Major Terrorist Threat in UK-US discovered - Page 7

scaeagles · 08-10-2006, 12:52 PM

Are you an isolationist, then, NA? I don't know how to not get "involved".

Not Afraid · 08-10-2006, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Are you an isolationist, then, NA? I don't know how to not get "involved".

If you makes you feel more comfortable to put an overarching label on me, then go for it. I just may not agree with all of the principals of "isolationism" all of the time.

Motorboat Cruiser · 08-10-2006, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nephythys

It is also in-fighting that was there long before we did anything-

All the more reason why the idea of spreading democracy in Iraq was an impossibility from the start. These people never had any intention of living together peacefully. Why on earth did we think we could change that?

scaeagles · 08-10-2006, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

I'm not sure that the massive demonstration that occurred last weekend with over 100,000 Iraqis chanting "death to america" would support this.

Quite a protest, to be sure. Is this in response to day to day operations in Iraq or the Israel/Hezbollah situation? Perhaps both. Iraqis, I'm sure, have no more love for Israel than most other Arab nations.

scaeagles · 08-10-2006, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

If you makes you feel more comfortable to put an overarching label on me, then go for it. I just may not agree with all of the principals of "isolationism" all of the time.

It was an honest question, not meant to be rhetorical. I know isolationists. I, obviously, am not one.

If we don't get involved in Iraq invading Kuwait, Saddam next goes into Saudi Arabia. If we don't get involved in Afghanistan, the Taliban coninues to offer safe haven to all of Al Qaida. If we don't get involved in Bosnia, ethnic cleansing turns into genocide. If we don't get invol.....you get the idea.

Staying too far removed from the situation has never been beneficial. Usually the situation grows until it can no longer be ignored.

Stan4dSteph · 08-10-2006, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mousepod

Here's one question: if all of the 9/11 bombers were from Saudi Arabia and all of the conspirators arrested today are from Pakistan, why do we wage war in Afghanistan and Iraq?

What I heard on the TV news this morning is that all arrested today are UK citizens, but of Pakistani descent. They are "home grown," just like those who bombed the subways last July.

scaeagles · 08-10-2006, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

All the more reason why the idea of spreading democracy in Iraq was an impossibility from the start.

I kind of thought the idea was to oust Saddam.

A large majority of Iraq (speaking in terms of geography, not populace...I have no idea how much of the populace lives in the peaceful areas) is now peaceful and functioning. Baghdad certainly not.

Motorboat Cruiser · 08-10-2006, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Is this in response to day to day operations in Iraq or the Israel/Hezbollah situation? Perhaps both.

Perhaps? Every poll taken has shown that more than two-thirds of all Iraqi's want us gone. Remove the Kurds from the poll and the number rises to over 80%. Even our military commanders have backed this up.

Motorboat Cruiser · 08-10-2006, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I kind of thought the idea was to oust Saddam.

That isn't how it was sold. And besides, at what expense? Is it better to have a theocracy that still hates America just as much, and a new breeding ground for terrorists, in place of a dictator that kept Iraq from descending into Civil War?

Prudence · 08-10-2006, 01:10 PM

I wonder what the new status quo will be. I suppose I should be more concerned with global affairs, but I'm selfishly thinking about me.

I know today is a day of flux and various officials and experts make recommnedations and predictions that may or may not become reality and that making plans based on today's guidelines is a foolish endeavor.

Still, I wonder. I didn't think my mascara would every be a bit of dangerous contraband. Will the no liquid rule persist? My guess is yes. My understanding is that the liquid bomb requires a liquid something or other, a powdered explosive, and an ignition source. (This is probably too simplistic and represents only what info I was able to glean from scanning the stories this morning.) Prohibiting the ignition source would mean prohibiting all battery-operated items - phones, laptops, wristwatches, iPods, et.... Prohibiting the powdered items would be extremely difficult as I understand it - effectively prohibiting all carry-on items. Therefore, the easiest item to prohibit is liquids.

But will it go further? Will we all go to the airport in the future with our passports and valium in ziploc baggies?

And that can have a serious impact on the travel industry. Airlines lose luggage all the damn time - and now I have to pack my favorite lipstick in checked luggage? I realize this is a minor inconvenience in the whole scheme of being blown up and sprinkled over some metropolitan area, but the travel "rules" have always been to check as little as possible. Heck, some airlines have started (Ryanair) or were planning to start (I swear I read this somewhere) charging to check luggage. If I have to check everything, luggage delivery is unreliable, I can't bring bottled water on the plane, airlines only serve for sale food/beverage for a significant markup, and I have to sit on a six-hour flight with no book, magazine, or anything, then I'm thinking I won't be flying any more. And heck - why just planes? They haven't before, but I keep wondering when these measures will extend to other forms of transportation - trains, buses, boats.

Now, like I said, this is all selfish thinking. And I'm sure y'all can think of any number of erroneous presumptions I've just made, and criticize my gall in thinking of my own comfort.

But I do think of my own comfort. And I'm not the only one. So, like 9/11, the impact isn't just a 5-hour security line today, it's me deciding to stop planning that vacation 18 months away because the combo of fear and inconvenience is just too much and I'd rather plan something closer to home. I can't be the only one thinking that.

And that's a potentially significant economic impact.

So, it's basically win-win for the terrorists. Either we do what they say and they win, or our economy takes one hit after another, and they win.

08-10-2006, 12:52 PM	#61
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Are you an isolationist, then, NA? I don't know how to not get "involved".
	Submit to Quotes

08-10-2006, 01:10 PM	#70
Prudence Beelzeboobs, Esq. Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Gavel - I haz it Posts: 6,287	I wonder what the new status quo will be. I suppose I should be more concerned with global affairs, but I'm selfishly thinking about me. I know today is a day of flux and various officials and experts make recommnedations and predictions that may or may not become reality and that making plans based on today's guidelines is a foolish endeavor. Still, I wonder. I didn't think my mascara would every be a bit of dangerous contraband. Will the no liquid rule persist? My guess is yes. My understanding is that the liquid bomb requires a liquid something or other, a powdered explosive, and an ignition source. (This is probably too simplistic and represents only what info I was able to glean from scanning the stories this morning.) Prohibiting the ignition source would mean prohibiting all battery-operated items - phones, laptops, wristwatches, iPods, et.... Prohibiting the powdered items would be extremely difficult as I understand it - effectively prohibiting all carry-on items. Therefore, the easiest item to prohibit is liquids. But will it go further? Will we all go to the airport in the future with our passports and valium in ziploc baggies? And that can have a serious impact on the travel industry. Airlines lose luggage all the damn time - and now I have to pack my favorite lipstick in checked luggage? I realize this is a minor inconvenience in the whole scheme of being blown up and sprinkled over some metropolitan area, but the travel "rules" have always been to check as little as possible. Heck, some airlines have started (Ryanair) or were planning to start (I swear I read this somewhere) charging to check luggage. If I have to check everything, luggage delivery is unreliable, I can't bring bottled water on the plane, airlines only serve for sale food/beverage for a significant markup, and I have to sit on a six-hour flight with no book, magazine, or anything, then I'm thinking I won't be flying any more. And heck - why just planes? They haven't before, but I keep wondering when these measures will extend to other forms of transportation - trains, buses, boats. Now, like I said, this is all selfish thinking. And I'm sure y'all can think of any number of erroneous presumptions I've just made, and criticize my gall in thinking of my own comfort. But I do think of my own comfort. And I'm not the only one. So, like 9/11, the impact isn't just a 5-hour security line today, it's me deciding to stop planning that vacation 18 months away because the combo of fear and inconvenience is just too much and I'd rather plan something closer to home. I can't be the only one thinking that. And that's a potentially significant economic impact. So, it's basically win-win for the terrorists. Either we do what they say and they win, or our economy takes one hit after another, and they win. __________________ traguna macoities tracorum satis de
	Submit to Quotes