Looks like Putin understands terrorism

[Alaska Darin]

Nice that a person like Putin who is reducing democracy in his own country by closing down media outlets that criticize his policies is supporting Bush. Of course there are plenty of people in our own country that would like to do the same if given the chance.

75927[/snapback]

You're including all the paranoid liberals who take shots at Fox News in that, I'm sure.

[PastaJoe]

There's a difference between criticizing the skewed reporting of a media outlet and trying to silence them. I don't know many liberals that think a media outlet should be shut down.

[Alaska Darin]

There's a difference between criticizing the skewed reporting of a media outlet and trying to silence them.  I don't know many liberals that think a media outlet should be shut down.

75947[/snapback]

Oh, OK. Whew. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

I forgot: All liberals good. All conservatives bad. Silly me.

 

Just like those liberals who burn down houses and torch SUVs at dealerships are just protesting.

 

Do you bump into a lot of stevestojan with those Seattle Slew blinders you have on?

[erynthered]

13 hours ago..........

 

 

Vladimir Putin waded into the American election campaign in support of George Bush yesterday, declaring that if the president lost, it would lead to the "spread of terrorism" around the world.

[blzrul]

13 hours ago..........

75960[/snapback]

So how does that explain the recently-reported (like yesterday) proposed alliance between Al Qaeda and AlZawackywhatever?

 

And while we're at it, if the terrorists were so afraid of GWB it didn't show on 9/11.

 

And they don't appear too scared in Fallajah...or Baghdad...

 

We need to remember that "keeping terror off our shores" is what allowed it to prosper to the state where it was ABLE to reach our shores. The Adminstration has admitted that incidents of terror have INCREASED over last year.

[Thurman's Helmet]

And while we're at it, if the terrorists were so afraid of GWB it didn't show on 9/11.

 

 

 

9/11 was planned under Clinton's watch simply because the terrorists were emboldend by the US' lack of serious response to prior attacks and the "cutting and running" we were doing a la Somalia under difficult conditions. They felt that we didnt have the stomach for this kind of fight and felt they could get away with something like 9/11. They obviously underestimated Bush's resolve over this and yet they are getting the exact response they hoped for under the left who are doing everything they can to undermine the guy who's trying to protect them from these scumbags.

 

But Kerry has a plan.

[erynthered]

Apparently, Putin seems to think it would. He may also have a little bit more information then you when it comes to global terror. As far as his opinon goes? I agree with him. Maybe it was Kerry's coment about "Fighting a more sensitive war on Terror" that got him. Dont know.......... Or maybe because he doesnt trust him, dont know.

[PastaJoe]

Maybe it was Kerry's coment about "Fighting a more sensitive war on Terror" that got him. Dont know.......... Or maybe because he doesnt trust him, dont know.

 

It's because Putin knows that Bush will continue to turn a blind eye to his crackdown on civil rights and political opposition, as he does with Musarref in Pakistan, the Saudi royalty, and Sharon's treatment of Palestinians.

[erynthered]

It's because Putin knows that Bush will continue to turn a blind eye to his crackdown on civil rights and political opposition, as he does with Musarref in Pakistan, the Saudi royalty, and Sharon's treatment of Palestinians.

76125[/snapback]

 

Has nothing to do with the 300 or so children killed by terrorists in Russia either.

[PastaJoe]

Putin's tactics started way before the children were attacked. And it is simplistic to lump in the Chechan seperatists or Basque seperatists in Spain or Palestinians with Al-Quada terrorists. Most of those groups have grievances within their countries and do not target the United States, and each requires different political solutions to resolve their grievances, as was the case in Northern Ireland. Putin seeks political and international cover by lumping in the Chechen conflict with world terrorism. What about the heavy handed tactics the Russians use on Chechens? It doesn't excuse the Chechen response, but the Russians have also have blood on their hands.

[erynthered]

And it is not simplistic to lump in Musarref in Pakistan, the Saudi royalty, and Sharon's treatment of Palestinians.

 

How ironic.

[PastaJoe]

It is not ironic that the Bush adminstration has turned a blind eye to all of those leaders and how they treat their citizens and their rights, while at the same time we're told that we should be spreading democracy in Iraq and across the world. Putin stole the last election by supressing opposition media and even jailing opponents, Musharef came to power in a military coup, the Saudis don't have elections for their head of state, and the Palestinians can't even get their own country to have elections. So much for spreading democracy.

[DC Tom]

It is not ironic that the Bush adminstration has turned a blind eye to all of those leaders and how they treat their citizens and their rights, while at the same time we're told that we should be spreading democracy in Iraq and across the world. Putin stole the last election by supressing opposition media and even jailing opponents, Musharef came to power in a military coup, the Saudis don't have elections for their head of state, and the Palestinians can't even get their own country to have elections. So much for spreading democracy.

76188[/snapback]

 

Not at all. "Spreading democracy" is just a marketing slogan. "Countering the spread of terrorism" is the goal. And propping up regimes like the Saudis or Musharraf is a necessary - even vital - part of that goal. Because believe me, however undesirable either might be, you don't want the alternative.

[PastaJoe]

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, it just depends on your perspective. Keep supporting governments that suppress human and civil rights and you're just growing the next generation of frustrated people that have nothing to lose and everything to gain from terrorist activity.

[erynthered]

It is not ironic that the Bush adminstration has turned a blind eye to all of those leaders and how they treat their citizens and their rights, while at the same time we're told that we should be spreading democracy in Iraq and across the world. Putin stole the last election by supressing opposition media and even jailing opponents, Musharef came to power in a military coup, the Saudis don't have elections for their head of state, and the Palestinians can't even get their own country to have elections. So much for spreading democracy.

76188[/snapback]

 

 

Joe, I hope you dont things happen as quick as turning on a light switch. Because thats they way I'm reading your post. You cant deal with everyone the same way.

I'm not going to defend Bush or nail Kerry to the wall here right now. My post said that Putin would endorse Bush. I thought and still think its a nice endorsement. But it has no meaning in this election. Just like Arafat endorsing Kerry. Its moot, but I thought it interesting and I was repling to the original topic of the thread, where as you went some where else, then did a circle.

[DC Tom]

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, it just depends on your perspective.  Keep supporting governments that suppress human and civil rights and you're just growing the next generation of frustrated people that have nothing to lose and everything to gain from terrorist activity.

76212[/snapback]

 

Yep. Largely the same thing created the Taliban and al Qaeda (lack of foresight and "blowback"). Ten years from now, some president is going to have to clean up the !@#$ed-up decisions perpetrated now wrt Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Ten years after THAT, some other president is going to have to clean up HIS !@#$ed-up decisions.

 

Problem being, though, that the policy towards Saudi Arabia and Pakistan is probably the right one given the immediate crisis (i.e. reactionary Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, and the risk of them either getting control of the Persian Gulf if Saudi Arabia falls, or getting control of nukes if Pakistan falls.) If you have a better idea than propping up the current regimes as bulwarks against $120/barrel oil and a completely bankrupt economy, or downtown Dallas being relocated to Alabama as tiny little radioactive particles, I'm all ears.

[Bill from NYC]

So here's a seroius question, and be honest:  If someone else, say Chiraq for example, made the same statements would you react the same?  Or would you say that foreigner ought to keep their danged opinions to themselves and not meddle in our elections?

 

I think Putin may just be ticked off that Kerry's comments about loose nukes and Russia put his nose out of joint...but I guess only Putin knows his motives.

 

Nevertheless I think it's somewhat odd that he would make these statements and even odder that people who are normally suspcious of others' motives seem to want to take those statements at face value.

 

Note to moderator:  this is not an attack, just a question.

75167[/snapback]

 

Debbie, Debbie, Debbie. Are you serious? You are telling us that you cannot see the difference?

 

Russia is knee deep in Islamic Fundamentalist scum. Chirac is knee deep in corruption that came from Saddam oil money.

 

Right now, France is not the target. They are the darlings of the Islamic Fundamentalist movement. They work against the USA and the fight vs. terrorism, and Jews are getting their asses kicked in France to boot. What could be better to a scumbag Islamic terrorist, right? Btw, their day will come. Terrorist scumbags hate the west, and this love affair will be fleeting at best under any conditions.

 

This is nothing new. Putin was on national TV speaking with Barbara Walters after 9/11. He stated that Clinton ignored his warnings about these scumbags, and even had a snide remark about Hillary! Are you telling us that you forgot this?

 

Deb, Putin has problems. He is facing hard line commies, a more powerful "mafia" than America has ever seen, Islamic scum, and horrible poverty. Many of the most beautiful women in his country can be seen on the internet, "searching for a man between 24 and 65," desperately trying to vacate their country. Now, this scum is killing their children in schools.

 

The LAST thing he needs is a waffling, pansy ass weakling to be the President of the United States. He needs someone committed to fighting terror across the globe.

[nobody]

Putin is using the "war on terrorism" as a way to take total power in Russia. He is creating a totalitarian state under the guise of fighting terrorism. What is going on in Russia really is a civil war with Chechnya, or however it is spelled. Of course it is based in religion.

 

Just imagine if some southern states tried to cecede from the US nowadays.

[spidey]

9/11 was planned under Clinton's watch

76107[/snapback]

I just love how some fail to acknowledge that GWB was running the country on 9/11. I also love how they claim that if Kerry is elected we will be attacked again. So the terrorists were so afraid of W that they decided to go ahead with the plan 9 months after he took office?

 

What you folks fail to see is that Clinton did go after Osama and friends after the Cole but the intelligence community never could pinpoint him or when they did they had no assets in the area to take him out. Invasion of afghanistan or Iraq after the Cole would have caused the republicans and most of the american public to go nuts. This type of action would have been unjustified just as the invasion of Iraq this time around was.

[_BiB_]

I just love how some fail to acknowledge that GWB was running the country on 9/11.  I also love how they claim that if Kerry is elected we will be attacked again.  So the terrorists were so afraid of W that they decided to go ahead with the plan 9 months after he took office?

 

What you folks fail to see is that Clinton did go after Osama and friends after the Cole but the intelligence community never could pinpoint him or when they did they had no assets in the area to take him out.    Invasion of afghanistan or Iraq after the Cole would have caused the republicans and most of the american public to go nuts.  This type of action would have been unjustified just as the invasion of Iraq this time around was.

76489[/snapback]

 

Just in general terms. This is totally non-partisan.

 

stevestojan moves so slow in Government that it takes probably two years to even get something started. Any new administration is dealing with the programs and policies of the old because it takes time to get things staffed and implemented.

 

I personally acknowledge that Bush was in office 9/11. I further acknowledge that his gang, as well as the gang who actually does things no matter who is president were flat on their ass. 9/11 has promulgated a complete revision of the Defense Department, and other agencies. It's building on things started under the Former Bush and Clinton administrations and interjecting many new concepts of their own.

 

Whether it sounds partisan or not, I'm really being objective here, is that current policies and strategies-as well as organizational efforts and changes in how we do almost EVERYTHING are generally sound, and effective. Nothing is perfect. There will always be something wrong. Is the situation in Iraq screwed up? Sure it is. But the decision to be there taken in context with the overall was the right one. It's been echoed by many that even the best of plans go out the window once the first bullet is fired. Oddly enough, in terms of fighting "The War on Terror", the Iraq situation is working out to our advantage. Doesn't do a lot for the Iraqis though.

 

I have no way of convincing you, or anyone else on a message board that things are actually a lot better than they appear to be. My problem is since it takes literally years to make changes, and we are going the right way in terms of the overall "war", this is a piss poor time to start over. Most of you opine on the stuff. I do it for a living. What I mean by that is I'd love to sit around the fire and Kumbaya, but that's not the reality. Do I think we should have done things different? Of course I do. Me and about 30,000 other people who understand hindsight. We're going to be in Iraq until Iraq is stable and an ally. Period. Anything else is stupidity, and a waste of billions of dollars and thousands of lives.

If it takes a year, fine. If it takes 20, that's fine too. Not preferred, but fine, as long as it gets done.

 

That said, we really ain't doing bad. Senator Kerry-I hope-is aware of the realities and is just pandering soundbites to the electorate. Since 99% of the electorate doesn't have a clue as to what is really going on it doesn't matter. He's going to have to play some of the same games should he get elected. What's bad for him is they will be in direct contradiction to his promises. Maybe he hopes no one will notice, I would suspect more of a "blame Bush" type of approach. But, whatever.

 

Within the DoD, Kerry's "ideas" are probably much more known than what one gets from the mainstream media. Fortunately, some of his ideas will take a Congressional vote to change. But you never know.

 

There's no changing how people in their own hearts view things. An example is bringing in "Our Allies" (euphanism for the UN) to settle up the problems. Believe me, they are drooling at the thought. Bush basically says "if they agree, they agree, if they don't they don't". Some of you prefer the former, some the latter.

 

One has to decide what is in the best interest of the United States of America. We are the only remaining Superpower. The rules are different for us. Many, many questions. how about this one? Does Al Qaida, North Korea or Iran prefer an America that plays resolution time at the UN? Or do they prefer an America that will just go out and do?

 

I don't know that voting for Kerry will result in another attack anymore than I know if voting for Bush will. Welcome to the chess game. Great arguments for both. I'm frankly surprised in some ways we haven't had another yet. I could say that we have crippled Al Qaida enough that they are probably not capable right now, but those on the left would call that partisan. This also doesn't mean that they can't come up with something for later. I do know that statedpolicies will, 10 years from now, as far as Americas best interests are concerned give advantage Bush.

 

Why are some folks so concerned with whether the guy on the street in France or Jordan likes us? News Flash! They have NEVER liked us. We've given them something real visible to B word about. And the happy media pollers are only too happy to oblige. The key thing is that the governments are working with us, and us with them. That's what's important. France doesn't want to send Troops to Iraq? If it were in their own interest to do so, they would. The French, under Bush's Proliferation Security Initiative have also intercepted and interdicted WMD technology being proliferated by their own people.

 

Whatever, just trying to put some kind of perspective on things that isn't a spin.