Welcome to Tactical Gamer

User Tag List

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 40
  1. #1

    leejo's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    47
    Posts
    7,309
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rudy Giuliani explains...

    From http://powerlineblog.com/archives/008155.php

    For some time, and including when I spoke at the Republican Convention, I’ve wondered exactly what John Kerry’s approach would be to terrorism and I’ve wondered whether he had the conviction, the determination, and the focus, and the correct worldview to conduct a successful war against terrorism. And his quotations in the New York Times yesterday make it clear that he lacks that kind of committed view of the world. In fact, his comments are kind of extraordinary, particularly since he thinks we used to before September 11 live in a relatively safe world. He says we have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they’re a nuisance.

    I’m wondering exactly when Senator Kerry thought they were just a nuisance. Maybe when they attacked the USS Cole? Or when they attacked the World Trade Center in 1993? Or when they slaughtered the Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972? Or killed Leon Klinghoffer by throwing him overboard? Or the innumerable number of terrorist acts that they committed in the 70s, the 80s and the 90s, leading up to September 11?

    This is so different from the President’s view and my own, which is in those days, when we were fooling ourselves about the danger of terrorism, we were actually in the greatest danger. When you don’t confront correctly and view realistically the danger that you face, that’s when you’re at the greatest risk. When you at least realize the danger and you begin to confront it, then you begin to become safer. And for him to say that in the good old days – I’m assuming he means the 90s and the 80s and the 70s -- they were just a nuisance, this really begins to explain a lot of his inconsistent positions on how to deal with it because he’s not defining it correctly.

    As a former law enforcement person, he says ‘I know we’re never going to end prostitution. We’re never going to end illegal gambling. But we’re going to reduce it.’ This is not illegal gambling; this isn’t prostitution. Having been a former law enforcement person for a lot longer than John Kerry ever was, I don’t understand his confusion. Even when he says ‘organized crime to a level where it isn’t not on the rise,’ it was not the goal of the Justice Department to just reduce organized crime. It was the goal of the Justice Department to eliminate organized crime. Was there some acceptable level of organized crime: two families, instead of five, or they can control one union but not the other?

    The idea that you can have an acceptable level of terrorism is frightening. How do you explain that to the people who are beheaded or the innocent people that are killed, that we’re going to tolerate a certain acceptable [level] of terrorism, and that acceptable level will exist and then we’ll stop thinking about it? This is an extraordinary statement. I think it is not a statement that in any way is ancillary. I think this is the core of John Kerry’s thinking. This does create some consistency in his thinking.

    It is consistent with his views on Vietnam: that we should have left and abandoned Vietnam. It is consistent with his view of Nicaragua and the Sandinistas. It is consistent with his view of opposing Ronald Reagan at every step of the way in the arms buildup that was necessary to destroy communism. It is consistent with his view of not supporting the Persian Gulf War, which was another extraordinary step. Whatever John Kerry’s global test is, the Persian Gulf War certainly would pass anyone’s global test. If it were up to John Kerry, Saddam Hussein would not only still be in power, but he’d still be controlling Kuwait.

    Finally, what he did after the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, where I guess at that point terrorism was still just a nuisance. He must have thought that because that’s why he proposed seriously reducing our intelligence budget, when you would think someone who was really sensitive to the problem of terrorism would have done just the opposite. I think that rather than being some aberrational comment, it is the core of the John Kerry philosophy: that terrorism is no different than domestic law enforcement problems, and that the best we’re ever going to be able to do is reduce it, so why not follow the more European approach of compromising with it the way Europeans did in the 70s and the 80s and the 90s?

    This is so totally different than what I think was the major advance that President Bush made – significant advance that he made in the Bush Doctrine on September 20, 2001, when he said we’re going to face up to terrorism and we’re going to do everything we can to defeat it, completely. There’s no reason why we have to tolerate global terrorism, just like there’s no reason to tolerate organized crime.

  2.  
  3. #2

    CingularDuality's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Dallas/Ft. Worth area of Texas, USA
    Age
    41
    Posts
    16,861
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: Rudy Giuliani explains...

    Yeah, the concept that there's ever an acceptable level of terrorism is pretty disgusting...

  4.  
  5. #3

    Pokerface's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    MD, USA
    Age
    37
    Posts
    5,003
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: Rudy Giuliani explains...

    Well, so far, there seems to be acceptable levels within the Bush administration. Look at all the places we're NOT attacking right now that pose more of a danger to America than Iraq ever could (unless we unearth some WMDs in the near future).

    Again, another spoonfed spinjob from the Bush camp. One utterance taken out of context, and suddenly it seems like Kerry wants to invite terrorists over for tea and school bombings.

    The goal is to get terrorism to a point where it's not the focal point of our lives, so we can go on living them as we would want to. Bush wants to root out every terror cell from every corner of the globe, which sounds like just the opposite. At least I think Kerry's hope is POSSIBLE; Bush's goal is more akin to "I want to eat every pie in the world" in the hopes that, having eaten them all, no one will make anymore.

    NS Game Officer. TF2 Admin. BF2 Admin / Scripter. PM with issues.
    Tempus: Pokerface is nailing it right on the head. Everyone who is arguing against him is simply arguing against reality.
    <anmuzi> it is not permitted to have privacy or anonymity
    <LazyEye> yeah when I play on TG the server digs though my trash

    Arm yourself with knowledge: TG NS TF2 BF2

  6.  

  7. #4

    CingularDuality's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Dallas/Ft. Worth area of Texas, USA
    Age
    41
    Posts
    16,861
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: Rudy Giuliani explains...

    Quote Originally Posted by Pokerface
    Well, so far, there seems to be acceptable levels within the Bush administration. Look at all the places we're NOT attacking right now that pose more of a danger to America than Iraq ever could (unless we unearth some WMDs in the near future).

    Again, another spoonfed spinjob from the Bush camp. One utterance taken out of context, and suddenly it seems like Kerry wants to invite terrorists over for tea and school bombings.

    The goal is to get terrorism to a point where it's not the focal point of our lives, so we can go on living them as we would want to. Bush wants to root out every terror cell from every corner of the globe, which sounds like just the opposite. At least I think Kerry's hope is POSSIBLE; Bush's goal is more akin to "I want to eat every pie in the world" in the hopes that, having eaten them all, no one will make anymore.
    Spinjob? C'mon.... Would you at least try to look at things objectively? Senator Kerry's comments are out of line. Somebody that wants to be the leader of this country, the most powerful man in the world, can not have such a defeatist attitude.

    This is NOT a nuisance:

  8.  
  9. #5

    leejo's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    47
    Posts
    7,309
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: Rudy Giuliani explains...

    Quote Originally Posted by Pokerface
    Well, so far, there seems to be acceptable levels within the Bush administration. Look at all the places we're NOT attacking right now that pose more of a danger to America than Iraq ever could (unless we unearth some WMDs in the near future).

    Again, another spoonfed spinjob from the Bush camp. One utterance taken out of context, and suddenly it seems like Kerry wants to invite terrorists over for tea and school bombings.
    Wait. Please provide the list of countries you (or Kerry) have advocated attacking?

  10.  
  11. #6

    Pokerface's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    MD, USA
    Age
    37
    Posts
    5,003
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: Rudy Giuliani explains...

    Quote Originally Posted by leejo
    Wait. Please provide the list of countries you (or Kerry) have advocated attacking?
    Kerry said in the first debate that he felt the biggest threat facing America was nuclear proliferation, and I'd tend to agree. There are nations that aren't sleeping on our side of the bed that actually DO possess weapons of mass destruction, and that are counted on the "state-sponsored-terrorism" list.

    Neither Kerry nor I will say that we advocate attacking countries like Iran and North Korea, but I think we'd both say that if state-sponsored-terrorism and WMDs are good reasons to invade someplace, then Bush missed the mark in Iraq, and committed 170,000 troops to an appetizer when the main courses are sitting unnoticed.

    NS Game Officer. TF2 Admin. BF2 Admin / Scripter. PM with issues.
    Tempus: Pokerface is nailing it right on the head. Everyone who is arguing against him is simply arguing against reality.
    <anmuzi> it is not permitted to have privacy or anonymity
    <LazyEye> yeah when I play on TG the server digs though my trash

    Arm yourself with knowledge: TG NS TF2 BF2

  12.  

  13. #7

    Pokerface's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    MD, USA
    Age
    37
    Posts
    5,003
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: Rudy Giuliani explains...

    Quote Originally Posted by CingularDuality
    Spinjob? C'mon.... Would you at least try to look at things objectively? Senator Kerry's comments are out of line. Somebody that wants to be the leader of this country, the most powerful man in the world, can not have such a defeatist attitude.

    This is NOT a nuisance:
    The attitude isn't defeatist. It's REALISTIC. I'd prefer my leader to have feet on the ground as opposed to head in the clouds.

    I want my damn life back, Cing. I don't want to be patted down every time I go to the airport, or to have to worry that an entry gets made in a file at Fort Meade MD everytime I type "The President has to go". Before 9/11, I felt that way, and terrorism existed then, too. Success doesn't have to be measured by the complete eradication of the enemy; getting to the point where I don't have to have my lunchbag searched when I go into my office building would suit me well.

    It's not like we killed every Nazi in WWII, or systematically decimated the British in the Revolutionary War. To say that nothing less that complete destruction of the enemy is bullheaded, and won't give us our way of life back, ever.

    NS Game Officer. TF2 Admin. BF2 Admin / Scripter. PM with issues.
    Tempus: Pokerface is nailing it right on the head. Everyone who is arguing against him is simply arguing against reality.
    <anmuzi> it is not permitted to have privacy or anonymity
    <LazyEye> yeah when I play on TG the server digs though my trash

    Arm yourself with knowledge: TG NS TF2 BF2

  14.  
  15. #8

    leejo's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    47
    Posts
    7,309
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: Rudy Giuliani explains...

    Quote Originally Posted by Pokerface
    Kerry said in the first debate that he felt the biggest threat facing America was nuclear proliferation, and I'd tend to agree. There are nations that aren't sleeping on our side of the bed that actually DO possess weapons of mass destruction, and that are counted on the "state-sponsored-terrorism" list.

    Neither Kerry nor I will say that we advocate attacking countries like Iran and North Korea, but I think we'd both say that if state-sponsored-terrorism and WMDs are good reasons to invade someplace, then Bush missed the mark in Iraq, and committed 170,000 troops to an appetizer when the main courses are sitting unnoticed.
    OK so what ACTION do you propose to address these issues, or more importantly what action has Kerry suggested, and do you think the current administration isn't taking steps to adress the matter?

    While you and Kerry are stewing about how Bush committed troops in the wrong place at the wrong time, consider that all our "attack" divisions have been home, retooling, resting, refitting, and training for well over a year and we now have big bases and significant infrastructure on either side of Iran from which to launch large-scale attacks if we choose. Do you suppose that might affect Iran's behavior?

    Without Iraq as a launching point, what would your plan for invading Iran be? Where would you stage the troops?

    EDIT: You know this whole debate about Iraq really points out the major difference between Bush and Kerry and belies the liberal position that Bush doesn't have a plan. If you truly step back and think strategically, Iraq makes perfect sense. If your plan is to run around stamping out problems like little fires that pop up, Iraq must seem maddening and strange.
    Last edited by leejo; 10-13-2004 at 12:29 PM.

  16.  
  17. #9

    Pokerface's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    MD, USA
    Age
    37
    Posts
    5,003
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: Rudy Giuliani explains...

    Quote Originally Posted by leejo
    OK so what ACTION do you propose to address these issues, or more importantly what action has Kerry suggested, and do you think the current administration isn't taking steps to adress the matter?

    While you and Kerry are stewing about how Bush committed troops in the wrong place at the wrong time, consider that all our "attack" divisions have been home, retooling, resting, refitting, and training for well over a year and we now have big bases and significant infrastructure on either side of Iran from which to launch large-scale attacks if we choose. Do you suppose that might affect Iran's behavior?

    Without Iraq as a launching point, what would your plan for invading Iran be? Where would you stage the troops?

    EDIT: You know this whole debate about Iraq really points out the major difference between Bush and Kerry and belies the liberal position that Bush doesn't have a plan. If you truly step back and think strategically, Iraq makes perfect sense. If your plan is to run around stamping out problems like little fires that pop up, Iraq must seem maddening and strange.
    I wouldn't have proposed any action on our part, aside from "Believe what UN weapon inspectors are saying" and "When we go in, have a UN charter in hand and a coalition with nations numbering more than the fingers on one hand".

    We have bases in Iraq with which to affect Iran's behavior? Why not have bases in IRAN with which to affect Iran's behavior? You know, occupy and dethrone the country that actually HAS WMDs? If Iraq is a staging point, then it should have been called that from the beginning.

    Kerry and I aren't stewing about a damn thing. I think everyone realizes that we're in this mess and we need to make the best of it, using Iraq as a staging point included. But that doesn't mean that Bush didn't mislead America into a war/occupation with half-truths and few viable exit strategies. Good leaders don't do that.

    NS Game Officer. TF2 Admin. BF2 Admin / Scripter. PM with issues.
    Tempus: Pokerface is nailing it right on the head. Everyone who is arguing against him is simply arguing against reality.
    <anmuzi> it is not permitted to have privacy or anonymity
    <LazyEye> yeah when I play on TG the server digs though my trash

    Arm yourself with knowledge: TG NS TF2 BF2

  18.  

  19. #10

    leejo's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    47
    Posts
    7,309
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: Rudy Giuliani explains...

    You can't just invade Iran because you want to. You may recall there was a 6-month buildup of men and supplies before the Iraq invasion. You need a place to put all that stuff.

    And if your plan is to sit around and wait for the UN to decide it's ok to do something, well.... What makes you think that member nations really give a damn about what keeps US citizens alive or safe? In fact, why do you suppose they aren't working for the exact opposite?

    All this crap about an exit strategy is simply a load. Ask Gary Kasperov what he thinks his 25th move in a chess match will be. Ask Bill Parcells what the balance of running plays to passing plays will be in the 3rd quarter of the next football game. War is not a set-piece engagement in which everyone performes a well-rehearsed routine. In war, you (constantly) assess your own strengths and weaknesses, the enemy's strengths and weaknesses, and take action to degrade his strengths and exploit his weaknesses until his position is no longer tenable. That's it!
    Last edited by leejo; 10-13-2004 at 02:49 PM.

  20.  
  21. #11

    leejo's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    47
    Posts
    7,309
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: Rudy Giuliani explains...

    Here's a little reminder of the fact that your position is not only strategically silly, but morally disgusting:

    http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...=1097642533116

    excavators found the body of a mother still clutching her baby. The infant was shot in the back of the head and the mother in the face.
    As the sherrif rounds up the posse and rides off to clean up the mess, Kerry can stay at home with the women worrying about how long it's going to take and how much it's going to cost - the "plan". Meanwhile Bush and co will be doing what my grandfather called "men's work".

  22.  
  23. #12

    Pokerface's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    MD, USA
    Age
    37
    Posts
    5,003
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: Rudy Giuliani explains...

    Again, NO ONE has contended that we haven't removed a bad man from power. Saddam Hussein was not soft and fuzzy -- we get that.

    If we want to play moral police, then let's play moral police. Let's not lead with "Weapons of Mass Destruction", fall back into "PROGRAMS of Weapons of Mass Destruction" and move later into "Talks of Weapons of Mass Destruction". Let's not tenuously link Iraq with Al-Qaeda (and thus an immediate threat to America) to justify moving in. If there's a high and mighty reason to be there, why not lead with that? Why did the moral police need to lie to go in?

    As the sherrif rounds up the posse and rides off to clean up the mess, Kerry can stay at home with the women worrying about how long it's going to take and how much it's going to cost - the "plan". Meanwhile Bush and co will be doing what my grandfather called "men's work".
    You know what? Bush failing to talk about a "plan" while he was off doing the short-sighted "men's work" means that it isn't just men's work. It's going to be the work of today's 8-year-old boys too, because we'll STILL be there in a decade pumping in resources both financial and human.

    "Rounding up a posse to clean up the mess" is NOT what a responsible leader of a world superpower does, leejo. This isn't the Hickory Boys causing a stir at Old Man Jenkin's henhouse. This is sending hundreds of thousands of troops half a world away into the line of fire. "Posse" mentality doesn't fit.

    NS Game Officer. TF2 Admin. BF2 Admin / Scripter. PM with issues.
    Tempus: Pokerface is nailing it right on the head. Everyone who is arguing against him is simply arguing against reality.
    <anmuzi> it is not permitted to have privacy or anonymity
    <LazyEye> yeah when I play on TG the server digs though my trash

    Arm yourself with knowledge: TG NS TF2 BF2

  24.  

  25. #13

    IceCold's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    684
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Unhappy Re: Rudy Giuliani explains...

    Quote Originally Posted by Pokerface
    I wouldn't have proposed any action on our part, aside from "Believe what UN weapon inspectors are saying" and "When we go in, have a UN charter in hand and a coalition with nations numbering more than the fingers on one hand".
    Kinda hard to do that when most of our "allies" on the security council are taking bribes from Iraq using the oil for food program....

  26.  
  27. #14

    leejo's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    47
    Posts
    7,309
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: Rudy Giuliani explains...

    Quote Originally Posted by Pokerface
    "Rounding up a posse to clean up the mess" is NOT what a responsible leader of a world superpower does, leejo. This isn't the Hickory Boys causing a stir at Old Man Jenkin's henhouse. This is sending hundreds of thousands of troops half a world away into the line of fire. "Posse" mentality doesn't fit.
    Apparently rounding up a posse to clean up the mess is exactly what THE responsible leader of a superpower does, you just don't like it.

    Exactly how long should we sit around hatching up some plan "to win the peace" before someone takes a little action, in your judgment? Are you satisfied by Kerry's plan "to win the peace" by calling....(drumroll!) A CONFERENCE?

    Do you hear what you're saying? Do you really believe it? Or do you just not like Bush and think he "stole" the election and are willing to parrot whatever Kerry says if you think it'll get rid of Bush?

  28.  
  29. #15

    luna's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Age
    38
    Posts
    2,151
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: Rudy Giuliani explains...

    Quote Originally Posted by Pokerface
    I want my damn life back, Cing. I don't want to be patted down every time I go to the airport, or to have to worry that an entry gets made in a file at Fort Meade MD everytime I type "The President has to go". Before 9/11, I felt that way, and terrorism existed then, too. Success doesn't have to be measured by the complete eradication of the enemy; getting to the point where I don't have to have my lunchbag searched when I go into my office building would suit me well.
    I know this is going to sound incredible, but here's the harsh reality- life will NEVER go back to how it "was". Society is constantly developing and changing with time. To hope for the day that you will no longer be "inconvenienced" by having your luggage and carry-ons inspected is like hoping for the day where the FDA will no longer inspect medicines for contaminates. It's an open invitation to harm us, and I for one hope to never return to the days where we took our security for granted.

  30.  
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Back to top