Bush's phoney war on terror is self fullfilling. As long as you are there you will get attacked by people that aren't even a terrorist threat to mainland US. How many terrorist attacks have there been in USA since 911 due to Muslims ? .. none to my knowledge.
What a friggin fuss about the 3k mostly yanks that died. A tragedy, but what must so many Iraqis now die when they had F... all to do with 911 ?
There is a 911 dead toll every day from malaria... mostly children but that doesn't matter of course cos they aren't God's chosen race...namely 'yanks'.
One other thing.. the crusaders like Blair & Bush that extol the virtues of fighting terror where terror as such doesn't even exist, never put their own lives on the line do they ?
Messerschmitt said:The Vietnam War wasn't to stop communism it was to stop it from spreading.
There haven't been any because brave soldigers have captured and stoped many of the terriortists on their turf. Exactly what the war was intended to do.
Actually today on the radio Bush was talking about giving a massive amount of aide to poor countries with starving children, because those countries are likely to become safe havens for terrorists. He is going to help them help themselves so they can help to stop terrorism in the future.
No.. Bin Laden in Afganistan sending him under cover is what has done that. Not Iraq.
Don't you think with a 911 every day from Malaria they need to stop that more than protect you blessed holy Americans from a terror threat that is exagerated & was mainly due tro your favouritism towards Jews becuase there are so many infuential ones in the USA. BTW I am not anti semite but you should have had a balanced ME policy.. not an anti arab one !
Messerschmitt said:You obvisously feel hurt I can see that you let your emotions run wild on that last post, so let me reitorate the reasons that have drawn us to to war in the middle east. "They" are not their because we are there. Terrorists have been in Iraq and Afganastan since the late 80's. Along with Bin Laden's funding Al qaeda grew and began to plan attacks on the United States. insurgence flooded Iraq and Saddam did nothing to stop them because he doesn't like the US either and he even helped Al qaeda. Then 911 happened and most likely we would have had more terrorists attacks if it weren't for our brave men and women stoping them in their home towns before they attacked you and I back home. WE ARE IN IRAQ TO STOP TERRORISTS.
Maybe you skipped what I last said here it is again. Actually today on the radio Bush was talking about giving a massive amount of aide to poor countries with starving children, because those countries are likely to become safe havens for terrorists. He is going to help them help themselves so they can help to stop terrorism in the future.
I do know my history. I think you should reread your chapter on Viet Nam or you should get a better book because obviously you haven't the slightest clue as to what you are talking about when it comes to Viet Nam. Communism did spread after Viet Nam and we again tried to stop the spread. Why don't you do a little homework on you research and then we will talk. I do watch all and read all types of news, but I don't read or watch any who clearly sympathize with people who want to kill me.
Gandhi>Bush said:Where did bin Laden get his training? Do you have some sort of proof of this al Qaeda-Hussein connection? I'm sure GW and Rumsfeld would love to hear about it.
I didnt' dispute their presence in Afganistan. BTW how about violence begats violence ? Don't you think that's one reason they are attacking you becuase you are attacking them
Your biased pro Israeli & anti arab policy has something to do with it.
Where did it spread ?
nkgupta80 said:It was generally accepted that Iraq had very little connection with Al Queda, and most islamic terrorist organization. His regime was not islamic, thus the terrorists were a threat to him.
No we didn't support him, we sided with him publicly but secertly gave intelligence to both sides hoping they would fight to a draw and end the conflict. But then did you expect us to side with Iraq? A country which had recently committed and act of war against us?Remember the US actually supported him during the Iran-Iraq war (he was seen as a strategic ally against the ISLAMIC extremists who had overthrown the Shah of Iran).
Why the US chose Iraq to be the starting point for the war on terror, i dont nkow.
Now the war on terror in itself is a whole other debate. I personally agree somewhat with Robin in that you can't fight violence with violence.
Stinger said:No it was not. Most intelligence agency's correctly believed he and Saddam and bin Laden were working together and had agreed to help each other. The Bush adminsitration had clearly laid out the evidence as did the 9/11 commission, the Senate hearings and the Kay report. But since you don't seem to want to believe them how about the previous administration who in 1998 indicted bin Laden filing that indictment in a federal court under threat or perjury. In that indictment they cleraly stated
"In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."
No ties?
The Clinton administration bombed the pharmacuticle factory in the Sudan because they believe Saddam and bin Laden were attempting to produce WMD there and every high level official from that administration who testified before the 9/11 commission confirmed that they STILL believed that to be the case.
No ties?
Richard Clarke, the darling of the left, maintains that Saddam was offering bin Laden safe haven in Iraq after the embassy bombings and wrote to Sandy Burger that that is where he would head if he got wind they were looking for him in Pakistan.
No we didn't support him, we sided with him publicly but secertly gave intelligence to both sides hoping they would fight to a draw and end the conflict. But then did you expect us to side with Iraq? A country which had recently committed and act of war against us?
Really? It seems to have worked against the Nazi's and the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy. It seems to have worked in the Civil War. I could name more but I think you get the point.
But thank you for confirming exactly what Karl Rove was speaking of the other day.
That is the main reason for war. Iraq just so happens to have a large infastructure for terrorists.Where else is a large concentration of terrorists residing?
Really? It seems to have worked against the Nazi's and the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy. It seems to have worked in the Civil War. I could name more but I think you get the point.
After 911 terrorists attacks sprung up all over because terrorists thought that they could commit such acts and get away with them without conciquence.
Why do I have to like Arab policy? I wouldn't have a bias if they didn't think I was an infadel and needed to be killed.
Too True mate.. you summed it all up nicely therenkgupta80 said:I am not an idealist who believes everything can be solved through peaceful means. But remember, we're not fighting against a specific regime or nation. We're fighting against individuals and more so an ideology. I just don't agree that going into countries and getting rid of a regime should be our main tactic in the war against terror. It just doesn't help fight the ideology.
USA even made Nam war happen by pretending you were attacked in Tonkin Gulf just like Hitler pretended to be attacked by Poles before invading them !
Don't be ridiculous Japan & Germany declared war on the USA. Saddam did not & was in no way anything like the same kind of threat to you. After all he was your old buddy against Iran. Pity you waited until 1942 before you decided to fight the real threat & only then when Hitler declared war on you !
Tonkin gulf WAS a ruse... if you have to bring aliens into it to disprove it then maybe you need help !
What ! .... Lindenberg was so right wing he was practically a Nazi & he was against the war so don't just make out it was lefties against US participating in WWII.
Bush administration itself said that terrorists are pouring into Iraq from the borders. THe terrorists we are fighting in iraq, were not terrorists before we intervened. We inadverntenly fomented terrorism in iraq.
(which by the ways dont have their headquarters in Iraq).
robin said:Stinger
Don't be ridiculous Japan & Germany declared war on the USA.
robin said:Saddam did not & was in no way anything like the same kind of threat to you.
robin said:After all he was your old buddy against Iran.
robin said:Pity you waited until 1942 before you decided to fight the real threat & only then when Hitler declared war on you !
Gandhi>Bush said:Nope.
They were wrong weren't they?
And how did that lead turn out?
What is support if not selling chemical weapons?
How can you say we didn't support Saddam?
We publicly supported Saddam.
We gave both sides weapons because we wanted to make money. Cha-ching.
WWII was violence
There is a difference between not resorting to a violent solution and offering therapy. Understanding the actions of the enemy can prevent further damages. Attacking the motives of terrorism rather than the practitioners is a much more logical way of both fighting and winning this war.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?