What does attacks on a persons local community have to do with anything?
Who said the attack would be on ones local community?
Lefties can't ever make a point without baseless smoke and mirrors.
Are you saying you just don't care about New York?
The attack was in New York...TWICE...the second attack was successful because of the non-actions you still underwrite.
Attacks on your local community are from somewhere...way...way way..out in left field.
It's completely irrelevant to this conversation.
It effecte our whole economic system,it also effected a lot of shit from a-z that we bitch about daily.<TABLE class=tborder id=post5485767 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD class=alt1 id=td_post_5485767 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #fdde82 1px solid">What does attacks on a persons local community have to do with anything?
Who said the attack would be on ones local community?
Lefties can't ever make a point without baseless smoke and mirrors.
Are you saying you just don't care about New York?
The attack was in New York...TWICE...the second attack was successful because of the non-actions you still underwrite.
Attacks on your local community are from somewhere...way...way way..out in left field.
It's completely irrelevant to this conversation.
<!-- / message --></TD></TR><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #fdde82 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: #fdde82 0px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #fdde82 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #fdde82 1px solid">
</TD><TD class=alt1 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #fdde82 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: #fdde82 0px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #fdde82 0px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #fdde82 1px solid" align=right><!-- controls --></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
The reason it really didn't effect a lot of people more is becuse our economy is strong and our people are a lot better off than they care to admit.
Sure. I have family and many colleagues who are New York City residents.
But I don't spend more than a couple seconds fearing that they will be the targets of terrorist attack. I've been fortunate to live almost 18,000 days in my life and on only two of those days was a single location in NYC the target of a terrorist act.
If we add in the years previous to my birth in March 1960, we find only two days in almost 200 years where NYC was the target of a terrorist attack.
If You personally lose mental and spiritual energy worrying about the next such attack, I can't heal you. Only you have the power to decide what will scare you.
In those few seconds I do consider the possibility of a third such attack in my lifetime , I for sure don't believe that spending two BILLION dollars a week in US military violence in Iraq does anything to make NYC a safer place.
Quite the opposite. I'm one of those who believe that for every Iraqi killed by US military forces in the unprovoked and unjustified invasion of Iraq - we increase the number of Iraqis and other Mideast residents who might feel sufficient anger and vengance to perhaps plot a future attack on American soil.
Keep killing Iraqis and other Mideast Muslims and let me know when NYC is "safe".
OK Barman...but its impossible to follow your line of reasoning.
First you bring up attacks on your local community...some kind of weird smokescreen I guess...most people know full well the attacks were in New York and DC. Most people still care and consider that an attack on the US. An attack on your local community being a ridiculous qualifier.
Now you switch to an equally irrelevant analysis of 200 years without a terrorist attack....when its really only been relevant in the US since 1993. Two seperate attacks in 8 years...which you still choose to ignore as if you are above it all...because you just don't give a damn. :lolBIG:
I can't help you either...apathy is convenient for such things.
Oh I give a damn.
But my response is simply different from your own.
You endorse a response of spending two billion a week in US tax dollars for our military to wage violence on the other side of the planet.
I eschew that response in preference to those which would be far more sensible.
Just let me know when you've killed enough Iraqis for you and yours to finally once again join the rest of us in waking up and feeling safe.
For those who find the theme of What Should be USA Priorites in Foreign Policy, I recommend viewing the recent DVD release of LIONS FOR LAMBS
Tom Cruise portrays a senator who is a composite of those who believe the BushCo line of attack.
Meryl Streep portrays a journalist who is a composite of those who find the BushCo claims and strategies to be dishonest and misleading.
Robert Redford portrays a professor who seeks to teach young men and women that it is better to do Something in life that is above and beyond just talking (or internet chatting) about the ills of the day and how best to heal them.
Tom Cruise portrays a senator who is a composite of those who believe the BushCo line of attack.
Meryl Streep portrays a journalist who is a composite of those who find the BushCo claims and strategies to be dishonest and misleading.
Robert Redford portrays a professor who seeks to teach young men and women that it is better to do Something in life that is above and beyond just talking (or internet chatting) about the ills of the day and how best to heal them.
LIONS FOR LAMBS does not contain any events which could be graded as "accurate" or "inaccurate" per se.
It presents three simualtaneous scenes, alternating back and forth and the viewer is invited to consider them all.
The time frame of the movie is late 2007, early 2008
1) Streep is given a one hour meeting with "Senator Irving" (Cruise), a young 40s highly ranking Republican Senator who is pure-D BushCo foreign policy.
He tells her of the "new" strategy in Afghanistan and how we are finally going to "Win the War". And what he presents is pure-D BushCo and is an honest representation of how many people both in and out of Washington feel is the best way for the USA to proceed.
She in turn asks him numerous questions as a journalist attempting to have him explain why the "new strategy" will be any more successful than the clearly unsuccessful strategies employed between Oct 2001 and 2008. Her dubious attitude honestly portrays how many other Americans feel about the best way for us to proceed.
2) Redford is a professor who is interviewing a senior who he perceives is one of his truly up and coming students. They discuss the philosophy of how one can best contribute to affecting positive change in the USA.
3) Two other actors whose names I don't have portray a pair of US Army men who during a mission to take over a "forward point" in Afghanistan are temporarily lost during a winter storm and awaiting rescue by their comrades while Taliban soldiers are moving closer and closer to their position. No spoiler for me to say that about 45 minutes in, we learn that these two were formerly "prize students" of Redford's professor prior to their decision to enlist into the Army.
Worth a look regardless of your political views, IMHO, because the movie does not build to a "conclusion" of specific political POV. Rather, it will leave all viewers with numerous subjects to think about pertaining to life in 21st century America.
heh...You're too kind, but I'll take what I can get with a smile
No newsletter here...At most maybe 10 minutes a day creating a half dozen "serious" thoughts here at the PoliticoPub, with the remaining posts attempting various levels of levity to calm those who might take this Forum a bit too seriously.
Don't worry, Doc.
If Mr McCain is lucky enough to prevail in November, he won't be bombing Iran during his term.
We don't have the military muscle to take on Iran and attempt to hold our ground in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Oh, I'll amend that to say, we do have the military muscle to TRY and take on Iran while still engaged in the other two countries, but then we're talking Vietnam-level casualties and I guarantee McCain nor any other BushCo wacko has the sack to run that one past the American electorate.
If Mr McCain is lucky enough to prevail in November, he won't be bombing Iran during his term.
We don't have the military muscle to take on Iran and attempt to hold our ground in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Oh, I'll amend that to say, we do have the military muscle to TRY and take on Iran while still engaged in the other two countries, but then we're talking Vietnam-level casualties and I guarantee McCain nor any other BushCo wacko has the sack to run that one past the American electorate.
Hey ... if nothing else .... I can sit at the bus depot with a case of beer
when McCain brings back the draft and head on over to Pouting GOP
Loyalists who are sending their kids off to war and tell em ...
Ya need to suck it up like Brit Hume of FOX NEWS once told American
parents:
Brit Hume, a conservative news anchor on the right-wing Fox News Channel, continued his staunch support for the Republican Party when he told critics of President Bush--including families of American soldiers killed in his Iraq war--to "just get over it", on the 28 March 2004 edition of Fox News Sunday.
when McCain brings back the draft and head on over to Pouting GOP
Loyalists who are sending their kids off to war and tell em ...
Ya need to suck it up like Brit Hume of FOX NEWS once told American
parents:
Brit Hume, a conservative news anchor on the right-wing Fox News Channel, continued his staunch support for the Republican Party when he told critics of President Bush--including families of American soldiers killed in his Iraq war--to "just get over it", on the 28 March 2004 edition of Fox News Sunday.
Tom Cruise, Meryl Streep and Robert Redford providing us guidance on our foreign policy? :lolBIG::lol::lol::lol::lol:
You just can't make this stuff up...
Can we run Barbara Streisand for Sec of State too? :toast:
Your ignorance only makes you more the fool.
As I noted earlier, the movie makes no "concluding" positions regarding American foreign policy.
It simply presents the two most widely held positions via Cruise's "BushCo" Senator and Streep's "Doubtful Mainstream MediaPerson".
If one were to take Cruise's dialouge from the script and lay it down without a credit, you would think you were reading Dick Cheney all day.
If one were to take Streep's dialouge, you'd think you were reading Keith Olbermann.
It's an interesting 30 minutes (probably about the combined total of the Streep/Cruise interview scene).
Redford's character takes absolutely no position on the Iraq invasion and occupation save for towards the end when he is directly countered by the two young students who have decided to enlist in the Army (and whose subsequent tale in Afghanistan makes up the third tier of the movie).
For every minute in the movie promoting "no Iraq invasion/occupation" there is an equal minute and character strongly promoting the BushCo beliefs.
As I noted earlier, the movie makes no "concluding" positions regarding American foreign policy.
It simply presents the two most widely held positions via Cruise's "BushCo" Senator and Streep's "Doubtful Mainstream MediaPerson".
If one were to take Cruise's dialouge from the script and lay it down without a credit, you would think you were reading Dick Cheney all day.
If one were to take Streep's dialouge, you'd think you were reading Keith Olbermann.
It's an interesting 30 minutes (probably about the combined total of the Streep/Cruise interview scene).
Redford's character takes absolutely no position on the Iraq invasion and occupation save for towards the end when he is directly countered by the two young students who have decided to enlist in the Army (and whose subsequent tale in Afghanistan makes up the third tier of the movie).
For every minute in the movie promoting "no Iraq invasion/occupation" there is an equal minute and character strongly promoting the BushCo beliefs.
