4/9/2004 c29 2RCS
One little nitpick here. Just a teensy one. It wasn't the USS O'Sullivans that was targeted. It was the USS The Sullivans, named after the five Sullivan brother killed aboard the USS Juneau off Guadalcanal during World War Two. There is no USS O'Sullivans in commission in the US Navy.
One little nitpick here. Just a teensy one. It wasn't the USS O'Sullivans that was targeted. It was the USS The Sullivans, named after the five Sullivan brother killed aboard the USS Juneau off Guadalcanal during World War Two. There is no USS O'Sullivans in commission in the US Navy.
4/6/2004 c1 fr
do you know that you know have the longest essay on fictionpress?
do you know that you know have the longest essay on fictionpress?
4/2/2004 c30 8DPTRM
As people, I find that democrats are just the same as republicans...as political people, democrats seem like morons, with Clarke being one of the worst.
~Militarynut32489
As people, I find that democrats are just the same as republicans...as political people, democrats seem like morons, with Clarke being one of the worst.
~Militarynut32489
4/2/2004 c30 2Another Rogue
Man, reading this is exhausting! You should become a journalist, police detective or accountant, you pay a lot of attention to every word anyone says. So allow me to do the same, although not in the same scale, with what you say.
-
* First, you wrote this (ch 29):
"Ok, now let’s be serious—if Clinton was so serious about “fighting Al-Qaida,” then he can explain why the majority of Al-Qaida attacks occurred under his administration."
There is not neccesarily a connection between what is done to fight terrorism and the result. Russia is fighting Chechens for years and Israel the Palestinians, but does it stop terrorism?
Also we can't really know what exactly has been done during Clinton. Unless you have a telepathic gift to read the minds of Clinton and his employees and you have perfect knowledge of what exactly every agent in every agency has been doing the past five years.
-
* You also wrote this:
"Yes, Bush might have asked Clarke to find a connection Iraq in the days following 9/11—why shouldn’t he? It’s a country who has shot at US planes for years, tried to assassinate a president—there’s a perfectly good reason to believe Iraq was behind it. On top of that, Bush never said “Saddam, 9/11” or whatever Clarke says he said—what he wanted was an updated report from Clarke. If Bush really wanted to take out Iraq that bad, wouldn’t he have gone in there first?"
Not very strong, and for several reasons.
First you claim Bush never said these things. How do you know? You're not gonna tell me you were there, do you?
Then you claim that if Bush wanted to go after Iraq, he would have gone in first. While you first say Bush practically couldn't go into Afghanistan! Explain to me why he could go into Iraq and not in Afghanistan.
Although the whole Iraq thing probably wasn't the majot point of Clarke's testimony, it IS important. You can discredit Clarke, it doesn't do anything about the validity of the whole point. Bush was focussed on Iraq, if not obsessed, and this definitely had impact on his foreign and anti-terrorism policy. The (dis)credibility of Richard Clarke doesn't change anything about that.
Man, reading this is exhausting! You should become a journalist, police detective or accountant, you pay a lot of attention to every word anyone says. So allow me to do the same, although not in the same scale, with what you say.
-
* First, you wrote this (ch 29):
"Ok, now let’s be serious—if Clinton was so serious about “fighting Al-Qaida,” then he can explain why the majority of Al-Qaida attacks occurred under his administration."
There is not neccesarily a connection between what is done to fight terrorism and the result. Russia is fighting Chechens for years and Israel the Palestinians, but does it stop terrorism?
Also we can't really know what exactly has been done during Clinton. Unless you have a telepathic gift to read the minds of Clinton and his employees and you have perfect knowledge of what exactly every agent in every agency has been doing the past five years.
-
* You also wrote this:
"Yes, Bush might have asked Clarke to find a connection Iraq in the days following 9/11—why shouldn’t he? It’s a country who has shot at US planes for years, tried to assassinate a president—there’s a perfectly good reason to believe Iraq was behind it. On top of that, Bush never said “Saddam, 9/11” or whatever Clarke says he said—what he wanted was an updated report from Clarke. If Bush really wanted to take out Iraq that bad, wouldn’t he have gone in there first?"
Not very strong, and for several reasons.
First you claim Bush never said these things. How do you know? You're not gonna tell me you were there, do you?
Then you claim that if Bush wanted to go after Iraq, he would have gone in first. While you first say Bush practically couldn't go into Afghanistan! Explain to me why he could go into Iraq and not in Afghanistan.
Although the whole Iraq thing probably wasn't the majot point of Clarke's testimony, it IS important. You can discredit Clarke, it doesn't do anything about the validity of the whole point. Bush was focussed on Iraq, if not obsessed, and this definitely had impact on his foreign and anti-terrorism policy. The (dis)credibility of Richard Clarke doesn't change anything about that.
4/2/2004 c30 220Namir Swiftpaw
...you write...a lot. O_O
I'll try to leave you an intelligent comment at some point, but goddamn. I just needed to comment on how much you write, and the quality of the writing.
~Namir Swiftpaw
...you write...a lot. O_O
I'll try to leave you an intelligent comment at some point, but goddamn. I just needed to comment on how much you write, and the quality of the writing.
~Namir Swiftpaw
4/2/2004 c30 James Jago
Come to think of it, you HAVE ignored one passage where apparently Clark is speaking to the President, who keeps going on about Iraq even though Mr C insists he hasn't found a connection. I freely admit that this was just a quote in a newspaper (the book isn't out in the UK yet), but don't you think that the President flatly contradicting the analysis of the guy he pays to know this stuff is a bit... strange, if it's true?
Come to think of it, you HAVE ignored one passage where apparently Clark is speaking to the President, who keeps going on about Iraq even though Mr C insists he hasn't found a connection. I freely admit that this was just a quote in a newspaper (the book isn't out in the UK yet), but don't you think that the President flatly contradicting the analysis of the guy he pays to know this stuff is a bit... strange, if it's true?
4/2/2004 c29 James Jago
I can't find it in me to blame the Bush government for not doing anything to prevent a scenario straight out of a Hollywood thriller. Another bomb attack might have been forseen, but nothing like 9/11. Many people might argue that the US should have bombed Afghanistan, Iraq or anybody and everybody they damn well felt like bombing to stop this from taking place, but I for one doubt it would have changed much. It only took a few nutjobs with penknives and a copy of MS Flight Simulator anyhow.
Much as it pains me to say it, Bin Laden was probably right about the sanctions hurting Iraqi civilians. The war hasn't exactly created a new Utopia either, though.
I can't find it in me to blame the Bush government for not doing anything to prevent a scenario straight out of a Hollywood thriller. Another bomb attack might have been forseen, but nothing like 9/11. Many people might argue that the US should have bombed Afghanistan, Iraq or anybody and everybody they damn well felt like bombing to stop this from taking place, but I for one doubt it would have changed much. It only took a few nutjobs with penknives and a copy of MS Flight Simulator anyhow.
Much as it pains me to say it, Bin Laden was probably right about the sanctions hurting Iraqi civilians. The war hasn't exactly created a new Utopia either, though.
4/1/2004 c29 30g21lto
I'm a bit confused. You blast Clinton for doing effectively nothing during his tenure in office, after so many terrorist attacks. And yet you turn around and say, "Do you know how hard it would have been for Bush to go into Afghanistan right away in response to the Cole or to eliminate Al-Qaida? The Democrats would eat him alive!" Interesting how *obviously* Clinton had no excuse of this type for not militarily slamming Al Qaida the way you argue he should have. The Republicans would surely have been more understanding than the Democrats Bush is dealing with today. By the way, Clinton tried to up the counter-terrorism budget while he was in office. The Republicans nixed the effort.
*
All that was a bit of a devil's advocate argument, because I don't think direct military confrontation is the best method for dealing with terrorism. You might eliminate one group, or a few cells of one group, but the resentment direct confrontation causes, especially when, as it's inevitable, civilians die, can help bolster the terrorists' ranks. *If* you're going to attack Clinton and be lenient on Bush, however, you need a better argument.
*
I find it funny that you don't address Richard Clarke's assertion that Bush was after Iraq - some connection between 9/11 and Iraq, however small - very soon after 9/11. This is one of the major points of his testimony. Are you just trying to discredit him so that we dismiss this assertion of his? But why don't you make mention of it? Just curious.
I'm a bit confused. You blast Clinton for doing effectively nothing during his tenure in office, after so many terrorist attacks. And yet you turn around and say, "Do you know how hard it would have been for Bush to go into Afghanistan right away in response to the Cole or to eliminate Al-Qaida? The Democrats would eat him alive!" Interesting how *obviously* Clinton had no excuse of this type for not militarily slamming Al Qaida the way you argue he should have. The Republicans would surely have been more understanding than the Democrats Bush is dealing with today. By the way, Clinton tried to up the counter-terrorism budget while he was in office. The Republicans nixed the effort.
*
All that was a bit of a devil's advocate argument, because I don't think direct military confrontation is the best method for dealing with terrorism. You might eliminate one group, or a few cells of one group, but the resentment direct confrontation causes, especially when, as it's inevitable, civilians die, can help bolster the terrorists' ranks. *If* you're going to attack Clinton and be lenient on Bush, however, you need a better argument.
*
I find it funny that you don't address Richard Clarke's assertion that Bush was after Iraq - some connection between 9/11 and Iraq, however small - very soon after 9/11. This is one of the major points of his testimony. Are you just trying to discredit him so that we dismiss this assertion of his? But why don't you make mention of it? Just curious.
4/1/2004 c29 8DPTRM
excellent chapter. I was hoping Clarke's claims were bogus but I had no proof. I'm glad someone provided some for me. it makes Bush's goodness clear again.
~Militarynut32489
excellent chapter. I was hoping Clarke's claims were bogus but I had no proof. I'm glad someone provided some for me. it makes Bush's goodness clear again.
~Militarynut32489
4/1/2004 c29 Le Creature
It's rather unfortunate; after being an unsuccessful advisor, he became the worst thing you can possibly become-a typical politician.
It's rather unfortunate; after being an unsuccessful advisor, he became the worst thing you can possibly become-a typical politician.
3/30/2004 c2 DPTRM
Good job on this one, Steve. I'm going through this and reading all the ones that look interesting. Unfortunately, I can't get to them all.
~Militarynut32489
Good job on this one, Steve. I'm going through this and reading all the ones that look interesting. Unfortunately, I can't get to them all.
~Militarynut32489
3/30/2004 c28 Nemo
I have neither the time nor the inclination to get involved in this discussion, however...
Stevo, I actually looked up some stats on US taxes...they're a few years off (for 1995, to be precise) but they're rather startling, to say the least. I don't know what to say, except that I'll be thinking about this a lot next time some yokel tries to use the "No Tax Cuts for the Rich" rallying cry.
Check it out: http:/w.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/
Oh yeah, forgot to ask...miss me? Email me if you want me to receive your response, (if any), I come here rarely enough that otherwise it would take me a month or so to see your response, if then. Later!
I have neither the time nor the inclination to get involved in this discussion, however...
Stevo, I actually looked up some stats on US taxes...they're a few years off (for 1995, to be precise) but they're rather startling, to say the least. I don't know what to say, except that I'll be thinking about this a lot next time some yokel tries to use the "No Tax Cuts for the Rich" rallying cry.
Check it out: http:/w.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/
Oh yeah, forgot to ask...miss me? Email me if you want me to receive your response, (if any), I come here rarely enough that otherwise it would take me a month or so to see your response, if then. Later!
3/26/2004 c26 14tresparadisE
all empires will someday fail.
i'm reading your essays for the first time, and for the most part find them to be excellently analytical and remarkably evenhanded (besides your use of the word "liberal" as a curse).
as for europe and the rest of the world, a policy of isolationism and paranoia-inspired "fortress america" will ultimately set us up for failure. largely this is because it alienates the people of these countries, for whatever reason (percieved arrogance, jealousy, percieved hypocrisy, you name it), and this is not good. it is not good because these people who you brush off constitute the voting populace of these countries, and if they become more anti-american and influence others, they will begin to elect anti-american leaders (spain, recently) and america cannot take on the entire world. we could make a pretty good nuclear bang going out, but in the end, europe and the eastern world (plus india) are rising and we are simply not competing on those levels anymore, in terms of business and industry.
should the entire world become opposed to america, we would be at their mercy because of all the things we require from the outside.
i would refrain from simply discrediting non-americans just because of their nationality; ideas are valid despite national origin. granted, europeans have not much business making value judgements about internal american affairs, but the problem is that many things that seem internal actually have huge repercussions in europe and canada because of america's elevated standing in world affairs, and these non-americans obviously have a right to their opinions about the world as a whole.
it is important for america to respect its allies both on a governmental level and on a personal level simply for the sake of the survival of this country.
we have missed so many opportunties to build strong foundations with the rest of the world in the past years, and while the conservative isolationist fortress-america advocates do not care about these opportunities, anti-american sentiment is growing and it is dangerous, and deserves attention.
the machiavellian concept of 'better to be feared than loved' is relevant here. he actually states that it may be best to be both, but it is difficult to unite these in one person. he comes to the conclusion that it is indeed better to be feared, but he must AVOID hatred.
the problem is that america, or america in the hands of can-o-whupass-unilateral administrations is inspiring hate. it seems to be for several reasons - mostly that america has such incredible founding principles, but that people in other countries do not see us as keeping to them, trying to shut ourselves off from the rest of the world.
there is also the fact that after historically strong ties with european nations, we are now accusing them of being disloyal after they refused to comply with what they saw as a breach of international law (invasions/occupations). hatred is expected.
what im essentially rambling about is that while combatting terrorism is indeed an essential function of the US government AND all governments plagued by these problems, to survive america must not, for its own sake, "brush off" its former allies as if they were nothing.
keep writing, its absolutely fascinating.
cheers
-tresparadise
all empires will someday fail.
i'm reading your essays for the first time, and for the most part find them to be excellently analytical and remarkably evenhanded (besides your use of the word "liberal" as a curse).
as for europe and the rest of the world, a policy of isolationism and paranoia-inspired "fortress america" will ultimately set us up for failure. largely this is because it alienates the people of these countries, for whatever reason (percieved arrogance, jealousy, percieved hypocrisy, you name it), and this is not good. it is not good because these people who you brush off constitute the voting populace of these countries, and if they become more anti-american and influence others, they will begin to elect anti-american leaders (spain, recently) and america cannot take on the entire world. we could make a pretty good nuclear bang going out, but in the end, europe and the eastern world (plus india) are rising and we are simply not competing on those levels anymore, in terms of business and industry.
should the entire world become opposed to america, we would be at their mercy because of all the things we require from the outside.
i would refrain from simply discrediting non-americans just because of their nationality; ideas are valid despite national origin. granted, europeans have not much business making value judgements about internal american affairs, but the problem is that many things that seem internal actually have huge repercussions in europe and canada because of america's elevated standing in world affairs, and these non-americans obviously have a right to their opinions about the world as a whole.
it is important for america to respect its allies both on a governmental level and on a personal level simply for the sake of the survival of this country.
we have missed so many opportunties to build strong foundations with the rest of the world in the past years, and while the conservative isolationist fortress-america advocates do not care about these opportunities, anti-american sentiment is growing and it is dangerous, and deserves attention.
the machiavellian concept of 'better to be feared than loved' is relevant here. he actually states that it may be best to be both, but it is difficult to unite these in one person. he comes to the conclusion that it is indeed better to be feared, but he must AVOID hatred.
the problem is that america, or america in the hands of can-o-whupass-unilateral administrations is inspiring hate. it seems to be for several reasons - mostly that america has such incredible founding principles, but that people in other countries do not see us as keeping to them, trying to shut ourselves off from the rest of the world.
there is also the fact that after historically strong ties with european nations, we are now accusing them of being disloyal after they refused to comply with what they saw as a breach of international law (invasions/occupations). hatred is expected.
what im essentially rambling about is that while combatting terrorism is indeed an essential function of the US government AND all governments plagued by these problems, to survive america must not, for its own sake, "brush off" its former allies as if they were nothing.
keep writing, its absolutely fascinating.
cheers
-tresparadise
3/26/2004 c3 47Dave500
wow i feel smarter already. how long did it take you learn this stuff? very good job.
wow i feel smarter already. how long did it take you learn this stuff? very good job.
3/26/2004 c2 Dave500
very good job here. thanks for taking out that prick chronic asshole. yeah he flammed one of my poems. no more chronic asshole (i hope). i'm adding you to my favorite authors list. i would have added you earlier but i thought i already had you listed.
very good job here. thanks for taking out that prick chronic asshole. yeah he flammed one of my poems. no more chronic asshole (i hope). i'm adding you to my favorite authors list. i would have added you earlier but i thought i already had you listed.