Jump to content

Afghanistan and Iraq.....


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

quote:

Originally posted by Takvah:

We attacked Iraq, the number two oil reserve in the world. We wanted to attack Iraq EVEN AFTER WE KNEW OSAMA WAS IN AFGHANISTAN. Rumsfeld said, "there are more targets in Iraq even if he is in Afghanistan. WHAT THE HELL IS THAT? Still no stink?

You insist on calling me nieve or ignorant. However, I see your point of view and understand every thing you've been saying I just dissagree with your opion. That is not called nievity. You are the one with blinders on even after I laid out Bush's strategy in the fight against terrorism. No one said that Bin Laden was physicaly in Iraq but his operatives were. You may believe otherwise but the facts are there. Let me put it simply. Think of an octopuss. The head is Bin Laden and the many tentacles are his operatives. You are trying to approach the head but it's fighting back with it's tentacles. You chop away at the them until there is only the head left undefended and vulnerable. And before you say there was no link between Iraq and Al-QaedaSaddam and al Qaeda WERE Linked.

quote:

He even went so far as to show the Saudis the Iraqi warplan when it was marked NONFOR (meaning NO FOREIGNERS). Say what!?

Wrongo, show me the evidence for that. The only war plan that was leaked was from Chalabi to the Iranians.

quote:

You cannot be helped. As for calling you a kid... sorry, let me just say naive then. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were young rather than just ignorant.

If you only half the stuff I know and have read. I am neither naive or ignorant. I just don't subscribe to the left-wing or liberal view point who are ruining America.

quote:

FOX NEWS ain't gonna tell you what you need to know to be informed. K?

Niether are any of the other news media outlets.

It always comes down to that doesn't with you left-wingers or liberals. The right-wing has how many news media channels? 2-3 maybe. How many do the liberals and left-wingers have? All the rest.

But when you take examples off the right-wing news media it's as if you have taken it from the devil himself. Get a grip.

quote:

I've wasted enough time on you. If you can't be bothered to open your eyes then YOU GO FIGHT this war... and send the kids that just wanted an education through the GI bill home. K? After all you believe in this crap, right?

Cheers.

I am fighting this war by supporting our troops and the Commander in Chief whole heatedly.

When you join the military, for whatever reason, you take all the risks that come along with that. The military is serious business and is not a playground nor is it just a financial institution because you don't have the cash to pay for your education. Of course left-wingers and liberals will have you believe otherwise.

[ 06-25-2004, 03:29 AM: Message edited by: LostInSpace ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 255
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

An interesting qoute fresh out of the NY Times....

quote:


"We were expecting such an escalation, and we will witness more in the next few weeks. We will deal with it and crush it." IYAD ALLAWI, Iraq's prime minister

Boy, that sure sounds like democracy, eh?

The next dictator of Iraq is waiting in the wings for his cue.

For some odd reason, the song, "I'm your puppet" keeps running through my fron over and over.

There is some war Profiteering going on behind this mess and guess who's paying for it....The global community.

If you look at what is happening in a logical manner, you can't help but come to the conclusion that there is BIG MONEY wanting to make bigger money, behind this whole scheme.

It's the same FLIM FLAM that was perpetrated on America in 1941 by the close ancestors of the traitorous criminals who are behind todays war.

They hide their actions under the guise of national security while raking in millions through the back room political circle jerks and under the table deals.

Mordichai Jones is at the helm of our ship of state and he is steering it straight towards the shoals.

Have you been wondering, like I have, as to why President Bush refrains from open question news conferences. I was watching GW having a news conference the other evening. He was asked about the Abu Ghraib prison incident. He sat there with this stupid deer in the headlights look for about 30 seconds before blurting out a gibberished response. It reminded me of asking a stoned friend a question and he couldn't think of the right words to say in response.

I busted out laughing and said to myself, "This boob is running our nation, with a great deal of help from his friends who hide in the shadows."

So I ask, "Who the hell is really running things in Washington!!!????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting qoute fresh out of the NY Times....

quote:


"We were expecting such an escalation, and we will witness more in the next few weeks. We will deal with it and crush it." IYAD ALLAWI, Iraq's prime minister

Boy, that sure sounds like democracy, eh?

The next dictator of Iraq is waiting in the wings for his cue.

For some odd reason, the song, "I'm your puppet" keeps running through my fron over and over.

There is some war Profiteering going on behind this mess and guess who's paying for it....The global community.

If you look at what is happening in a logical manner, you can't help but come to the conclusion that there is BIG MONEY wanting to make bigger money, behind this whole scheme.

It's the same FLIM FLAM that was perpetrated on America in 1941 by the close ancestors of the traitorous criminals who are behind todays war.

They hide their actions under the guise of national security while raking in millions through the back room political circle jerks and under the table deals.

Mordichai Jones is at the helm of our ship of state and he is steering it straight towards the shoals.

Have you been wondering, like I have, as to why President Bush refrains from open question news conferences. I was watching GW having a news conference the other evening. He was asked about the Abu Ghraib prison incident. He sat there with this stupid deer in the headlights look for about 30 seconds before blurting out a gibberished response. It reminded me of asking a stoned friend a question and he couldn't think of the right words to say in response.

I busted out laughing and said to myself, "This boob is running our nation, with a great deal of help from his friends who hide in the shadows."

So I ask, "Who the hell is really running things in Washington!!!????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

He even went so far as to show the Saudis the Iraqi warplan when it was marked NONFOR (meaning NO FOREIGNERS). Say what!?

Wrongo, show me the evidence for that. The only war plan that was leaked was from Chalabi to the Iranians.

SHOW YOU THE EVIDENCE? Were you under a rock when Bob Woodward released his book? Did you miss that idiot Bandar on Larry King talking about it when Woodward was on? I guess you did. Well look it up. Prince Bandar saw the Iraq warplan BEFORE Colin Powell did. That's a fact.

I am neither liberal, nor left-wing. This is just a travesty of government that I will NOT stand for. I suppose when you say you are of a different opinion you have to abandon all rational thought. I suppose if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck... it might still be a chicken for you. OK.

As for supporting the troops of this GREAT nation... I support them 100%. I do not question the motives of men and women sent to a place to fight. Their responsibility is NOT to question. However, we that are here; we that are civilians and citizens of this nation ARE supposed to question. It is the responsibility of every single American to question their government, it is OUR DUTY just as it is the duty of those in the military to take up arms when ordered to. Please make the proper distinction... what I do not support is Bush or the mission in Iraq. Afghanistan I supported and STILL support... that was just... Iraq is not.

END OF STORY.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

He even went so far as to show the Saudis the Iraqi warplan when it was marked NONFOR (meaning NO FOREIGNERS). Say what!?

Wrongo, show me the evidence for that. The only war plan that was leaked was from Chalabi to the Iranians.

SHOW YOU THE EVIDENCE? Were you under a rock when Bob Woodward released his book? Did you miss that idiot Bandar on Larry King talking about it when Woodward was on? I guess you did. Well look it up. Prince Bandar saw the Iraq warplan BEFORE Colin Powell did. That's a fact.

I am neither liberal, nor left-wing. This is just a travesty of government that I will NOT stand for. I suppose when you say you are of a different opinion you have to abandon all rational thought. I suppose if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck... it might still be a chicken for you. OK.

As for supporting the troops of this GREAT nation... I support them 100%. I do not question the motives of men and women sent to a place to fight. Their responsibility is NOT to question. However, we that are here; we that are civilians and citizens of this nation ARE supposed to question. It is the responsibility of every single American to question their government, it is OUR DUTY just as it is the duty of those in the military to take up arms when ordered to. Please make the proper distinction... what I do not support is Bush or the mission in Iraq. Afghanistan I supported and STILL support... that was just... Iraq is not.

END OF STORY.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

This is going to seem like a short reply to your larger post, Street. Doesn't mean I didn't read it though. :-)

LOL, I hear ya..

quote:

My next question would be:

What concessions do you think are acceptable to make to terrorist organizations? Just to clarify, are you saying that it would be acceptable to open some kind of negotiations with Al Qaeda?

THIS is an organization of people which has declared AMERICA an ENEMY. An Enemy to ALL muslims,and which have dedicated their lives(unto death)to FREE the middle east from our control and influence. They are a military organization. They are NOT simply terrorist is my first point.(just to put this on a rational perspective)

Until, the white flag is displayed,by This organization,, I do NOT think it necessary to make ANY concessions:however, If we KEEP declaring them to be no more than TERRORIST worthy of being hunted down and KILLED, like animals; REFUSING to acknowledge their RIGHT to surrender, or negotiate treaty or cease fire...not to mention the ability to negotiate an existance, OUTSIDE AMERICAN domination... They CANNOT consider ending hostilities. They are NOT allowed to even surrender!!

THEY HAVE NOTHING TO LOOSE, and EVERYTHING TO GAIN, in recruitment and continuation of their organization. It(their organization) is their Only hope of survival, on this planet.

WE have HELPED them in achieving credibility, among a percentage of peoples in EVERY muslim nation, to some degree, through this atrocity in IRAQ.(NOT to mention, everything else, we have our hands in, throughout the MIDDLE EAST)

I do NOT condone their hostility, but I cannot ignore, what happens, when a people become oppressed,hunted, and persecuted.(REGARDLESS of reason!!)..THE MOVEMENT GROWS!!!

HOW MANY DO WE HAVE TO KILL, before we have RESTITUTION FOR 3000?. is 500,000 enough?(this number has already been acheived, I assure you). CAN we now move on to the REAL WAR. AND have the self respect,as a NATION, to designate it as such...honoring the GENEVA convention's declarations?

WE, should get this IDEA, of TOTAL REVENGE, out of our heads, and use some RATIONAL. THIS is a WAR, against the ALQUEDA Organization.

IT SHOULD BE TREATED AS SUCH..this is my point.

AGAIN, MY ANSWER:

I do NOT condone their hostility, but I cannot ignore, what happens, when a people become oppressed,hunted, and persecuted.(REGARDLESS of reason!!)..THE MOVEMENT GROWS!!!

THIS is a WAR, against the ALQUEDA Organization.

(not other muslim nations)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

This is going to seem like a short reply to your larger post, Street. Doesn't mean I didn't read it though. :-)

LOL, I hear ya..

quote:

My next question would be:

What concessions do you think are acceptable to make to terrorist organizations? Just to clarify, are you saying that it would be acceptable to open some kind of negotiations with Al Qaeda?

THIS is an organization of people which has declared AMERICA an ENEMY. An Enemy to ALL muslims,and which have dedicated their lives(unto death)to FREE the middle east from our control and influence. They are a military organization. They are NOT simply terrorist is my first point.(just to put this on a rational perspective)

Until, the white flag is displayed,by This organization,, I do NOT think it necessary to make ANY concessions:however, If we KEEP declaring them to be no more than TERRORIST worthy of being hunted down and KILLED, like animals; REFUSING to acknowledge their RIGHT to surrender, or negotiate treaty or cease fire...not to mention the ability to negotiate an existance, OUTSIDE AMERICAN domination... They CANNOT consider ending hostilities. They are NOT allowed to even surrender!!

THEY HAVE NOTHING TO LOOSE, and EVERYTHING TO GAIN, in recruitment and continuation of their organization. It(their organization) is their Only hope of survival, on this planet.

WE have HELPED them in achieving credibility, among a percentage of peoples in EVERY muslim nation, to some degree, through this atrocity in IRAQ.(NOT to mention, everything else, we have our hands in, throughout the MIDDLE EAST)

I do NOT condone their hostility, but I cannot ignore, what happens, when a people become oppressed,hunted, and persecuted.(REGARDLESS of reason!!)..THE MOVEMENT GROWS!!!

HOW MANY DO WE HAVE TO KILL, before we have RESTITUTION FOR 3000?. is 500,000 enough?(this number has already been acheived, I assure you). CAN we now move on to the REAL WAR. AND have the self respect,as a NATION, to designate it as such...honoring the GENEVA convention's declarations?

WE, should get this IDEA, of TOTAL REVENGE, out of our heads, and use some RATIONAL. THIS is a WAR, against the ALQUEDA Organization.

IT SHOULD BE TREATED AS SUCH..this is my point.

AGAIN, MY ANSWER:

I do NOT condone their hostility, but I cannot ignore, what happens, when a people become oppressed,hunted, and persecuted.(REGARDLESS of reason!!)..THE MOVEMENT GROWS!!!

THIS is a WAR, against the ALQUEDA Organization.

(not other muslim nations)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Takvah:

Wrongo, show me the evidence for that. The only war plan that was leaked was from Chalabi to the Iranians.

SHOW YOU THE EVIDENCE? Were you under a rock when Bob Woodward released his book? Did you miss that idiot Bandar on Larry King talking about it when Woodward was on? I guess you did. Well look it up. Prince Bandar saw the Iraq warplan BEFORE Colin Powell did. That's a fact.

Oh, that drivel. More supply of toilet for me.

The same book that claims Bush and Saudi's made a secret deal to keep oil prices low until after November. Ooooookkkkaaaaayyy. Well here's Powell's take on that Saudi warplan issue.

POWELL:"I was present whenever these plans were presented. I worked on them, I was consulted on them, they were presented to the National Security Council. I was present whenever these plans were presented. So first, to suggest that a plan was presented to Prince Bandar that I was not familiar with is just flat wrong," Powell told reporters. "No decision was communicated [ahead of time] to Prince Bandar on the president's decision to go to war."

quote:

I am neither liberal, nor left-wing. This is just a travesty of government that I will NOT stand for. I suppose when you say you are of a different opinion you have to abandon all rational thought. I suppose if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck... it might still be a chicken for you. OK.

But when you base your rational thought on just one source you throw all that out the window.

Well if ya talk like a liberal and sound like a liberal you're a liberal no matter what disquise you are wearing.

quote:

what I do not support is Bush or the mission in Iraq. Afghanistan I supported and STILL support... that was just... Iraq is not.

END OF STORY.

That's fine by me. But it is a pity that you are only thinking in the short term about Iraq. It was a threat to the entire region. If you think that none of the other Arab countries wanted him gone, think again. You may not agree, based on your single liberal media source, but it was a tentacle of Al-Qaeda.

As for pissing off some of our allies namely the French and German and whatever other European country or non european one for that matter. Screw them. They need us more than we need them. Time after time we've given them military and economic support. But when it comes time for America to stand up for itself they say "NO" not without the okay of everyone else. We must hold your hand because you are still a young nation and need our guidance and wisdom. Did any foreign country offer us anything besides condolences on 9/11? If a disaster strikes around the world, the U.S. is there with support and money and eagerly accepted. Do you know what our response was about 9/11, besides banging the war drum, to the world "We need to help the poorer countries". To hell with them is all I have to say.

[ 06-28-2004, 03:37 AM: Message edited by: LostInSpace ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Takvah:

Wrongo, show me the evidence for that. The only war plan that was leaked was from Chalabi to the Iranians.

SHOW YOU THE EVIDENCE? Were you under a rock when Bob Woodward released his book? Did you miss that idiot Bandar on Larry King talking about it when Woodward was on? I guess you did. Well look it up. Prince Bandar saw the Iraq warplan BEFORE Colin Powell did. That's a fact.

Oh, that drivel. More supply of toilet for me.

The same book that claims Bush and Saudi's made a secret deal to keep oil prices low until after November. Ooooookkkkaaaaayyy. Well here's Powell's take on that Saudi warplan issue.

POWELL:"I was present whenever these plans were presented. I worked on them, I was consulted on them, they were presented to the National Security Council. I was present whenever these plans were presented. So first, to suggest that a plan was presented to Prince Bandar that I was not familiar with is just flat wrong," Powell told reporters. "No decision was communicated [ahead of time] to Prince Bandar on the president's decision to go to war."

quote:

I am neither liberal, nor left-wing. This is just a travesty of government that I will NOT stand for. I suppose when you say you are of a different opinion you have to abandon all rational thought. I suppose if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck... it might still be a chicken for you. OK.

But when you base your rational thought on just one source you throw all that out the window.

Well if ya talk like a liberal and sound like a liberal you're a liberal no matter what disquise you are wearing.

quote:

what I do not support is Bush or the mission in Iraq. Afghanistan I supported and STILL support... that was just... Iraq is not.

END OF STORY.

That's fine by me. But it is a pity that you are only thinking in the short term about Iraq. It was a threat to the entire region. If you think that none of the other Arab countries wanted him gone, think again. You may not agree, based on your single liberal media source, but it was a tentacle of Al-Qaeda.

As for pissing off some of our allies namely the French and German and whatever other European country or non european one for that matter. Screw them. They need us more than we need them. Time after time we've given them military and economic support. But when it comes time for America to stand up for itself they say "NO" not without the okay of everyone else. We must hold your hand because you are still a young nation and need our guidance and wisdom. Did any foreign country offer us anything besides condolences on 9/11? If a disaster strikes around the world, the U.S. is there with support and money and eagerly accepted. Do you know what our response was about 9/11, besides banging the war drum, to the world "We need to help the poorer countries". To hell with them is all I have to say.

[ 06-28-2004, 03:37 AM: Message edited by: LostInSpace ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course Powell said that, you bought that? Well what did I think you'd do right? You bought off on the rationale yet I have provided you proof that oil is the interest and not the "terrorists". We left Afghanistan when? We left Afghanistan why? Did we accomplish the mission? What was the mission? Do you even remember? Look... I know when I'm dealing with a Kool Aid swilling robot... so I'm done with this. Hopefully you are not of age to vote and if you are that you are in a state where it doesn't matter. Oh NY... SWEEEEEET.

Later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course Powell said that, you bought that? Well what did I think you'd do right? You bought off on the rationale yet I have provided you proof that oil is the interest and not the "terrorists". We left Afghanistan when? We left Afghanistan why? Did we accomplish the mission? What was the mission? Do you even remember? Look... I know when I'm dealing with a Kool Aid swilling robot... so I'm done with this. Hopefully you are not of age to vote and if you are that you are in a state where it doesn't matter. Oh NY... SWEEEEEET.

Later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Takvah:

Of course Powell said that, you bought that? Well what did I think you'd do right? You bought off on the rationale yet I have provided you proof that oil is the interest and not the "terrorists". 1:We left Afghanistan when? We left Afghanistan why? 2:Did we accomplish the mission? 3:What was the mission? 4:Do you even remember? Look... I know when I'm dealing with a Kool Aid swilling robot... so I'm done with this. Hopefully you are not of age to vote and if you are that you are in a state where it doesn't matter. Oh NY... SWEEEEEET.

Later.

1: There you go again. Thinking that anything we do can be done with lightning speed.

2: You need me (the kool aid swilling robot) to answer that for you? Let's see... The tailiban is gone and so are the Al-Qaeda training camps and Bin Laden is on the run because of it. Hmm, I guess it was a total failure.

3: #2.

4: The question should be DO YOU?

Just because the liberal media has dropped Afghanistan from it's airwaves because it's well past it's intrest to the 15 minute attention span public, does not mean that nothing is being done there. But then again we'll never know how much is being done because the liberal media is now giving all it's attention to Iraq and trying to discredit Bush for the election year.

If you haven't already, I suggest you read this book Misunderestimated: The President Battles Terrorism, John Kerry, and the Bush Haters

"Misunderestimated also meticulously tracks the rise of the Bush haters, a disturbing political phenomenon that colors everything from the war on terrorism to the presidential campaign. The impact extends to the press, which Sammon exposes for racing to brand Operation Iraqi Freedom another Vietnam "quagmire" less than eighteen months after making the same blunder during the Afghan war."

I'm not giving you the sources of the quotes below because I want you to do your own search.

A brief history of Powell:

"Powell was a professional soldier for 35 years, during which time he held a variety of command and staff positions and rose to the rank of 4-star General. His last assignment, from October 1, 1989 to September 30, 1993, was as the 12th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest military position in the Department of Defense. During this time, he oversaw 28 crises, including Operation Desert Storm in the 1991 Persian Gulf War."

If you believe, with a background as impressive as that, that Bush in any way never at least consulted with Powell about an Iraq War plan you might as well just say to me that Clinton didn't have sexual relations with Lewinsky. I'd even bet that if told your drivel to a donkey (jack A$$) he'd kick ya.

More:

"the Bush administration was adamant about Hussein's removal, so Powell eventually agreed to go along with the plan - but only after Bush agreed to some concessions. The main concession Powell wanted was the involvement of the international community in the invasion, as opposed to a unilaterial approach"

And this:

A statement by Powell February 5, 2002 (OPENING STATEMENT SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN L. POWELL AT BUDGET HEARING BEFORE THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE):

"At the end of the day, we have not ruled out other options with respect to Iraq. We still believe strongly in regime change in Iraq and we look forward to the day when a democratic, representative government at peace with its neighbors leads Iraq to rejoin the family of nations.

Other options? What could that be? Oh yeah, A WAR PLAN.

And here's more aboutSaddam's connections to bin Laden/al-Qaeda/911.

As for the Oil company connection. The American puplic has only itself to blame for it with their voracious appetite for this commodity and the industry's challenge to keep up with the demand. Until you start using renewable energy sources and lessen your demand for oil, I'd keep quiet about it because you as well as I are part of this problem.

[ 06-28-2004, 03:41 AM: Message edited by: LostInSpace ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Takvah:

Of course Powell said that, you bought that? Well what did I think you'd do right? You bought off on the rationale yet I have provided you proof that oil is the interest and not the "terrorists". 1:We left Afghanistan when? We left Afghanistan why? 2:Did we accomplish the mission? 3:What was the mission? 4:Do you even remember? Look... I know when I'm dealing with a Kool Aid swilling robot... so I'm done with this. Hopefully you are not of age to vote and if you are that you are in a state where it doesn't matter. Oh NY... SWEEEEEET.

Later.

1: There you go again. Thinking that anything we do can be done with lightning speed.

2: You need me (the kool aid swilling robot) to answer that for you? Let's see... The tailiban is gone and so are the Al-Qaeda training camps and Bin Laden is on the run because of it. Hmm, I guess it was a total failure.

3: #2.

4: The question should be DO YOU?

Just because the liberal media has dropped Afghanistan from it's airwaves because it's well past it's intrest to the 15 minute attention span public, does not mean that nothing is being done there. But then again we'll never know how much is being done because the liberal media is now giving all it's attention to Iraq and trying to discredit Bush for the election year.

If you haven't already, I suggest you read this book Misunderestimated: The President Battles Terrorism, John Kerry, and the Bush Haters

"Misunderestimated also meticulously tracks the rise of the Bush haters, a disturbing political phenomenon that colors everything from the war on terrorism to the presidential campaign. The impact extends to the press, which Sammon exposes for racing to brand Operation Iraqi Freedom another Vietnam "quagmire" less than eighteen months after making the same blunder during the Afghan war."

I'm not giving you the sources of the quotes below because I want you to do your own search.

A brief history of Powell:

"Powell was a professional soldier for 35 years, during which time he held a variety of command and staff positions and rose to the rank of 4-star General. His last assignment, from October 1, 1989 to September 30, 1993, was as the 12th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest military position in the Department of Defense. During this time, he oversaw 28 crises, including Operation Desert Storm in the 1991 Persian Gulf War."

If you believe, with a background as impressive as that, that Bush in any way never at least consulted with Powell about an Iraq War plan you might as well just say to me that Clinton didn't have sexual relations with Lewinsky. I'd even bet that if told your drivel to a donkey (jack A$$) he'd kick ya.

More:

"the Bush administration was adamant about Hussein's removal, so Powell eventually agreed to go along with the plan - but only after Bush agreed to some concessions. The main concession Powell wanted was the involvement of the international community in the invasion, as opposed to a unilaterial approach"

And this:

A statement by Powell February 5, 2002 (OPENING STATEMENT SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN L. POWELL AT BUDGET HEARING BEFORE THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE):

"At the end of the day, we have not ruled out other options with respect to Iraq. We still believe strongly in regime change in Iraq and we look forward to the day when a democratic, representative government at peace with its neighbors leads Iraq to rejoin the family of nations.

Other options? What could that be? Oh yeah, A WAR PLAN.

And here's more aboutSaddam's connections to bin Laden/al-Qaeda/911.

As for the Oil company connection. The American puplic has only itself to blame for it with their voracious appetite for this commodity and the industry's challenge to keep up with the demand. Until you start using renewable energy sources and lessen your demand for oil, I'd keep quiet about it because you as well as I are part of this problem.

[ 06-28-2004, 03:41 AM: Message edited by: LostInSpace ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I gotta say is this,

Thanks LIS, you kept the level headed real world represented while I was gone.

Thank you very much!!!

Where the Dreamlandis, these other guys live in is beyond me.

The facts show the REAL world, and the world they live in isn't CLOSE to the real world.

Thanks!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I gotta say is this,

Thanks LIS, you kept the level headed real world represented while I was gone.

Thank you very much!!!

Where the Dreamlandis, these other guys live in is beyond me.

The facts show the REAL world, and the world they live in isn't CLOSE to the real world.

Thanks!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

All I gotta say is this,

Thanks LIS, you kept the level headed real world represented while I was gone.

Thank you very much!!!

Where the Dreamlandis, these other guys live in is beyond me.

The facts show the REAL world, and the world they live in isn't CLOSE to the real world.

Thanks!!

My pleasure. To them, unfortunately, the liberal media is the real world and they believe this to be the facts. Of course, you already know this. Only time will prove us out. But I don't think "in time" will do for the console fifteen minuter attention span. I want it now. I said now not yesterday, not tomorrow but now!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

All I gotta say is this,

Thanks LIS, you kept the level headed real world represented while I was gone.

Thank you very much!!!

Where the Dreamlandis, these other guys live in is beyond me.

The facts show the REAL world, and the world they live in isn't CLOSE to the real world.

Thanks!!

My pleasure. To them, unfortunately, the liberal media is the real world and they believe this to be the facts. Of course, you already know this. Only time will prove us out. But I don't think "in time" will do for the console fifteen minuter attention span. I want it now. I said now not yesterday, not tomorrow but now!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Street, so your saying if we acknowledged their organizations existence, and gave them the choice to surrender it would help? Do you think they would even surrender if the opportunity were given? I call your attention to the whole "amnesty" thing that Saudi Arabi has done. I haven't really heard any results about that, which to me indicates that it didn't work out that well. It just seems to me that they wouldn't surrender even if they were given the opportunity.

Also, from what I'm reading it seems that you think war should be proportional, i.e. they kill 3000 we kill 3000. But I must ask you, do you really think a war can be won in that way? Throughout history it seems to me that wars are won by a massive offensive in which devestating damage is done to the enemy.

You also mentioned that you recognize what happens when people become opressed and hunted. Do you still have sympathy for them if they are the ones who caused themselves to become opressed and hunted?

Also, lets say hypothetically speaking, we (the US) pulled completly out of the Middle East and the terrorist attacks on the US continued. What would you be proper course of action at that point? For that matter, what could we possibly do being that we'd have no military units (in this hypothetical situation) in the Middle East whatsoever to counter attack?

I would like to make it clear, once again, that I'm not taking sides in this, I'm just probing for information to get a more well rounded view of this whole issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Street, so your saying if we acknowledged their organizations existence, and gave them the choice to surrender it would help? Do you think they would even surrender if the opportunity were given? I call your attention to the whole "amnesty" thing that Saudi Arabi has done. I haven't really heard any results about that, which to me indicates that it didn't work out that well. It just seems to me that they wouldn't surrender even if they were given the opportunity.

Also, from what I'm reading it seems that you think war should be proportional, i.e. they kill 3000 we kill 3000. But I must ask you, do you really think a war can be won in that way? Throughout history it seems to me that wars are won by a massive offensive in which devestating damage is done to the enemy.

You also mentioned that you recognize what happens when people become opressed and hunted. Do you still have sympathy for them if they are the ones who caused themselves to become opressed and hunted?

Also, lets say hypothetically speaking, we (the US) pulled completly out of the Middle East and the terrorist attacks on the US continued. What would you be proper course of action at that point? For that matter, what could we possibly do being that we'd have no military units (in this hypothetical situation) in the Middle East whatsoever to counter attack?

I would like to make it clear, once again, that I'm not taking sides in this, I'm just probing for information to get a more well rounded view of this whole issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Bandus:

I would like to make it clear, once again, that I'm not taking sides in this, I'm just probing for information to get a more well rounded view of this whole issue.

Please, continue, I find it fascinating as well.

The answers he gives are fascinating, and without ANY basis on reality, or any thought to history at all. But they are a fascinating look into how street actually thinks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Bandus:

I would like to make it clear, once again, that I'm not taking sides in this, I'm just probing for information to get a more well rounded view of this whole issue.

Please, continue, I find it fascinating as well.

The answers he gives are fascinating, and without ANY basis on reality, or any thought to history at all. But they are a fascinating look into how street actually thinks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Street, so your saying if we acknowledged their organizations existence, and gave them the choice to surrender it would help? Do you think they would even surrender if the opportunity were given? I call your attention to the whole "amnesty" thing that Saudi Arabi has done. I haven't really heard any results about that, which to me indicates that it didn't work out that well. It just seems to me that they wouldn't surrender even if they were given the opportunity.

What, I am saying: is too Acknowledged them as a legitimate enemy, on the SAME ground as ANY enemy, which we would be at war with. And NOT to

seperate them as a NON-entity, using broad based terminology (i.e. TERRORIST), in order to degrade their standing, as an organization, with a purpose for hostility. As for AMNESTY, I do not believe ANY country could offer terms, under the present international threat from us (the U.S.)

At this point and time, they probably would NOT consider surrender, WE have not hurt them, but helped them. They are NOT under enough pressure to have any need to surrender; THUS, the REASON to concentrate upon ALQUEDA, rather than ATTACKING, and THREATENING to attack 3rd world countries,(as with IRAQ). Put THEM under ATTACK, and give them the OPTIONS, to negotiate surrender...Then, and only then, do you put them in a position; other than, "NOTHING TO LOOSE"

quote:

Also, from what I'm reading it seems that you think war should be proportional, i.e. they kill 3000 we kill 3000. But I must ask you, do you really think a war can be won in that way? Throughout history it seems to me that wars are won by a massive offensive in which devestating damage is done to the enemy.

PROPARTIONAL to what? We have slaughtered IRAQI soldiers,(NO OFFICIAL NUMBERS published) who were defending their country. In the MINDS of average American, They are the TERRORIST responsible for 9/11. THIS is what I was referring too, when I spoke of american's REVENGE mode, mind set, needing to come to an end. AND the number of DEATHS we are responsible for....is (most likely) much, much higher than you could imagine. This is based on the REALITY, of the MASSIVE amount of bombs we dropped on thier positions...AND THE TYPE of bombs we used.

quote:

You also mentioned that you recognize what happens when people become opressed and hunted. Do you still have sympathy for them if they are the ones who caused themselves to become opressed and hunted?

DO NOT mistake, my statements as SYMPATHETIC to their cause....I AM NOT!!. I am only recognizing, the REALITY of cause and effect. And I only wish to see the situation HANDLED in a mannor which has potential for RESOLVE. I would NOT be so quick, as to place the entire finger of blame, ENTIRELY upon them. We DID betray them, in the first place.!! Though, this does NOT justify their retaliatory methodology, It DOES justify their cause to MANY who join their organization. JUST AS our OUT RIGHT attack on IRAQ will do the same.

quote:

Also, lets say hypothetically speaking, we (the US) pulled completly out of the Middle East and the terrorist attacks on the US continued. What would you be proper course of action at that point? For that matter, what could we possibly do being that we'd have no military units (in this hypothetical situation) in the Middle East whatsoever to counter attack?

COMPLETE withdraw from the middle east is NOT possible. Never has been. But I DO propose: More balanced international relations, would help not to INSTIGATE future attacks, on our country. REGARDLESS of what we do, we will piss people off. BUT to go OUT OF OUR WAY, to abuse, and harm the insignificant.....IS WHAT CREATED THIS PROBLEM.... REFUSAL to admit what we do, and the AUDACITY to ignore the consequence, is what escalated it to 9/11 type status.

NOW.. We CANNOT continue to fuel a raging fire, through arrogant bully type behavior(as is with the BUSH methodology), but MUST put the fire out((through force...YES..UNTIL they are willing to surrender or come to SOME terms)) We MUST attack the FIRE itself...(i.e.ALQUEDA)

but to deny any HOPE for TERMS, creates a vacume for negotiating ANY resolve, other than total anialation. THIS cannot be done, unless you KILL every man woman and child, even REMOTELY connected to every individual involved in the organization. NOT POSSIBLE.

quote:

I would like to make it clear, once again, that I'm not taking sides in this, I'm just probing for information to get a more well rounded view of this whole issue.

No Problem, I do not make my statements, to be argumentive( as do some), but ONLY to offer a more balance view toward a workable METHODOLOGY.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Street, so your saying if we acknowledged their organizations existence, and gave them the choice to surrender it would help? Do you think they would even surrender if the opportunity were given? I call your attention to the whole "amnesty" thing that Saudi Arabi has done. I haven't really heard any results about that, which to me indicates that it didn't work out that well. It just seems to me that they wouldn't surrender even if they were given the opportunity.

What, I am saying: is too Acknowledged them as a legitimate enemy, on the SAME ground as ANY enemy, which we would be at war with. And NOT to

seperate them as a NON-entity, using broad based terminology (i.e. TERRORIST), in order to degrade their standing, as an organization, with a purpose for hostility. As for AMNESTY, I do not believe ANY country could offer terms, under the present international threat from us (the U.S.)

At this point and time, they probably would NOT consider surrender, WE have not hurt them, but helped them. They are NOT under enough pressure to have any need to surrender; THUS, the REASON to concentrate upon ALQUEDA, rather than ATTACKING, and THREATENING to attack 3rd world countries,(as with IRAQ). Put THEM under ATTACK, and give them the OPTIONS, to negotiate surrender...Then, and only then, do you put them in a position; other than, "NOTHING TO LOOSE"

quote:

Also, from what I'm reading it seems that you think war should be proportional, i.e. they kill 3000 we kill 3000. But I must ask you, do you really think a war can be won in that way? Throughout history it seems to me that wars are won by a massive offensive in which devestating damage is done to the enemy.

PROPARTIONAL to what? We have slaughtered IRAQI soldiers,(NO OFFICIAL NUMBERS published) who were defending their country. In the MINDS of average American, They are the TERRORIST responsible for 9/11. THIS is what I was referring too, when I spoke of american's REVENGE mode, mind set, needing to come to an end. AND the number of DEATHS we are responsible for....is (most likely) much, much higher than you could imagine. This is based on the REALITY, of the MASSIVE amount of bombs we dropped on thier positions...AND THE TYPE of bombs we used.

quote:

You also mentioned that you recognize what happens when people become opressed and hunted. Do you still have sympathy for them if they are the ones who caused themselves to become opressed and hunted?

DO NOT mistake, my statements as SYMPATHETIC to their cause....I AM NOT!!. I am only recognizing, the REALITY of cause and effect. And I only wish to see the situation HANDLED in a mannor which has potential for RESOLVE. I would NOT be so quick, as to place the entire finger of blame, ENTIRELY upon them. We DID betray them, in the first place.!! Though, this does NOT justify their retaliatory methodology, It DOES justify their cause to MANY who join their organization. JUST AS our OUT RIGHT attack on IRAQ will do the same.

quote:

Also, lets say hypothetically speaking, we (the US) pulled completly out of the Middle East and the terrorist attacks on the US continued. What would you be proper course of action at that point? For that matter, what could we possibly do being that we'd have no military units (in this hypothetical situation) in the Middle East whatsoever to counter attack?

COMPLETE withdraw from the middle east is NOT possible. Never has been. But I DO propose: More balanced international relations, would help not to INSTIGATE future attacks, on our country. REGARDLESS of what we do, we will piss people off. BUT to go OUT OF OUR WAY, to abuse, and harm the insignificant.....IS WHAT CREATED THIS PROBLEM.... REFUSAL to admit what we do, and the AUDACITY to ignore the consequence, is what escalated it to 9/11 type status.

NOW.. We CANNOT continue to fuel a raging fire, through arrogant bully type behavior(as is with the BUSH methodology), but MUST put the fire out((through force...YES..UNTIL they are willing to surrender or come to SOME terms)) We MUST attack the FIRE itself...(i.e.ALQUEDA)

but to deny any HOPE for TERMS, creates a vacume for negotiating ANY resolve, other than total anialation. THIS cannot be done, unless you KILL every man woman and child, even REMOTELY connected to every individual involved in the organization. NOT POSSIBLE.

quote:

I would like to make it clear, once again, that I'm not taking sides in this, I'm just probing for information to get a more well rounded view of this whole issue.

No Problem, I do not make my statements, to be argumentive( as do some), but ONLY to offer a more balance view toward a workable METHODOLOGY.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

What, I am saying: is too Acknowledged them as a legitimate enemy, on the SAME ground as ANY enemy, which we would be at war with. And NOT to seperate them as a NON-entity, using broad based terminology (i.e. TERRORIST), in order to degrade their standing.

Is this to suggest that we should recognize the people who participated in the 9/11 attacks with the same status we recognize say....Great Britain...or Canada? If so...why should we recognize like this?

quote:

In the MINDS of average American, They are the TERRORIST responsible for 9/11

I'm not so sure about that. I've spoken to a few people that I consider average and they were very well aware of the differences between Afghanistan and Iraq.

quote:

COMPLETE withdraw from the middle east is NOT possible. Never has been.

There are some fanatic groups that state (as far as I know), that they will not cease attacks on the United States until every single American is gone from the Middle East.

quote:

REFUSAL to admit what we do, and the AUDACITY to ignore the consequence, is what escalated it to 9/11 type status.

So are you saying that if you look to the root of things, we, the United States, are responsible for the terrorist attack on 9/11?

These are just some of my thoughts and questions. I appreciate the dialog as this has thus far been very...interesting...to read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

What, I am saying: is too Acknowledged them as a legitimate enemy, on the SAME ground as ANY enemy, which we would be at war with. And NOT to seperate them as a NON-entity, using broad based terminology (i.e. TERRORIST), in order to degrade their standing.

Is this to suggest that we should recognize the people who participated in the 9/11 attacks with the same status we recognize say....Great Britain...or Canada? If so...why should we recognize like this?

quote:

In the MINDS of average American, They are the TERRORIST responsible for 9/11

I'm not so sure about that. I've spoken to a few people that I consider average and they were very well aware of the differences between Afghanistan and Iraq.

quote:

COMPLETE withdraw from the middle east is NOT possible. Never has been.

There are some fanatic groups that state (as far as I know), that they will not cease attacks on the United States until every single American is gone from the Middle East.

quote:

REFUSAL to admit what we do, and the AUDACITY to ignore the consequence, is what escalated it to 9/11 type status.

So are you saying that if you look to the root of things, we, the United States, are responsible for the terrorist attack on 9/11?

These are just some of my thoughts and questions. I appreciate the dialog as this has thus far been very...interesting...to read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...