Jump to content

Personal Message from George Soros


Recommended Posts

Personal Message from George Soros

Why We Must Not Re-elect President Bush

Prepared text of speech delivered at the National Press Club, Washington, DC, September 28, 2004

Download the speech: PDF version | Word doc

This is the most important election of my lifetime. I have never been heavily involved in partisan politics but these are not normal times. President Bush is endangering our safety, hurting our vital interests and undermining American values. That is why I am sending you this message. I have been demonized by the Bush campaign but I hope you will give me a hearing.

President Bush ran on the platform of a "humble" foreign policy in 2000. If we re-elect him now, we endorse the Bush doctrine of preemptive action and the invasion of Iraq, and we will have to live with the consequences. As I shall try to show, we are facing a vicious circle of escalating violence with no end in sight. But if we repudiate the Bush policies at the polls, we shall have a better chance to regain the respect and support of the world and to break the vicious circle.

I grew up in Hungary, lived through fascism and the Holocaust, and then had a foretaste of communism. I learned at an early age how important it is what kind of government prevails. I chose America as my home because I value freedom and democracy, civil liberties and an open society.

When I had made more money than I needed for myself and my family, I set up a foundation to promote the values and principles of a free and open society. I started in South Africa in 1979 and established a foundation in my native country, Hungary, in 1984 when it was still under communist rule. China, Poland and the Soviet Union followed in 1987. After the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, I established foundations in practically all the countries of the former Soviet empire and later in other parts of the world and in the United States. These foundations today spend about 450 million dollars a year to promote democracy and open society around the world.

When George W. Bush was elected president, and particularly after September 11, I saw that the values and principles of open society needed to be defended at home. September 11 led to a suspension of the critical process so essential to a democracy - a full and fair discussion of the issues. President Bush silenced all criticism by calling it unpatriotic. When he said that "either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists," I heard alarm bells ringing. I am afraid that he is leading us in a very dangerous direction. We are losing the values that have made America great.

The destruction of the twin towers of the World Trade Center was such a horrendous event that it required a strong response. But the President committed a fundamental error in thinking: the fact that the terrorists are manifestly evil does not make whatever counter-actions we take automatically good. What we do to combat terrorism may also be wrong. Recognizing that we may be wrong is the foundation of an open society. President Bush admits no doubt and does not base his decisions on a careful weighing of reality. For 18 months after 9/11 he managed to suppress all dissent. That is how he could lead the nation so far in the wrong direction.

President Bush inadvertently played right into the hands of bin Laden. The invasion of Afghanistan was justified: that was where bin Laden lived and al Qaeda had its training camps. The invasion of Iraq was not similarly justified. It was President Bush's unintended gift to bin Laden.

War and occupation create innocent victims. We count the body bags of American soldiers; there have been more than 1000 in Iraq. The rest of the world also looks at the Iraqis who get killed daily. There have been 20 times more. Some were trying to kill our soldiers; far too many were totally innocent, including many women and children. Every innocent death helps the terrorists' cause by stirring anger against America and bringing them potential recruits.

Immediately after 9/11 there was a spontaneous outpouring of sympathy for us worldwide. It has given way to an equally widespread resentment. There are many more people willing to risk their lives to kill Americans than there were on September 11 and our security, far from improving as President Bush claims, is deteriorating. I am afraid that we have entered a vicious circle of escalating violence where our fears and their rage feed on each other. It is not a process that is likely to end any time soon. If we re-elect President Bush we are telling the world that we approve his policies - and we shall be at war for a long time to come.

I realize that what I am saying is bound to be unpopular. We are in the grip of a collective misconception induced by the trauma of 9/11, and fostered by the Bush administration. No politician could say it and hope to get elected. That is why I feel obliged to speak out. There is a widespread belief that President Bush is making us safe. The opposite is true. President Bush failed to finish off bin Laden when he was cornered in Afghanistan because he was gearing up to attack Iraq. And the invasion of Iraq bred more people willing to risk their lives against Americans than we are able to kill - generating the vicious circle I am talking about.

President Bush likes to insist that the terrorists hate us for what we are - a freedom loving people - not what we do. Well, he is wrong on that. He also claims that the torture scenes at Abu Graib prison were the work of a few bad apples. He is wrong on that too. They were part of a system of dealing with detainees put in place by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and our troops in Iraq are paying the price.

How could President Bush convince people that he is good for our security, better than John Kerry? By building on the fears generated by the collapse of the twin towers and fostering a sense of danger. At a time of peril, people rally around the flag and President Bush has exploited this. His campaign is based on the assumption that people do not really care about the truth and they will believe practically anything if it is repeated often enough, particularly by a President at a time of war. There must be something wrong with us if we fall for it. For instance, some 40% of the people still believe that Saddam Hussein was connected with 9/11 - although it is now definitely established by the 9/11 Commission, set up by the President and chaired by a Republican, that there was no connection. I want to shout from the roof tops: "Wake up America. Don't you realize that we are being misled?"

President Bush has used 9/11 to further his own agenda which has very little to do with fighting terrorism. There was an influential group within the Bush administration led by Vice President Dick Cheney that was itching to invade Iraq long before 9/11. The terrorist attack gave them their chance. If you need a tangible proof why President Bush does not deserve to be re-elected, consider Iraq.

The war in Iraq was misconceived from start to finish -- if it has a finish. It is a war of choice, not necessity, in spite of what President Bush says. The arms inspections and sanctions were working. In response to American pressure, the United Nations had finally agreed on a strong stand. As long as the inspectors were on the ground, Saddam Hussein could not possibly pose a threat to our security. We could have declared victory but President Bush insisted on going to war.

We went to war on false pretences. The real reasons for going into Iraq have not been revealed to this day. The weapons of mass destruction could not be found, and the connection with al Qaeda could not be established. President Bush then claimed that we went to war to liberate the people of Iraq. All my experience in fostering democracy and open society has taught me that democracy cannot be imposed by military means. And, Iraq would be the last place I would chose for an experiment in introducing democracy - as the current chaos demonstrates.

Of course, Saddam was a tyrant, and of course Iraqis - and the rest of the world - can rejoice to be rid of him. But Iraqis now hate the American occupation. We stood idly by while Baghdad was ransacked. As the occupying power, we had an obligation to maintain law and order, but we failed to live up to it. If we had cared about the people of Iraq we should have had more troops available for the occupation than we needed for the invasion. We should have provided protection not only for the oil ministry but also the other ministries, museums and hospitals. Baghdad and the country's other cities were destroyed after we occupied them. When we encountered resistance, we employed methods that alienated and humiliated the population. The way we invaded homes, and the way we treated prisoners generated resentment and rage. Public opinion condemns us worldwide.

The number of flipflops and missteps committed by the Bush administration in Iraq far exceeds anything John Kerry can be accused of. First we dissolved the Iraqi army, then we tried to reconstitute it. First we tried to eliminate the Baathists, then we turned to them for help. First we installed General Jay Garner to run the country, then we gave it to Paul Bremer and when the insurgency became intractable, we installed an Iraqi government. The man we chose was a prot├®g├® of the CIA with the reputation of a strong man - a far cry from democracy. First we attacked Falluja over the objections of the Marine commander on the ground, then pulled them out when the assault was half-way through, again over his objections. "Once you commit, you got to stay committed," he said publicly. More recently, we started bombing Falluja again.

The Bush campaign is trying to put a favorable spin on it, but the situation in Iraq is dire. Much of the Western part of the country has been ceded to the insurgents. Even the so-called Green Zone (a small enclave in the center of Baghdad where Americans live and work) is subject to mortar attacks. The prospects of holding free and fair elections in January are fast receding and civil war looms. President Bush received a somber intelligence evaluation in July but he has kept it under wraps and failed to level with the electorate.

Bush's war in Iraq has done untold damage to the United States. It has impaired our military power and undermined the morale of our armed forces. Before the invasion of Iraq, we could project overwhelming power in any part of the world. We cannot do so any more because we are bogged down in Iraq. Afghanistan is slipping from our control. North Korea, Iran, Pakistan and other countries are pursuing nuclear programs with renewed vigor and many other problems remain unattended.

By invading Iraq without a second UN resolution, we violated international law. By mistreating and even torturing prisoners, we violated the Geneva conventions. President Bush has boasted that we do not need a permission slip from the international community, but our actions have endangered our security - particularly the security of our troops.

Our troops were trained to project overwhelming power. They were not trained for occupation duties. Having to fight an insurgency saps their morale. Many of our troops return from Iraq with severe trauma and other psychological disorders. Sadly, many are also physically injured. After Iraq, it will be difficult to recruit people for the armed forces and we may have to resort to conscription.

There are many other policies for which the Bush administration can be criticized but none are as important as Iraq. Iraq has cost us nearly 200 billion dollars -- an enormous sum. It could have been used much better elsewhere. The costs are going to mount because it was much easier to get into Iraq than it will be to get out of there. President Bush has been taunting John Kerry to explain how he would do things differently in Iraq. John Kerry has responded that he would have done everything differently and he would be in a better position to extricate us than the man who got us in there. But it won't be easy for him either, because we are caught in a quagmire.

It is a quagmire that many predicted. I predicted it in my book, The Bubble of American Supremacy. I was not alone: top military and diplomatic experts desperately warned the President not to invade Iraq. But he ignored their experienced advice. He suppressed the critical process. The discussion about Iraq remains stilted even during this presidential campaign because of the notion that any criticism of our Commander-in-Chief puts our troops at risk. But this is Bush's war, and he ought to be held responsible for it. It's the wrong war, fought the wrong way. Step back for a moment from the cacophony of the election campaign and reflect: who got us into this mess? In spite of his Texas swagger, George W. Bush does not qualify to serve as our Commander-in-Chief.

There is a lot more to be said on the subject and I have said it in my book, The Bubble of American Supremacy, now available in paperback. I hope you will read it. You can download the chapter on the Iraqi quagmire free from www.georgesoros.com

If you find my arguments worth considering, please share this message with your friends.

I would welcome your comments at georgesoros.com . I am eager to engage in a critical discussion because the stakes are so high.

Contents copyright ┬® 2004 by George Soros. All rights reserved. Privacy policy.

This message is paid for by George Soros and is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. www.georgesoros.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George Soros will be eating crow pretty soon as well.

He's a socialist, who has flushed MILLIONS of dollars toward defeating Bush and marketing lies.

I look forward to watching the imminent discrediting that George Soros so richly deserves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's an excellent summary of the situation. I don't see where anyone can call Soros a socialist when he is merely interested in spreading democracy and freedom. I can only assume the folks that make that claim do so because he speaks so harshly of Bush.

Speaking of, that's the only issue I take with the article. While Bush may be President, I'm sure he relies heavily on input from the group that Soros mentioned that includes Cheney, Wolfowitz, Armitage, Rumsfeld etc. I'm not so sure Bush would have taken the action he did without their prodding.

I really don't hold any anger or animosity towards GW, I can separate the man from his policies and it is his policies that I strongly disagree with. However, as the President he is ultimately accountable for his decisions and actions and I can see how so many place the blame squarely on his shoulders.

As for Soros, if he really has established worldwide agencies to spread peace and democracy then I applaud him. As long as he isn't seeking a position of power himself which is where I can see potential for his idealogy to become as corrupt as the ones he speaks so loudly against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the man that helped pass campaign finance reform through major lobbying groups to keep individual americans from having a voice in the political system and supporting their chisen candidates, has used the loophole that HE created to make sure that HE has a voice and no one else does.

If you have the money, you have the voice.

The 527's that he has helped finance have lied, have thrown false charges etc at President Bush and he sits back and let's them.

THe man is WITHOUT ethical standards.

As long as it is his way, that's OK.

He created the Asian financial crisis in 1997, because it would make him money, but he burnt MILLIONS of people in the process, does he care? NOPE.

The man has made enough money where he believes that he can buy governments, and has attempted to.

The man does NOT care abut ANYONES voice but his own.

Democracy? Yeah right, only if he's in charge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Campaign Finance reform was a good idea that was poorly implemented. The 527's from both sides disgust me. I have never agreed with negative campaigning, but it looks as if it's here to stay.

As for his power, that's the downside of Capitalism. We should be asking why it is that people with power also happen to be rich or vice-versa. As long as world societies continue to hold the rich in high esteem, simply because they are rich, the problem will never go away.

It would be nice if those with money would put it to more immediate use by feeding the hungry and elevating the poor, but there's and old saying "Give a man a fish..." So I can see why they would rather spend their money and use their influence for more long term benefit. It makes sense.

There's another saying that applies, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely". It would seem that regardless of one's intentions, that a certain dynamic comes into play that inevitably spawns corruption.

I hardly think Soros has ideas of Hegemony, but you never can be too sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

There isn't a "For Sale" sign on the White House lawn YET, but foreign-born billionaire George Soros is busy making good on his $15 million down payment to buy the Oval Office for his own personal bought-and-paid-for Democrat nominee.

Still sore over losing the last presidential election, Soros is funding an all-out drive -- not only to go against President George W. Bush, but to undermine American sovereignty, to lose in Iraq, and to drop the war on terror. When the White House is among his worldwide properties, Soros plans to subvert America's morals and trash our traditional values.

After making good on his pledge to raise $70 million, the "Godfather" of the Democrat Party is now spending millions more on a series of personal appearances and newspaper ads in election swing states, pushing his newly published book and attacking President Bush. His main message? The war in Iraq has done "untold damage" to the United States.

WRONG, Mr. Soros. YOU are the one who is doing untold damage! This man is single-handedly trying to trash the American political process, lose the war in Iraq and then quit the war on terror. His intention is not only to "knock America down a few pegs"... he intends to corrupt the very principles that made this nation great.


Nice little thing i got in the mail a few days ago, opted not to post it due to our hard liberals here.. But decided to anyway, since constent dineal of the truth is there forty

Anywho, evidence of what this guy has done can be found in many places, books, internet, even from other political candidates (those who aren't running, but have run in the past, who know about this guy)

The fact of the matter is, the person in question just needs to LOOK and formulate there own opinion based on the fact's that they have found

Formulating an opinion just on ONE story. Proves taht the person in question is infact, BIASED. if you want you're voice to be heard, if you want people to follow you and understand you, then you must show several points of view to the topic at hand.

Politic's is one topic that many disagree with. Mostly because they feel there always right, and that if someone tell them anything, there wrong.

However, Politic's allows for some unique questioning

Mister Soros, I know him only from what I've read on his website and off the many new's agencys

Review Journal (the news source here in Vegas)

Fox News (not considered a network, but it has the 2nd best news... in the way that they DO NOT create there news or jump onto something like CBS did)

New's MAX and the GOP, granted, those two ARE conservative sites. But nothing wrong with getting an opinion from the opposite side of things

In my opinion, I think a lot of what Jaguar has said has come from checking certain sites out. CNN, and all the other left winger sites, but if a person was to look closely, and research what Jag has said they'll find that he has not only taken some thing's from those sites in question. But he has also formulated his own opinion from his observations made at the sites in question

That being said -

Formulating one's opinion based on one site or one article isn't going to bat you any points. In fact it'll only kill you in the long run

Maybe people have talked about Mister Soros and said that he is a traitor to america

In a way, they are right. Jag is right when he talks about the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, thanks to Soro's maybe of them are no longer in jobs or own a home. He screwed to many people to count

But, I'm formulating this opinion based on what I've read from the many site's I've been to

CNN

GOP

NewsMax

CBS

ABC

CR

What many fail to see, is the irrepurable damage that is being caused to this day by this man

The article is question is from New's Max. But just because it's from there doesn't mean it's BS

Believe it or not, there are a few left winger sits (Sun here for example, who are run by liberals) believe's this same thing, they endorse Kerry but they don't like Soros at all.

The saying that goes by most conservative minds "You can never show a liberal the facts" is true in most case's due to the fact that many people just want to believe what they are told. Instead of taking that extra mile and researching what they have heard or seen

It's called Lazy-ness.

Back to the point at hand. The reason many people believe Soros is because they believe he is for there side of the US, but the fact is. That if they where to research him and discover the many fact's and articles that actually exist, then the people would discover that this guy does not care at all for the American people, he has his money

And wish's to use it to in sense, like the article says, "Buy" the white-house

Now, the main reason why he is against bush is because of this

When he endorsed Bush for the 2000 election, he was expecting Bush to give him an ambassador position because of the fact that he had endorsed him

George Soro's was one of the many people who used there money to try and get a position in the government during the 2000 election

However, it didn't work. The fact is that Bush choose someone who did not use there money as an influence

I'll say the same that Lost has said. I'll let you do you're own research. If you're TRUELY into politic's then you would take the extra mile to find out wweather something that is said is true or not, to say "They are lieing" out of the blue, without presenting evidence, is proof enough that you're lieing to yourself

[ 10-08-2004, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: Kalshion ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good Lord Kalshion, do us all a favor and take an english course or two.

As for the Soros stuff, I am sickened by the fact that I have to get a PHONY CONSERVATIVE out of the White House by voting for a LIBERAL. However, you must be the most naive person on the planet if you do not understand that George W. Bush and the people that backed him also "bought" the White House. WHOEVER IS ELECTED FROM HERE ON OUT HAS TO SPEND UPWARDS OF $200 MILLION DOLLARS TO BECOME THE PRESIDENT and it's only going to get worse. Soros' contributions are drops in the bucket when you get into how many people are OWED when a CANDIDATE buys his office. Good Lord... wake up kid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Takvah:

Good Lord Kalshion, do us all a favor and take an english course or two.


Keep you're attacks to yourself, or I won't hesitate to request that this topic be closed

Attacking someone just because of there spelling, shows how insecure the person who is doing the attacking is

Edit: Plus, I can tell right now that you didn't read my post

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh I'm sorry that wasn't an attack that was a bit of advice.

Complain away if you must.

As for reading your post, I admit I could not stand to read the whole thing. When you started to preach about researching, while butchering the English language, I just had to scroll down.

By the way, I was able to stomach a little more of your post and you're also wrong about Jaguar and your assertion that he must consider many sources. There is absolutely no way that he could be informed on the counter argument and support this President so fervently. I've been a flag waving Republican since I was ten years old. That's when Reagan beat the snot out of that panzy Carter (ah, good times). Even I, cannot justify the lunacy of this President. No true patriot could in good conscience or stead support the disjointed muddlings of this administration. No patriot could support the use of this nation's might in such a way as Bush has thus far. What he did is akin to breaking off a chase involving a serial killer so that he could write a speeding ticket. If that's alright with you so be it. I for one won't allow POLITICS to blur the real issue. Bush and his policies have been horribly misguided and it's time for the people to rise up and demand a change.

Peace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Takvah:

Oh I'm sorry that wasn't an attack that was a bit of advice.

Complain away if you must.

As for reading your post, I admit I could not stand to read the whole thing. When you started to preach about researching, while butchering the English language, I just had to scroll down.

By the way, I was able to stomach a little more of your post and you're also wrong about Jaguar and your assertion that he must consider many sources. There is absolutely no way that he could be informed on the counter argument and support this President so fervently. I've been a flag waving Republican since I was ten years old. That's when Reagan beat the snot out of that panzy Carter (ah, good times). Even I, cannot justify the lunacy of this President. No true patriot could in good conscience or stead support the disjointed muddlings of this administration. No patriot could support the use of this nation's might in such a way as Bush has thus far. What he did is akin to breaking off a chase involving a serial killer so that he could write a speeding ticket. If that's alright with you so be it. I for one won't allow POLITICS to blur the real issue. Bush and his policies have been horribly misguided and it's time for the people to rise up and demand a change.

Peace

Our concept of this war are completely different Takvah.

I understand the fact that Saddam had WMD's, the he supported terrorism in ALL of it's forms, and needed to be taken out for our security.

I also understand that Bush is capable of MULTI tasking, you do know what that is, right? You know, when you are able to do more then 1 thing at a time?

Bin Laden is still being chased, his cronies are dying and being captured, 3/4 of them at least, and Al Quaeda is getting the snot kicked out of it.

At the same time, we took out a MAJOR contributor to terrorism, as well as the most likely place and person for terrorists to get hold of WMD's.

READ the Duefler report yourself, it will prove to you that NOT only have they FOUND WMD's in Iraq, but they have found the mobile weapons labs, that were supposed to be destroyed, that Saddam had the precursor chemicals, that were supposed to be DESTROYED, and that he was bribing officials ALL over the world in order to get the sanctions lifted, and then get his WMD programs going again.

Read the 911 reports, ALL of it, and there you will see the DIRECT links between Saddam and Al Quaeda, and Saddam and the Palestinians etc etc ad nauseum.

The Iraq war is a MAJOR battle of the war on terror, and we are winning.

Saddam can no longer pay suicide bombers 25K dollars to the surviving families, he can no longer train Al Quaeda operatives in the chemical and biological weapons, he can no longer train other terrorists how to hijack planes etc.

Iraq was a MAJOR sponsor and contributor to Terror, and his MAJOR threat was that he would supply a terrorist organization with WMD's to use against us. He had the capability, and as soon as the UN sanctions had been lifted, he would have done it.

Bush made the RIGHT decision to go into Iraq, and Kerry made the RIGHT decision in voting for it.

But Kerry is blowing around with the political winds and will say and do anything to get in power.

I trust Kerry as far as I can throw that lying bastard.

Read the 911 report, the ENTIRE report yourself, read the Duefler report, the ENTIRE report yourself, and if you come to a different conclusion then I do, then you didn't read the ENTIRE report, only those parts that youa gree with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HOW do you know he couldn't be informed of that? I don't see you showing any proof of that sort

There is NO WAY for you tell if he has those sources or not, again you're making an opinion without evidence to support it

Something that you seriously need to learn Takvah, is that many people take advice is a different way. For me, I HATE it when someone give's me advice cause it make's me feel like I'm not paying attention to what I'm doing

I noticed my mistake's, but kept them there cause if anyone really had any interest in reading my post, they would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

There is NO WAY for you tell if he has those sources or not, again you're making an opinion without evidence to support it

quote:

I for one won't allow POLITICS to blur the real issue. Bush and his policies have been horribly misguided and it's time for the people to rise up and demand a change.

AMEN!!!!

quote:

I understand the fact that Saddam had WMD's,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't think that the WMD's EVER existed Street?

How about the mobile labs? Those don't exist or didn't exist either?

The 53 weapons that have been found don't exist either?

Is that what you are saying Street?

Reminds me of the 3 monkeys, see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

You're all 3 in one package.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jaguar, people were blown up in Israel and Egypt today. Now, is that a product of Saddam Hussein's support of terrorism or is that the product of warfare being waged between Israel and the Palestinians? I am no more willing to say that Bush is responsible for the people that died this morning than I am that Hussein is responsible for the terror in Israel. Do you really believe that Hussein was a catalyst for terror in Israel and that without Hussein, Palestinians would not be willing to blow themselves up? Your reasoning is just so far off the mark that it's almost perverse. Saddam Hussein is no greater a contributor to global terrorism than the Saudi royal family is. How many of the people involved in 9/11 were Iraqi? How many were Saudi? What nationality is Osama Bin Laden? What nation is the chief monetary supporter of wholesale terror on a global scale? If you said Saudi Arabia, you get a star. So then why the hell is Bush not rebuking them? Why is Prince Bandar referred to as Bandar Bush? Why aren't these guys being held to the same standards? WE SHOULD HAVE INVADED SAUDI ARABIA before we invaded Iraq. We contained Iraq and could have dealt with them at our leisure. It is the Saudis that we should be turning the screws on right now. At the very least it seems that Sudi Arabia harbors some of the most fanatical anti-American sentiment in the world; so if you REALLY want to kill our enemies, we better start there.

Later

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Takvah:

Jaguar, people were blown up in Israel and Egypt today. Now, is that a product of Saddam Hussein's support of terrorism or is that the product of warfare being waged between Israel and the Palestinians? I am no more willing to say that Bush is responsible for the people that died this morning than I am that Hussein is responsible for the terror in Israel. Do you really believe that Hussein was a catalyst for terror in Israel and that without Hussein, Palestinians would not be willing to blow themselves up? Your reasoning is just so far off the mark that it's almost perverse. Saddam Hussein is no greater a contributor to global terrorism than the Saudi royal family is. How many of the people involved in 9/11 were Iraqi? How many were Saudi? What nationality is Osama Bin Laden? What nation is the chief monetary supporter of wholesale terror on a global scale? If you said Saudi Arabia, you get a star. So then why the hell is Bush not rebuking them? Why is Prince Bandar referred to as Bandar Bush? Why aren't these guys being held to the same standards? WE SHOULD HAVE INVADED SAUDI ARABIA before we invaded Iraq. We contained Iraq and could have dealt with them at our leisure. It is the Saudis that we should be turning the screws on right now. At the very least it seems that Sudi Arabia harbors some of the most fanatical anti-American sentiment in the world; so if you REALLY want to kill our enemies, we better start there.

Later

There are political and economic realities Takvah, and if that makes it look hypocritical, which it does, then so be it.

THe fact of the matter is, that when Saddam was paying the suicide bombers, there were 10 times as many, then when we cut off that support, they quit, now they are starting up again, but not NEARLY at the same level they were before.

The Palestinians almost had everything they needed to have a free and open society and country of their own, but Arrafat could not let that happen, because the main goal is the total destruction of Israel, and anything less would destroy Palestine. Because if they actually allowed Israel to give them land that they want, and create their own government, they would be giving up on the MAIN goal of their movement, which is of course Driving ALL of the Jews into the sea, and DESTROYING Israel.

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...