Bush Failed to Stop al Qaeda During Clinton Years

[Justin_stacy]

A presidential briefing, dated August 6, 2001, and released by the White House yesterday, shows that in 1998 George W. Bush did nothing to respond to the threat of terror attacks from Usama bin Laden's al Qaeda network.

In fact, when correlated with last week's testimony before the 9/11 Commission by National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, it seems clear that the Bush administration had virtually no plan to act on top-secret intelligence gathered during the Clinton administration until after George W. Bush took office in 2001.

"The August 6 PDB (President's Daily Brief) clearly shows that the White House knew of potential al Qaeda threats within the United States in 1998," said an unnamed source from an unnamed, non-partisan Washington think tank, "and yet Texas Governor George W. Bush didn't do anything about these threats until after he became president."

A former senior official from in the Clinton administration, who requested anonymity, said that former President Bill Clinton was "aghast at the lethargic response of Governor Bush to the clear and present danger al Qaeda posed to our homeland in the 1990s."

If you enjoyed this satire by Scott Ott, you can read more of his work at Scrappleface.

[hXc_pwnage]

Clinton didn't do anything, but neither did Bush.

If you are going to throw punches at Clinton, it is only fair to throw them at Bush as well.

[yeat182]

bush should have sent Chuck Norris and the rest of the Texas Rangers after UBL, then we could have avoided the whole 9/11 thing.

[hXc_pwnage]

bush should have sent Chuck Norris and the rest of the Texas Rangers after UBL, then we could have avoided the whole 9/11 thing.
Arod is the only one who had the Jedi powers to take them down.

[worldstheory]

A presidential briefing, dated August 6, 2001, and released by the White House yesterday, shows that in 1998 George W. Bush did nothing to respond to the threat of terror attacks from Usama bin Laden's al Qaeda network.

In fact, when correlated with last week's testimony before the 9/11 Commission by National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, it seems clear that the Bush administration had virtually no plan to act on top-secret intelligence gathered during the Clinton administration until after George W. Bush took office in 2001.

"The August 6 PDB (President's Daily Brief) clearly shows that the White House knew of potential al Qaeda threats within the United States in 1998," said an unnamed source from an unnamed, non-partisan Washington think tank, "and yet Texas Governor George W. Bush didn't do anything about these threats until after he became president."

A former senior official from in the Clinton administration, who requested anonymity, said that former President Bill Clinton was "aghast at the lethargic response of Governor Bush to the clear and present danger al Qaeda posed to our homeland in the 1990s."

If you enjoyed this satire by Scott Ott, you can read more of his work at Scrappleface.
This is great. More people need to understand this concept: Intelligence during the time of the CLINTON ADMININSTRATION said wholeheartedly that Saddam definitely had WMDs and that he would use them if not stopped.

People should attack the INTELLIGENCE for being wrong. Bush did not lie, he acted in our best interest based on what the intelligence indicated, the intelligence that Clinton believed.

If anything, Bush should be commended for taking such bold initiative, even though the intelligence unfortunately turned out to be wrong.

[hXc_pwnage]

I don't attack only Bush. I know it was intelligence. But Bush also kept saying it. He is at fault to. He started this was on the premicise of Saddam having WMD.

[Sinister Rouge]

I don't attack only Bush. I know it was intelligence. But Bush also kept saying it. He is at fault to. He started this was on the premicise of Saddam having WMD.

Bush probably didn't question the poor intellegence, he wanted this war so badly. He should be held accountable.

Bush's press conference tonight showed his arrogance once again. He is not willing to admit he made mistakes and take the blame.

[Sinister Rouge]

Why would he question the intelligence of Israel, Britian, our intelligence and the UN intelligence when they all showed the same thing?

He should have questioned it because, look no WMDs or Al Qeada links.

Britain is questioning the intellegence also.

[Lueda Alia]

Why would he question the intelligence of Israel, Britian, our intelligence and the UN intelligence when they all showed the same thing?

last time I checked the UN didn't show the same thing as the US did about the WMD's.

[yeat182]

last time I checked the UN didn't show the same thing as the US did about the WMD's.

obviously they did, they passed 17 resolutions regarding them...

[hXc_pwnage]

He should have questioned it because, look no WMDs or Al Qeada links.

Britain is questioning the intellegence also.
I don't like Bush but...

How can you question something you haven't already seen? It isn't ONLY Bushes fault...it is Clinton's, Reagan's, Bush Sr., Gore's, Cheney's, intelligence, and any other people involved in the white house during the times.

[Sinister Rouge]

I don't like Bush but...

How can you question something you haven't already seen? It isn't ONLY Bushes fault...it is Clinton's, Reagan's, Bush Sr., Gore's, Cheney's, intelligence, and any other people involved in the white house during the times.

Yes, I blame them all...but Bush and his administration is the one that attacked Iraq. Clinton is also responsible but he is not denying the mistake in news conferences.

Reagan and Bush Sr. helped Saddam get chemical weapons and then turned the other way when he used them.

[hXc_pwnage]

I know, I am just saying...

If you are going to throw a punch at one person, throw it to everyone responsible.

[Chevyman803]

Its not just Bush's fault, it is like Condi Rice said everyones fault in prior administrations. But of course there are those few people who get to be all over the media(uhhuhmmmm....kerry..hummmmm) that just wanna point the blame to Bush. I understand its an election year and he is Bush's opponent, but come on folks. Wouldn't you rather hear things about his ideas than him just pointing the blame all the time. Why did he vote for the majority of Bush's plans as a senator? But anyway, back to the main topic. I do believe Bush wanted the war, but he was following intelligence and our intelligence should be the best in the world. Hussein was a horrific dictator and it is better for the world that he is out of power because there is no telling what the future would have held for him. But the majority of the people just forget that whole thing and wanna change the story from its great the Hussein is out of power to saying that Bush is an idiot and we are over there for no reason.

[Sinister Rouge]

Its not just Bush's fault, it is like Condi Rice said everyones fault in prior administrations. But of course there are those few people who get to be all over the media(uhhuhmmmm....kerry..hummmmm) that just wanna point the blame to Bush. I understand its an election year and he is Bush's opponent, but come on folks. Wouldn't you rather hear things about his ideas than him just pointing the blame all the time. Why did he vote for the majority of Bush's plans as a senator? But anyway, back to the main topic. I do believe Bush wanted the war, but he was following intelligence and our intelligence should be the best in the world. Hussein was a horrific dictator and it is better for the world that he is out of power because there is no telling what the future would have held for him. But the majority of the people just forget that whole thing and wanna change the story from its great the Hussein is out of power to saying that Bush is an idiot and we are over there for no reason.

I am glad that Hussien is out of power...every sane person is glad...but Bush forced the intellegence and we went in to Iraq the wrong way.

The story never changed, it has always been we were over there for no good reason. The capture and removal of Saddam was just a side story.

We are far from the moral authority or the defender of freedom in the world, the US in its history has supported some pretty bad dictators including Hussien. There are our dictators and dictators not on our side. Saddam was no longer on our side. US foriegn policy fo ryears has been that it is okay to kill your people as long as you are on our side. If not, we will destroy you and use your crimes for our moral impariative.

[yeat182]

I am glad that Hussien is out of power...every sane person is glad...but Bush forced the intellegence and we went in to Iraq the wrong way.

The story never changed, it has always been we were over there for no good reason. The capture and removal of Saddam was just a side story.

We are far from the moral authority or the defender of freedom in the world, the US in its history has supported some pretty bad dictators including Hussien. There are our dictators and dictators not on our side. Saddam was no longer on our side. US foriegn policy fo ryears has been that it is okay to kill your people as long as you are on our side. If not, we will destroy you and use your crimes for our moral impariative.

so then what are you complaining about, bush apperently changed that policy...

[UndefinedBoy]

so then what are you complaining about, bush apperently changed that policy...

No he didn't. Not while we're allied with countries like Pakistan.

[Sinister Rouge]

so then what are you complaining about, bush apperently changed that policy...

We are allied with the dictator of Ubekistan, who boils his opponents alive.

[UndefinedBoy]

We are allied with the dictator of Ubekistan, who boils his opponents alive.

Exactly!

How is that at all justified? If the U.S. has some new policy of taking down cruel dictators, how can we be allied with some of the worst?

[UndefinedBoy]

Exactly!

How is that at all justified? If the U.S. has some new policy of taking down cruel dictators, how can we be allied with some of the worst?

Interesting to note that no conservatives have anything to say about that...

[Sinister Rouge]

Interesting to note that no conservatives have anything to say about that...

Interesting, they talk of liberation but they support oppression somewhere else...take Saudi Arabia for example.

[yeat182]

so its only conservatives that have allied themselves with dictators? i'm not saying it is right, but one of the characteristics of liberalism is the idealistic view of the world, where everthing is black and white and all problems have a clean, neat solution. that unfortunatley isn't the case as we live in the real world. sometimes we have to ally ourselves with less than honorable people, its the way of the world, but it doesn't mean we should never act to get rid of people that are evil.

[Sinister Rouge]

We allied with Pol Pot (1975-1979) for no good reason (because he was an enemy to Vietnam, which was no threat). Pol Pot killed almost a third of his people while the uS just watched. When Vietnam invaded, Cambodia couldn't defend itself, they lost too many people to the Khmer Rouge's idealistic agricultural society initiative.

[hXc_pwnage]

So we just randomly pick people we want to allie with? Who cares what they are like...let's just allie with 'em!

What the fuck...

[Sinister Rouge]

So we just randomly pick people we want to allie with? Who cares what they are like...let's just allie with 'em!

What the fuck...

Not really, the dictators we ally or support are the ones that protect our interests. Take Saddam, for example, we supported him in the 80's because we saw Iran ( a fundementalist regime) as a threat to our interest(which they really weren't, Iran was defending itself because Iraq struck first). We looked the other way when he gassed the Iranians and Kurds...He became our enemy when he attacked Kuwait..a US interest.

We supported cruel dictators during the Korean and Vietnam war....we helped Pinochet get into power. We helped install capitalistic dictatorships from coups against socialist democratic governments to "protect" and "create" our interests. We look the other way when the people we support commit mass murder.

[UndefinedBoy]

so its only conservatives that have allied themselves with dictators? i'm not saying it is right, but one of the characteristics of liberalism is the idealistic view of the world, where everthing is black and white and all problems have a clean, neat solution. that unfortunatley isn't the case as we live in the real world. sometimes we have to ally ourselves with less than honorable people, its the way of the world, but it doesn't mean we should never act to get rid of people that are evil.

I thought we had to rid the world of the evildoers? We've never HAD to ally with any of those dictators, we did it for our own selfish reasons...look above at Sinister's post for those details.

Your post is blatantly hypocritical...you're saying we need to get rid of people that are evil but at the same time sometimes we need to ally with them. It's not that complicated...if the U.S.'s policy is to not ally itself with monsters, then we shouldn't do it. But right now, we're allied with a lot of these "evildoers," and conservatives such as yourself love to ignore that fact.

I like also how you called our horrible allies "less than honorable," when they've done much worse than the "cruel tyrant" we just overthrew.

[yeat182]

So we just randomly pick people we want to allie with? Who cares what they are like...let's just allie with 'em!

What the fuck...

well, i don't think they randomly pick and choose, i'm sure they only ally themselves with someone that will benefit our intrests.

[yeat182]

Not really, the dictators we ally or support are the ones that protect our interests. Take Saddam, for example, we supported him in the 80's because we saw Iran ( a fundementalist regime) as a threat to our interest(which they really weren't, Iran was defending itself because Iraq struck first).

Iran was a threat, they did take US hostages...

We supported cruel dictators during the Korean and Vietnam war....we helped Pinochet get into power. We helped install capitalistic dictatorships from coups against socialist democratic governments to "protect" and "create" our interests. We look the other way when the people we support commit mass murder.

while i don't disagree that we sometimes look the other way, why are you complaining now, when we have chosen not to look the other way and actually do something about one of these evil dictators?

[hXc_pwnage]

So our intrests are more important than the lives of others?

[UndefinedBoy]

while i don't disagree that we sometimes look the other way, why are you complaining now, when we have chosen not to look the other way and actually do something about one of these evil dictators?

This war didn't happen because of moral reasons. It was never presented as such, it was only a side note when the war was being pitched. I'm upset because the U.S. is not and has never been the world's guardian, and the idea that this war can be passed off as a moral crusade is ridiculous.

And to say we only "sometimes" look the other way is a bit of an understatement. We LET Saddam gas his own people. We've LET a lot happen, and even encouraged some.

Tell me now why we're allies with so many horrible people, when we're supposedly ridding the world of all evildoers.

[yeat182]

So our intrests are more important than the lives of others?

i never said they were, nor did i say that it is morally right to act this way, but the reality is, if rich yuppies want to drive there SUV's to the mall to buy cheap clothes, then we will have to ally ourselves with some shady characters. rather than blame the government, why don't the people that perpetuate these problems do something to stop it? the government is elected by these people and if they were to cut ties with suadi arabia for example and other oil producing nations with bad leaders, the people would bitch and moan about the price of gasoline. they are in a lose-lose situation. i personally would prefer to follow George Washington's advice and avoid foreign entanglements, but the reality is, today that isn't much of an option.

[Sinister Rouge]

Would you rather us isolate ourselves from the rest of the world, and only diplomatically deal with countries that are our allies? I hear complaining about the U.S. helped this bad guy and that bad guy but what I dont see are suggestions to stop this.

Also what if our allies support a government we do not? Must we cut ties with them also? Should we just become isolationist?

Of course we are going to act for what is in our interest. It would be absurd to act out of our interest.

So our interests are more important than millions of human beings?

I have a solution: Stop calling ourselves the defenders of freedom and democracy. Really easy solution.

[yeat182]

So our interests are more important than millions of human beings?

I have a solution: Stop calling ourselves the defenders of freedom and democracy. Really easy solution.

isn't that what clinton did essentially? and look what that got us, 4 planes hijacked and 3000 dead.

[Sinister Rouge]

isn't that what clinton did essentially? and look what that got us, 4 planes hijacked and 3000 dead.

9/11 was in reality, a retaliatory attack for our bad foriegn policy...

Here is the typical conservative arguement again...talk about Clinton. Clinton followed the same interest over people deal too.

[Sinister Rouge]

where did our bad forgein policy occur that caused 9-11?

supporting Saddam Hussien is a great example....

[yeat182]

9/11 was in reality, a retaliatory attack for our bad foriegn policy...

Here is the typical conservative arguement again...talk about Clinton. Clinton followed the same interest over people deal too.

i wasn't talking about clinton as a democrat, i was talking about him as a president, and since he was the prior president, his actions have had the most recent impact on the world.

[Sinister Rouge]

so 9-11 happened because in the 80's we supported Saddam over Iran?????????

that makes no sense whatsoever

connect the dots....

We support Saddam instead of having the Iranians remove him from power.

Saddam invades Kuwait...

We use Saudi Arabia as a base during the Gulf War..Osama gets angry and declares war on the US.

[Sinister Rouge]

So if we stop calling ourselves the defenders of freedom and democracy that will stop us from interacting in diplomacy with some bad countries? That's not a solution at all.......

If we stop calling ourselfs the defenders of freedom, we can work with these bad countries without contradicting ourselves.

The fact is, not only do we support bad governments, we look the other way when they committ mass murder. It is hypocritical to use "well he kills his own people" as a moral argument for war when we support someone else in another part of the world who does the same fucking thing.

The solution is to stop supporting these governments and call international attention to their crimes. A nation who reconizes people over interests is a defender of democracy and freedom...we don't deserve to have that kind of title. Just because our enemy is evil doesn't make us good.

[hXc_pwnage]

The oil problem: alternative sources.

Just another reason to be researching them.

[UndefinedBoy]

i never said they were, nor did i say that it is morally right to act this way, but the reality is, if rich yuppies want to drive there SUV's to the mall to buy cheap clothes, then we will have to ally ourselves with some shady characters. rather than blame the government, why don't the people that perpetuate these problems do something to stop it? the government is elected by these people and if they were to cut ties with suadi arabia for example and other oil producing nations with bad leaders, the people would bitch and moan about the price of gasoline. they are in a lose-lose situation. i personally would prefer to follow George Washington's advice and avoid foreign entanglements, but the reality is, today that isn't much of an option.

So it's okay to ally ourselves with OTHER cruel dictators, because our yuppies have to drive their SUVs...how can you use that as a legitimate reason to ally ourselves with who we're supposedly ridding the world of. And who the hell cares about gasoline prices...I mean we're going to run out pretty damn soon, we might as well start realizing that. It's time to look at other options.

Sounds like you dont really mind us working with bad governments as long as we dont call our selfs defeneders of freedom.

Bush has claimed we're on a "crusade" to rid the world of terror. We're allied with some of the worst. That is just a taste of the hypocrisy within this administration, which alone is reason enough to be pissed off.

[yeat182]

So it's okay to ally ourselves with OTHER cruel dictators, because our yuppies have to drive their SUVs...how can you use that as a legitimate reason to ally ourselves with who we're supposedly ridding the world of. And who the hell cares about gasoline prices...I mean we're going to run out pretty damn soon, we might as well start realizing that. It's time to look at other options.



i was saying that until people take some responsibility for the current situation, we will have to ally ourselves with some bad people. doesn't make it right, but its the reality of the world today. in an ideal world, i would love to punish all the evil people and only ally ourselves with the good people, but this isn't an ideal world and never will be. and i agree that we will run out soon and we should be working hard at finding an alternative, if for no other reason than to give us a reason to break alliances with these people.

[Love As Arson]

I'm all for finding other resources besides oil but once we do we will destroy the economies of many nations and from what I've seen poverty contributes to terrorism. We have to be prepared for that.

[venus/bacchus]

I'm all for finding other resources besides oil but once we do we will destroy the economies of many nations and from what I've seen poverty contributes to terrorism. We have to be prepared for that.
It's not that easy to just say "use other sources." If we had that option, we would've done it a long time ago. Producing hydrogen is extremely expensive and at this time pretty inefficient. I know there's a lot of research going on around the country pertaining to it, so maybe in the future someone will find some sort of way to be able to put out more energy that is required to be put in, but as of now it's not happening.

[Love As Arson]

It's not that easy to just say "use other sources." If we had that option, we would've done it a long time ago. Producing hydrogen is extremely expensive and at this time pretty inefficient. I know there's a lot of research going on around the country pertaining to it, so maybe in the future someone will find some sort of way to be able to put out more energy that is required to be put in, but as of now it's not happening.
I never said it was going to be easy. I said we have to be prepared for what happens after we find other resources.

[sweetsugar]

I'm sick of everyone bashing Bush. What we are seeing now are the effects of the Clinton administration, but has Bush stepped up to try to blaim it all on Clinton....No, that shows the man has character. Bush has balls, unlike most of the dick sucking politicians we have today who will change there opinion at any moment just to stay in office. All these alligations against Bush can be taken either way, most of the people dishing Bush are Democrats to the bone and want him out of office so that a democrat can come in and they can hopefully win the house. If Bush isn't re-elected ALOT of things are gonna go to shit. Now that we've started this mess we have to continue with it and finish it and Kerry is not the man to do that. Kerry does not have the character or the moral value's to lead a country.

[UndefinedBoy]

I'm sick of everyone bashing Bush. What we are seeing now are the effects of the Clinton administration, but has Bush stepped up to try to blaim it all on Clinton....No, that shows the man has character. Bush has balls, unlike most of the dick sucking politicians we have today who will change there opinion at any moment just to stay in office. All these alligations against Bush can be taken either way, most of the people dishing Bush are Democrats to the bone and want him out of office so that a democrat can come in and they can hopefully win the house. If Bush isn't re-elected ALOT of things are gonna go to shit. Now that we've started this mess we have to continue with it and finish it and Kerry is not the man to do that. Kerry does not have the character or the moral value's to lead a country.

I've read that post a million times before. I won't even bother going into why I think you're wrong, it won't make much of a difference. If you choose to ignore all of Bush's mistakes, by all means do so.

[yeat182]

I'm sick of everyone bashing Bush. What we are seeing now are the effects of the Clinton administration, but has Bush stepped up to try to blaim it all on Clinton....No, that shows the man has character. Bush has balls, unlike most of the dick sucking politicians we have today who will change there opinion at any moment just to stay in office. All these alligations against Bush can be taken either way, most of the people dishing Bush are Democrats to the bone and want him out of office so that a democrat can come in and they can hopefully win the house. If Bush isn't re-elected ALOT of things are gonna go to shit. Now that we've started this mess we have to continue with it and finish it and Kerry is not the man to do that. Kerry does not have the character or the moral value's to lead a country.

i agree with you for the most part (although there are probably better ways to say what you're trying to say).

[Sinister Rouge]

I'm sick of everyone bashing Bush. What we are seeing now are the effects of the Clinton administration, but has Bush stepped up to try to blaim it all on Clinton....No, that shows the man has character. Bush has balls, unlike most of the dick sucking politicians we have today who will change there opinion at any moment just to stay in office. All these alligations against Bush can be taken either way, most of the people dishing Bush are Democrats to the bone and want him out of office so that a democrat can come in and they can hopefully win the house. If Bush isn't re-elected ALOT of things are gonna go to shit. Now that we've started this mess we have to continue with it and finish it and Kerry is not the man to do that. Kerry does not have the character or the moral value's to lead a country.

So go vote for Bush and enjoy your draft card....he needs you on the front lines of his neo-imperialist ambitions.

[Sinister Rouge]

What!? Bush hasnt even mentioned the draft. The two people who proposed legislation were democrats.

But Bush would sign the bill...a lot of Republican congressmen agree with the draft too.

[Love As Arson]

I'm sick of everyone bashing Bush. What we are seeing now are the effects of the Clinton administration, but has Bush stepped up to try to blaim it all on Clinton....No, that shows the man has character. Bush has balls, unlike most of the dick sucking politicians we have today who will change there opinion at any moment just to stay in office. All these alligations against Bush can be taken either way, most of the people dishing Bush are Democrats to the bone and want him out of office so that a democrat can come in and they can hopefully win the house. If Bush isn't re-elected ALOT of things are gonna go to shit. Now that we've started this mess we have to continue with it and finish it and Kerry is not the man to do that. Kerry does not have the character or the moral value's to lead a country.
This is the funniest post I've ever read. You're sick of Bush bashing yet you go on to bash other people. That is hypocrisy.

[yeat182]

But Bush would sign the bill...a lot of Republican congressmen agree with the draft too.

why would bush sign this? because you don't like him?

[hXc_pwnage]

I'm sick of everyone bashing Bush. What we are seeing now are the effects of the Clinton administration, but has Bush stepped up to try to blaim it all on Clinton....No, that shows the man has character. Bush has balls, unlike most of the dick sucking politicians we have today who will change there opinion at any moment just to stay in office. All these alligations against Bush can be taken either way, most of the people dishing Bush are Democrats to the bone and want him out of office so that a democrat can come in and they can hopefully win the house. If Bush isn't re-elected ALOT of things are gonna go to shit. Now that we've started this mess we have to continue with it and finish it and Kerry is not the man to do that. Kerry does not have the character or the moral value's to lead a country.
Like the guy said...nice hypocrisy. Of course the Democrats want Bush to get out...DUH. There are some Republicans that want him out as well. So don't be a douche bag.

Yes, some allegatoins can be taken both ways...but some are straight out facts. You can't deny that. For instance...he took the intelligence wrong. It never said Iraq had WMD for sure...they thought it was possible because all they worked off of was documents from the 90's and such and had no information past 1998 because the inspectors were out of Iraq then. If we had let inspectors in and made the searchers harder, we would have known more.

Bush doesn't have the fucking smarts to lead a country...or maybe it's because he speaks Mexican that makes him such a good president.

[punkforlife]

I'm sick of everyone bashing Bush. What we are seeing now are the effects of the Clinton administration, but has Bush stepped up to try to blaim it all on Clinton....No, that shows the man has character. Bush has balls....

shit i bet even gandhi would've had 'balls' with an army the size of yours.

[yeat182]

If we had let inspectors in and made the searchers harder, we would have known more.



we did let the inspectors back in, and there is no way we could have made the searches harder, between the UN's reluctance to do anything and the Iraqi's insistance on playing games.

[sweetsugar]

This is the funniest post I've ever read. You're sick of Bush bashing yet you go on to bash other people. That is hypocrisy.

No it's not hypocrisy, I bash on people all the time....I'm just sick of people bashing on Bush. Jeese

and you guys are right the WMD's arent in iraq, they are in Syria....and we'll probably be going there next.

and if they do start a draft they need to draft females to, they want equal rights.....well here they are.

[sweetsugar]

shit i bet even gandhi would've had 'balls' with an army the size of yours.

I'm going with dave chapelle on this whole deal.

Fuck yall, cause you ain't got no army.

[Love As Arson]

No it's not hypocrisy, I bash on people all the time....I'm just sick of people bashing on Bush. Jeese

and you guys are right the WMD's arent in iraq, they are in Syria....and we'll probably be going there next.

and if they do start a draft they need to draft females to, they want equal rights.....well here they are.
If you're going to bash democratic candidates then you cannot expect those who criticize Bush to stop doing so.
I doubt that they are in Syria and if we do go to Syria then expect more terrorist attacks.Expect more American hatred than you've ever seen.
We are the threat to world peace. It's funny how we pretend to be morally above other countries when in reality we are just as corrupt and have just as many ties to terrorism.

[yeat182]

If you're going to bash democratic candidates then you cannot expect those who criticize Bush to stop doing so.
I doubt that they are in Syria and if we do go to Syria then expect more terrorist attacks.Expect more American hatred than you've ever seen.
We are the threat to world peace. It's funny how we pretend to be morally above other countries when in reality we are just as corrupt and have just as many ties to terrorism.

first, al-qaeda terrorist were caught with WMD's in Jordan, who came from Syria, so they have already proven there that they are harboring terrorists with WMD's, and thus, they are a legitimate target, above which it is suspected that those WMD's may have originally came from Iraq. secondly, terrorists are the threat to world peace, not the US.

[hXc_pwnage]

How did he take the intelligence wrong? If he took the intelligence wrong that would mean that he didnt do anything even though the intel. showed Iraq had WMDS.
It said there was a chance, using information from 1998 and below that was given to them through inspections. When inspections stopped...they stopped getting information. Since Bush was happy with only inspections...they were pressured to give him what he wanted; information leading o Iraq possesing WMD. They didn't...but he said the intelligence said Saddam had them when it only said there was a chance using historical documents.

[hXc_pwnage]

we did let the inspectors back in, and there is no way we could have made the searches harder, between the UN's reluctance to do anything and the Iraqi's insistance on playing games.
The UN would have gladly done inspections over war...we all know that.

If we can force a war on Iraq...can't we force inspections!?

[Love As Arson]

first, al-qaeda terrorist were caught with WMD's in Jordan, who came from Syria, so they have already proven there that they are harboring terrorists with WMD's, and thus, they are a legitimate target, above which it is suspected that those WMD's may have originally came from Iraq. secondly, terrorists are the threat to world peace, not the US.
Did Jordan actually know they had WMD's or is this just an assumption? I would think that if Iraq was moving it's supposed WMD's we would know. Also there is no proof at all they are actually from Iraq.
So any country that supports or did support terrorism is a legitimate target? So are we going to target ourselves? Is it all justified because it was us?
I am so tired of this hypocrisy that we do what we have to do in order to meet our needs and it is irrelevant as to whether or not people suffer because of it. Then we act as if we are morally above any other countries? Contrary to popular belief we are guilty of worse crimes than the ones that were committed on 9-11. That happening does not cleanse us of our sins.
Not to mention bombs will not stop terrorism. It will only create more which will hate us. If we really wish to stop terrorism we will have to start with educating them with our actions.
How many more countries are we going to go to? We have neither the resources nor the respect to go about attacking every country we perceive to be a threat.
You say terrorism is a threat to world peace and you are right. American terrorism under the guise of war to end terrorism is the threat to world peace. We are trying to forcefully create countries in the Middle East which support America. That in itself is immoral and oppressive. The same thing we are supposedly fighting against. Funny how morality becomes subjective when we are involved.

[yeat182]

It said there was a chance, using information from 1998 and below that was given to them through inspections. When inspections stopped...they stopped getting information. Since Bush was happy with only inspections...they were pressured to give him what he wanted; information leading o Iraq possesing WMD. They didn't...but he said the intelligence said Saddam had them when it only said there was a chance using historical documents.

first, how could bush pressure inspectors when they were last in the country in 1998? bush wasn't president at the time. secondly, even without inspectors they were able to gain intellegence, after all that is the job of the CIA and other intellegence agencies. finally, when bush asked Tenet if saddam had WMD's, he said it was a "slam dunk", that doesn't sound like "there is a chance" to me...

[yeat182]

The UN would have gladly done inspections over war...we all know that.

If we can force a war on Iraq...can't we force inspections!?

we did send inspectors back in, and they were stonewalled again...remember 1441?

[yeat182]

Did Jordan actually know they had WMD's or is this just an assumption?

yes

I would think that if Iraq was moving it's supposed WMD's we would know.

if we knew, we wouldn't have had to have inspectors in the country in 1998 and again in 2003...also, if we knew, we would have stopped it.

Also there is no proof at all they are actually from Iraq.

never said there was...

So any country that supports or did support terrorism is a legitimate target?

yes.

So are we going to target ourselves?

don't be stupid.

Is it all justified because it was us?

it is justifed because we are the target.

I am so tired of this hypocrisy that we do what we have to do in order to meet our needs and it is irrelevant as to whether or not people suffer because of it.

the Iraqi's aren't suffering now nearly as much as they did under saddam, so what is your point?


Not to mention bombs will not stop terrorism. It will only create more which will hate us.

actually, bombs create less terrorists, dead terrorists can't kill anyone...

If we really wish to stop terrorism we will have to start with educating them with our actions.

terrorists don't want to be educated, they want to kill americans, they aren't going to change their mind if we stop trying to kill them, they are brainwashed by their leaders, and if we give into their demands they will simply find another reason to kill americans.


You say terrorism is a threat to world peace and you are right. American terrorism under the guise of war to end terrorism is the threat to world peace.

no

[hXc_pwnage]

first, how could bush pressure inspectors when they were last in the country in 1998? bush wasn't president at the time. secondly, even without inspectors they were able to gain intellegence, after all that is the job of the CIA and other intellegence agencies. finally, when bush asked Tenet if saddam had WMD's, he said it was a "slam dunk", that doesn't sound like "there is a chance" to me...
I wrote that wrong...

He pressured the CIA.

The rest of the CIA keeps saying they only said there was a chance. How can you say it is a "slam dunk" when you have no up to date information?

[hXc_pwnage]

we did send inspectors back in, and they were stonewalled again...remember 1441?
Like I said...if we can force a war...we should be able to force inspections.

[Love As Arson]

yes



if we knew, we wouldn't have had to have inspectors in the country in 1998 and again in 2003...also, if we knew, we would have stopped it.



never said there was...



yes.



don't be stupid.



it is justifed because we are the target.



the Iraqi's aren't suffering now nearly as much as they did under saddam, so what is your point?




actually, bombs create less terrorists, dead terrorists can't kill anyone...



terrorists don't want to be educated, they want to kill americans, they aren't going to change their mind if we stop trying to kill them, they are brainwashed by their leaders, and if we give into their demands they will simply find another reason to kill americans.



no
What I am saying that we would have known that they were transporting them and if there is no proof then it is more than likely they aren't harboring Iraq's WMD's.
I'm serious. If we really wish to get rid of everyone that supported terrorism then we have to arrest Reagan, Bush Sr. and the rest of the presidents that have supported and committed terrorist acts. I doubt you would be in favor of that because it was the United States and somehow immorality is justified when it is us that is being immoral.
Taking over sovereign nations is justified because we are a target? Well, where are we going next? Why don't we go to Saudi Arabia? They gave money to the terrorists which committed 9-11. Oh that's right they give us oil so that is impossible. Do you see the hypocrisy in that?
I'm not just talking about the Iraqi's. I'm talking about all the suffering America has caused to other nations by supporting dictators , suppressing revolutions and overthrowing democratic nations just because they wouldn't bow to the will of the US.
Bombs kill terrorists which makes them martyrs and a rallying point for people that feel oppressed thus making more terrorists willing to die. Kill one terrorist and he just becomes a hero and a symbol of the oppression inflicted by us.
Our actions speak louder than words. We have to change the ideas of what the US is in the Middle East because if we don't and we continue bombing we will only be inviting more terrorism.

PHILIPPINES, 1898 - 1910: seizes from Spain, 600,000 Filipinos killed
PUERTO RICO, 1898: seizes from Spain
PANAMA, 1901 - 14: separates country from Colombia and annexes canal zone
HONDURAS, 1903: US marines intervene against revolution
NICARAGUA, 1912 - 33: 20-year occupation and war against guerrillas
HAITI, 1914 - 34: occupation
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, 1916 - 24: occupation
CUBA, 1917 - 33: military occupation, made into economic protectorate
RUSSIA, 1917 - 22: troops sent five times to try to overthrow revolution
YUGOSLAVIA, 1919: marines intervene against Serbs
PANAMA, 1925: marines suppress general strike
CHINA, 1927 - 34: marines stationed throughout the country
EL SALVADOR, 1932: warships sent during revolt
JAPAN, 1945: firebombs Tokyo and other cities, drops atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
PUERTO RICO, 1950: independence rebellion crushed
KOREA, 1950 - 53: US and South Korea fight China and North Korea to stalemate. US threatens to use nuclear bombs. At least two million Korean civilians killed or wounded
IRAN, 1953: CIA overthrows democracy
GUATEMALA, 1954: CIA directs invasion after government nationalized land belonging to US United Fruit company
LEBANON, 1956: US troops land
VIETNAM, 1960 - 75: two million Vietnamese killed in longest US war
INDONESIA, 1965: one million killed in CIA-assisted coup
GUATEMALA, 1966: troops intervene
CAMBODIA, 1969 - 75: US carpet-bombs. Two million killed by years of bombing and starvation
CHILE, 1973: CIA-backed coup overthrows democratically elected government
ANGOLA, 1976 - 92: CIA assists South African backed rebels
LIBYA, 1981: two Libyan jets shot down
EL SALVADOR, 1981 - 92: troops and air power assist death squads, 75,000 people killed
NICARAGUA, 1981 - 90: CIA directs Contra invasions
LEBANON, 1982 - 84: US forces intervene, navy shells Beirut
HONDURAS, 1983 - 89: US troups build bases for death squads
GRENADA, 1983: US invasion
LIBYA, 1986: capital Tripoli bombed in effort to kill President Gadaffi
IRAN, 1987: Iranian passenger jets shot down over Persian Gulf
PANAMA, 1989 - 90: invasion, thousands of civilians killed
GULF WAR, 1990 - 91: US-led coalition kills 100,000 Iraqis. Post war sanctions kill an estimated one million civilians in the following ten years
SOMALIA, 1992 - 94: US-led United Nations occupation
EX-YUGOSLAVIA, 1995: bombs Serbs and assists ethnic cleansing
SUDAN, 1998: bombs pharmaceutical factory
IRAQ, 1998: four days of air strikes, raids continue until present day
SERBIA 1989: 78 days of NATO air strikes
AFGHANISTAN, 2001: US-led war kills thousands
IRAQ, 2002-4: ...

Still think we aren't a threat to world peace?

[yeat182]

I wrote that wrong...

He pressured the CIA.

The rest of the CIA keeps saying they only said there was a chance. How can you say it is a "slam dunk" when you have no up to date information?

exactly, so the fault lies with the CIA and George Tenet, who gave the president incorrect information.

[yeat182]

Like I said...if we can force a war...we should be able to force inspections.

the only way you can force inspections is with the threat of war, which was the purpose of 1441, which was ignored by the very nations of the UN that voted in favor of it in the first place. had those nations stood by their resolution, then inspections would have been much more effective because saddam would have known that the entire world was behind it, instead he saw that france, germany, and russia stood behind Iraq and thought there was no way the US would invade without full UN support, and therefor had no need to cooperate with inspections, because he felt there were no consequences. not to mention that the whole oil for food scandal more that likely helped sway the opinions of the french/german/russian governments, since Saddam could simply blackmail them if they supported the US.

[hXc_pwnage]

exactly, so the fault lies with the CIA and George Tenet, who gave the president incorrect information.
How? They never said Iraq had WMD for sure...but Bush said they did. He waged war because of that. How does it make it the CIA's fault?

[hXc_pwnage]

the only way you can force inspections is with the threat of war, which was the purpose of 1441, which was ignored by the very nations of the UN that voted in favor of it in the first place. had those nations stood by their resolution, then inspections would have been much more effective because saddam would have known that the entire world was behind it, instead he saw that france, germany, and russia stood behind Iraq and thought there was no way the US would invade without full UN support, and therefor had no need to cooperate with inspections, because he felt there were no consequences. not to mention that the whole oil for food scandal more that likely helped sway the opinions of the french/german/russian governments, since Saddam could simply blackmail them if they supported the US.
Can't we do inspections as a nation?

[yeat182]

How? They never said Iraq had WMD for sure...but Bush said they did. He waged war because of that. How does it make it the CIA's fault?

the CIA said they had the WMD's, and Tenet specifically said to george bush when asked if we would find WMD's, that it was a "slam dunk"...how can you say they never said Iraq had WMD's for sure?

[yeat182]

Can't we do inspections as a nation?

how do you propose we do that with out military intervention? Saddam isn't going to cooperate without some threat of consequence, and we can't just send a bunch of civillian weapons inspectors into Iraq and hope they are "allowed" to do their job...

[Love As Arson]

If you think combating terrorism by fighting terrorism is the wrong way to deal with the threat by all means vote or support someone who will negotiate with terrorist and give them a lot of the things they want. I think it's absurd logic.

They were talkign about schools in, I think Pakistan, that kids go to from the age of 7 till 22 or 23. All they do is crouch down every day and read the Koran and are suppose to have like 6,000 lines memorized before tehy graduate. All these kids and men want to kill Americans and believe Bin Laden is a hero. If you really think someone can reason and negotitate with these people you must know somethign I dont know.
I don't want us to negotiate or give in to terrorists. What I want is to stop terrorism at it's root. You cannot do that with bombs. You have to stop it with education and actions. We have to win the hearts and minds of those in the Middle East. I don't believe that can be done by usurping the governments of sovereign nations.

[hXc_pwnage]

the CIA said they had the WMD's, and Tenet specifically said to george bush when asked if we would find WMD's, that it was a "slam dunk"...how can you say they never said Iraq had WMD's for sure?
I know that the intelligence did not report that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Maybe one guy said so.

[hXc_pwnage]

how do you propose we do that with out military intervention? Saddam isn't going to cooperate without some threat of consequence, and we can't just send a bunch of civillian weapons inspectors into Iraq and hope they are "allowed" to do their job...
Of course we use military intervention...we just don't shoot down everyone.

[yeat182]

I know that the intelligence did not report that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Maybe one guy said so.

that one guy is the head of the CIA

[punkforlife]

I'm going with dave chapelle on this whole deal.

Fuck yall, cause you ain't got no army.

nice diplomatic approach you have there geezer. i guess mostly we have no army these days because you buggers keep bombing the wrong fucking side...
seriously mate, get a dog/girlfriend/boyfriend/hobby and fucking relax.

alternatively, if you agree so whole heartedly with bush's policy put your money where your fucking mouth is, join up and do your own dirty work...

[yeat182]

nice diplomatic approach you have there geezer. i guess mostly we have no army these days because you buggers keep bombing the wrong fucking side...
seriously mate, get a dog/girlfriend/boyfriend/hobby and fucking relax.

alternatively, if you agree so whole heartedly with bush's policy put your money where your fucking mouth is, join up and do your own dirty work...

that is a dumb arguement, if you don't agree with it, then move out of the country...

[punkforlife]

that is a dumb arguement, if you don't agree with it, then move out of the country...

you cannot be seriously suggesting that if a resident of a democratic nation disagrees with a given policy of their home nations current government then they have no other legitimate course of option but to leave the country?
if you're trying to use my own argument against me then it was a brave attempt (bless your heart for trying) but surely you should have told me to 'put my money where my mouth is' get elected and then recall the troops?
think your arguments through and then come back with some structured, reasoned criticism if not, don't waste my time.
take it easy,
punkforlife

[yeat182]

you cannot be seriously suggesting that if a resident of a democratic nation disagrees with a given policy of their home nations current government then they have no other legitimate course of option but to leave the country?
if you're trying to use my own argument against me then it was a brave attempt (bless your heart for trying) but surely you should have told me to 'put my money where my mouth is' get elected and then recall the troops?
think your arguments through and then come back with some structured, reasoned criticism if not, don't waste my time.
take it easy,
punkforlife

you win, congratulations.

[punkforlife]

you win, congratulations.

i'm not trying to be a jerk, please don't take my opinion the wrong way (thats all it is my opinion which is just as 'right' and 'wrong' as yours and anyone/everyone else's). i'm all for two (or more) sided well thought out arguments - shit, discussed differences of opinion are the only way to make any progress right?
take it easy,
punkforlife

also...pet sounds is a fucking great album, good call.

[yeat182]

i'm not trying to be a jerk, please don't take my opinion the wrong way (thats all it is my opinion which is just as 'right' and 'wrong' as yours and anyone/everyone else's). i'm all for two (or more) sided well thought out arguments - shit, discussed differences of opinion are the only way to make any progress right?
take it easy,
punkforlife

also...pet sounds is a fucking great album, good call.

no worries, all is forgiven.

[punkforlife]

no worries, all is forgiven.

forgiven huh? wicked.
take it easy geez,
punkforlife

p.s. favourite beach boys songs = 'caroline, no', 'wouldn't it be nice' and 'in my room'.

[yeat182]

forgiven huh? wicked.
take it easy geez,
punkforlife

p.s. favourite beach boys songs = 'caroline, no', 'wouldn't it be nice' and 'in my room'.

great choices, i like 'don't worry baby', 'kiss me baby', 'please let me wonder' and 'i can hear music'. but you really can't go wrong with any beach boys song.

[punkforlife]

great choices, i like 'don't worry baby', 'kiss me baby', 'please let me wonder' and 'i can hear music'. but you really can't go wrong with any beach boys song.

brian wilson really has a magic touch i guess. one of those musicians/bands etc that has never written a bad song.

[yeat182]

brian wilson really has a magic touch i guess. one of those musicians/bands etc that has never written a bad song.

last note on the beach boys (this is a political forum), i want to make a tribute CD with current punk/emo bands on it, i think they have some songs that would sound amazing if they were covered by some bands today.

[Sinister Rouge]

What I am saying that we would have known that they were transporting them and if there is no proof then it is more than likely they aren't harboring Iraq's WMD's.
I'm serious. If we really wish to get rid of everyone that supported terrorism then we have to arrest Reagan, Bush Sr. and the rest of the presidents that have supported and committed terrorist acts. I doubt you would be in favor of that because it was the United States and somehow immorality is justified when it is us that is being immoral.
Taking over sovereign nations is justified because we are a target? Well, where are we going next? Why don't we go to Saudi Arabia? They gave money to the terrorists which committed 9-11. Oh that's right they give us oil so that is impossible. Do you see the hypocrisy in that?
I'm not just talking about the Iraqi's. I'm talking about all the suffering America has caused to other nations by supporting dictators , suppressing revolutions and overthrowing democratic nations just because they wouldn't bow to the will of the US.
Bombs kill terrorists which makes them martyrs and a rallying point for people that feel oppressed thus making more terrorists willing to die. Kill one terrorist and he just becomes a hero and a symbol of the oppression inflicted by us.
Our actions speak louder than words. We have to change the ideas of what the US is in the Middle East because if we don't and we continue bombing we will only be inviting more terrorism.

PHILIPPINES, 1898 - 1910: seizes from Spain, 600,000 Filipinos killed
PUERTO RICO, 1898: seizes from Spain
PANAMA, 1901 - 14: separates country from Colombia and annexes canal zone
HONDURAS, 1903: US marines intervene against revolution
NICARAGUA, 1912 - 33: 20-year occupation and war against guerrillas
HAITI, 1914 - 34: occupation
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, 1916 - 24: occupation
CUBA, 1917 - 33: military occupation, made into economic protectorate
RUSSIA, 1917 - 22: troops sent five times to try to overthrow revolution
YUGOSLAVIA, 1919: marines intervene against Serbs
PANAMA, 1925: marines suppress general strike
CHINA, 1927 - 34: marines stationed throughout the country
EL SALVADOR, 1932: warships sent during revolt
JAPAN, 1945: firebombs Tokyo and other cities, drops atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
PUERTO RICO, 1950: independence rebellion crushed
KOREA, 1950 - 53: US and South Korea fight China and North Korea to stalemate. US threatens to use nuclear bombs. At least two million Korean civilians killed or wounded
IRAN, 1953: CIA overthrows democracy
GUATEMALA, 1954: CIA directs invasion after government nationalized land belonging to US United Fruit company
LEBANON, 1956: US troops land
VIETNAM, 1960 - 75: two million Vietnamese killed in longest US war
INDONESIA, 1965: one million killed in CIA-assisted coup
GUATEMALA, 1966: troops intervene
CAMBODIA, 1969 - 75: US carpet-bombs. Two million killed by years of bombing and starvation
CHILE, 1973: CIA-backed coup overthrows democratically elected government
ANGOLA, 1976 - 92: CIA assists South African backed rebels
LIBYA, 1981: two Libyan jets shot down
EL SALVADOR, 1981 - 92: troops and air power assist death squads, 75,000 people killed
NICARAGUA, 1981 - 90: CIA directs Contra invasions
LEBANON, 1982 - 84: US forces intervene, navy shells Beirut
HONDURAS, 1983 - 89: US troups build bases for death squads
GRENADA, 1983: US invasion
LIBYA, 1986: capital Tripoli bombed in effort to kill President Gadaffi
IRAN, 1987: Iranian passenger jets shot down over Persian Gulf
PANAMA, 1989 - 90: invasion, thousands of civilians killed
GULF WAR, 1990 - 91: US-led coalition kills 100,000 Iraqis. Post war sanctions kill an estimated one million civilians in the following ten years
SOMALIA, 1992 - 94: US-led United Nations occupation
EX-YUGOSLAVIA, 1995: bombs Serbs and assists ethnic cleansing
SUDAN, 1998: bombs pharmaceutical factory
IRAQ, 1998: four days of air strikes, raids continue until present day
SERBIA 1989: 78 days of NATO air strikes
AFGHANISTAN, 2001: US-led war kills thousands
IRAQ, 2002-4: ...

Still think we aren't a threat to world peace?

The US supports terrorism in Latin America...

http://www.soaw.org/new/

We are just as guilty as the Taliban.

[sweetsugar]

America's moral frame is crumbling, can we morally be above the rest of these country's. Well maybe we could have before all this seperation of church and state BS. The bible is now catagorized as hate literature in canada toward homosexuals. That is total BS the bible has been around forever. Groups against christianity are slowly destroying this country, how can a country be expected to run in a decent manner when the very things it was founded upon are beeing taken apart from its frame.
It can't, plain and simple. We are not wrong in this war on terrorism, the only people who think its wrong are all these stupid ass little pussy's who are afraid to stand up for somethin. You gotta stand up sooner or later. At least let it be a worthy cause that you stand up for, not gay marriage, not seperation of church and state. Stand up for somethin that is right. By taking prayer out of public events and schools aren't you infringing upon those peoples rights to freedom of religion? I think so.
So all you useless tool's can go argue with yourselves, cause I know whats right, and we are not doing the wrong thing in the middle east.

[Love As Arson]

America's moral frame is crumbling, can we morally be above the rest of these country's. Well maybe we could have before all this seperation of church and state BS. The bible is now catagorized as hate literature in canada toward homosexuals. That is total BS the bible has been around forever. Groups against christianity are slowly destroying this country, how can a country be expected to run in a decent manner when the very things it was founded upon are beeing taken apart from its frame.
It can't, plain and simple. We are not wrong in this war on terrorism, the only people who think its wrong are all these stupid ass little pussy's who are afraid to stand up for somethin. You gotta stand up sooner or later. At least let it be a worthy cause that you stand up for, not gay marriage, not seperation of church and state. Stand up for somethin that is right. By taking prayer out of public events and schools aren't you infringing upon those peoples rights to freedom of religion? I think so.
So all you useless tool's can go argue with yourselves, cause I know whats right, and we are not doing the wrong thing in the middle east.
I don't think that has anything to do with our moral frame. Even when our morals were supposedly high we were still committing crimes against people. I'm sure you remember what happened to the Native Americans, slavery and segregation. So to say it is because of the seperation of church and state is completely wrong because our morality was corrupt when church and state were one, when there was prayer in school, when homosexuality was seen as immoral (more so than today). That in itself totally disproves your position.
What we are doing in the Middle East is not going to help us at all. Hearts and minds are not won with bombs. The sooner we see that the better off we will be.
Also you are ignorant to what anyone stands for on this message board. You can spout how you know what is right and wrong all you want when in reality it is only what you believe is right and wrong. Your beliefs alone do not make up reality.

[punkforlife]

America's moral frame is crumbling, can we morally be above the rest of these country's. Well maybe we could have before all this seperation of church and state BS. The bible is now catagorized as hate literature in canada toward homosexuals. That is total BS the bible has been around forever. Groups against christianity are slowly destroying this country, how can a country be expected to run in a decent manner when the very things it was founded upon are beeing taken apart from its frame.
It can't, plain and simple. We are not wrong in this war on terrorism, the only people who think its wrong are all these stupid ass little pussy's who are afraid to stand up for somethin. You gotta stand up sooner or later. At least let it be a worthy cause that you stand up for, not gay marriage, not seperation of church and state. Stand up for somethin that is right. By taking prayer out of public events and schools aren't you infringing upon those peoples rights to freedom of religion? I think so.
So all you useless tool's can go argue with yourselves, cause I know whats right, and we are not doing the wrong thing in the middle east.

i can't be bothered to add my opinion to your post, i'm pretty sure you'd be uninterested anyway.
i don't know if you're a big reader but if you fancy a political book then read machiavelli's 'The Prince' (seriously). i shit you not it will totally appeal to you.

[sweetsugar]

i can't be bothered to add my opinion to your post, i'm pretty sure you'd be uninterested anyway.
i don't know if you're a big reader but if you fancy a political book then read machiavelli's 'The Prince' (seriously). i shit you not it will totally appeal to you.

Actually punkforlife your opinion is one of the very few I am currently listening to on these boards, so knock me out, just wanna see how you view things, if it's different than mine, I swear I'm not gonna try to flame you, and I'll make sure I check that book out. I usually read nerdy fantasy books.

send me a message on AIM sometime...... Sn = allen9608

I'm on most all the time.

[sweetsugar]

I don't think that has anything to do with our moral frame. Even when our morals were supposedly high we were still committing crimes against people. I'm sure you remember what happened to the Native Americans, slavery and segregation. So to say it is because of the seperation of church and state is completely wrong because our morality was corrupt when church and state were one, when there was prayer in school, when homosexuality was seen as immoral (more so than today). That in itself totally disproves your position.
What we are doing in the Middle East is not going to help us at all. Hearts and minds are not won with bombs. The sooner we see that the better off we will be.
Also you are ignorant to what anyone stands for on this message board. You can spout how you know what is right and wrong all you want when in reality it is only what you believe is right and wrong. Your beliefs alone do not make up reality.

In my world my beliefs make up reality. If they weren't, then I would be completely lost in life. If you don't believe in anything, then what will you ever amount to? For the most part, your right I don't care what most of the people here have to say, because most of it I totally disagree with. Some people actually make valid points, other just fill the board up with political anti-government/anti-bush propaghanda. You can site literary sources that prove your points to, but with the corrupted news media, even most of those aren't valid.

[UndefinedBoy]

In my world my beliefs make up reality. If they weren't, then I would be completely lost in life. If you don't believe in anything, then what will you ever amount to?

You act as though just because people don't believe in this war that they don't believe in anything. Plenty of people have very strong beliefs about why the war is wrong. Just because they don't share your beliefs doesn't mean they don't have any. You don't seem to care what anyone on here says, though, so I doubt this post will even matter to you. But regardless, you might want to try and respect other people's beliefs, even if they differ from yours...because many people don't agree with you...

[punkforlife]

Actually punkforlife your opinion is one of the very few I am currently listening to on these boards, so knock me out, just wanna see how you view things, if it's different than mine, I swear I'm not gonna try to flame you, and I'll make sure I check that book out. I usually read nerdy fantasy books.

send me a message on AIM sometime...... Sn = allen9608

I'm on most all the time.

good man! thats the spirit:
honest, thought out, intelligent discourse of alternative ideas is the only way to solve anything and make any progress. and you get a shit lot more (of real intellectual worth) from talking to someone with different ideas to you than you do talking with those who share the same views/beliefs (surely you'll just agree with one another and reinforce your preconceptions without being forced to confront weaknesses in them, refine them and defend them?For more on this read J. S. Mill's 'On Liberty') as you do.
With that said do you want my opinion on Iraq or the 'corruption of moral society'?
Let me know which and i'll let you know what i think.

[cal1082]

I don't want us to negotiate or give in to terrorists. What I want is to stop terrorism at it's root. You cannot do that with bombs. You have to stop it with education and actions. We have to win the hearts and minds of those in the Middle East. I don't believe that can be done by usurping the governments of sovereign nations.

That's a pretty picture, but what would be an affective way to do this if it is possible?

[sweetsugar]

good man! thats the spirit:
honest, thought out, intelligent discourse of alternative ideas is the only way to solve anything and make any progress. and you get a shit lot more (of real intellectual worth) from talking to someone with different ideas to you than you do talking with those who share the same views/beliefs (surely you'll just agree with one another and reinforce your preconceptions without being forced to confront weaknesses in them, refine them and defend them?For more on this read J. S. Mill's 'On Liberty') as you do.
With that said do you want my opinion on Iraq or the 'corruption of moral society'?
Let me know which and i'll let you know what i think.
Let's go for the corruption of moral society. There is ALOT wrong with society, and you can point the fingers in many directions.
So lets here it.

[Love As Arson]

That's a pretty picture, but what would be an affective way to do this if it is possible?
We have to completely change our foreign policy. We have to get rid of the doctrine of pre-emptive war and begin winning their hearts and minds. We can do this by first being more diplomatic and less forceful. We have to begin helping this countries economically because poverty breeds terrorism.

[Love As Arson]

In my world my beliefs make up reality. If they weren't, then I would be completely lost in life. If you don't believe in anything, then what will you ever amount to? For the most part, your right I don't care what most of the people here have to say, because most of it I totally disagree with. Some people actually make valid points, other just fill the board up with political anti-government/anti-bush propaghanda. You can site literary sources that prove your points to, but with the corrupted news media, even most of those aren't valid.
In your world your beliefs may make up reality but that doesn't mean it is reality in relation to everyone else.
I'm sure many people on here have strong beliefs as do I but just because they conflict doesn't mean they are any less relevant.
I think it is ignorant to not care what people say because you disagree with it. If anything you should pay more attention to it because you may learn something.

[punkforlife]

Let's go for the corruption of moral society. There is ALOT wrong with society, and you can point the fingers in many directions.
So lets here it.

if its cool with you i'll send e-mail you my opinion. because that's all it is MY opinion, therefore its probably of little or no interest to most everyone on here and since i don't want to waste any more of other people's time than i have to i figured i'd just mail it to you in the next couple of days?

[UndefinedBoy]

if its cool with you i'll send e-mail you my opinion. because that's all it is MY opinion, therefore its probably of little or no interest to most everyone on here and since i don't want to waste any more of other people's time than i have to i figured i'd just mail it to you in the next couple of days?

Don't discount us entirely! I, for one, would be interested in hearing it.

[hXc_pwnage]

Don't discount us entirely! I, for one, would be interested in hearing it.
Same herr.

[yeat182]

We have to completely change our foreign policy. We have to get rid of the doctrine of pre-emptive war and begin winning their hearts and minds. We can do this by first being more diplomatic and less forceful. We have to begin helping this countries economically because poverty breeds terrorism.


that is like paying ransom, or better yet, paying a bully your lunch money everyday so he won't beat you up...

[punkforlife]

that is like paying ransom, or better yet, paying a bully your lunch money everyday so he won't beat you up...

so politics for you represents a simple choice between being bullied and being the bully?

[Love As Arson]

that is like paying ransom, or better yet, paying a bully your lunch money everyday so he won't beat you up...
What will we have accomplished with this war on terrorism if the next generation grows up with the same hatred of us?
We can stop that from happening, not with bombs but with diplomacy and economic aid.

[yeat182]

What will we have accomplished with this war on terrorism if the next generation grows up with the same hatred of us?
We can stop that from happening, not with bombs but with diplomacy and economic aid.

you know what will happen if we give into terrorists and acquiesce to their demands, we will get more terrorists. everyone that wants something from the US will know how to get it. not to mention, that we supported many middle eastern nations with economic aid, and what did that get us? terrorists.

and as for bullies, standing up for yourself doesn't make you a bully.

[cal1082]

We have to completely change our foreign policy. We have to get rid of the doctrine of pre-emptive war and begin winning their hearts and minds. We can do this by first being more diplomatic and less forceful. We have to begin helping this countries economically because poverty breeds terrorism.

That's not really a plan. The only solution you offered was helping countries economically and we've already been doing that, and you dont deal diplomaticaly with terrorists. That's an absurd idea because they have no diplomatic authority besides promising not to kill you.

[yeat182]

also, why, if the war on terror isn't working, did bin Laden offer a peace treaty to any nations in Europe that stop fighting? and more importantly, why did all the nations turn him down?

[sweetsugar]

What will we have accomplished with this war on terrorism if the next generation grows up with the same hatred of us?
We can stop that from happening, not with bombs but with diplomacy and economic aid.
We already have a big enough defecit. All these countries that we give economic aid....NEVER pay us back.
Look at russia.

[sweetsugar]

Don't discount us entirely! I, for one, would be interested in hearing it.
go for it
christopher.allen.purvis@us.army.mi l

[Love As Arson]

I don't think any of you are offering much of an alternative to what I think we need. Bomb and overthrow sovereign governments. Wow, great plan.We have to make a sustained effort to win these people over. That means economic aid along with educating them on why we are not the bad guys.
We will lose this war if we continue to use force because it will only show the younger generations that we are exactly what the terrorists are saying we are. This will create more terrorists.
We will lose if we give up on changing their minds and not trying to win over the people. This war right now will be for nothing if the next generation grows up hating us.

[punkforlife]

and as for bullies, standing up for yourself doesn't make you a bully.

but then your argument must work both ways. surely if you can defend you view point as 'standing up for yourself' then so can the terrorists?

[yeat182]

but then your argument must work both ways. surely if you can defend you view point as 'standing up for yourself' then so can the terrorists?

terrorists target innocent people, that isn't standing up for yourself, that is bullying. giving in to them will only make the problem worse.

[cal1082]

I don't think any of you are offering much of an alternative to what I think we need. Bomb and overthrow sovereign governments. Wow, great plan.We have to make a sustained effort to win these people over. That means economic aid along with educating them on why we are not the bad guys.
We will lose this war if we continue to use force because it will only show the younger generations that we are exactly what the terrorists are saying we are. This will create more terrorists.
We will lose if we give up on changing their minds and not trying to win over the people. This war right now will be for nothing if the next generation grows up hating us.

We have been providing economic aid for years, and this does not matter. You are overlooking this for some reason. Once again how do we educate them if it's even possible?

[Love As Arson]

We have been providing economic aid for years, and this does not matter. You are overlooking this for some reason. Once again how do we educate them if it's even possible?
We've been providing economic aid while at the same time arming dictators.We give them money and then do things that affect them adversely.Do you think they are not aware of this? That is why I said we must also change our policy in the Middle East which goes alongog with educating them. Money alone isn't going to change this. We must educate them the same way we educate our children. With books, movies, and most importantly our actions. We must show them our culture is not evil.
As I've said before that is the only chance we have to win this war on terrorism because bombs and violence have been used in the Middle East before and it has only perpetuated terrorism. If violence has failed then non-violence is the only and best way to go.

[yeat182]

We've been providing economic aid while at the same time arming dictators.We give them money and then do things that affect them adversely.Do you think they are not aware of this? That is why I said we must also change our policy in the Middle East which goes alongog with educating them. Money alone isn't going to change this. We must educate them the same way we educate our children. With books, movies, and most importantly our actions. We must show them our culture is not evil.
As I've said before that is the only chance we have to win this war on terrorism because bombs and violence have been used in the Middle East before and it has only perpetuated terrorism. If violence has failed then non-violence is the only and best way to go.

we have given aid to many countries that do not have dictators, and they still don't like us. also, simply giving money to dictators doesn't do anything for the people of those countries. finally, when has there ever been this intense a campaign to rid terrorism in the middle east? how can you say it has failed, if it has never occured?

[cal1082]

We've been providing economic aid while at the same time arming dictators.We give them money and then do things that affect them adversely.Do you think they are not aware of this? That is why I said we must also change our policy in the Middle East which goes alongog with educating them. Money alone isn't going to change this. We must educate them the same way we educate our children. With books, movies, and most importantly our actions. We must show them our culture is not evil.
As I've said before that is the only chance we have to win this war on terrorism because bombs and violence have been used in the Middle East before and it has only perpetuated terrorism. If violence has failed then non-violence is the only and best way to go.

First I'd ask which dictators do you know of that Bush has been arming?

Second, how do we get these material to them. We going to do a fly over in Iran and drop books on them? I'm sure we could get books into Iraq a year ago, and North Korea now?

Force has not failed. We have gotten Pakistan on our side, and Libya has changed foot, so to say force has failed is a wrong assesment.

[punkforlife]

Libya has changed foot, so to say force has failed is a wrong assesment.

libya have been trying to surrender their weapons of mass destruction and visibly dismantle the programmes that produced them as a result of discussion with a british resident-libian business man whose name i forget. he acted or was willing to act as a go-between for the u.s. and libya but everytime the congressmen whom he contacted spoke to the various u.s. administrations they were informed that it was more advantageous to american interests that libya continue to be regarded as a 'rogue' state. therefore, recent shows of force have made no real difference to the libian position, it just so happens that now a situation has arisen in which it is to the benefit of the present administration to accept libya's offer for global p.r. purposes.
on another point gadaffi is still a cunt.

[Love As Arson]

First I'd ask which dictators do you know of that Bush has been arming?

Second, how do we get these material to them. We going to do a fly over in Iran and drop books on them? I'm sure we could get books into Iraq a year ago, and North Korea now?

Force has not failed. We have gotten Pakistan on our side, and Libya has changed foot, so to say force has failed is a wrong assesment.
Over the years we have supported many dictators and the people that are terrorists now were children when that was going on and have grown up thinking we are some oppressive force because they were educated by our actions at the time.
Actually in Iran the students are more liberal. They want change. As for other countries , if we choose to be diplomatic with them then it will allow us an oppurtunity to get those materials to them.
Force has failed in that it has shown to the next generation of these people that we are exactly what the terrorists say we are which is an oppressive entity out to rule them. Will you still call this war meaningful if the next generations become terrorists and commit acts of violence against us? Will the war on terrorism have actually succeded if terrorists are being created because of it?

[punkforlife]

terrorists target innocent people, that isn't standing up for yourself, that is bullying. giving in to them will only make the problem worse.

this argument has the same problem as your previous contention in that it must work both ways, or none at all i.e.
surely trade & aid sanctions punish other innocent people for the acts of their respective governments in the same way terrorism does?

[yeat182]

Over the years we have supported many dictators and the people that are terrorists now were children when that was going on and have grown up thinking we are some oppressive force because they were educated by our actions at the time.
Actually in Iran the students are more liberal. They want change. As for other countries , if we choose to be diplomatic with them then it will allow us an oppurtunity to get those materials to them.
Force has failed in that it has shown to the next generation of these people that we are exactly what the terrorists say we are which is an oppressive entity out to rule them. Will you still call this war meaningful if the next generations become terrorists and commit acts of violence against us? Will the war on terrorism have actually succeded if terrorists are being created because of it?

terrorists are being killed because of it. if it was failing, why would Osama offer a "peace treaty" with nations fighting the war on terror? you don't do that if you are winning, and he certainly isn't doing if for some altruistic reason, he's doing it because he is losing and defeat is inevitable.

[cal1082]

libya have been trying to surrender their weapons of mass destruction and visibly dismantle the programmes that produced them as a result of discussion with a british resident-libian business man whose name i forget. he acted or was willing to act as a go-between for the u.s. and libya but everytime the congressmen whom he contacted spoke to the various u.s. administrations they were informed that it was more advantageous to american interests that libya continue to be regarded as a 'rogue' state. therefore, recent shows of force have made no real difference to the libian position, it just so happens that now a situation has arisen in which it is to the benefit of the present administration to accept libya's offer for global p.r. purposes.
on another point gadaffi is still a cunt.

Qadhafi himself said the Iraq war played a role in his decision. So force has worked there and in Pakistan.

[yeat182]

this argument has the same problem as your previous contention in that it must work both ways, or none at all i.e.
surely trade & aid sanctions punish other innocent people for the acts of their respective governments in the same way terrorism does?

when run by the UN and involving Saddam Hussein, then yes, they do.

[cal1082]

Over the years we have supported many dictators and the people that are terrorists now were children when that was going on and have grown up thinking we are some oppressive force because they were educated by our actions at the time.
Actually in Iran the students are more liberal. They want change. As for other countries , if we choose to be diplomatic with them then it will allow us an oppurtunity to get those materials to them.
Force has failed in that it has shown to the next generation of these people that we are exactly what the terrorists say we are which is an oppressive entity out to rule them. Will you still call this war meaningful if the next generations become terrorists and commit acts of violence against us? Will the war on terrorism have actually succeded if terrorists are being created because of it?

You didnt answer either question.

which dictators do you know of that Bush has been arming?

how do we get these education material to them. We going to do a fly over in Iran and drop books on them? I'm sure we could get books into Iraq a year ago, and North Korea now?

[punkforlife]

Qadhafi himself said the Iraq war played a role in his decision. So force has worked there and in Pakistan.

bin laden initially denied responsibility for sept. 11th, whats your point?
if i said i had six legs would that mean it had to be true?

[yeat182]

bin laden initially denied responsibility for sept. 11th, whats your point?
if i said i had six legs would that mean it had to be true?

what reason would he have to lie?

[cal1082]

bin laden initially denied responsibility for sept. 11th, whats your point?
if i said i had six legs would that mean it had to be true?

What? The leader of Libya said himself that the war in Iraq played a part in giving up his WMD's and opening up for inspections.

[Love As Arson]

terrorists are being killed because of it. if it was failing, why would Osama offer a "peace treaty" with nations fighting the war on terror? you don't do that if you are winning, and he certainly isn't doing if for some altruistic reason, he's doing it because he is losing and defeat is inevitable.
Terrorists are being killed and the youth are being educated in US oppression which angers them and leads to the creation of future terrorists. You fail to realize that our actions are going to have an effect and with force it is most likely going to be a negative effect on us.
Perhaps he was offering it to them because he only wants the US. I don't presume to know why he did but if this war is creating more terrorism then it has failed.

[cal1082]

Terrorists are being killed and the youth are being educated in US oppression which angers them and leads to the creation of future terrorists. You fail to realize that our actions are going to have an effect and with force it is most likely going to be a negative effect on us.
Perhaps he was offering it to them because he only wants the US. I don't presume to know why he did but if this war is creating more terrorism then it has failed.

Completley ignoring Pakistan and Libya when you say the war has failed.

[Love As Arson]

You didnt answer either question.

which dictators do you know of that Bush has been arming?

how do we get these education material to them. We going to do a fly over in Iran and drop books on them? I'm sure we could get books into Iraq a year ago, and North Korea now?
I did answer the question. Perhaps the answer just wasn't to your liking. I said the best way to get these materials to them is to be diplomatic with their leaders which would allow us to get them into the country with little difficulty.

[Love As Arson]

Completley ignoring Pakistan and Libya when you say the war has failed.
I'm looking at the bigger picture. If we win the people over then terrorism will cease. Whether or not the goverments disarm is irrelevant because it is the people who are committing terrorism.

[cal1082]

I did answer the question. Perhaps the answer just wasn't to your liking. I said the best way to get these materials to them is to be diplomatic with their leaders which would allow us to get them into the country with little difficulty.

Be diplomatic with Saddam, Ayatollah, and Kim in North Korea. Then they'll let us educate them with our propaganda? lol lol lol

Why would Kim, or the Ayatollah ever let us in there country? lol lol

[yeat182]

Terrorists are being killed and the youth are being educated in US oppression which angers them and leads to the creation of future terrorists. You fail to realize that our actions are going to have an effect and with force it is most likely going to be a negative effect on us.
Perhaps he was offering it to them because he only wants the US. I don't presume to know why he did but if this war is creating more terrorism then it has failed.

you fail to realize that we aren't just over there killing terrorists, we are over there building schools and hostpitals, restoring power and water to cities that never had it, playing soccer with the local kids, passing out candy bars, etc. etc., that is how you win their hearts, by showing them first hand you are not evil, and that you are there to help them, not by throwing money their way in an attempt to buy the peace. removing the terrorists leadership is important, since they are the ones teaching that america is evil, removing the terrorists themselves is important since they are the ones killing innocent people, and while we are at it we are doing more of those people than any humanitarian aid alone ever did.

and there is no proof whatsover that this war has created more terrorists, if anything, it has drastically thinned out their ranks.

[cal1082]

I'm looking at the bigger picture. If we win the people over then terrorism will cease. Whether or not the goverments disarm is irrelevant because it is the people who are committing terrorism.

the governments are supporting them though. Were do you think they get a lot of the money and hideouts?

[Love As Arson]

Be diplomatic with Saddam, Ayatollah, and Kim in North Korea. Then they'll let us educate them with our propaganda? lol lol lol

Why would Kim, or the Ayatollah ever let us in there country? lol lol
If it is to their advantage then why wouldn't they? I never said we would be educating them with propaganda but with facts.

[Love As Arson]

you fail to realize that we aren't just over there killing terrorists, we are over there building schools and hostpitals, restoring power and water to cities that never had it, playing soccer with the local kids, passing out candy bars, etc. etc., that is how you win their hearts, by showing them first hand you are not evil, and that you are there to help them, not by throwing money their way in an attempt to buy the peace. removing the terrorists leadership is important, since they are the ones teaching that america is evil, removing the terrorists themselves is important since they are the ones killing innocent people, and while we are at it we are doing more of those people than any humanitarian aid alone ever did.

and there is no proof whatsover that this war has created more terrorists, if anything, it has drastically thinned out their ranks.
You don't win their hearts and minds by usurping the government and forcing them to have a government on our terms. I don't deny we are aiding the people of Iraq but if you are giving a country aid while at the same time killing and bombing it, it will only create more hostility. There is more than one way to promote change in government. It does not always have to be force. The sooner we learn killing is not a tool for teaching the better off we will be.
I know there weren't terrorist attacks in Iraq until we went there and created chaos.

[Love As Arson]

the governments are supporting them though. Were do you think they get a lot of the money and hideouts?
Do you honestly think that if the government stops supporting them that they will fade? It isn't likely. That is why I am saying we have to focus on the people.

[yeat182]

You don't win their hearts and minds by usurping the government and forcing them to have a government on our terms. I don't deny we are aiding the people of Iraq but if you are giving a country aid while at the same time killing and bombing it, it will only create more hostility. There is more than one way to promote change in government. It does not always have to be force. The sooner we learn killing is not a tool for teaching the better off we will be.
I know there weren't terrorist attacks in Iraq until we went there and created chaos.

force was the only way to remove saddam and the taliban.

also, it isn't our fault there are terrorists attacks in Iraq, it is the terrorists fault.

[yeat182]

Do you honestly think that if the government stops supporting them that they will fade? It isn't likely. That is why I am saying we have to focus on the people.

if the government hunts them down and destroys them, which is what any responsible government would do, then yes, they will fade. you can't give them some place to hide/train/plan.

[Love As Arson]

force was the only way to remove saddam and the taliban.

also, it isn't our fault there are terrorists attacks in Iraq, it is the terrorists fault.
It was the only option we looked at.
You mean we didn't destablize Iraq? Then who did? I was under the impression that we had more than a hand in creating this chaos.

[Love As Arson]

if the government hunts them down and destroys them, which is what any responsible government would do, then yes, they will fade. you can't give them some place to hide/train/plan.
The government can hunt down and destroy them and others will pop up because those that were destroyed were made martyrs.

[punkforlife]

what reason would he have to lie?

um...because he's colonel gadaffi (see the lockerbie incident & the murder of w.p.c. yvonne fletcher).as if that needs explaining!

[yeat182]

It was the only option we looked at.
You mean we didn't destablize Iraq? Then who did? I was under the impression that we had more than a hand in creating this chaos.

the only option we looked at? first, the taliban were partly responsible for a direct attack on america, so their downfall was totally justifed. and i guess you are ignoring the 12 years Iraq played hide and seek with the UN...

and the question wasn't whether or not we destabalized Iraq, the statement you made was that there were no terrorists attacks before we went in, implying that we are at fault for the terrorist attacks that have come since, while you are overlooking those that are truely responsibe, ie. the terrorists. and if you really want to talk about the lack of "terror" in Iraq before we went in, you obviously choose to overlook Saddam's regime.

[yeat182]

The government can hunt down and destroy them and others will pop up because those that were destroyed were made martyrs.

that is because the corrupt terrorist leader portray them as martyrs, so they can recruit more, they brainwash their citizens to believe whatever they tell them, the only way to stop it is to kill or arrest those that are doing the brainwashing.

[yeat182]

um...because he's colonel gadaffi

what does he have to gain from saying that the Iraq war influenced his decision? if anything it would make him lose face to his own people...

[yeat182]

um...because he's colonel gadaffi (see the lockerbie incident & the murder of w.p.c. yvonne fletcher).as if that needs explaining!


you are simply proving my point for me, this was a terrible man, why would he suddenly decide to give up his WMD's? because he's a nice guy? no, because he was scared that he was going to be next on the US's hit list.

[cal1082]

If it is to their advantage then why wouldn't they? I never said we would be educating them with propaganda but with facts.

It's not to there advantage. If they let us come in and educate there population there population would then see how screwed up there government is.

No one would do that.

[punkforlife]

you are simply proving my point for me, this was a terrible man, why would he suddenly decide to give up his WMD's? because he's a nice guy? no, because he was scared that he was going to be next on the US's hit list.

did you not read my earlier post?he's been trying to give up those weapons (the materials for which we - the u.s. and britain sold him) for 12 years, long before the iraq war.

[punkforlife]

what does he have to gain from saying that the Iraq war influenced his decision? if anything it would make him lose face to his own people...

ha, can you seriously see gadaffi spending hours of sleepless nights pondering how to best 'win the respect and adoration' of a society he can control with oppressesion anyway?
and anyways if we're basing this on what gadaffi has publically said he gave his reasons for handing over the weapons as his realisation that it was time for libya to modernise and the only way to do this was to attract western capital, which could only (legally) filter into the country after sanctions & embargos had been lifted, which in turn would only happen if he handed over his WMD's. thus also answering the question of what he would stand to gain - vast amounts of outside investment and private wealth.

[cal1082]

ha, can you seriously see gadaffi spending hours of sleepless nights pondering how to best 'win the respect and adoration' of a society he can control with oppressesion anyway?
and anyways if we're basing this on what gadaffi has publically said he gave his reasons for handing over the weapons as his realisation that it was time for libya to modernise and the only way to do this was to attract western capital, which could only (legally) filter into the country after sanctions & embargos had been lifted, which in turn would only happen if he handed over his WMD's. thus also answering the question of what he would stand to gain - vast amounts of outside investment and private wealth.

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/libya/?id=9399

I wish i could still find the article from CNN about gadaffi saying the war had an affect on his decision.

You're ignoring the facts. I'm not doubting Britian's diplomacy mattered i'm just saying the war did as well, so it's wrong to say the war on terror is a failure.

[cal1082]

You don't win their hearts and minds by usurping the government and forcing them to have a government on our terms. I don't deny we are aiding the people of Iraq but if you are giving a country aid while at the same time killing and bombing it, it will only create more hostility. There is more than one way to promote change in government. It does not always have to be force. The sooner we learn killing is not a tool for teaching the better off we will be.
I know there weren't terrorist attacks in Iraq until we went there and created chaos.

Also your diplomacy idea for terrorsits passed on sept. 11th. We were attacked, and that's where diplomcay ends. I dont feel FDR would have made the right decision to seek diplomcay after Pearl Harbor...do you?

[Love As Arson]

the only option we looked at? first, the taliban were partly responsible for a direct attack on america, so their downfall was totally justifed. and i guess you are ignoring the 12 years Iraq played hide and seek with the UN...

and the question wasn't whether or not we destabalized Iraq, the statement you made was that there were no terrorists attacks before we went in, implying that we are at fault for the terrorist attacks that have come since, while you are overlooking those that are truely responsibe, ie. the terrorists. and if you really want to talk about the lack of "terror" in Iraq before we went in, you obviously choose to overlook Saddam's regime.
Saddam ruled with an iron fist. There were no suicide bombings or anything like what is going on currently in that country.
that is because the corrupt terrorist leader portray them as martyrs, so they can recruit more, they brainwash their citizens to believe whatever they tell them, the only way to stop it is to kill or arrest those that are doing the brainwashing.
I would disagree and say people actually deify these suicide bombers. I think it has more to do with their perception of us by our actions than brainwashing.
It's not to there advantage. If they let us come in and educate there population there population would then see how screwed up there government is.

No one would do that.
There are economic and techological advantages that come with being diplomatic with the US.
Also your diplomacy idea for terrorsits passed on sept. 11th. We were attacked, and that's where diplomcay ends. I dont feel FDR would have made the right decision to seek diplomcay after Pearl Harbor...do you?
You would first have to prove those countries had something to do with 9-11. Then you would have a case for not being diplomatic with them.

[cal1082]

There are economic and techological advantages that come with being diplomatic with the US.

You would first have to prove those countries had something to do with 9-11. Then you would have a case for not being diplomatic with them.

They wouldnt see these economic and tech. advantages because if we went in there and showed there population the truth about there governments they would not be in power. This is an absurd argument.


The countries harbor terrorists. That's good enough for me.

[punkforlife]

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/libya/?id=9399

I wish i could still find the article from CNN about gadaffi saying the war had an affect on his decision.

You're ignoring the facts. I'm not doubting Britian's diplomacy mattered i'm just saying the war did as well, so it's wrong to say the war on terror is a failure.

i wasn't aware i'd accused the 'war on terror' of failure? how can a war be a 'failure' when its conditions, boundaries and aims are defined only by one side?
nor am i doubting that the war may have acted as an accelerant to the timing of gadaffi's decision. i am simply disputing your assertion that it was the sole reason for the actions of the libian government. initially you appeared to be justifying the use of force instead of diplomacy citing the evidence that it had caused libya to alter their policy on WMD, i was simply observing that it was not the primary motivation for gadaffi's decision.

[punkforlife]

The countries harbor terrorists. That's good enough for me.

on that basis it is plausible that britain should invade the u.s. because for years irish-american catholic groups funded and supplied the i.r.a.
also it is plausible that anyone who was involved in the c.i.a. training/funding of bin laden should be tried for treason, being as they aided and encouraged terrorists.

[punkforlife]

It's not to there advantage. If they let us come in and educate there population there population would then see how screwed up there government is.

No one would do that.

in the same way that if a soviet russian communist 'education' had globally occured during the cold war then western populaces would have 'seen how screwed up their governments were' and gone socialist.

[cal1082]

i wasn't aware i'd accused the 'war on terror' of failure? how can a war be a 'failure' when its conditions, boundaries and aims are defined only by one side?
nor am i doubting that the war may have acted as an accelerant to the timing of gadaffi's decision. i am simply disputing your assertion that it was the sole reason for the actions of the libian government. initially you appeared to be justifying the use of force instead of diplomacy citing the evidence that it had caused libya to alter their policy on WMD, i was simply observing that it was not the primary motivation for gadaffi's decision.

I'm not saying you said it was a failure. It was said early by someone else and i stated it wasnt and pointed out Pakistan and Libya. Then you said Libya's decision was not affected by the war. See where i'm going.

I still think it was a primary reason because he said it himself.

[cal1082]

on that basis it is plausible that britain should invade the u.s. because for years irish-american catholic groups funded and supplied the i.r.a.
also it is plausible that anyone who was involved in the c.i.a. training/funding of bin laden should be tried for treason, being as they aided and encouraged terrorists.

What!? Our government is not harboring them, funding them or protecting these groups.

There's a diffrence from living in a country and being harbored in the coutnry you know.

[UndefinedBoy]

What!? Our government is not harboring them, funding them or protecting these groups.

There's a diffrence from living in a country and being harbored in the coutnry you know.

We funded the Taliban, and trained Osama bin Laden. We wanted them to kill us some communists. They done us proud!

[yeat182]

We funded the Taliban, and trained Osama bin Laden. We wanted them to kill us some communists. They done us proud!

we funded the taliban in the war on drugs and with humanitarian aid for the afgahi people, not because they were our ally.

[UndefinedBoy]

we funded the taliban in the war on drugs and with humanitarian aid for the afgahi people, not because they were our ally.

All these wars, my mistake.

We still trained Osama. Remember that? How we...trained Osama? That worked out well.

[cal1082]

We funded the Taliban, and trained Osama bin Laden. We wanted them to kill us some communists. They done us proud!

He wasnt doing terrorists acts in the 80's

[yeat182]

All these wars, my mistake.

We still trained Osama. Remember that? How we...trained Osama? That worked out well.

we didn't train him personally. besides, hindsight is 20/20, he wasn't a terrorist at the time, nor was he so anti-american. obviously it was a mistake, but does that mean we do nothing now? should we simply say, we fucked up, and leave it at that?

[cal1082]

using your hindsight let's call FDR and churchill commies.

http://ntap.k12.ca.us/whs/projects/history/stalin.html (scroll to bottom)

[UndefinedBoy]

we didn't train him personally. besides, hindsight is 20/20, he wasn't a terrorist at the time, nor was he so anti-american. obviously it was a mistake, but does that mean we do nothing now? should we simply say, we fucked up, and leave it at that?

Actually it's very likely that the CIA did personally train bin Laden.

And yeah, it was a mistake, I'm not denying that. My point is only that we've helped shitty people too. Bin Laden may not be the best example, but he's an ironic one. Even if you ignore him, we've certainly implemented plenty of horrible dictators or supported horrible governments in our time.

[cal1082]

Actually it's very likely that the CIA did personally train bin Laden.

And yeah, it was a mistake, I'm not denying that. My point is only that we've helped shitty people too. Bin Laden may not be the best example, but he's an ironic one. Even if you ignore him, we've certainly implemented plenty of horrible dictators or supported horrible governments in our time.

our government is not funding terrorists groups or gov. funding terrorism.

[UndefinedBoy]

What I am saying that we would have known that they were transporting them and if there is no proof then it is more than likely they aren't harboring Iraq's WMD's.
I'm serious. If we really wish to get rid of everyone that supported terrorism then we have to arrest Reagan, Bush Sr. and the rest of the presidents that have supported and committed terrorist acts. I doubt you would be in favor of that because it was the United States and somehow immorality is justified when it is us that is being immoral.
Taking over sovereign nations is justified because we are a target? Well, where are we going next? Why don't we go to Saudi Arabia? They gave money to the terrorists which committed 9-11. Oh that's right they give us oil so that is impossible. Do you see the hypocrisy in that?
I'm not just talking about the Iraqi's. I'm talking about all the suffering America has caused to other nations by supporting dictators , suppressing revolutions and overthrowing democratic nations just because they wouldn't bow to the will of the US.
Bombs kill terrorists which makes them martyrs and a rallying point for people that feel oppressed thus making more terrorists willing to die. Kill one terrorist and he just becomes a hero and a symbol of the oppression inflicted by us.
Our actions speak louder than words. We have to change the ideas of what the US is in the Middle East because if we don't and we continue bombing we will only be inviting more terrorism.

PHILIPPINES, 1898 - 1910: seizes from Spain, 600,000 Filipinos killed
PUERTO RICO, 1898: seizes from Spain
PANAMA, 1901 - 14: separates country from Colombia and annexes canal zone
HONDURAS, 1903: US marines intervene against revolution
NICARAGUA, 1912 - 33: 20-year occupation and war against guerrillas
HAITI, 1914 - 34: occupation
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, 1916 - 24: occupation
CUBA, 1917 - 33: military occupation, made into economic protectorate
RUSSIA, 1917 - 22: troops sent five times to try to overthrow revolution
YUGOSLAVIA, 1919: marines intervene against Serbs
PANAMA, 1925: marines suppress general strike
CHINA, 1927 - 34: marines stationed throughout the country
EL SALVADOR, 1932: warships sent during revolt
JAPAN, 1945: firebombs Tokyo and other cities, drops atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
PUERTO RICO, 1950: independence rebellion crushed
KOREA, 1950 - 53: US and South Korea fight China and North Korea to stalemate. US threatens to use nuclear bombs. At least two million Korean civilians killed or wounded
IRAN, 1953: CIA overthrows democracy
GUATEMALA, 1954: CIA directs invasion after government nationalized land belonging to US United Fruit company
LEBANON, 1956: US troops land
VIETNAM, 1960 - 75: two million Vietnamese killed in longest US war
INDONESIA, 1965: one million killed in CIA-assisted coup
GUATEMALA, 1966: troops intervene
CAMBODIA, 1969 - 75: US carpet-bombs. Two million killed by years of bombing and starvation
CHILE, 1973: CIA-backed coup overthrows democratically elected government
ANGOLA, 1976 - 92: CIA assists South African backed rebels
LIBYA, 1981: two Libyan jets shot down
EL SALVADOR, 1981 - 92: troops and air power assist death squads, 75,000 people killed
NICARAGUA, 1981 - 90: CIA directs Contra invasions
LEBANON, 1982 - 84: US forces intervene, navy shells Beirut
HONDURAS, 1983 - 89: US troups build bases for death squads
GRENADA, 1983: US invasion
LIBYA, 1986: capital Tripoli bombed in effort to kill President Gadaffi
IRAN, 1987: Iranian passenger jets shot down over Persian Gulf
PANAMA, 1989 - 90: invasion, thousands of civilians killed
GULF WAR, 1990 - 91: US-led coalition kills 100,000 Iraqis. Post war sanctions kill an estimated one million civilians in the following ten years
SOMALIA, 1992 - 94: US-led United Nations occupation
EX-YUGOSLAVIA, 1995: bombs Serbs and assists ethnic cleansing
SUDAN, 1998: bombs pharmaceutical factory
IRAQ, 1998: four days of air strikes, raids continue until present day
SERBIA 1989: 78 days of NATO air strikes
AFGHANISTAN, 2001: US-led war kills thousands
IRAQ, 2002-4: ...

Still think we aren't a threat to world peace?

Read this post just one more time.

[cal1082]

Read this post just one more time.

Read the dates too. Can you list some that Bush have been been funding?

[UndefinedBoy]

Read the dates too. Can you list some that Bush have been been funding?

I'm not saying Bush is the one funding these, we've been talking about the American government, past and present.

[cal1082]

I'm not saying Bush is the one funding these, we've been talking about the American government, past and present.

no doubt the US has done some bad things. you should be supporting bush not doing this as well?

[UndefinedBoy]

no doubt the US has done some bad things. you should be supporting bush not doing this as well?

The Iraq war is on that list. In my opinion, Bush is not exactly cleaning up the US's image.

[Sinister Rouge]

our government is not funding terrorists groups or gov. funding terrorism.

but we train them....the School of Assassins, oh, I mean Americas.

[cal1082]

The Iraq war is on that list. In my opinion, Bush is not exactly cleaning up the US's image.

A war to get rid of one bad guy and it does liberate milions of people? It's hard to argue that's bad.

[cal1082]

but we train them....the School of Assassins, oh, I mean Americas.

what current terrorists are we training?

Bin Laden was not a terrorist in the 80's

[Sinister Rouge]

what current terrorists are we training?

Bin Laden was not a terrorist in the 80's

Latin Americans

[Sinister Rouge]

explain....

The School of Americas (I think under a new name now) based in Fort Bennings, Georgia trains Latin Americans in combat. These graduates then go into Latin America and commit horrific crimes. Even brutal dictators were SOA graduates. The SOA is killing people.

[Sinister Rouge]

no doubt the US has done some bad things. you should be supporting bush not doing this as well?

But Bush is doing bad things...he has nominated a mass murderer as the US Ambassador to the UN. He is taking over in Iraq soon.

http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/negroponte/eng.html

[cal1082]

The School of Americas (I think under a new name now) based in Fort Bennings, Georgia trains Latin Americans in combat. These graduates then go into Latin America and commit horrific crimes. Even brutal dictators were SOA graduates. The SOA is killing people.

i didnt realize they were on the UN terrorist list (can't see this but i'm rolling my eyes)

i'm pretty sure this place was created to combat the threat of communism, and it worked quite well.

[Sinister Rouge]

i didnt realize they were on the UN terrorist list (can't see this but i'm rolling my eyes)

i'm pretty sure this place was created to combat the threat of communism, and it worked quite well.

Communism was not a real threat in Latin America. The US overthrew democratically elected left wing governments for dictators who supported capitalism in Latin America.

We combatted communism by training people who used mass murder. Reagan (illegally) helped groups that used mass murder in Latin America, groups that were anti-communist. The SOA has trained the worst of the worst in torture, murder, and terrorism. It needs to be shut down.

[hXc_pwnage]

The SOA has killed many innocent people. These aren't like the marines or army, these guys are just cold blooded killers. I don't see how anyone thinks these guys are good.

[punkforlife]

we didn't train him personally. besides, hindsight is 20/20, he wasn't a terrorist at the time, nor was he so anti-american. obviously it was a mistake, but does that mean we do nothing now? should we simply say, we fucked up, and leave it at that?

yeah he was trained, in person, by a number of u.s. military and intelligence personnel and funded/supllied to fight a guerrilla war against the russian's in afghanistan. i'm pretty damn sure that the russians saw him as a terrorist at the time.

[punkforlife]

What!? Our government is not harboring them, funding them or protecting these groups.

There's a diffrence from living in a country and being harbored in the coutnry you know.

yes there is a difference between terrorists living in a country/city/town etc and those same terrorists being harboured by them. that is not what i alledged the u.s. had done in the case of the i.r.a. and various other republican splinter groups who i can assure you were/are being funded/supplied largely on the 'donations' of money and pre-bought weapons from catholic groups in the u.s.

as for the gadaffi thing, i guess we'll call it guits and agree to disagree, we both believe what we believe.

[Love As Arson]

They wouldnt see these economic and tech. advantages because if we went in there and showed there population the truth about there governments they would not be in power. This is an absurd argument.


The countries harbor terrorists. That's good enough for me.
The governments care about money. We can use that to our advantage.
We've dealt with terrorists before. Our allies have also. Are you willing to bomb them because they did so?

[yeat182]

Actually it's very likely that the CIA did personally train bin Laden.

And yeah, it was a mistake, I'm not denying that. My point is only that we've helped shitty people too. Bin Laden may not be the best example, but he's an ironic one. Even if you ignore him, we've certainly implemented plenty of horrible dictators or supported horrible governments in our time.

i agree with you that we've helped some bad people, but what does that mean? we shouldn't do anything now? i don't see exactly what the arguement is, yes we helped the wrong people in the past, but what does that mean for today?

[cal1082]

Communism was not a real threat in Latin America. The US overthrew democratically elected left wing governments for dictators who supported capitalism in Latin America.

a little thing called the Cuban revoltuion. I'd say that led to a good threat.

[cal1082]

The governments care about money. We can use that to our advantage.
We've dealt with terrorists before. Our allies have also. Are you willing to bomb them because they did so?

I'm want to bomb the one's that are are currently harboring terrorists and funding them.

[cal1082]

I'll be the first to tell you I dont know a lot about the SOA. It's not considered a terrorist group by the UN, and Wesley Clark himself gave a commencement speech there a couple of years ago.

[cal1082]

i agree with you that we've helped some bad people, but what does that mean? we shouldn't do anything now? i don't see exactly what the arguement is, yes we helped the wrong people in the past, but what does that mean for today?

I agree 100%.

[Love As Arson]

I'm want to bomb the one's that are are currently harboring terrorists and funding them.
Western governments funded them and allowed them to survive to commit crimes against us. They need to be punished don't they?

[Sinister Rouge]

I'll be the first to tell you I dont know a lot about the SOA. It's not considered a terrorist group by the UN, and Wesley Clark himself gave a commencement speech there a couple of years ago.

www.soaw.org

Clark is wrong...the SOA is killing people.

[UndefinedBoy]

I'll be the first to tell you I dont know a lot about the SOA. It's not considered a terrorist group by the UN, and Wesley Clark himself gave a commencement speech there a couple of years ago.

I thought the UN was a joke?

http://www.soaw.org/new/type.php?type=8

[cal1082]

Western governments funded them and allowed them to survive to commit crimes against us. They need to be punished don't they?

Like I said if you are harboring or funding terrorism right now, if the US governments wants to attack....I'm all for it.

[cal1082]

www.soaw.org

Clark is wrong...the SOA is killing people.

At least put an objectionable or obviously credible site up

[cal1082]

I thought the UN was a joke?

http://www.soaw.org/new/type.php?type=8

as far is military is concerned....yes

I've always said that as far as diplomacy and international law is concerened they do very well unless it inflicts on a countries soveriegnty.

[Love As Arson]

Like I said if you are harboring or funding terrorism right now, if the US governments wants to attack....I'm all for it.
Our allies helped terrorists which is why they survived up until now. Let's punish them too.

[cal1082]

Our allies helped terrorists which is why they survived up until now. Let's punish them too.

There's many countries who have. The point is after Sept. 11th if you continue to support and harbor.

[UndefinedBoy]

There's many countries who have. The point is after Sept. 11th if you continue to support and harbor.

Wait, so it was okay to harbor terrorists if it was BEFORE 9/11?

[cal1082]

Wait, so it was okay to harbor terrorists if it was BEFORE 9/11?

no, but we drew the line there.

You're either with us or against us. Example: Pakistan

[Sinister Rouge]

no, but we drew the line there.

You're either with us or against us. Example: Pakistan

That kind of mentally pisses the world off.

Pakistan may have helped North Korea and Iran's nuke program.

[cal1082]

That kind of mentally pisses the world off.

Pakistan may have helped North Korea and Iran's nuke program.

That kind of mentality is what we need in a war on terrorism. You can't support terrorism and be with us.


One of there scientist might have yes.

[UndefinedBoy]

That kind of mentality is what we need in a war on terrorism. You can't support terrorism and be with us.

But you can still be against terrorism and not be "with" the US. We should understand that...

[Love As Arson]

There's many countries who have. The point is after Sept. 11th if you continue to support and harbor.
Then there are many countries that should answer for 9-11. They allowed for terrorism to continue and for 9-11 to happen. I have an idea let's go and overthrow their governments. It is obvious that they supported terrorism and now have to pay the price.

[Sinister Rouge]

But you can still be against terrorism and not be "with" the US. We should understand that...

Yep...to bad Bush doesn't realize that.

[cal1082]

Then there are many countries that should answer for 9-11. They allowed for terrorism to continue and for 9-11 to happen. I have an idea let's go and overthrow their governments. It is obvious that they supported terrorism and now have to pay the price.

You're not looking at what Bush's doctrine meant. It doesnt mean we go into the past before 9-11 and find every government who's had a connection to terrorism and attack. It means from that point forward, that point being 9-11, you're either with us or against us on the war on terror. Meaning if you harbor and support terrrorism you are against us.

[cal1082]

Yep...to bad Bush doesn't realize that.

Yes he does. We still have diplomatic ties with our allies including France, Russia, and Germany.

I agree you can still be against terrorism and not support such things as the war on Iraq. The point is you dont support terrrorism.

[Love As Arson]

You're not looking at what Bush's doctrine meant. It doesnt mean we go into the past before 9-11 and find every government who's had a connection to terrorism and attack. It means from that point forward, that point being 9-11, you're either with us or against us on the war on terror. Meaning if you harbor and support terrrorism you are against us.
That must be only for countries who can't do anything for us because I don't see any bombs being dropped on Saudi Arabia. That shows how hypocritical they are with their own policies.

[cal1082]

That must be only for countries who can't do anything for us because I don't see any bombs being dropped on Saudi Arabia. That shows how hypocritical they are with their own policies.

I've said this before but the Saudi's have been helping to a certain extent on the war on terror.
Could they do more? Of course
Are they talking out of boths sides of there mouths? Perhaps, but it doesnt seem as if it is clear that they are.

[cal1082]

What great odds. I was talking about it and then they release a news article on it the same day.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040429/pl_nm/security_usa_saudi_dc_3

[ohlookitspaul]

*cough* http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4687305/ *cough*

hey cal. nice to see you here on this thread.

[Love As Arson]

I've said this before but the Saudi's have been helping to a certain extent on the war on terror.
Could they do more? Of course
Are they talking out of boths sides of there mouths? Perhaps, but it doesnt seem as if it is clear that they are.
They funded the same terrorists who committed the acts of 9-11. They had a hand in funding Bin Laden. But we're not going to invade them? Saddam did less and he was overthrown. The Saudi's are also brutal and what a surprise they aren't a democracy. As I said the Bush administration and their policies are hypocritical.

[cal1082]

*cough* http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4687305/ *cough*

hey cal. nice to see you here on this thread.

First like I've said before the Saudis could be speaking out of both sides of their mouths, but it's seems to be questionable if they are involved in any form of terrorism now after 9/11 occured. This article is a good point for evidence of that.

First, it's not even talking about the crown prince or his gang, and is referring to the embassy they have here. Second, you're trying to convict them with this article to prove your point but the article does nothing more than talk about investigations. It's not a proven point yet.

Finally, you can't deny they have taken positive steps towards fighting terrorism?

[cal1082]

They funded the same terrorists who committed the acts of 9-11. They had a hand in funding Bin Laden. But we're not going to invade them? Saddam did less and he was overthrown. The Saudi's are also brutal and what a surprise they aren't a democracy. As I said the Bush administration and their policies are hypocritical.

They kicked Bin Laden out of the country. Bin Laden wants the crown prince and others out of power.

[ohlookitspaul]

First like I've said before the Saudis could be speaking out of both sides of their mouths, but it's seems to be questionable if they are involved in any form of terrorism now after 9/11 occured. This article is a good point for evidence of that.

First, it's not even talking about the crown prince or his gang, and is referring to the embassy they have here. Second, you're trying to convict them with this article to prove your point but the article does nothing more than talk about investigations. It's not a proven point yet.

Finally, you can't deny they have taken positive steps towards fighting terrorism?

the point of the link was just to show that saudi arabia isn't all innocent and stuff...but it doesn't really matter, i suppose. whatever i say that speaks ill of the saudi arabians, you're going to say "the Saudis could be speaking out of both sides of their mouths, but it's questionable." you've said that like 80 million times already (i'm in an exaggerating kind of mood).

and no i'm not going to deny that. yeah sure saudi arabia has taken positive steps. i don't believe that they've taken great steps or anything significan or anything, but hey i'm not going to deny that they've done something.

what else are y'all arguing about over here? i'm too lazy to read this entire thread...

:guns: