America's role, PART 2!!

[Guest]

Since the other one had gone to 10 pages, I decided that I would start part 2.

TO begin, a new article I came across that I thought was absolutley hilarious.

The democratic party is coming apart at the seams, and to say that I love watching them self destruct is an understatement.

Here's the article, long, but well worth it!!

quote:

---

Why He Drives Them Crazy

The Weekly Standard ^ | 10/14/2002 | Noemie Emery

Being underestimated is George W. Bush's secret political weapon.

WHEN IT ALL boiled over that day in September--with a red-faced Tom Daschle denouncing the president from the Senate floor--George W. Bush had already given the Democrats two very bad years. Two years of predictions that never quite happened. Two years of gotchas that never came through. Two years of hopes dashed.

Two Septembers ago, let us remember, candidate Bush appeared dead in the water. He misspoke, went off message, blew his big lead. In the debates, surely, Al Gore would finish him. Not quite. Bush won the debates. Then Bush won Florida, and Democrats went into what became their default position: (a) Bush wasn't president; (

Bush was dumb. As to (a), newspaper recounts, they kept telling themselves, would clearly show that Gore won Florida. As to (

, Bush would soon fall flat on his face. Didn't happen. They said Bush couldn't govern; Bush had a honeymoon. Then in late summer 2001, things settled down, and Bush stalled. Democrats could look forward to tormenting Bush for a year, before taking back Congress. Then came the attacks.

For a couple of days, the usual suspects tagged Bush as being both dim and a coward, flying around the country instead of back to Washington. But by the time most of these snipes had seen print, it was September 14, and Bush had been in the morning to the National Cathedral and in the afternoon to ground zero, where he was cheered as a heroic commander in chief in the heart of blue country, in a state he had lost by 28 points. His poll numbers soared. People said his numbers would drop, and so they did drop, all the way down to the 70s, after eight or nine months. Then came a few months of punishing headlines, and liberals brightened. Surely the Teflon would peel off of this poseur. People would see Bush the way that they saw him. People would see.

Or would they? Over and over, hopes budded, blossomed, and then fell away. In April, hopes were pinned on reports that the president "knew something" about the attacks before September 11 and had done nothing about them. What did the president know? Did he know that he knew it? Turns out the problems were in intelligence agencies, and were being corrected. "It seems clear the president has won this round," reported the New York Post's Deborah Orin, who quoted a pollster: "In the short term, it backfired--the Democrats probably helped boost Bush's numbers by pushing the agenda back to terrorism, which is his strength."

Then came a slew of problems that were not his long suit. Bush and Cheney's pals at Enron turned out to be presiding over a con game that tanked the company and wiped out the employees' pensions. The stock market tanked, partly because of the scandals. Happy days were here again, weren't they? Democrats did not yet have a candidate for the role of Franklin D. Roosevelt, but surely they had their dream opponent: George Herbert Hoover Bush. "In a few short weeks, America's political economy has been stunningly transformed," wrote Robert Kuttner in the American Prospect. "President Bush is suddenly in trouble. . . . The Bush administration, the Republican party, and three decades of conservative ideology are facing a potential rout." And properly so. "How utterly fitting. Bush's own financial biography, on a pettier scale, epitomizes the corruption that now threatens the whole system. . . . Bush irrevocably symbolizes the tawdriness of crony capitalism, right down to his insider self-enrichment based on the sale of the fraudulently inflated Harken stock." Michael Tomasky called the Harken charge the beginning of the end for the president, "the very point at which the spokes started coming off the wheels" for his highness. In the New Republic, Ryan Lizza wrote, "For over a week now, President Bush's dodgy stint at Harken Energy . . . has followed him around the country like a dark cloud. . . . the White House that dodged the Enron bullet might not be so lucky a second time. . . . Bush isn't only on the defensive on corporate fraud; corporate fraud is putting him on the defensive about almost everything else." Democratic leaders happily counted the possible gains in November, and gleefully tracked the slide in Bush's approval numbers, now falling at a rate of about 4 points a month. By Election Day, his numbers might be down in the 50s, and life would be back to normal. The Democrats' year of living defensively would be blessedly over. How could they miss?

They could miss like this: By late August, Enron and Harken were history. While liberals tried to frame it as "the people versus the powerful," Bush framed it as the straight versus the crooked, with himself on the side of the straight. He had done nothing to help Enron when it went under. No one could find much amiss in his dealings with Harken except for the people who found all business sinister. The "crony capitalism" Bush was said to have symbolized was accepted instead as part of the much older pattern of favors done for children of powerful families (such as the Gores and the Kennedys). The liberals had counted on a theory of guilt by resemblance--i.e., CEOs, oil, and Texas--without much in the way of real evidence. The public decided that the scandals were scandalous, but agreed with Republicans that they were the result of criminal acts, not systemic flaws. They wanted to see the criminal punished so that corporate capitalism could thrive again. No one wanted a new New Deal. In July, a Gallup poll found that respondents still considered big government more of a threat than big corporations, by a margin of 47 percent to 38 percent. A poll by the Pew Research Center even found that "the public, 36 percent to 31 percent, sees the GOP as best able to deal with corporate corruption," the Washington Post said in late September.

And as with the scandals, so with the market in general. People had long ago stopped believing that politicians could do much to help the economy. Polls on who could handle it best appeared inconclusive. "The economy is not a clear-cut issue for many voters as they assign blame," the Washington Post said in a September 29 story. The pessimists were far more inclined to blame terrorism or the business cycle than Bush. In fact, in the summer some polls found that fewer people blamed Bush than blamed Clinton. Talk about pain.

By the start of September, Bush had been off-stage for a month, and the war had moved to the op-ed pages, where GOP heavyweights duked it out with each other. Bush's poll rating fell, all the way down to, oh, 60 or so. Surely this time the Teflon would finally flake off? Democrats murmured once more that Bush wasn't "up to it." In a September 11 anniversary issue, Time suggested that perhaps Bush hadn't risen to meet the level of history, that history had for a moment "fallen" to his. In a double issue timed to be on the newsstands on September 11, the New Republic informed us: "The sense of destiny that characterized George W. Bush in the weeks and the months after the attacks, that lifted him unexpectedly above his own sorry limitations, was long ago dissipated by business as usual. . . . The hollowness of the president, the poverty of his resources for leadership, is plain, and it is 'partisanship' to find anything Churchillian in the man."

Oops. While this issue was still on the newsstands, Bush addressed the country on September 11 and the United Nations the day after; he recast the Iraq debate on his terms and his timing, quelled the dissension within his own party, boxed the Democrats into the trap in which they are still squirming, and pulled a neat piece of judo on the U.N., putting the burden of action on them. Bush's numbers reversed, and recommenced climbing. Republican prospects began to look better. Deep rifts were exposed in the Democratic caucus that had gone unstressed since the end of the Cold War. The one thing that many Democrats seemed to agree on was that Bush had brought up Iraq now for political reasons. But polls showed that 59 percent of respondents thought Bush was being sincere in his actions, and an equal number thought the Democrats were trying to politicize the debate. It was at this point then that Daschle exploded. No wonder. And Democrats cheered. But at the end of the week, polls showed Bush unaffected and Republicans gaining a slight general lead.

CRAIG CRAWFORD of Hotline has suggested that Bush goaded Daschle, hoping to elicit an overreaction. Perhaps. Whether by design or instinct, Bush has a history of driving people who are sure they're much smarter than he is to incredibly silly and self-immolating acts. In the Texas governor's race in 1994, he was the lightweight against the incumbent, Ann Richards, who felt herself demeaned by having to run against him. Making her disdain clear, she addressed him as "shrub" and as "Junior." He addressed her as "Governor Richards." She called him "clueless." He called her "Governor Richards." She called him "the anemic link at the tail end of the gilded Bush dynasty." He said he found her "interesting" as a study in character. At last, she blew up, and called him "some jerk" at a rally. He won by 6 points.

Al Gore thought he was smarter than Bush, and in the debates planned to take out this pretender. He would show off his mental and physical dominance. Condescendingly, Gore sighed, smirked, interrupted, and unleashed tidal waves of details and assertions. Then Bush, as the Washington Post's David von Drehle astutely observed, "read Gore's effort to overshadow him, and, in an odd way, opted to make himself a little bit smaller," becoming relentlessly civil and courteous. It worked. At one point, wrote Jeff Greenfield, "Al Gore left his stool and walked slowly, stiffly, toward his opponent, arms at his sides, palms pointed behind him, looking oddly like [a] robot. . . . Bush glanced over his shoulder, took a beat--and nodded once, as if to say: Hi there--be with you in a moment. The audience laughed, and Al Gore was finished for the night." Something of the same sort seemed to happen to Daschle last week. After his outburst, the White House suggested he might have misread the story that caused it, giving him the chance to back down from his tantrum. He didn't take it, but went back on the floor of the Senate. His purpose was to help his own party's chances. At the end of the week, surveys showed the Republicans for the first time making small gains in congressional polls.

What happens to a dream deferred? Nothing pretty. The liberals' dream of "exposing" the president has now suffered blow upon blow. Simply speaking, their view of Bush--expressed on any given day by Terry McAuliffe, Paul Begala, James Carville, the Nation, Michael Kinsley, or the New York Times, is still this: George W. Bush is a moron who stole the election, had the great good luck to be president when terrorists struck at our two major cities, benefited unfairly from an irrational wave of hysterical jingoism, and now, when the glow from that burst has been fading, has cooked up a phony war to distract attention from corporate fraud and the stock market crash, which of course he caused. Their failure to sell this analysis to the three-fourths of the country not in the grip of terminal Bushophobia has driven them quite out of their senses. Every day, they get shriller and more desperate. Surely, if Maureen Dowd turns the smirk up one notch, if Frank Rich reviews Bush like another bad movie, the unwashed will awake and see reason? But no.

If you had told a liberal in mid-2001 that in the fall of 2002 the Dow would be somewhere below 8,000 and a cluster of scandals would beset corporate boardrooms, he would scarcely have believed his good fortune. That time has now come, these factors are present, and that liberal can scarcely believe his bad luck. There are two possible explanations: Either he has overestimated the extent to which his worldview is shared by the public, or he has underestimated George Bush. Neither idea is appealing. What kind of a populist are you if the people aren't with you? What kind of an intellectual are you if you aren't smarter than Bush? How can people so smart, and whose views are so popular, be beaten so often by someone so clueless? The idea that George Bush is a gifted politician whose views are quite mainstream would make their world crumble. On the other hand, if they are so often trounced by an out-of-touch moron, then what does it say about them?

And so it goes, in a widening gyre, with each new defeat feeding the fury. Bush-haters want their elected leaders to rip into the president, like the Times in full petulance. But this sort of thing hit a brick wall a year ago. The day after Daschle's ill-conceived tirade, vulnerable Democrats running for office clustered around Bush at a photo-op, hoping to be there in the picture if and when it was published at home. Republicans love Bush. Swing voters like him, as do quite a few moderate Democrats who are willing to fight him on this or that issue, but have no stomach for slashing attacks. In short, what the Democrats need to inspire their base is exactly what tends to turn off swing voters, putting success out of their reach. Hatred of Bush is becoming a weapon that helps him by dividing his political enemies. Bush is said to believe that in the terrorist attacks he discovered his "mission and moment," the work of his life, and its meaning. This may be true, but it's only part of the story. Bush's other destiny is driving Democrats nuts.

---

Driving them nuts is an understatement, setting them up to destroy themselves is more like it!!

They walk right into it, That is what makes it all the funnier!! He warns them, he gives them chances to back down, to get out of the trap, but they just blindingly in their hatred, walk right into it!!

I think that Bush has studied "The Art of War" and is an expert. He is also an expert politician, all of his detractors love to say how moronic and stupid he is, well, that is just fine, because he is far smarter then most of them, and it is obvious, because they just blindingly walk into the traps he lays for them.

ROFLMAO!!!

[ 10-07-2002, 10:44 AM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

[Guest]

OH, and this will be my last post until Monday. It is moving weekend this weekend. So talk to you all then!!

[Guest $iLk]

It's quite a good read. I've been for Bush from day one, it feels refreshing not having some piece of human trash like our last president sitting in the oval office.

If I were Bush I would've sanitized the entire White House before stepping foot inside.

And once again let's thank whatever you believe in that AL Gore is "mending fences" or whatever in Tennessee instead of sitting in the White House screwing up the war on terror.

Just out of curiosity, do you think Al Gore's popularity would've soared as much as Bush's?

[AWells]

quote:

---

Just out of curiosity, do you think Al Gore's popularity would've soared as much as Bush's?

---

I'm still shocked that people even voted for Gore to begin with.

[Outlaw]

Normally I don't post on politic topics but IMO that whole thing about the Florida ballots was so rigged. I mean c'mon Gore was clearly the winner if it weren't for Bush's bro Jeb the governor pulling the strings so that he would win.

[AWells]

quote:

---

Normally I don't post on politic topics but IMO that whole thing about the Florida ballots was so rigged. I mean c'mon Gore was clearly the winner if it weren't for Bush's bro Jeb the governor pulling the strings so that he would win.

---

Well, that might be so, but then again nobody ever said that government corruption never did anything good. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Bush is the greatest president that ever lived, but I think a return to having the Republicans in the White House was timely considering the events that have transpired during his term in office.

[Raven]

Im not too fond of either party myself, but I much rather have a Republican president then a Democrat. This whole two party thing is lame, I dont really agree with the Democrats or the Republicans Ok, so any party that I agreed with wouldnt even be remotely mainstream so it doesnt make any difference anyway, oh well

[Guest]

quote:

---

Normally I don't post on politic topics but IMO that whole thing about the Florida ballots was so rigged. I mean c'mon Gore was clearly the winner if it weren't for Bush's bro Jeb the governor pulling the strings so that he would win.

---

You're right, it was rigged, dead people voting for Al Gore, People being driven from polling place to polling place and voting 3-6 times, of course for Al Gore, absentee ballots mysteriously disapearing, etc, etc.

Do you want to know the real reason the Democrats were so angry? because they cheated so hard, and so well, that there was NO way that Bush could have won. Guess what? Bush actually won by a good 2-3%, and after ALL absentee ballots were counted, Bush won the popular vote as well.

So sorry, yes it was rigged, but Bush won anyway.

BAck to work, but I could not let that go without being remarked upon. It is one of the biggest myths and Nontruths about the election there are.

Bush won, fair and square, not only did he win the electoral votes, he also won the popular. So sorry charlie.

Time for me to move now, have a good weekend guys.

[ 10-05-2002, 11:03 AM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

[Charles Lindsey]

quote:

---

Then Bush won Florida,

---

I'm still a bit miffed about that. That was a total fiasco made worse by the fact that it was the president's brother who was governor of the contested state. I personally think it should have gone to the secondary procedure like the constitution says.

In Draconis Rex's thread An Americans ROle he mentions anti-nepotism. I'm for this. No president should have a relative in another office. Not senator, governor or even mayor of a major city at least.

But that's farther off topic than Jag's post.

So back to America's Role. We're the only superpower left. What do we do? Poke our noses into affairs involving fanatics that would fly planes into our buildings? That's not real smart. But whatcha gonna do? Surely not anything at all.

[Guest $iLk]

You have to do something to deter those who would fly planes into buildings. Did anyone notice the lull in suicide bombings when Israel started demolishing the homes of people who's family members attacked Israel?

[Charles Lindsey]

quote:

---

You have to do something to deter those who would fly planes into buildings.

---

That's true. On the surface at least. But we should do something else that helps mitigate the reasons for them to do it. A combination approach. What that is I don't know. More aid? Less aid? Advice? Back off?

State that we will not discontinue support for Israel but try to maintain our distance on the rest of the region? Iraq being the exception at the moment.

The whole thing is a complete and utter mess. I have no idea what to do but I do think we should not go in like a raging bull.

quote:

---

Did anyone notice the lull in suicide bombings when Israel started demolishing the homes of people who's family members attacked Israel?

---

Sort of noticed. Worked for a while at least but they are picking back up. THis probably belongs in the other thread but it's tied in as well so what the heck. I think Israel ought to declare war and take them out. Or build that wall.

[Guest Remo Williams]

quote:

---

That's true. On the surface at least. But we should do something else that helps mitigate the reasons for them to do it. A combination approach. What that is I don't know. More aid? Less aid? Advice? Back off?

---

We can't make everyone happy, there will always be someone pissed off at us. Thats just the way it is.

quote:

---

I think Israel ought to declare war and take them out.

---

Exactly, until they do there will always be a conflict in that part of the world. As soon as they drive them all back into Jordan(where they belong in the first place)it will be solved.

[ 10-05-2002, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: Remo Williams ]

[AWells]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dragon Lady:

Im not too fond of either party myself, but I much rather have a Republican president then a Democrat. This whole two party thing is lame, I dont really agree with the Democrats or the Republicans Ok, so any party that I agreed with wouldnt even be remotely mainstream so it doesnt make any difference anyway, oh well

---

True, the Republicans are the lesser of two evils. I've yet to see any political canidates that I really support, even the fringe ones. It's really discouraging to know with the screw ball politcians out there there's none as sick and twisted as myself. Then again, most people probably consider that a good thing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jaguar:

You're right, it was rigged, dead people voting for Al Gore

---

Hmmm... dead people... I was wondering who would vote for Al Gore.

quote:

---

Originally posted by $ilk:

You have to do something to deter those who would fly planes into buildings.

---

You mean taking away thier frequent flyer miles isn't enough?

quote:

---

Did anyone notice the lull in suicide bombings when Israel started demolishing the homes of people who's family members attacked Israel?

---

I'm not sure how that would work in preventing attacks. It would seem to me that the terrorists of the caliber we faced on September 11 were more than willing to give up thier lives. I can't picture them hesitating because we threaten to demolish a few homes of their relatives.

Really, I think the only feasable solution is a complete no holds barred military campaign in Iraq and other terrorist supporting countries with the goal of removing terrorist friendly governments and rounding up or eliminating suspected terrorists (preferably the latter option).

[Commander Elio Jason]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Litvyak:

quote:

---

Just out of curiosity, do you think Al Gore's popularity would've soared as much as Bush's?

---

I'm still shocked that people even voted for Gore to begin with.

---

amen to that!

Bushophobia? now that's taking it far lol

[Epsilon 5]

Am I the only one who noticed there's a typo in the thread title?

[Charles Lindsey]

No. I'm sure he'll fix it come Monday when he gets back.

quote:

---

We can't make everyone happy, there will always be someone pissed off at us. Thats just the way it is.

---

That much I'm aware of. I also think there should be things we can do to lessen it. Maybe not but I hope so.

quote:

---

That was a total fiasco made worse by the fact that it was the president's brother who was governor of the contested state

---

That should say "current president" or "presidential candidate". My bad.

quote:

---

I can't picture them hesitating because we threaten to demolish a few homes of their relatives.

---

That's for the run of the mill Palestinian terrorist who gets recruited by the terrorist groups. If they know their family's home is going to be destroyed it suddenly becomes less appealing.

The ones who perpetrated Sept. 11 are different and you are right; destroying a few homes won't stop them.

[Raven]

quote:

---

True, the Republicans are the lesser of two evils. I've yet to see any political canidates that I really support, even the fringe ones. It's really discouraging to know with the screw ball politcians out there there's none as sick and twisted as myself. Then again, most people probably consider that a good thing.

---

Well its not like they would admit it if they were though and if they even hinted that they were anything like me they wouldnt be much like me after all Paradoxes and politics, can it get any worse?

quote:

---

You mean taking away thier frequent flyer miles isn't enough?

---

Probably not, though I donÔÇÖt imagine they do much frequent flying if they up and crash the planes.

quote:

---

I'm not sure how that would work in preventing attacks. It would seem to me that the terrorists of the caliber we faced on September 11 were more than willing to give up thier lives. I can't picture them hesitating because we threaten to demolish a few homes of their relatives.

---

There is something to be said for vengeance however, if nothing else it sets a good example.

quote:

---

Really, I think the only feasable solution is a complete no holds barred military campaign in Iraq and other terrorist supporting countries with the goal of removing terrorist friendly governments and rounding up or eliminating suspected terrorists (preferably the latter option).

---

Yep, execution on suspicion not that Im complaining.

[ 10-10-2002, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: Dragon Lady ]

[Menchise]

Bush and his staff drive me nuts because they're so inhumane. If it wasn't for the separation of powers, everyone would be yelling "Heil Bush!" by now. Clinton was no better, despite his insincere pouting, and Gore doesn't even sound human. Do you honestly think that any of these sickos are that different from each other? If Gore were president, he would have done the same things that Bush did post-9/11, except that his speeches wouldn't have been as inflammatory.

quote:

---

You have to do something to deter those who would fly planes into buildings.

---

The belief that you either do nothing or raze an entire country to the ground is a false dilemma. The US government did the latter in its campaign in Afghanistan and it failed miserably. It resulted in millions of Afghan civilians dying from starvation, the replacement of one brutal regime with another brutal regime, and no sign of Bin Laden.

The most successful attacks on his terrorist organization have been through criminal investigations (the most recent example in the USA, and another in Germany). The US government should have pushed for extradition instead of risking the lives of millions of people dependent on humanitarian aid. It may not have succeeded, but at least it wouldn't have had the side effect of mass murder.

The bombings were not only disastrous, they were hypocritical. The Haitian government has been trying for seven years to get the US government to hand over Emmanuel Constant. Should Haiti bomb the USA?

Additionally, the US government is doing nothing substantial about the fact that the Saudi royal family is the largest contributor to terrorist organizations. They're not even mentioned, let alone bombed out of existence.

After all this and more, Bush and Blair are still using the same old tactics. Makes you wonder if this really is a 'war on terrorism' and not a 'mass murder spree'.

quote:

---

Did anyone notice the lull in suicide bombings when Israel started demolishing the homes of people who's family members attacked Israel?

---

Did anyone notice how these retribution tactics are remarkably similar to those of the Mafia, the Nazis, and similar brands of thugs? Israel has every right to defend itself, but this is not self-defense. Sharon is a terrorist.

[Guest $iLk]

If Sharon is a Terrorist in your view, I suppose that makes the Palestinian suicide bombers "freedom fighters" in your view correct?

I'll let that speak for itself.

[Menchise]

No, they're both terrorists, and stop putting words in my mouth.

[Guest Remo Williams]

quote:

---

The belief that you either do nothing or raze an entire country to the ground is a false dilemma. The US government did the latter in its campaign in Afghanistan and it failed miserably. It resulted in millions of Afghan civilians dying from starvation, the replacement of one brutal regime with another brutal regime, and no sign of Bin Laden.

---

Shouldn't that instead read as... The US government, Cananda, Australia, Germany, Britian, and etc. etc. did the latter in there campaign blah blah blah. Of course not right. It was only the evil Americans. Who have no right to defend themselves. Sheeesh!

Further more post one link to and article or news clip to back up the claim that millions of Afghans died of starvation from the elimination of the taliban. I bet you don't do it why, because it didn't happen! Sure millions of Afghans were starving and dying because of the taliban goverment, but that was way before we even considered removing them from power.

[Charles Lindsey]

Please direct your arguments towards America's Role.

[Raven]

quote:

---

The belief that you either do nothing or raze an entire country to the ground is a false dilemma. The US government did the latter in its campaign in Afghanistan and it failed miserably. It resulted in millions of Afghan civilians dying from starvation, the replacement of one brutal regime with another brutal regime, and no sign of Bin Laden.

---

Yea, but it will give the next bastard who wants to use terror tactics on the US pause, not to mention the leaders of the country he is in.

quote:

---

The bombings were not only disastrous, they were hypocritical. The Haitian government has been trying for seven years to get the US government to hand over Emmanuel Constant. Should Haiti bomb the USA?

---

Let them try darling, it would be quite amusing.

quote:

---

After all this and more, Bush and Blair are still using the same old tactics. Makes you wonder if this really is a 'war on terrorism' and not a 'mass murder spree'.

---

Yea, but it works. There is something to be said for success.

quote:

---

Did anyone notice how these retribution tactics are remarkably similar to those of the Mafia, the Nazis, and similar brands of thugs? Israel has every right to defend itself, but this is not self-defense. Sharon is a terrorist.

---

Again, there is something to be said for success.

[Guest $iLk]

Menchise, it's kind of hard for Israel to take the "moral high ground" and not use force when every day Israeli women, children, police, firefighters, civilians, and military are being indiscriminately slaughtered by Palestinians with C4 and nails.

Boo Hoo for the Palestinians. Israel has done nothing that bothers them except EXIST.

But I guess Israel turning the other cheek and saying:

Sharon: "Oh Mr Palestinian leader Yasar Arafat, it is regretable that your people killed 23 babies in a daycare center today, we need to give peace a chance don't you think?"

Yasar: "Um, yes peace... *cough*Death to Israel*cough*...

Sharon: "What was that my friend?"

Yasar: "I wish to work for peace as well *cough*Slaughter the jews*cough*

Sharon: "I don't think you are taking me seriously"

Yasar: "Of course I am*cough*Rape the women*cough*"

At this moment the Hamas leader walks in and reports that 23 infidels were killed today

Yasar: "Um, who are you I don't support you!" *cough*I'll pay you tomorrow*cough*

Sharon: stares blankly

Yasar: "We were discussing peace?"

[Menchise]

quote:

---

Shouldn't that instead read as... The US government, Cananda, Australia, Germany, Britian, and etc. etc. did the latter in there campaign blah blah blah. Of course not right. It was only the evil Americans.

---

Point taken. I emphasize America (you called it 'evil', not me) because it lead the action, and because this thread is about America's role.

quote:

---

Who have no right to defend themselves. Sheeesh!

---

How was the invasion of Afghanistan an act of self-defense? As far as I know, the four planes didn't come from Afghanistan. The operation was implemented within US borders, and the hijackers received some of their training domestically.

An act of self-defense would be a criminal investigation into how these terrorists planned and implemented the operation under the noses of law enforcement agencies, and tracking down the domestic elements that made the attack possible.

quote:

---

Further more post one link to and article or news clip to back up the claim that millions of Afghans died of starvation from the elimination of the taliban.

---

Done.

quote:

---

Yea, but it will give the next bastard who wants to use terror tactics on the US pause, not to mention the leaders of the country he is in.

---

Terrorists only give pause if they're at risk of getting caught. Bin Laden escaped. What reason does he have for giving pause?

quote:

---

Let them try darling, it would be quite amusing.

---

That's because the Haitian government is not the international thug that the US government is, but imagine if that wasn't the case. Would that justify Haiti bombing the USA?

quote:

---

Yea, but it works. There is something to be said for success.

---

There is no indication that it works. Remember that it took a long time to prepare the 9/11 attack. What makes you think that the next big one is not being designed right now?

Besides, there is also something to be said about mass murder. The blood of millions is on Bush's hands, and he should be held accountable for his crimes, along with the institutions that deliberately concealed this fact from the American people.

If the people had known that the Red Cross and Christian Aid were warning about the millions of lives that would be jeopardized as a result of the bombing, it would not have commenced. Every mainstream media group had this information well in advance from the Associated Press, and deliberately chose not to report it.