleaning up a mess (which was really rather a small mess that the other Western powers didn't really give two figs for--and the wrong mess in terms of the real mess the United States faced at the time--but the U.S. administration wasn't paying any attention to any of that).

The problem of the United States, as I see it, is a willingness to play chump in the search of "being loved." When, in fact, no one loves whoever is number 1 and has more toys than anyone else. And I think that what the United States does as a result helps make it a high-level target.

And I think you miss the hostility angle on the Twin Towers attack. The WORLD Trade Center was a symbol of all of those countries you mentioned combined. This was a purposeful, greater than the United States target. Al-Qaida has been operating against a lot more targets than American ones. People of a whole range of nationalities were targetted by 9/11. (And I admired Tony Blair at the time who said it wasn't just the United States being targeted--Britains died that day too. Purposely.)

I agree with your historic examples, aside from WW2, only germany started that war, and the UK stood alone against Germany, the USA and USSR only got involved when they were attacked.

 

[sr71plt]

I agree with your historic examples, aside from WW2, only germany started that war, and the UK stood alone against Germany, the USA and USSR only got involved when they were attacked.

The U.S. "got involved" in WW2 when and because the British wore down their resolve not to get involved (moving into "involvement" by providing whole bunches of arms and ammunition under the table). They formally went to war because the Japanese militarily attacked them and because the Japanese had a "your enemy is my enemy" alliance with the Germans.

And the war was "started," not by the Germans, but back at the Treaty of Versailles--by WWI European victors that weren't farsighted in how to treat Germany and how to bring it back into cooperation with the other Western nations. A mistake that wasn't made after WWII, because the United States made sure it didn't happen again.

 

[gauchecritic]

And the war was "started," not by the Germans, but back at the Treaty of Versailles--by WWI European victors that weren't farsighted in how to treat Germany and how to bring it back into cooperation with the other Western nations. A mistake that wasn't made after WWII, because the United States made sure it didn't happen again.

Didn't have anything to do with Peenemunde and the new rocket-science then? Or the Soviet 'threat'? or anything like that?

(Don't worry, I won't mention rising investment in Military Germany prior to and during the war.)

 

[sr71plt]

Didn't have anything to do with Peenemunde and the new rocket-science then? Or the Soviet 'threat'? or anything like that?

(Don't worry, I won't mention rising investment in Military Germany prior to and during the war.)

What part of "started" didn't you understand?

Pressing on the Peenemunde project was more of a result of the across-the-board subjugation of Germany coming out of the Treaty of Versailles than the cause of German response to break out of that. You seem to be looking at individual threads in the fabric rather than the fabric as a whole.

 

[vividimaginings]

The U.S. "got involved" in WW2 when and because the British wore down their resolve not to get involved (moving into "involvement" by providing whole bunches of arms and ammunition under the table). They formally went to war because the Japanese militarily attacked them and because the Japanese had a "your enemy is my enemy" alliance with the Germans.

And the war was "started," not by the Germans, but back at the Treaty of Versailles--by WWI European victors that weren't farsighted in how to treat Germany and how to bring it back into cooperation with the other Western nations. A mistake that wasn't made after WWII, because the United States made sure it didn't happen again.

I disagree with the Treaty of Versailles theory completely. It certainly gave the Germans very hard terms and the broke the German economy, but to say that that was why the Germans decided to conquer Europe is incredibly narrow sighted. Going to war like that is a choice, not a necessity, and it was a choice Germany made. And, if you are going to use the Versailles argument, than using your rationality for going to war would that not mean that the US was responsible for making Japan go to war, by placing hard economic sanctions on them that required Japan to go to war? Personally I do not think the US or Europe were to blame for Japan and Germany going to war respectively, but surely if you belive the Versailles theory than you must believe the US/Japan theory?

 

[sr71plt]

I disagree with the Treaty of Versailles theory completely. It certainly gave the Germans very hard terms and the broke the German economy, but to say that that was why the Germans decided to conquer Europe is incredibly narrow sighted. Going to war like that is a choice, not a necessity, and it was a choice Germany made. And, if you are going to use the Versailles argument, than using your rationality for going to war would that not mean that the US was responsible for making Japan go to war, by placing hard economic sanctions on them that required Japan to go to war? Personally I do not think the US or Europe were to blame for Japan and Germany going to war respectively, but surely if you belive the Versailles theory than you must believe the US/Japan theory?

OK. Again, the term you used was "start." These things don't start full blown. There are historians who agree with me--so that's all good. Actually I agree with them. It's hardly something revolutionary I've thought up myself.

Why must I believe some extrapolation you've set up and placed your own take of limitations on? What brought Germany and Japan to war were entirely two different circumstances. No reason why you should suggest they have to have been the same, as far as I can tell.

 

[shereads]

http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/political-pictures-george-bush-jr-sr-russia-georgia.jpg

Bird lips.

 

[shereads]

To those who serve and who have served.

And to those who send others to serve while they complete their MBAs.

 

[Lisa Denton]

Open notepad.

Type:

Bush hid the facts

Close notepad and name it The Amicus Conspiracy, save to desktop.

Open that notepad and see the truth.

 

[neonlyte]

To the Bush administration, to the Defense Department, to the CIA and all the Intelligence and Surveillance agencies of the US Government, to the million men stationed in more than 600 locations around the world, to the men and women who remain on alert 24/7/365, thank you for keeping the terrorists away from American shores for seven long years.

A special acknowledgment for all those, a son in law included, who have served and risked life and limb, in Iraq and Afghanistan and all the other 'hot spots' around the world, subject at any moment to terrorist attack.

You are the best!



Amicus...

Seven years is not so long, Ami, and whilst I endorse your sentiment I wonder at the benefit of having 600 USA 'outposts' and the purpose they serve. It's an odd thing to keep terrorism at bay by exposing your troops to terrorism overseas, there has to be another way.

sr71plt's flag waving, as opposed to yours, is just the rhetoric that makes non-Americans quiver... with laughter, not fear. Yes... America is great... blah, blah, blah... As an economic powerhouse it has brought financial chaos to many through the credit crisis, which actually concerns more individuals currently than the War Against Terror, particularly as it is now seen as an 'American War' rather than a 'Western War'. The pervading media commentary is financial rather than military, nothing of a military nature will change ahead of the USA Presidential Election... which is a damn funny way to run a war, but hey, it's your guys exposing themselves (largely) rather than Europeans. The Brits had the good political sense to get out of Iraq quickly and concentrate their military effort in Afganistan, which is where the problem began. And just in case anyone needs reminding Afganistan, Taliban, & Bin Laden was a problem caused by America who felt threatened by Russian interest in the region. The USA aided the establishment of Bin Laden and the Taliban financially and militarily, just as they aided Saddam when it suited them to have a strong man facing off against Iran following P. Carters humbling. Now we have Georgia... and the USA propping a discredited regime in Russia's backyard. It is a Georgian and Russian problem to resolve with European assistance. It is not a country where the USA had either influence or 'clients'. Given European dependence on Russian energy supplies in the medium term, it is hardly suprising to find Europe less than keen on USA interference in the region, not when you've done such a 'great job' of diplomacy in the recent past.

The only thing that suprises me about 9/11 is given the shock it caused to ALL world governments, I'm surprised something on a similar scale hasn't been tried again. That either means the terrorist threat is smaller than the effort being expended to curtail it - there have been few significant terrorist arrests world wide in the last four of years. Or the authorities have been extremely lucky in stopping situations before they develop. In the UK - where we have trials of terrorists rather than detention without trial - most uncovered plots have turned out to be weakly planned with no clear target or definition of purpose... in other words 'all mouth and no trousers' - which is good news. Meanwhile a significant section of the world population has been 'punished' for being Muslim, or living in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The only successful handling of terrorism since WW2 has been Northern Ireland where after many years of terrorism both in NI and mainland Britain talking not weapons breached the divide.