I understand that the public cannot know everything that goes on, but telling the public to watch out for suspicious looking people or activities, without informing us about anything other than "there's a serious warning" is pushing it, but to keep it from top dog's in Washington, like Daschele, is it bit scary. The way I saw it was that this was the most serious threat we've had to date, being that those in charge decided to organize the shadow government - I'm making this judgement on the actions of the government, that's all. I could have a skewed perception of it, but I'm not sure if it all fits so nicely - I mean, if the majority Senate leader doesn't know about this shadow government, then who's in it and why tell us now if we are still under major threats?!

And about people disregarding threats - in the 50's and 60's, people lived in the fear of the Reds launching bombs on us - bomb drills were common - you all can ask your parents about that. I'm not sure if that fear ever subsided because of the constance of the threat - and they didn't even realize what a nuclear bomb would do to them! I can't really speculate how people are going to take future threats if they know what those threats are or not, but I think if there is a credible threat, we need to be aware of it - use the Ground Zero air comtamination problem as an example of people who's health is going to suffer because they weren't told about the high level of toxins in the air - "just work - it looks good on the news." These are people - we are people - we all need to be informed of dangers to us - to our country, which does mean, to our world. I know there's a fine line of what should or shouldn't be kept secret, but can't we re-evaluate what that line is - or even just define it?!

Also, keeping secrets isn't something our government should be doing, while they criticize other governments about transparency. It's awfully hypocritical.

fuck. any semi-intelligent new yorker knew we were under threat of a nuclear attack.

Hence the idea of waking up, so we don't have to have another huge incident for things to change - we need to take the initiative and snap out of this La-La Land we've been living in. If we can't, there are going to be enough problems to wake everyone up and keep them up with cups of bullets-winging-by-their-heads with a couple packets of smallpox for sweetness. Do we try to avoid it by speaking up or do we try to do something about it?

I mean, fuck, how hard is voting?! Or - you write posts and emails all the time, write an email to your congressman and say, "What the fuck is going on with our government, our country, and the world that surrounds it all?!" Stop and think about how this all affects you, your family, your friends, your future wives or husbands, and your children.

Another note on the "this is pointless" idea:
Martin Luther King Jr., The Founding Fathers, Socrates, Voltaire, Marx, Darwin, Einstein, Tesla/Edison, Da Vinci, Picasso, Bach, Mozart, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth I, etc. If these people kept their mouth shut and smiled politely, who knows...

i totally agree. but not enough people are suffering to care. you need starving masses or a grossly misrepresented demographic to support anything. face it, most people in this country didn't really suffer jack shit. hell, i barely even did, although i at least lived there.

Chad, I totally agree that NY and the country should've been warned about the nuclear threat.

Oh, and of course we all knew/know there are threats to NY, but when they have actual leads and information on something specific, like the October incident, it goes without saying that it becomes a completely different urgency. And we knew squat.

There's no debating whether or not we should've known about that. The debate comes when we begin to look at or define as to what 'too much' is. We live in a completely different, desynthesized culture from the 50s and 60s, so perhaps it may not be fair to compare the people of today with those of the past when it comes to the alarm meter.

there are too many words in this thread.

What is this credible information about a specific nuclear threat that has been referenced in this thread?

Also, as far as a shadow government goes, from a strategic point of view, it makes sense. Spread out the potential targets, and make it more difficult to stop our government from functioning.

As far dirty bombs go, strategically they are very ineffective. Just another case of various media outlets crying wolf to get a good story.

David

why's this? because it's true. look at the amount of aid the US just GIVES to israel, and dont deny how fucked up the media is.

YOU'RE the fucking idiot.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...6/hl_nm/bomb_1

I don't think those experts work for the media. A shadow government is a decent idea, but, like I said, who's in it? And why weren't people like Daschele informed about it? My point was - if this is the first time we have put this shadow government in place, then the threats, one could easily conclude, were serious enough to warrant such action. If not, then what was the point and why wasn't anyone notified until they finally told the world just last week? It doesn't fit - at all.

John - about the tariffs - the irony is that Mr. Bush was all Mr. Free Trade during his campaign - now what's happening? Our economy is said to be on its way up, why then choose to go this route - a route that just pissed off the rest of the other countries who DON'T hate us?........yet.

I didn't see anything in regards to a specific nuclear threat in that article.

The closest thing I saw was "Since the September 11 attacks, fears have mounted over the use of radiological material by terrorists"

I'd hardly call that a specific threat.

David

llama - Just go pick up the new issue of Time. It's the cover story...

Chad - Surely you know that during a war time some rules automatically become relative when a decision effects the welfare of the country, so you can understand how, in all liklihood, many campaign issues will be approached differently as the industry/economy moves back and forth, and a wide variety of approaches--regardless of whether they adhere to 'campaign promises'--should be undertaken in a time of war.

I think the biggest irony is that Bush has made decisions that the Dems probably would have made themselves. For example, the Dems (Dashle in particular) are completely against drilling in the Alaska reserves. Fine. But what's their suggestion for an alternative? Why, raise the standard on MPG that cars get to 35, of course! This, ostensibly, will raise prices on vehicles as the technology and extra work will be put into making the vehicles more gas/cost effective. But the kicker comes when they make such an issue out of the tariff situation, claiming it will, among other things, unnecessarily raise the price of automobiles for consumers. You get my point.

As for the tariffs themselves, they're kind of a last ditch effort in trying to save a waning industry within the US. Not all countries apply, however, as I think Japan, Mexico, and Canada are exempt from the tarrifs. I would assume the reasoning, in regards to the economy, is that the tarrifs will save some steel industry veterans from going under, and thus saving many jobs. It really just seems like a subpar effort to make us more self sufficient.



[This message has been edited by tweedyburd (edited 03-07-2002).]

No, I love to sleep. http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/frown.gif

Hello? My name!!! http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/redface.gif

John - I agree with you - that Democratic alternative is a poor one and no better than the tariff - that's my point! I'm not siding - they're both wrong, in my mind.

I think Bush is really taking advantage of the situation - yeah, it's wartime, but hardly anything like WWII and here we are putting tariffs on steel and creating shadow governments. It's not right in my eyes.

Now - what do YOU disagree with? What pisses YOU off about our government/country/society/world? Do you think our government is being fair to us and/or other countries? Say what YOU think about it - not just in response to what I think about it... http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/smile.gif

I've come to the conclusion that nothing will be done until many many more people die. We might be looking at the end of the world here. So in the meantime, I'm gonna watch SportsCenter and welcome nuclear holocaust with open arms.

If you ran for some gov't type office, I'd vote for you.....

Granted, there's no way he could win.

------------------
We don't find truth, we create it.

hmm. did you ever consider that maybe the u.s. gives aid to israel because...they're a DEMOCRACY?

2) the media is becoming increasingly more and more anti-israel (media = liberals, liberals = anti-israel), and that is probably why YOU fucking idiots are becomingmore and more anti-israel. there are all these media people talking about how pro-israel the media is. that's where you're getting your stupid information from.

of course there are exceptions. the ny times is a jewish newspaper so it's not going to be anti-israel anytime soon. but anyways. yeah. you fucking idiot.

Democracy eh? lol It's just great to know how democracy operates then. Have you ever even been to region?

And the media will NEVER change its views. And how do I know this? Because I used to watch the unfiltered versions every single day of my life. Plus I used to get your ever-so-impartial and honest CNN which would blow out of proportion stories of INJURED Israelis, but the death of 10-30 Palestinians a day never really occurred to them. It's nice and easy to pull things out of your ass when you're on the other side of the fucking world relaxing by your PC, observing the grave threat a Palestinian serves will he holds up his rock to a fully equipped and armoured to teeth Israeli soldier. But the fact of the matter is Israel is a twisted "state" and good ole US of A is always condusive to helping that poor country out. Why do supply them with aid? Hmmmm.. I do not know. http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/rolleyes.gif

IT'S THE JEWS

Iran was a democracy before the US stepped in
And in case you hadn't noticed, Israel is one fucked up country. They're entirely expansionist (contravening UN directives that they had to agree to to be recognised as a legitimate country), they have policies of human rights abuse in the occupied territories, and when Palestinian terrorists attack they respond with official military strikes against civilian areas and Palestinian security buildings (ie police stations). What a great democaracy to support!

But you're in Canada! (aren't you?) http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/smile.gif

hmm, so you expect israel to sit by when the palestinian authority, and almost every other arab country for that matter, preaches that everyone should murder all the jews and take back israel?

you know, maybe israel IS occupying way too much territory, but the fact still stands that israel has made numerous efforts to make peace, and every fucking time the palestinians have basically stepped over. i'm really sorry that their lives are miserable, but this is only partly to do with israeli occupation. maybe if they set up a legitimate government and got a legitimate leader, who actually CARED about making peace, instead of just caring about keeping a scapegoat around to blame all their troubles on, then things would be better.

so what does Israel do? bomb Arafat's camp.

you are a perfect example of what the media has to offer nowadays.

i'm not saying israel is perfect. i fucking hate ariel sharon and i'm just waiting for his party to fall, or something.

all i'm saying is you can't make peace with a people that don't want peace. or that don't know what's good for them. you can't expect israel to simply pull out of all occupied territories and halt all..actions with the way things are going. the palestinian people are misled into thinking that the best thing that can happen is the utter destruction of israel. and as long as this continues to be their objective, no israel is not going to treat them well.

oh and james i'm very disappointed in you for having such a repulsive view on the issue. really. well not disappointed. more like disgusted.

Repulsive? It's repulsive to believe that the US shouldn't be backing Israel in what they're doing? And to believe they need to let international mediators in to work towards a solution? Don't get me wrong, Palestine needs to seriously rethink their attitude towards Israel too, but Israel are far from the innocent wronged party here

oh well i agree with you on that. but what you just said sure as hell doesn't coincide with what you said before. jesus christ almighty.

heh.

look. there's a start to everything, and the people of Palestine aren't going to give up on what their parents and their grandparents fought for, their liberty and human rights. they know how the Israelis treated them, raped them, beat them, killed them and showed NO sign of wanting to negotiate for peace. everytime a summit comes up, Israel fails to comply to the structure of the deal. And they can do this because they can do whatever they want to when they have the world's power backing them up.

Remember about 2 years ago when the tension rose to horrific levels, an international committee got together, made up of convoys from USA, France, England, China.... I think they were 15 country representatives. They decided to take a vote on who was to blame for the recent violence, which was nonstop. 14 countries voted against Israel. 1 country (surprize surprize) voted for Israel and being the world power, it vetoed the decissions.

It's no doubt that eventually the world will come to see the truth, but unfortunately it will take time, and time will take lives.

jesus christ on a stick who ARE you?? who the fuck put these kinds of ideas in your head??

you say I have a skewed view of the situation? good god. why don't you straighten up your head. that's all i have to say. just go straighten up your head.