Should -he- be branded a liar (again)?

[quade 4]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/01/cheney/index.html

Quote

Vice President Dick Cheney on Thursday declared "America is safer and the world is more secure" because of the anti-terrorism policies of the Bush administration.

Excuse me?!?

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/WarOnTerrorism/2004/06/22/509968-ap.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3830909.stm

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[freeflydrew 0]

Cheney must not read terrorism reports, nor the news... The scary thing is that the people who hear it from Cheney probably believe it! HA!

He should say, " I know it's been a year and 82 days since we attacked Iraq on the basis of their possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction, and because we will not admit that those reports were completely inaccurate, we should assume that the world is much, much safer because we literally have no idea where all those stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction have ended up. Even though most of the world resents the bush administration, and Bin Laden is still at large, and the population of the USA is entirely split on their support of the direction we've taken in the war on terror, we are much much safer than we have ever been. And if you wanna question the bubble that i live under, shut the F*ck up!".

Cheney is a very funny guy!

[lawrocket 3]

Of course the world is safer. There is credible intelligence to suggest it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kmcguffee 0]

The actual numbers, from your sites, are:

2003: 208 attacks, 625 dead, 3,646 wounded
2002: 198 attacks, 725 dead, 2,013 wounded
2001: 346 attacks

For 2001 the number dead is above 3,000. Although you have an increased number of attacks in 2003, there were less killed. One could surmise that the terror attacks are getting less effective. However, this entire method of quantifying "security" is skewed.

Was the world a safer place in December 1945 than it was in January 1939? I think so. You would have a hard time arguing otherwise. But, using this method of determining security, ie counting war or terror deaths by year, you would have to conclude that the world was more dangerous because casualties were high every year. Your conclusion would have to be that the policy of going to war with the Axis was a failure. Sometimes we have to pay a price to make things better for the future.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[Jib 0]

Quote

Vice President Dick Cheney on Thursday declared "America is safer and the world is more secure" because of the anti-terrorism policies of the Bush administration.

Do you think the air marshalls and other intelligence sources are making any difference? Do you think terrorists are as likely to find safe havens in as many places?

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[billvon 3,099]

>Do you think the air marshalls and other intelligence sources are
>making any difference?

I think they would stop another simultaneous hijacking, similar to the one we had on 9/11. However, the next terrorist attack will not come from a commercial airliner - it will come from a shipping container or a King Air filled with ANFO. All the air marshalls in the world, and all the TSA employees we can hire, won't stop either of those.

The more important thing that has changed is us. Before 9/11, no one would have thought to try to stop terrorists on a commercial airliner - the usual line was "give them what they want and arrest them later." Only an hour after the first plane slammed into the WTC, Todd Beamer and company stopped a bunch of terrorists from taking out another government building. We know what can happen now; we are less likely to look the other way.

> Do you think terrorists are as likely to find safe havens in as many places?

Yes, in more. There are far more people that hate the US nowadays, and thus terrorists will find people more sympathetic to their aims.

[quade 4]

Quote

Do you think the air marshalls and other intelligence sources are making any difference? Do you think terrorists are as likely to find safe havens in as many places?

I think that when you have a group of people eager to die for their cause, it is nearly impossible to stop them no matter what you do.

The only long term way I can see to make the world a safer place is to give them fewer reasons to lash out against us. Since the march into Iraq, we've only given them -more- reasons to hate us.

This is not to say I'm for hiding our heads in the sand or caving into their demands, but we certainly don't have to go out of our way to piss them off for no reason.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

The actual numbers, from your sites, are:

2003: 208 attacks, 625 dead, 3,646 wounded
2002: 198 attacks, 725 dead, 2,013 wounded
2001: 346 attacks

For 2001 the number dead is above 3,000. Although you have an increased number of attacks in 2003, there were less killed. One could surmise that the terror attacks are getting less effective. However, this entire method of quantifying "security" is skewed.

Was the world a safer place in December 1945 than it was in January 1939? I think so. You would have a hard time arguing otherwise. But, using this method of determining security, ie counting war or terror deaths by year, you would have to conclude that the world was more dangerous because casualties were high every year. Your conclusion would have to be that the policy of going to war with the Axis was a failure. Sometimes we have to pay a price to make things better for the future.

I wonder what the numbers would look like if you calculated terrorist attacks and deaths outside of Iraq.

[TypicalFish 0]

[reply the next terrorist attack will not come from a commercial airliner - it will come from a shipping container or a King Air filled with ANFO. All the air marshalls in the world, and all the TSA employees we can hire, won't stop either of those.

[kallend 2,142]

Quote

But hey, we are protected from another airliner strike and those 12 "Iraqi Gas Shells Of Death"...

Don't forget the model rockets!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Jib 0]

Quote

Quote

The actual numbers, from your sites, are:

2003: 208 attacks, 625 dead, 3,646 wounded
2002: 198 attacks, 725 dead, 2,013 wounded
2001: 346 attacks

For 2001 the number dead is above 3,000. Although you have an increased number of attacks in 2003, there were less killed. One could surmise that the terror attacks are getting less effective. However, this entire method of quantifying "security" is skewed.

Was the world a safer place in December 1945 than it was in January 1939? I think so. You would have a hard time arguing otherwise. But, using this method of determining security, ie counting war or terror deaths by year, you would have to conclude that the world was more dangerous because casualties were high every year. Your conclusion would have to be that the policy of going to war with the Axis was a failure. Sometimes we have to pay a price to make things better for the future.

I wonder what the numbers would look like if you calculated terrorist attacks and deaths outside of Iraq.

Or Israel/Palestine.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[billvon 3,099]

>But hey, we are protected from another airliner strike and those 12 "Iraqi Gas Shells Of Death"...

And Kris. They are protecting us from Kris.

[quade 4]

Yeah, I -suppose- if you limit the numbers to terrorist attacks on Antarctica the numbers remain pretty flat.

However, that's just stupid.

Americans are where they are. You have to count all cases or you're just skewing the data to fit your view of the world.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Yeah, I -suppose- if you limit the numbers to terrorist attacks on Antarctica the numbers remain pretty flat.

However, that's just stupid.

Americans are where they are. You have to count all cases or you're just skewing the data to fit your view of the world.

No you are skewing the data. Your intent is to infer that Americans aren't safer in America or other parts of the world. Thats simply wrong.

[quade 4]

Quote

No you are skewing the data. Your intent is to infer that Americans aren't safer in America or other parts of the world. Thats simply wrong.

Really? You think you're safer travelling abroad NOW than you were before we invaded Iraq? Seriously?

Further, I don't think you're safer -at all- even while within the U.S. boaders. If you lived in Lincoln, Nebraska your chances of a terrorist attack were approximately zero before and they are approximately zero now. If you live in Long Beach, California . . . you chances of a terrorist attack have gone UP quite a bit.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

No you are skewing the data. Your intent is to infer that Americans aren't safer in America or other parts of the world. Thats simply wrong.

Really? You think you're safer travelling abroad NOW than you were before we invaded Iraq? Seriously?

Further, I don't think you're safer -at all- even while within the U.S. boaders. If you lived in Lincoln, Nebraska your chances of a terrorist attack were approximately zero before and they are approximately zero now. If you live in Long Beach, California . . . you chances of a terrorist attack have gone UP quite a bit.

Well I live outside Washington D.C and I'm less concerned now than I was 2 years ago. Apparently I was in more danger during Clintons Presidency, but just didn't know it. I would have no problem traveling to Europe but won't because of the shrillness of the Anti-Americanism. I am planning a trip to Hawaii as we speak.

[chuteless 1]

Come on Quade.....The chance of any politian telling the truth is so small.....you might as well expect Cheney to tell the world that Halliburton lost money last year.

They get voted in on lies, tell lies through their mandate, and lie right to their grave.

Do you really expect anything else??????

You are smarter than that, I hope.

Bill Cole

[PeteH 0]

Quote

Was the world a safer place in December 1945 than it was in January 1939? I think so. You would have a hard time arguing otherwise.

To me it's hard to believe that inventing nuclear weapons and the ability to wipe out almost every living thing on this planet makes world any safer. But it might be just me.

[Harksaw 0]

Here's a funny comparison. First, let's look at the headline of the article:

Quote

US admits rise in terror attacks

Now, let's look at something from the body of the article:

Quote

A US official said the figure of 625 people killed worldwide was still lower than the previous year's 725 deaths.

Now, it doesn't refute that the number of attacks has gone up, but it is interesting to note that the article emphasizes the bad (higher number of attacks) and buries the good (fewer deaths).

__________________________________________________
I started skydiving for the money and the chicks. Oh, wait.

[Jib 0]

Quote

Yeah, I -suppose- if you limit the numbers to terrorist attacks on Antarctica the numbers remain pretty flat.

However, that's just stupid.

Americans are where they are. You have to count all cases or you're just skewing the data to fit your view of the world.

Why? You said Americans, right? The Palestinians and Israeli's killing each other has little to do with the safety of the world. It happened before 9/11 and continues today. Are you really concerned for the safety of Americans based on that? "That's just stupid."

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[Ron 10]

I think we are safer in the US than before.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Macumba 0]

Yes, Obama should be.