The Energon Pub

by **Mr.RobotoAutoMan** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 6:53 pm

WASHINGTON - Iraq has achieved only spotty military and political progress toward a democratic society, the Bush administration conceded Thursday, an unenthusiastic assessment followed quickly by a House vote to withdraw U.S. troops by spring.

The measure passed 223-201 in the Democratic-controlled House despite a veto threat from President Bush, who has ruled out any change in war policy before September.

“The security situation in Iraq remains complex and extremely challenging,” the administration report concluded. The economic picture is uneven, it added, and the government has not yet enacted vital political reconciliation legislation.
As many as 80 suicide bombers per month cross into the country from Syria, said the interim assessment, which is to be followed by a fuller accounting in September from Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in the region.

“I believe we can succeed in Iraq, and I know we must,” Bush said at a White House news conference at which he stressed the interim nature of the report.

Describing a document produced by his administration at Congress’ insistence, he said there was satisfactory progress by the Iraqi government toward meeting eight of 18 so-called benchmarks, unsatisfactory progress on eight more and mixed results on the others.

To his critics — including an increasing number of Republicans — he said bluntly, “I don’t think Congress ought to be running the war. I think they ought to be funding the troops.”

‘Waited too long’
Democrats saw it differently.

A few hours after Bush’s remarks, Democratic leaders engineered passage of legislation requiring the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops to begin within 120 days, and to be completed by April 1, 2008. The measure envisions a limited residual force to train Iraqis, protect U.S. assets and fight al-Qaida and other terrorists.

The vote generally followed party lines: 219 Democrats and four Republicans in favor, and 191 Republicans and 10 Democrats opposed.

“The report makes clear that not even the White House can conclude there has been significant progress,” said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

To Bush and others who seek more time for the administration’s policy to work, she said, “We have already waited too long.”

Republicans sided with Bush — at least for now. The bill “undermines Gen. Petraeus, undermines the mission he has to make America and Iraq safe,” said the House GOP leader, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio. “What we have here is not leadership, it’s negligence.”

'Tough fighting'
The 25-page administration report was issued in the fifth year of a war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,600 U.S. troops and is costing U.S. taxpayers an estimated $10 billion a month.

Bush announced last winter he was ordering thousands of additional troops to the war zone, but the full complement has only arrived in recent weeks. “The full surge in this respect has only just begun,” the report said.

It warned of “tough fighting” during the summer as U.S. and Iraqi forces “seek to seize the initiative from early gains and shape conditions of longer-term stabilization.”

The president sampled the report at his nationally televised session with reporters.

Iraqis have provided the three brigades they promised for operations in and around Baghdad. And the Iraqi government is spending nearly $7.3 billion from its own funds this year to train, equip and modernize its forces,” he said.

But in other areas, he added, they “have much more work to do. For example, they’ve not done enough to prepare for local elections or pass a law to share oil revenues.”

Mixed report card
The report was blunt at points and more opaque at others.

While Iraq has begun to show progress in providing services, “citizens nationwide complain about government corruption and the lack of essential services, such as electricity, fuel supply, sewer, water, health and sanitation.”

At another point, it added, “The prerequisites for a successful militia disarmament program are not present.”

In addition to citing a Syrian connection for terrorists, it also said Iran has continued to foster instability in Iraq.

It cited measured progress on the economic front. “Unemployment has eased slightly and inflation is currently abating,” the report said. It omitted mention of a June 1 Pentagon report estimating an annual inflation rate at 33 percent and the Iraqi government estimate of joblessness at 17 percent.

Rising pressure
In an evident jab at critics of Bush’s war policies, the report also said progress toward political reconciliation was hampered by “increasing concern among Iraqi political leaders that the United States may not have a long term-commitment to Iraq.”

Despite rising pressure from Republicans in Congress for a change in course, Bush was adamant.

“When we start drawing down our forces in Iraq, it will (be) because our military commanders say the conditions on the ground are right, not because pollsters say it’ll be good politics,” he said.

Before Thursday’s House vote, GOP aides said they hoped to suffer only a few party defections, but the administration faced a more volatile situation in the Senate. There, three Republicans have already said they intend to vote for a separate withdrawal measure, and several others have signed on as supporters of a bipartisan bill to implement a series of changes recommended last winter by the Iraqi Study Group.

Reid: Bush should listen
Even so, it appears the president’s allies have the support to block a final Senate vote in a showdown expected next week.

If the report changed any minds in Congress, it was not immediately apparent.

“It is time for the president to listen to the American people and do what is necessary to protect this nation. That means admitting his Iraq policy has failed, working with the Democrats and Republicans in Congress on crafting a new way forward in Iraq and refocusing our collective efforts on defeating al-Qaida,” said Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

But Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said Congress has already decided it will be September before the administration’s strategy can be evaluated properly. “Certainly the young soldiers and Marines risking their lives today on the streets of Baghdad and Ramadi would agree — and they deserve our patience.”

by **Master Shake** » Sat Jul 14, 2007 1:04 pm

It's about damn time.

by **Jar Axel** » Sat Jul 14, 2007 1:35 pm

-Ulquiorra- wrote:It's about damn time.

You and everyone else who says that is not just wrong they are dead wrong. Endeavers like this aren't over after a few years they take decades. If we pull out now the new and still unstable Iraqi government will colapse under the continued attack of the terrorists and powerhungry/mad clerics. We will wind up right back were we started if not worse off than when Saddam was in power. To put it bluntly decisions like this are one of the major pitfalls of republicisim/democracy and are one of the major reasons Rome became an Empire.

News Credits: 2 · by **Shadowman** » Sat Jul 14, 2007 3:49 pm

Jar Axel wrote:
-Ulquiorra- wrote:It's about damn time.

You and everyone else who says that is not just wrong they are dead wrong. Endeavers like this aren't over after a few years they take decades. If we pull out now the new and still unstable Iraqi government will colapse under the continued attack of the terrorists and powerhungry/mad clerics. We will wind up right back were we started if not worse off than when Saddam was in power. To put it bluntly decisions like this are one of the major pitfalls of republicisim/democracy and are one of the major reasons Rome became an Empire.

What he said. We went in, and that was wrong. Now we can't get out.

Too many bad things could happen if we leave now.

Like Prowl76 on Facebook · by **Prowl76** » Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:12 pm

There really is no good solution to all of this.

by **DesalationReborn** » Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:47 pm

Jar Axel wrote:
-Ulquiorra- wrote:It's about damn time.

You and everyone else who says that is not just wrong they are dead wrong. Endeavers like this aren't over after a few years they take decades. If we pull out now the new and still unstable Iraqi government will colapse under the continued attack of the terrorists and powerhungry/mad clerics. We will wind up right back were we started if not worse off than when Saddam was in power. To put it bluntly decisions like this are one of the major pitfalls of republicisim/democracy and are one of the major reasons Rome became an Empire.

That's the good thing about dictatorships-- consistency and speed. Part of the reason the Middle East hates us so much is the fact that, due to changing administrations, one decade we're sending a country millions in supplies, and the next we pull out in a second and back their enemies while we assasinate their leader.

Like it or not, consistency is what we need now. We aren't going to make many more friends staying there than we already have, but we'll sure as hell have many more enemies if we pull out the rug now.

Building a 21st century nation in a 14th century culture takes time, a lot of time, as all large projects do. The problem is people only see headline to headline, and those smart enough to see beyond that, the rulers, pander to the ignorant's will to escalate their own wealth and power. For the most part, our nation is a divided, selfish oligarchy ruling over sheep.

In my opinion, a benevolent dictatorship would be the best from of government... but, due to the fickle will of men and the brevity of their lives, it never stays benevolent.

by **Nightracer GT** » Sun Jul 15, 2007 12:31 am

And the funny part is, the House voted to do it.

Ooooo, the House! Looks like it's all over now!

Oh wait, the House is just one part of the government, and Bush doesn't really like them very much right now...

News Credits: 349 · by **Bed Bugs** » Sun Jul 15, 2007 4:32 am

Problem is though, the situation will escalate the same, regardless of US military presence. The country WILL collapse on itself. Blood WILL be spilled. Somebody we WILL NOT like will come to power. To me, we have as much influence on the Iraqi government presently as we did with the South Vietnamese, and it is slipping by the day.

The innocent of that region have my sympathies, but I know the inevitable outcome. They will have to suffer to return stability to the region, this pain will most likely come from rebel warlords or a new dictator himself. Much like the several African nations in the past 20 years. It is unfortunately, but a necessary evil. With the amount of tension and weapons built up in the region, rivals will exterminate each other, and anyone else who gets in their way.

So with that in mind, I would much rather bring our troops and civilians home, before we lose even more to enemy crossfire and IED's. No matter what we try to do, it will not work, so we should go with the option that saves the most American lives and leave.

I understand that people like to argue, "Then the one's who died will have died in vain" but in reality, every one that has been killed over there HAS died in vain. The goal of the operation will never be achieved. It's the equivilant of punching a brick wall in an attempt to level it, only to end up with bloody or broken knuckles. Energy and resources are wasted, plus negative results are produced.

So no, I don't believe the right answer is to stay. I believe quite the contrary. The right answer is to leave Iraq and help our allies that happen to border the territory protect themselves. We can not control this problem from the inside, but with a joint effort from surrounding nations, I think that we can contain it from the outside.

And before you hit that quote button, think about what you're typing. It's ok to disagree, as this is a debatable topic, but let's try to avoid any mud-slinging, shall we?

by **Loki120** » Sun Jul 15, 2007 9:47 am

Fender Bender wrote:Problem is though, the situation will escalate the same, regardless of US military presence. The country WILL collapse on itself. Blood WILL be spilled. Somebody we WILL NOT like will come to power. To me, we have as much influence on the Iraqi government presently as we did with the South Vietnamese, and it is slipping by the day.

The innocent of that region have my sympathies, but I know the inevitable outcome. They will have to suffer to return stability to the region, this pain will most likely come from rebel warlords or a new dictator himself. Much like the several African nations in the past 20 years. It is unfortunately, but a necessary evil. With the amount of tension and weapons built up in the region, rivals will exterminate each other, and anyone else who gets in their way.

So with that in mind, I would much rather bring our troops and civilians home, before we lose even more to enemy crossfire and IED's. No matter what we try to do, it will not work, so we should go with the option that saves the most American lives and leave.

I understand that people like to argue, "Then the one's who died will have died in vain" but in reality, every one that has been killed over there HAS died in vain. The goal of the operation will never be achieved. It's the equivilant of punching a brick wall in an attempt to level it, only to end up with bloody or broken knuckles. Energy and resources are wasted, plus negative results are produced.

So no, I don't believe the right answer is to stay. I believe quite the contrary. The right answer is to leave Iraq and help our allies that happen to border the territory protect themselves. We can not control this problem from the inside, but with a joint effort from surrounding nations, I think that we can contain it from the outside.

And before you hit that quote button, think about what you're typing. It's ok to disagree, as this is a debatable topic, but let's try to avoid any mud-slinging, shall we?

And it's reasoning like this as to why it will never work, because nobody wants it to work. Regardless of the reason for going in, in the end it was a noble goal to set up the country to eventually be able to run under it's own power. That's not going to happen in a month, a year, and perhaps not even a decade. So I guess that's that. We give up, throw dirt on the problem and hopes it goes away.

What's funny is that in a couple years, if the country collapses and becomes a breeding ground for anti-western terrorism, it's going to be these same exact people who will bitch that's nobody is doing anything about it.

News Credits: 150 · by **GetterDragun** » Sun Jul 15, 2007 10:27 am

Fender Bender wrote:Problem is though, the situation will escalate the same, regardless of US military presence. The country WILL collapse on itself. Blood WILL be spilled. Somebody we WILL NOT like will come to power. To me, we have as much influence on the Iraqi government presently as we did with the South Vietnamese, and it is slipping by the day.

The innocent of that region have my sympathies, but I know the inevitable outcome. They will have to suffer to return stability to the region, this pain will most likely come from rebel warlords or a new dictator himself. Much like the several African nations in the past 20 years. It is unfortunately, but a necessary evil. With the amount of tension and weapons built up in the region, rivals will exterminate each other, and anyone else who gets in their way.

So with that in mind, I would much rather bring our troops and civilians home, before we lose even more to enemy crossfire and IED's. No matter what we try to do, it will not work, so we should go with the option that saves the most American lives and leave.

I understand that people like to argue, "Then the one's who died will have died in vain" but in reality, every one that has been killed over there HAS died in vain. The goal of the operation will never be achieved. It's the equivilant of punching a brick wall in an attempt to level it, only to end up with bloody or broken knuckles. Energy and resources are wasted, plus negative results are produced.

So no, I don't believe the right answer is to stay. I believe quite the contrary. The right answer is to leave Iraq and help our allies that happen to border the territory protect themselves. We can not control this problem from the inside, but with a joint effort from surrounding nations, I think that we can contain it from the outside.

And before you hit that quote button, think about what you're typing. It's ok to disagree, as this is a debatable topic, but let's try to avoid any mud-slinging, shall we?

Well said.

News Credits: 349 · by **Bed Bugs** » Sun Jul 15, 2007 4:15 pm

Loki120 wrote:
What's funny is that in a couple years, if the country collapses and becomes a breeding ground for anti-western terrorism, it's going to be these same exact people who will bitch that's nobody is doing anything about it.

Isn't it already a breeding ground for anti-western terrorism? I would think the reason Iraq attracts so many terrorists at the moment is that it is one of the few places in the world where they can actively engage the US military. If we use our geography to our advantage (meaning stick to the Western Hemisphere), then they can not attack us. Plus, if we force them to actually plan out an attack, instead of just going out the door and launching an RPG at a convoy, we have better odds of catching them before they commit the act.

What strengthens terrorist organizations and helps recruitment rates is immediate results. This being killing or wounding a soldier, or blowing up a convoy. By being able to deliver these quick results, compared to our promises that seem to be getting further and further away from happening, they are able to sway even more people to turn against us.

And I also do not buy the argument that we need to engage terrorist organizations in foreign lands to prevent another attack here like 9/11. If we pull out of Iraq, we are not inviting another attack. Sure, some groups may test the waters and attempt an attack, but with what we have changed in security practices in a post-9/11 world, we can pretty damn well protect ourselves.

I mean, isn't the fact that we have not had another attack in 6 years proof enough? Some may argue that it is not, however, the only way we ever change anything in our country is if negative consequences are suffered. So if it takes another attack that succeeds for us to find the problem and correct it, we not only deserve getting hit for not finding the problem and correcting, but we also need it to happen so we know what to react to in order to prevent like events from happening again.

If 9/11 had not happened, we would still have pretty lax airport security. We changed it, we haven't had any high-jackings since. We had the shoe bomber, we made people take their shoes off and put them through the X-ray machine. He did not succeed, but the attempt was more than enough to show that there was still a way to endanger aircraft, and we've taken measures to prevent that situation from ever happening again.

As our security measures evolve, the better we become, but so do our enemies. Maintaining our advantage over them is vital by planning and anticipating where attacks are likely to come from and where our weak spots (such as the Mexican border) are so that we can protect them.

by **Jar Axel** » Sun Jul 15, 2007 8:37 pm

Uhh FB we havn't gone 6 years without an attack on US soil, not even half that. Besides even with the increased border security we still stand no chance of stoping illegal alliens much less determened terrorists. Now if you stop and think about it remove ourselves from Iraque and they still can just step right outside their door (figuratively speaking) and make a major stab at us because of all the major bases, shiping lanes, exctra that will still be in the area.

I should also point out that the majority of the terrorists currently causing problems in Iraque are not Iraquis.

News Credits: 349 · by **Bed Bugs** » Sun Jul 15, 2007 9:16 pm

Jar Axel wrote:Uhh FB we havn't gone 6 years without an attack on US soil, not even half that.

September 11th - 2001

Today - 2007

That's six, ain't it (well it will be six in September)? Unless another actual attack has happened that I am not aware of at this moment.

Jar Axel wrote:I should also point out that the majority of the terrorists currently causing problems in Iraque are not Iraquis.

Very true, and I already pointed out why they are there.

by **Jar Axel** » Sun Jul 15, 2007 11:17 pm

Fender Bender wrote:
Jar Axel wrote:Uhh FB we havn't gone 6 years without an attack on US soil, not even half that.

September 11th - 2001

Today - 2007

That's six, ain't it (well it will be six in September)? Unless another actual attack has happened that I am not aware of at this moment.

.

Several in fact; just with all thats been going on right now they just didn't get all that much media attention. The reason people seem to think no attacks have happened here in the US since 9/11 is we have in fact been lucky quite lucky in that we haven't had an attack anywear near as corridinated since the most corridinated attack (9/11) of the last several decades.

News Credits: 349 · by **Bed Bugs** » Sun Jul 15, 2007 11:50 pm

Jar Axel wrote:
Fender Bender wrote:
Jar Axel wrote:Uhh FB we havn't gone 6 years without an attack on US soil, not even half that.

September 11th - 2001

Today - 2007

That's six, ain't it (well it will be six in September)? Unless another actual attack has happened that I am not aware of at this moment.

.

Several in fact; just with all thats been going on right now they just didn't get all that much media attention. The reason people seem to think no attacks have happened here in the US since 9/11 is we have in fact been lucky quite lucky in that we haven't had an attack anywear near as corridinated since the most corridinated attack (9/11) of the last several decades.

Could you supply some examples so I can further prove my point about us reacting to new techniques in the evolving field of anti-terrorism? :grin:

It has nothing to do with luck.

by **Jar Axel** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 12:32 am

Fender Bender wrote:
Jar Axel wrote:
Fender Bender wrote:
Jar Axel wrote:Uhh FB we havn't gone 6 years without an attack on US soil, not even half that.

September 11th - 2001

Today - 2007

That's six, ain't it (well it will be six in September)? Unless another actual attack has happened that I am not aware of at this moment.

.

Several in fact; just with all thats been going on right now they just didn't get all that much media attention. The reason people seem to think no attacks have happened here in the US since 9/11 is we have in fact been lucky quite lucky in that we haven't had an attack anywear near as corridinated since the most corridinated attack (9/11) of the last several decades.

Could you supply some examples so I can further prove my point about us reacting to new techniques in the evolving field of anti-terrorism?

It has nothing to do with luck.

O right so our as of yet having another attack as bad as 9/11 has nothing to do with the fact that another attack of that size simply has nothing to do with the fact that nobody has launched one at us yet and everything to do with our worthless anti-teroorism? Do you honestly expect me to belive that when not even two years ago the only reason we even found out about an attack was because a suicide bommber got cold feet and walked off a plane leaving his bomb in the carryon luggage for us to find?

News Credits: 349 · by **Bed Bugs** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:35 am

Jar Axel wrote:
Fender Bender wrote:
Jar Axel wrote:
Fender Bender wrote:
Jar Axel wrote:Uhh FB we havn't gone 6 years without an attack on US soil, not even half that.

September 11th - 2001

Today - 2007

That's six, ain't it (well it will be six in September)? Unless another actual attack has happened that I am not aware of at this moment.

.

Several in fact; just with all thats been going on right now they just didn't get all that much media attention. The reason people seem to think no attacks have happened here in the US since 9/11 is we have in fact been lucky quite lucky in that we haven't had an attack anywear near as corridinated since the most corridinated attack (9/11) of the last several decades.

Could you supply some examples so I can further prove my point about us reacting to new techniques in the evolving field of anti-terrorism?

It has nothing to do with luck.

O right so our as of yet having another attack as bad as 9/11 has nothing to do with the fact that another attack of that size simply has nothing to do with the fact that nobody has launched one at us yet and everything to do with our worthless anti-teroorism? Do you honestly expect me to belive that when not even two years ago the only reason we even found out about an attack was because a suicide bommber got cold feet and walked off a plane leaving his bomb in the carryon luggage for us to find?

Dude, I don't know how ya did it, but ya did. You figured out a way to disagree on the one thing I thought we agreed upon. I never said that attacks have not been attempted, I know they have, however, none of them have succeeded in the past 6 years. That is because we are getting better and finding them before they take place. So I don't know why you started to rant when we both concur that it is because of the better job our intelligence agencies are doing that we have not actually had a successful attack on US soil since 9/11.

See, I wanted some instances of the attacks you know of, because I know they failed, they did not succeed. These are actually considered "attempts" as they have all failed. It has to succeed to be considered an "attack". The reason they fail is partly because the terrorists are inept, but mostly because our agencies are getting smarter.

by **Jar Axel** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 12:47 pm

Fb stop and think for a moment. If the only reason we even know about the example I gave is because the bomber got cold feet and left his bomb on board how is security even responible for that attempt being a failiur?

Would you like to know something else about that attack? There were three seperate groups we only caught one group before the attack; the third succeded in bringing down a plane. So how exactly did our counter terrorism make a difference here? Because only catching one out of three does not look like succesful security measures; in part because there are no 100% successful security measures.

O and before you go spotting off about how it was only one attack; there have been numerous succesful attacks since 9/11, just no attacks on the scale of 9/11 have been attempted.

Like Evolution Prime on Facebook · by **Evolution Prime** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 2:59 pm

Should have just left it "House votes to pull out." That would be such a better topic title.

News Credits: 553 · by **Professor Smooth** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:38 pm

Jar Axel wrote:Fb stop and think for a moment. If the only reason we even know about the example I gave is because the bomber got cold feet and left his bomb on board how is security even responible for that attempt being a failiur?

Would you like to know something else about that attack? There were three seperate groups we only caught one group before the attack; the third succeded in bringing down a plane. So how exactly did our counter terrorism make a difference here? Because only catching one out of three does not look like succesful security measures; in part because there are no 100% successful security measures.

O and before you go spotting off about how it was only one attack; there have been numerous succesful attacks since 9/11, just no attacks on the scale of 9/11 have been attempted.

What terrorist brought down a plane? Your government announces when they have even a "gut feeling" that a terrorist attack "may happen." How on earth are we expected to believe that a terrorist brought down a plane without it making lasting worldwide headlines?

by **ChromedomeMK2** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:08 am

GetterDragun wrote:
Fender Bender wrote:Problem is though, the situation will escalate the same, regardless of US military presence. The country WILL collapse on itself. Blood WILL be spilled. Somebody we WILL NOT like will come to power. To me, we have as much influence on the Iraqi government presently as we did with the South Vietnamese, and it is slipping by the day.

The innocent of that region have my sympathies, but I know the inevitable outcome. They will have to suffer to return stability to the region, this pain will most likely come from rebel warlords or a new dictator himself. Much like the several African nations in the past 20 years. It is unfortunately, but a necessary evil. With the amount of tension and weapons built up in the region, rivals will exterminate each other, and anyone else who gets in their way.

So with that in mind, I would much rather bring our troops and civilians home, before we lose even more to enemy crossfire and IED's. No matter what we try to do, it will not work, so we should go with the option that saves the most American lives and leave.

I understand that people like to argue, "Then the one's who died will have died in vain" but in reality, every one that has been killed over there HAS died in vain. The goal of the operation will never be achieved. It's the equivilant of punching a brick wall in an attempt to level it, only to end up with bloody or broken knuckles. Energy and resources are wasted, plus negative results are produced.

So no, I don't believe the right answer is to stay. I believe quite the contrary. The right answer is to leave Iraq and help our allies that happen to border the territory protect themselves. We can not control this problem from the inside, but with a joint effort from surrounding nations, I think that we can contain it from the outside.

And before you hit that quote button, think about what you're typing. It's ok to disagree, as this is a debatable topic, but let's try to avoid any mud-slinging, shall we?

Well said.

Your the man.

by **Jar Axel** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:43 am

Professor Smooth wrote:
Jar Axel wrote:Fb stop and think for a moment. If the only reason we even know about the example I gave is because the bomber got cold feet and left his bomb on board how is security even responible for that attempt being a failiur?

Would you like to know something else about that attack? There were three seperate groups we only caught one group before the attack; the third succeded in bringing down a plane. So how exactly did our counter terrorism make a difference here? Because only catching one out of three does not look like succesful security measures; in part because there are no 100% successful security measures.

O and before you go spotting off about how it was only one attack; there have been numerous succesful attacks since 9/11, just no attacks on the scale of 9/11 have been attempted.

What terrorist brought down a plane? Your government announces when they have even a "gut feeling" that a terrorist attack "may happen." How on earth are we expected to believe that a terrorist brought down a plane without it making lasting worldwide headlines?

What are you talking about Smooth? There have been a number of plane crashes since 9/11 that are either known to be or suspected to be terroerist related. Lets face most attacks that don't strike a major nerve tend to get swept under the rug deliberatly. It helps to maintain this false view of national security held by the public.

News Credits: 349 · by **Bed Bugs** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:50 am

Jar Axel wrote:
Professor Smooth wrote:
Jar Axel wrote:Fb stop and think for a moment. If the only reason we even know about the example I gave is because the bomber got cold feet and left his bomb on board how is security even responible for that attempt being a failiur?

Would you like to know something else about that attack? There were three seperate groups we only caught one group before the attack; the third succeded in bringing down a plane. So how exactly did our counter terrorism make a difference here? Because only catching one out of three does not look like succesful security measures; in part because there are no 100% successful security measures.

O and before you go spotting off about how it was only one attack; there have been numerous succesful attacks since 9/11, just no attacks on the scale of 9/11 have been attempted.

What terrorist brought down a plane? Your government announces when they have even a "gut feeling" that a terrorist attack "may happen." How on earth are we expected to believe that a terrorist brought down a plane without it making lasting worldwide headlines?

What are you talking about Smooth? There have been a number of plane crashes since 9/11 that are either known to be or suspected to be terroerist related. Lets face most attacks that don't strike a major nerve tend to get swept under the rug deliberatly. It helps to maintain this false view of national security held by the public.

Wait, what? So on one hand, you say the government hides information of attacks from us for propaganda purposes (making us feel safe) while on the other hand, you also say that they widely report failed attacks to do the same.

Am I the only one who is confused by this?

by **OptimusN1701** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:19 am

Fender Bender wrote:
Jar Axel wrote:
Professor Smooth wrote:
Jar Axel wrote:Fb stop and think for a moment. If the only reason we even know about the example I gave is because the bomber got cold feet and left his bomb on board how is security even responible for that attempt being a failiur?

Would you like to know something else about that attack? There were three seperate groups we only caught one group before the attack; the third succeded in bringing down a plane. So how exactly did our counter terrorism make a difference here? Because only catching one out of three does not look like succesful security measures; in part because there are no 100% successful security measures.

O and before you go spotting off about how it was only one attack; there have been numerous succesful attacks since 9/11, just no attacks on the scale of 9/11 have been attempted.

What terrorist brought down a plane? Your government announces when they have even a "gut feeling" that a terrorist attack "may happen." How on earth are we expected to believe that a terrorist brought down a plane without it making lasting worldwide headlines?

What are you talking about Smooth? There have been a number of plane crashes since 9/11 that are either known to be or suspected to be terroerist related. Lets face most attacks that don't strike a major nerve tend to get swept under the rug deliberatly. It helps to maintain this false view of national security held by the public.

Wait, what? So on one hand, you say the government hides information of attacks from us for propaganda purposes (making us feel safe) while on the other hand, you also say that they widely report failed attacks to do the same.

Am I the only one who is confused by this?

Failed attacks make it look like you were responsible for foiling them, making the public feel confident in your abilities.

Personally, I don't think pulling everyone out now will help the matter any. If we do then we have the Iraqis as enemies as well. Besides, Bush WILL veto this bill, and from the vote, I doubt the House will be able to override it.

News Credits: 553 · by **Professor Smooth** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 7:30 pm

Jar Axel wrote:What are you talking about Smooth? There have been a number of plane crashes since 9/11 that are either known to be or suspected to be terroerist related.

Yeah? Where's your evidence?

Jar Axel wrote:Lets face most attacks that don't strike a major nerve tend to get swept under the rug deliberatly. It helps to maintain this false view of national security held by the public.

Does anyone else think that this is just so much conspiracy theory BS? If you are going to make a claim like "terrorists have hijacked and crashed airplanes since 9/11" then you had damn well better have some evidence to back it up. So please, provide us with some news reports.