Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Afghanistan and Iraq.....

Recommended Posts

quote:

Originally posted by Takvah:

You do understand Jaguar that in everything you said there is not one fact. This is the same line of fear that has been spewed since 9/11. I think that any President would be capable of defending this nation against terror. I think that ANY President with the resources of this nation, its people and our WILL could repell ANY threat and would.

Oh you mean like how Clinton REFUSED to take Bin Laden into custody because he didn't want to derail the Peace process with Israel & the Palestinians? He was more concerned with leaving his Mark in history, than bringing a known terrorist to justice. Yes, ANY president indeed.

quote:

Originally posted by Takvah:

You act like there is some divinity that has a hand over Bush making him more capable than anyone to defend this nation. Wrong. If anything he has ignited the hatred that is harbored not just in the Middle East but GLOBALLY against this nation.

Oh yes, you're completely right, Before Bush everyone LOVED the U.S., and now they All Hate us!!

Please WAKE UP, The entire world has hated us since the 70's, why? Because we have the BEST economy, the Lowest unemployment, the most disposable income, the most of EVERYTHING and everyone is Jealous of us.

quote:

Originally posted by Takvah:

A guy in a cave has better health care than the average American

You OBVIOUSLY have never been to any other country, or at least a hospitol in another country. Let's see:

1a. In the U.S. if you need a bypass, they schedule you for Outpatient Surgury and get it done the same day.

1b. In Canada you go on a waiting list and suffer for approximately 3-6 Months depending on your age (the older the longer) and they literally hope you die before it's your turn to get the procedure done.

2a. In the U.S. if you get hit by a car, you go to a Trauma center to get stabalized.

2b. In the rest of the world, most countries don't even HAVE trauma centers!

3a. In the U.S. if you have AIDS, and no insurance, you qualify for assistance with medication to the point to where your life is DRAMATICALLY extended.

3b. In Africa, you simply die.

4a. In the U.S. If healthcare cost rise, hospitols increase their fees because it's legal to do so.

4b. In England, if healthcare costs rise, hospitols simply shut down and REFUSE to take more patients because it's legal to do so.

5a. In the U.S. you can get healthcare even if you can't afford it because you're unemployed (or other reasons).

5b. In South America, if you're unemployed, You're screwed. (which between 20-40% are "Officially" Unemployed.

6a. In Columbia, They divert money from the Military, Police and National Security to pay for National Healthcare. That's good because since there's practically no LAW ENFORCEMENT, Smugglers, Drug dealers, Militants and the Lawless, run with impunity putting plenty in the hospitols.

6b. In the U.S. we feel safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LIS... fear clouds judgment, end of story. The costs of this war and the blunders of this administration are tantamount to enabling terrorism. I find that highly convenient. I will post a link later listing the costs of this war to this country in terms of the monetary, the human lives lost, the effects it has had on Al-Qaeda's recruitment, etc. The war is but ONE factor of what is a failed Presidency and a failed effort to squash terrorism. They took the eye off the ball, for what reasons one may speculate ad infinitum... but the focus is NOT terrorism in Iraq.

Darkling... when you can spell hospital gimme a call. I didn't compare us to the WORLD, I compared us to a FUGITIVE ON DIALYSIS that is CAVE HOPPING and yet we cannot catch him. The rest of your comments I can only say we seem to agree on. I didn't say that the world LOVED us prior to this invasion... but hell even EUROPE hates our guts. I wouldn't give a damn about the French but it is far worse than that, far more reaching than the snobbery of an archaic state of cowards that fear the intrusions of ENGLISH and AMERICANA into their culture. There is distrust and frankly I have the same distrust for this government that I VOTED FOR and helped to put into office (especially being that I am in Florida).

HOSPITAL.

Anyway, later on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LIS... fear clouds judgment, end of story. The costs of this war and the blunders of this administration are tantamount to enabling terrorism. I find that highly convenient. I will post a link later listing the costs of this war to this country in terms of the monetary, the human lives lost, the effects it has had on Al-Qaeda's recruitment, etc. The war is but ONE factor of what is a failed Presidency and a failed effort to squash terrorism. They took the eye off the ball, for what reasons one may speculate ad infinitum... but the focus is NOT terrorism in Iraq.

Darkling... when you can spell hospital gimme a call. I didn't compare us to the WORLD, I compared us to a FUGITIVE ON DIALYSIS that is CAVE HOPPING and yet we cannot catch him. The rest of your comments I can only say we seem to agree on. I didn't say that the world LOVED us prior to this invasion... but hell even EUROPE hates our guts. I wouldn't give a damn about the French but it is far worse than that, far more reaching than the snobbery of an archaic state of cowards that fear the intrusions of ENGLISH and AMERICANA into their culture. There is distrust and frankly I have the same distrust for this government that I VOTED FOR and helped to put into office (especially being that I am in Florida).

HOSPITAL.

Anyway, later on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LIS... fear clouds judgment, end of story. The costs of this war and the blunders of this administration are tantamount to enabling terrorism. I find that highly convenient. I will post a link later listing the costs of this war to this country in terms of the monetary, the human lives lost, the effects it has had on Al-Qaeda's recruitment, etc. The war is but ONE factor of what is a failed Presidency and a failed effort to squash terrorism. They took the eye off the ball, for what reasons one may speculate ad infinitum... but the focus is NOT terrorism in Iraq.

Darkling... when you can spell hospital gimme a call. I didn't compare us to the WORLD, I compared us to a FUGITIVE ON DIALYSIS that is CAVE HOPPING and yet we cannot catch him. The rest of your comments I can only say we seem to agree on. I didn't say that the world LOVED us prior to this invasion... but hell even EUROPE hates our guts. I wouldn't give a damn about the French but it is far worse than that, far more reaching than the snobbery of an archaic state of cowards that fear the intrusions of ENGLISH and AMERICANA into their culture. There is distrust and frankly I have the same distrust for this government that I VOTED FOR and helped to put into office (especially being that I am in Florida).

HOSPITAL.

Anyway, later on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will not claim to be an expert on any of this. I will also admit to not being as passionate as a few of you other people. But I have a comment and a follow-up question to my comment to all the people who are anti-Bush.

Comment: I hear the lot of you stating that Bush lied, that Bush is doing a terrible job, exc. I do NOT ever hear any of you making any suggestions on what any other person could do better.

Question: What exactly do you suggest we do? What is the answer to the problem of terrorism?

I'm just a bit curious is all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will not claim to be an expert on any of this. I will also admit to not being as passionate as a few of you other people. But I have a comment and a follow-up question to my comment to all the people who are anti-Bush.

Comment: I hear the lot of you stating that Bush lied, that Bush is doing a terrible job, exc. I do NOT ever hear any of you making any suggestions on what any other person could do better.

Question: What exactly do you suggest we do? What is the answer to the problem of terrorism?

I'm just a bit curious is all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will not claim to be an expert on any of this. I will also admit to not being as passionate as a few of you other people. But I have a comment and a follow-up question to my comment to all the people who are anti-Bush.

Comment: I hear the lot of you stating that Bush lied, that Bush is doing a terrible job, exc. I do NOT ever hear any of you making any suggestions on what any other person could do better.

Question: What exactly do you suggest we do? What is the answer to the problem of terrorism?

I'm just a bit curious is all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Comment: I hear the lot of you stating that Bush lied, that Bush is doing a terrible job, exc. I do NOT ever hear any of you making any suggestions on what any other person could do better.

ANYONE, who has a MORE level head concerning the consequence of ACTION, and who would entertain a more BALANCED perspective, concerning the REAL issue of terrorism and the methodology in which it is confronted. Since KERRY is the ONLY choice made availiable to us, AND since Kerry is a REAL veteren, I believe, he would do a Great job working out MENDING our international relations, AND focusing on the REAL terrorist, rather than personal gain through the incitement of UNECESSARY attack on 3rd world countries. DIPLOMACY WORKS, for one willing to be diplomatic!!!!

quote:

Question: What exactly do you suggest we do? What is the answer to the problem of terrorism?


SIMPLE!! FOCUS ON THE TERRORIST!!!! and build DEFENSIVE measures, rather than BREED TERRORIST, by becoming a reckless OFFENSIVE THREAT, to the REST OF THE WORLD!!!

[ 06-24-2004, 12:19 PM: Message edited by: street ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Comment: I hear the lot of you stating that Bush lied, that Bush is doing a terrible job, exc. I do NOT ever hear any of you making any suggestions on what any other person could do better.

ANYONE, who has a MORE level head concerning the consequence of ACTION, and who would entertain a more BALANCED perspective, concerning the REAL issue of terrorism and the methodology in which it is confronted. Since KERRY is the ONLY choice made availiable to us, AND since Kerry is a REAL veteren, I believe, he would do a Great job working out MENDING our international relations, AND focusing on the REAL terrorist, rather than personal gain through the incitement of UNECESSARY attack on 3rd world countries. DIPLOMACY WORKS, for one willing to be diplomatic!!!!

quote:

Question: What exactly do you suggest we do? What is the answer to the problem of terrorism?


SIMPLE!! FOCUS ON THE TERRORIST!!!! and build DEFENSIVE measures, rather than BREED TERRORIST, by becoming a reckless OFFENSIVE THREAT, to the REST OF THE WORLD!!!

[ 06-24-2004, 12:19 PM: Message edited by: street ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Comment: I hear the lot of you stating that Bush lied, that Bush is doing a terrible job, exc. I do NOT ever hear any of you making any suggestions on what any other person could do better.

ANYONE, who has a MORE level head concerning the consequence of ACTION, and who would entertain a more BALANCED perspective, concerning the REAL issue of terrorism and the methodology in which it is confronted. Since KERRY is the ONLY choice made availiable to us, AND since Kerry is a REAL veteren, I believe, he would do a Great job working out MENDING our international relations, AND focusing on the REAL terrorist, rather than personal gain through the incitement of UNECESSARY attack on 3rd world countries. DIPLOMACY WORKS, for one willing to be diplomatic!!!!

quote:

Question: What exactly do you suggest we do? What is the answer to the problem of terrorism?


SIMPLE!! FOCUS ON THE TERRORIST!!!! and build DEFENSIVE measures, rather than BREED TERRORIST, by becoming a reckless OFFENSIVE THREAT, to the REST OF THE WORLD!!!

[ 06-24-2004, 12:19 PM: Message edited by: street ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Darkling:

Oh you mean like how Clinton REFUSED to take Bin Laden into custody because he didn't want to derail the Peace process with Israel & the Palestinians? He was more concerned with leaving his Mark in history, than bringing a known terrorist to justice. Yes, ANY president indeed.


Did anyone see the Clinton/Dan rather interview? Well I did and this is what Clinton had to say about that issue:"In his interview with CBS newsman Dan Rather set for broadcast on Sunday, ex-President Bill Clinton flatly contradicts his earlier recorded confession that Sudan offered to arrest Osama bin Laden and hand him over to the U.S., calling reports of such an offer "bull."

"On the accusation that he had opportunities to get Osama bin Laden, had opportunities to have him delivered by the Sudanese, he said, 'absolutely, flatly untrue,' describing it as 'bull,'" Rather tells the Washington Post on Thursday." Clinton: Claims I Turned Down Bin Laden are 'Bull'

Heres a link I'm sure Jaguar will get a good kick out of:Franken VS Clinton on Bin Laden

"Franken wants to have it both ways, criticizing Bush for not doing enough prior to 9/11 and then for doing too much after 9/11. The porridge is always either too cold or too hot. If there is another terrorist attack in the U.S., the Democrats will surely flip back to saying Bush hasn't been doing enough."

[ 06-24-2004, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: LostInSpace ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Darkling:

Oh you mean like how Clinton REFUSED to take Bin Laden into custody because he didn't want to derail the Peace process with Israel & the Palestinians? He was more concerned with leaving his Mark in history, than bringing a known terrorist to justice. Yes, ANY president indeed.


Did anyone see the Clinton/Dan rather interview? Well I did and this is what Clinton had to say about that issue:"In his interview with CBS newsman Dan Rather set for broadcast on Sunday, ex-President Bill Clinton flatly contradicts his earlier recorded confession that Sudan offered to arrest Osama bin Laden and hand him over to the U.S., calling reports of such an offer "bull."

"On the accusation that he had opportunities to get Osama bin Laden, had opportunities to have him delivered by the Sudanese, he said, 'absolutely, flatly untrue,' describing it as 'bull,'" Rather tells the Washington Post on Thursday." Clinton: Claims I Turned Down Bin Laden are 'Bull'

Heres a link I'm sure Jaguar will get a good kick out of:Franken VS Clinton on Bin Laden

"Franken wants to have it both ways, criticizing Bush for not doing enough prior to 9/11 and then for doing too much after 9/11. The porridge is always either too cold or too hot. If there is another terrorist attack in the U.S., the Democrats will surely flip back to saying Bush hasn't been doing enough."

[ 06-24-2004, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: LostInSpace ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Darkling:

Oh you mean like how Clinton REFUSED to take Bin Laden into custody because he didn't want to derail the Peace process with Israel & the Palestinians? He was more concerned with leaving his Mark in history, than bringing a known terrorist to justice. Yes, ANY president indeed.


Did anyone see the Clinton/Dan rather interview? Well I did and this is what Clinton had to say about that issue:"In his interview with CBS newsman Dan Rather set for broadcast on Sunday, ex-President Bill Clinton flatly contradicts his earlier recorded confession that Sudan offered to arrest Osama bin Laden and hand him over to the U.S., calling reports of such an offer "bull."

"On the accusation that he had opportunities to get Osama bin Laden, had opportunities to have him delivered by the Sudanese, he said, 'absolutely, flatly untrue,' describing it as 'bull,'" Rather tells the Washington Post on Thursday." Clinton: Claims I Turned Down Bin Laden are 'Bull'

Heres a link I'm sure Jaguar will get a good kick out of:Franken VS Clinton on Bin Laden

"Franken wants to have it both ways, criticizing Bush for not doing enough prior to 9/11 and then for doing too much after 9/11. The porridge is always either too cold or too hot. If there is another terrorist attack in the U.S., the Democrats will surely flip back to saying Bush hasn't been doing enough."

[ 06-24-2004, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: LostInSpace ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all we should have never gone into Iraq without finishing off Osama Bin Laden. We withdrew our forces from Afghanistan. This nation now controls a portion of Kabul (a small piece of the city's center) and not much more in Afghanistan. What we do control in Kabul is simply to allow our puppet government in Afghanistan to survive. Without us protecting the guy the tribal leaders that we call allies would have killed him already. Research Karzai, see what his affiliations to this nation have been. See his links to big oil and to the CIA. There is no way he would be trusted by the Northern Alliance who CURRENTLY CONTROL AFGHANISTAN beyond Karbul (and I bet you thought we did). In 1996 Karzai was a consultant to UNOCAL who was pushing for a pipeline project the company wanted. Why an oil person? Well let's go on shall we? Nine days after the US-backed interim government of Hamid Karzai took office in Kabul, Bush appointed a former aide to the American oil company Unocal, Afghan-born Zalmay Khalilzad, as special envoy to Afghanistan. Born in Mazar-e Sharif in 1951, Khalilzad hails from the old ruling elite of Afghanistan. His father was an aide to King Zahir Shah, who ruled the country until 1973. Khalilzad was a graduate student at the University of Chicago, an intellectual center for the American right-wing, when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979. As an adviser for Unocal, Khalilzad drew up a risk analysis of a proposed pipeline from the former Soviet republic of Turkmenistan across Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Indian Ocean, which has now been signed. He participated in talks between the oil company and Taliban officials in 1997, which were aimed at implementing a 1995 agreement to build the pipeline across western Afghanistan. CURIOUS ISN'T IT? Seems we got that little deal done, one way or another.

So when I say that we did not prosecute our war on terror I mean it. WE DID WHAT WE NEEDED TO DO TO GET THIS STUPID OIL AGREEMENT SIGNED AND THEN WE LEFT. Why? We never gave a damn about Osama, he was a means to an end. We still don't give a damn about Osama. Why? Because he is a convenient excuse for us to continue to press our efforts to get these oil agendas completed. He is the boogeyman that has allowed all of us to say, "whatever it takes" and Bush has used that to his advantage (well not Bush he's an idiot but those that truly run the show).

What we should have done was to find and KILL Osama Bin Laden and to dismantle the Al-Qaeda network. They are INDEED happy to kill, maim and destroy Americans. This President has made it painfully obvious that he has NO intention to see this done. He sent planes to pick up all of the Bin Ladens in this country and to take them out of here. The FBI had not even fully interrogated and vetted these people. WHY?

If you want to go after terrorists I am happy to do it. I would be happy to see this nation go after and kill Osama and ANY OTHER TERRORIST. I think that we need to establish that we will KILL their familes with the impunity and recklessness that they do ours. I think that we should establish that the code of Hammurabi (sp?) an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is applicable where it concerns the OUR right to inflict our vengeance upon those that would harm us. Kill us and we will KILL YOU... harm our familes and we WILL kill your families. We have created NO FEAR in the enemy. We have only created hostility and a willingness to JOIN their cause. If joining meant YOU DIED... people wouldn't. Look at these "terrorists" in Israel, they have to get retards (literally) and outcasts to blow themselves up... no thinking people will... the leaders surely won't. Will Osama crash a plane... HELL NO. So if you want to see terrorism snuffed you KILL THEM. You don't start a job and walk away and SHOW THEM THAT THIS NATION HAS AN AGENDA BEYOND THEM! You don't walk away and EMPOWER THEM by their being able to say, "we killed three thousand of their people and Osama still lives." Right now that is what they see. Why should we fear them, they haven't been able to kill Osama in three and a half years!

What sucks is this. I'm 34 years old, I have a relatively minimal fear where it concerns the draft... but what about others here? Do you want to fight for the cause of OIL? Do you think you'll be hunting down terrorists like Pat Tillman did? He spent most of his tour as I recall in Iraq. He'd just been sent back to Afghanistan when he was cut down in a hail of FRIENDLY gunfire. Do you think the "specialists" in our military are in Afghanistan hunting Osama? Well they aren't.

People, the youth of this nation in particular, those 18, 19, 20... you will have no more a heavy burden in your life in the next few months than deciding HONESTLY if you want to die for American principles or Bush's principles. There is a VERY big difference. I do not believe that Bush (although I voted for him) works from a policy that promotes AMERICA or her values. Instead he promotes CORPORATE values and RELIGIOUS craziness. I could NOT send our kids to die for oil... but Bush can... and I have PROVEN that there is a VERY CLEAR link to oil policy and our military actions over these three plus years. Where is my Governor's son? Where are George's daughters? Where are ANY OF THE BUSH FAMILY? If I believed in a war that I was sending OUR KIDS TO FIGHT AND DIE IN... my son (if of age at the time I was calling for this war) would be wearing the FIRST BOOT TO TOUCH ENEMY SOIL. If our cause was as great as WWII or for that matter Afghanistan post 9/11 then WHERE THE HELL ARE THE BUSHS, the CHENEYS, the RICES, the RUMSFELDS the WOLFOWITZS. Do we save our best for last? MY ASS.. let the cowards that are this Administration stand up and spill blood of their own if they are so eager to see their wills done.

Think about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all we should have never gone into Iraq without finishing off Osama Bin Laden. We withdrew our forces from Afghanistan. This nation now controls a portion of Kabul (a small piece of the city's center) and not much more in Afghanistan. What we do control in Kabul is simply to allow our puppet government in Afghanistan to survive. Without us protecting the guy the tribal leaders that we call allies would have killed him already. Research Karzai, see what his affiliations to this nation have been. See his links to big oil and to the CIA. There is no way he would be trusted by the Northern Alliance who CURRENTLY CONTROL AFGHANISTAN beyond Karbul (and I bet you thought we did). In 1996 Karzai was a consultant to UNOCAL who was pushing for a pipeline project the company wanted. Why an oil person? Well let's go on shall we? Nine days after the US-backed interim government of Hamid Karzai took office in Kabul, Bush appointed a former aide to the American oil company Unocal, Afghan-born Zalmay Khalilzad, as special envoy to Afghanistan. Born in Mazar-e Sharif in 1951, Khalilzad hails from the old ruling elite of Afghanistan. His father was an aide to King Zahir Shah, who ruled the country until 1973. Khalilzad was a graduate student at the University of Chicago, an intellectual center for the American right-wing, when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979. As an adviser for Unocal, Khalilzad drew up a risk analysis of a proposed pipeline from the former Soviet republic of Turkmenistan across Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Indian Ocean, which has now been signed. He participated in talks between the oil company and Taliban officials in 1997, which were aimed at implementing a 1995 agreement to build the pipeline across western Afghanistan. CURIOUS ISN'T IT? Seems we got that little deal done, one way or another.

So when I say that we did not prosecute our war on terror I mean it. WE DID WHAT WE NEEDED TO DO TO GET THIS STUPID OIL AGREEMENT SIGNED AND THEN WE LEFT. Why? We never gave a damn about Osama, he was a means to an end. We still don't give a damn about Osama. Why? Because he is a convenient excuse for us to continue to press our efforts to get these oil agendas completed. He is the boogeyman that has allowed all of us to say, "whatever it takes" and Bush has used that to his advantage (well not Bush he's an idiot but those that truly run the show).

What we should have done was to find and KILL Osama Bin Laden and to dismantle the Al-Qaeda network. They are INDEED happy to kill, maim and destroy Americans. This President has made it painfully obvious that he has NO intention to see this done. He sent planes to pick up all of the Bin Ladens in this country and to take them out of here. The FBI had not even fully interrogated and vetted these people. WHY?

If you want to go after terrorists I am happy to do it. I would be happy to see this nation go after and kill Osama and ANY OTHER TERRORIST. I think that we need to establish that we will KILL their familes with the impunity and recklessness that they do ours. I think that we should establish that the code of Hammurabi (sp?) an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is applicable where it concerns the OUR right to inflict our vengeance upon those that would harm us. Kill us and we will KILL YOU... harm our familes and we WILL kill your families. We have created NO FEAR in the enemy. We have only created hostility and a willingness to JOIN their cause. If joining meant YOU DIED... people wouldn't. Look at these "terrorists" in Israel, they have to get retards (literally) and outcasts to blow themselves up... no thinking people will... the leaders surely won't. Will Osama crash a plane... HELL NO. So if you want to see terrorism snuffed you KILL THEM. You don't start a job and walk away and SHOW THEM THAT THIS NATION HAS AN AGENDA BEYOND THEM! You don't walk away and EMPOWER THEM by their being able to say, "we killed three thousand of their people and Osama still lives." Right now that is what they see. Why should we fear them, they haven't been able to kill Osama in three and a half years!

What sucks is this. I'm 34 years old, I have a relatively minimal fear where it concerns the draft... but what about others here? Do you want to fight for the cause of OIL? Do you think you'll be hunting down terrorists like Pat Tillman did? He spent most of his tour as I recall in Iraq. He'd just been sent back to Afghanistan when he was cut down in a hail of FRIENDLY gunfire. Do you think the "specialists" in our military are in Afghanistan hunting Osama? Well they aren't.

People, the youth of this nation in particular, those 18, 19, 20... you will have no more a heavy burden in your life in the next few months than deciding HONESTLY if you want to die for American principles or Bush's principles. There is a VERY big difference. I do not believe that Bush (although I voted for him) works from a policy that promotes AMERICA or her values. Instead he promotes CORPORATE values and RELIGIOUS craziness. I could NOT send our kids to die for oil... but Bush can... and I have PROVEN that there is a VERY CLEAR link to oil policy and our military actions over these three plus years. Where is my Governor's son? Where are George's daughters? Where are ANY OF THE BUSH FAMILY? If I believed in a war that I was sending OUR KIDS TO FIGHT AND DIE IN... my son (if of age at the time I was calling for this war) would be wearing the FIRST BOOT TO TOUCH ENEMY SOIL. If our cause was as great as WWII or for that matter Afghanistan post 9/11 then WHERE THE HELL ARE THE BUSHS, the CHENEYS, the RICES, the RUMSFELDS the WOLFOWITZS. Do we save our best for last? MY ASS.. let the cowards that are this Administration stand up and spill blood of their own if they are so eager to see their wills done.

Think about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all we should have never gone into Iraq without finishing off Osama Bin Laden. We withdrew our forces from Afghanistan. This nation now controls a portion of Kabul (a small piece of the city's center) and not much more in Afghanistan. What we do control in Kabul is simply to allow our puppet government in Afghanistan to survive. Without us protecting the guy the tribal leaders that we call allies would have killed him already. Research Karzai, see what his affiliations to this nation have been. See his links to big oil and to the CIA. There is no way he would be trusted by the Northern Alliance who CURRENTLY CONTROL AFGHANISTAN beyond Karbul (and I bet you thought we did). In 1996 Karzai was a consultant to UNOCAL who was pushing for a pipeline project the company wanted. Why an oil person? Well let's go on shall we? Nine days after the US-backed interim government of Hamid Karzai took office in Kabul, Bush appointed a former aide to the American oil company Unocal, Afghan-born Zalmay Khalilzad, as special envoy to Afghanistan. Born in Mazar-e Sharif in 1951, Khalilzad hails from the old ruling elite of Afghanistan. His father was an aide to King Zahir Shah, who ruled the country until 1973. Khalilzad was a graduate student at the University of Chicago, an intellectual center for the American right-wing, when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979. As an adviser for Unocal, Khalilzad drew up a risk analysis of a proposed pipeline from the former Soviet republic of Turkmenistan across Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Indian Ocean, which has now been signed. He participated in talks between the oil company and Taliban officials in 1997, which were aimed at implementing a 1995 agreement to build the pipeline across western Afghanistan. CURIOUS ISN'T IT? Seems we got that little deal done, one way or another.

So when I say that we did not prosecute our war on terror I mean it. WE DID WHAT WE NEEDED TO DO TO GET THIS STUPID OIL AGREEMENT SIGNED AND THEN WE LEFT. Why? We never gave a damn about Osama, he was a means to an end. We still don't give a damn about Osama. Why? Because he is a convenient excuse for us to continue to press our efforts to get these oil agendas completed. He is the boogeyman that has allowed all of us to say, "whatever it takes" and Bush has used that to his advantage (well not Bush he's an idiot but those that truly run the show).

What we should have done was to find and KILL Osama Bin Laden and to dismantle the Al-Qaeda network. They are INDEED happy to kill, maim and destroy Americans. This President has made it painfully obvious that he has NO intention to see this done. He sent planes to pick up all of the Bin Ladens in this country and to take them out of here. The FBI had not even fully interrogated and vetted these people. WHY?

If you want to go after terrorists I am happy to do it. I would be happy to see this nation go after and kill Osama and ANY OTHER TERRORIST. I think that we need to establish that we will KILL their familes with the impunity and recklessness that they do ours. I think that we should establish that the code of Hammurabi (sp?) an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is applicable where it concerns the OUR right to inflict our vengeance upon those that would harm us. Kill us and we will KILL YOU... harm our familes and we WILL kill your families. We have created NO FEAR in the enemy. We have only created hostility and a willingness to JOIN their cause. If joining meant YOU DIED... people wouldn't. Look at these "terrorists" in Israel, they have to get retards (literally) and outcasts to blow themselves up... no thinking people will... the leaders surely won't. Will Osama crash a plane... HELL NO. So if you want to see terrorism snuffed you KILL THEM. You don't start a job and walk away and SHOW THEM THAT THIS NATION HAS AN AGENDA BEYOND THEM! You don't walk away and EMPOWER THEM by their being able to say, "we killed three thousand of their people and Osama still lives." Right now that is what they see. Why should we fear them, they haven't been able to kill Osama in three and a half years!

What sucks is this. I'm 34 years old, I have a relatively minimal fear where it concerns the draft... but what about others here? Do you want to fight for the cause of OIL? Do you think you'll be hunting down terrorists like Pat Tillman did? He spent most of his tour as I recall in Iraq. He'd just been sent back to Afghanistan when he was cut down in a hail of FRIENDLY gunfire. Do you think the "specialists" in our military are in Afghanistan hunting Osama? Well they aren't.

People, the youth of this nation in particular, those 18, 19, 20... you will have no more a heavy burden in your life in the next few months than deciding HONESTLY if you want to die for American principles or Bush's principles. There is a VERY big difference. I do not believe that Bush (although I voted for him) works from a policy that promotes AMERICA or her values. Instead he promotes CORPORATE values and RELIGIOUS craziness. I could NOT send our kids to die for oil... but Bush can... and I have PROVEN that there is a VERY CLEAR link to oil policy and our military actions over these three plus years. Where is my Governor's son? Where are George's daughters? Where are ANY OF THE BUSH FAMILY? If I believed in a war that I was sending OUR KIDS TO FIGHT AND DIE IN... my son (if of age at the time I was calling for this war) would be wearing the FIRST BOOT TO TOUCH ENEMY SOIL. If our cause was as great as WWII or for that matter Afghanistan post 9/11 then WHERE THE HELL ARE THE BUSHS, the CHENEYS, the RICES, the RUMSFELDS the WOLFOWITZS. Do we save our best for last? MY ASS.. let the cowards that are this Administration stand up and spill blood of their own if they are so eager to see their wills done.

Think about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With Clinton there is no TRUE contradiction. It is Only a matter of semantics and interpretation, and covering one's ASS, from Undeserved blame(that which BOTH sides of partenship politics, are MASTERS)

He clearly defines his refusal to take Bin Laden, in the 60 minute interview...and with LEGIT reason:

"NO LEGAL BASIS TO HOLD HIM!!(Something BUSH refuses to ACKNOWLEDGE, concerning HIS victims of incarceration, currantly held in Cuba!!)

The issue which surrounds the Tragic contradictions during the months PRIOR to our INVASION of IRAQI, are NOT partenship bias, but incompass VERY REAL and dangerous methodology, toward the FUTURE welfare of this whole country's FREEDOMS, and SAFETY!!

...NOT to mention,damage to our ALIANCES with the other MAJOR world nations.(something most americans missed... when bush kept spouting he had 34 world nations with us.) Those little 3rd world countries, who are a mere grain of sand, when stood beside the countries, which BUSH has damaged our relations. THOSE Relations, which, by the way, took us 50-70 years to establish solidarity with.(And this took BOTH Republican and Democratic administrations, to achieve, throughout the YEARS)

[ 06-24-2004, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: street ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With Clinton there is no TRUE contradiction. It is Only a matter of semantics and interpretation, and covering one's ASS, from Undeserved blame(that which BOTH sides of partenship politics, are MASTERS)

He clearly defines his refusal to take Bin Laden, in the 60 minute interview...and with LEGIT reason:

"NO LEGAL BASIS TO HOLD HIM!!(Something BUSH refuses to ACKNOWLEDGE, concerning HIS victims of incarceration, currantly held in Cuba!!)

The issue which surrounds the Tragic contradictions during the months PRIOR to our INVASION of IRAQI, are NOT partenship bias, but incompass VERY REAL and dangerous methodology, toward the FUTURE welfare of this whole country's FREEDOMS, and SAFETY!!

...NOT to mention,damage to our ALIANCES with the other MAJOR world nations.(something most americans missed... when bush kept spouting he had 34 world nations with us.) Those little 3rd world countries, who are a mere grain of sand, when stood beside the countries, which BUSH has damaged our relations. THOSE Relations, which, by the way, took us 50-70 years to establish solidarity with.(And this took BOTH Republican and Democratic administrations, to achieve, throughout the YEARS)

[ 06-24-2004, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: street ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With Clinton there is no TRUE contradiction. It is Only a matter of semantics and interpretation, and covering one's ASS, from Undeserved blame(that which BOTH sides of partenship politics, are MASTERS)

He clearly defines his refusal to take Bin Laden, in the 60 minute interview...and with LEGIT reason:

"NO LEGAL BASIS TO HOLD HIM!!(Something BUSH refuses to ACKNOWLEDGE, concerning HIS victims of incarceration, currantly held in Cuba!!)

The issue which surrounds the Tragic contradictions during the months PRIOR to our INVASION of IRAQI, are NOT partenship bias, but incompass VERY REAL and dangerous methodology, toward the FUTURE welfare of this whole country's FREEDOMS, and SAFETY!!

...NOT to mention,damage to our ALIANCES with the other MAJOR world nations.(something most americans missed... when bush kept spouting he had 34 world nations with us.) Those little 3rd world countries, who are a mere grain of sand, when stood beside the countries, which BUSH has damaged our relations. THOSE Relations, which, by the way, took us 50-70 years to establish solidarity with.(And this took BOTH Republican and Democratic administrations, to achieve, throughout the YEARS)

[ 06-24-2004, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: street ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Street, not to sound provacative....but, who exactly is the REAL terrorist you speak of?

And another question for you, say for a moment, we work on building up a "good defense" and say we still get hit by another devestating attack. What do we do then in your opinion? Do we continue to be diplomatic and continue to build defensive measures?

When is offensive action considered "OK" in your mind?

Not trying to debate, just trying to gain understanding. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Street, not to sound provacative....but, who exactly is the REAL terrorist you speak of?

And another question for you, say for a moment, we work on building up a "good defense" and say we still get hit by another devestating attack. What do we do then in your opinion? Do we continue to be diplomatic and continue to build defensive measures?

When is offensive action considered "OK" in your mind?

Not trying to debate, just trying to gain understanding. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Street, not to sound provacative....but, who exactly is the REAL terrorist you speak of?

And another question for you, say for a moment, we work on building up a "good defense" and say we still get hit by another devestating attack. What do we do then in your opinion? Do we continue to be diplomatic and continue to build defensive measures?

When is offensive action considered "OK" in your mind?

Not trying to debate, just trying to gain understanding. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by LostInSpace:

Heres a link I'm sure Jaguar will get a good kick out of:

"Franken wants to have it both ways, criticizing Bush for not doing enough prior to 9/11 and then for doing too much after 9/11. The porridge is always either too cold or too hot. If there is another terrorist attack in the U.S., the Democrats will surely flip back to saying Bush hasn't been doing enough."

Uhmmm... did I miss something? Is that hillbilly womanizer Clinton the President? Time to get over passing the buck and remembering who's in play here. Bush is the President. He says he wants Osama... so where is Osama? THREE AND A HALF YEARS... NO FRUIT... GREATEST NATION AND MILITARY ON THIS PLANET... YET FAILURE.

I want it one way. I want Osama on a platter. No dead or alive about it... just DEAD will do. Why hasn't George, "brought it on!" *snickers* As long as people allow Bush to lay his miserable track record at the feet of Clinton nothing is going to change. Clinton isn't screwing up Iraq, Bush is. Clinton didn't remove our troops from Afghanistan and diminish our ability to capture Osama... Bush did. So please stop passing the buck for this guy. Apologists really piss me off.

Later

Takvah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by LostInSpace:

Heres a link I'm sure Jaguar will get a good kick out of:

"Franken wants to have it both ways, criticizing Bush for not doing enough prior to 9/11 and then for doing too much after 9/11. The porridge is always either too cold or too hot. If there is another terrorist attack in the U.S., the Democrats will surely flip back to saying Bush hasn't been doing enough."

Uhmmm... did I miss something? Is that hillbilly womanizer Clinton the President? Time to get over passing the buck and remembering who's in play here. Bush is the President. He says he wants Osama... so where is Osama? THREE AND A HALF YEARS... NO FRUIT... GREATEST NATION AND MILITARY ON THIS PLANET... YET FAILURE.

I want it one way. I want Osama on a platter. No dead or alive about it... just DEAD will do. Why hasn't George, "brought it on!" *snickers* As long as people allow Bush to lay his miserable track record at the feet of Clinton nothing is going to change. Clinton isn't screwing up Iraq, Bush is. Clinton didn't remove our troops from Afghanistan and diminish our ability to capture Osama... Bush did. So please stop passing the buck for this guy. Apologists really piss me off.

Later

Takvah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by LostInSpace:

Heres a link I'm sure Jaguar will get a good kick out of:

"Franken wants to have it both ways, criticizing Bush for not doing enough prior to 9/11 and then for doing too much after 9/11. The porridge is always either too cold or too hot. If there is another terrorist attack in the U.S., the Democrats will surely flip back to saying Bush hasn't been doing enough."

Uhmmm... did I miss something? Is that hillbilly womanizer Clinton the President? Time to get over passing the buck and remembering who's in play here. Bush is the President. He says he wants Osama... so where is Osama? THREE AND A HALF YEARS... NO FRUIT... GREATEST NATION AND MILITARY ON THIS PLANET... YET FAILURE.

I want it one way. I want Osama on a platter. No dead or alive about it... just DEAD will do. Why hasn't George, "brought it on!" *snickers* As long as people allow Bush to lay his miserable track record at the feet of Clinton nothing is going to change. Clinton isn't screwing up Iraq, Bush is. Clinton didn't remove our troops from Afghanistan and diminish our ability to capture Osama... Bush did. So please stop passing the buck for this guy. Apologists really piss me off.

Later

Takvah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×