If this is true...
 

...then why are we going after Bin Laden?

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2004/ALLPOLIT...ld.testify.jpg

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/23/911.commission/index.html

Denis,

I assume that your question refers to these statments:

Rumsfeld, in his testimony Tuesday, expressed skepticism that killing bin Laden would have done anything to prevent the attacks of September 11 because the sleeper cells who carried out the attacks were already in the country.

"Ironically, much of the world, in all likelihood, would have blamed September 11th on the U.S. as an al Qaeda retaliation for the U.S. provocation of capturing or killing Osama bin Laden," he said.

Yes that is rather absurd, but my first point is that things will get more and more absurd as long as the election campain goes on...
I personally think that Bush did a great job in invading Afghanistan and destroying theTaliban regime, which the entire world knew was harboring terrorists and violating human rights...and the entire world was behind him. Then, he went to Iraq, made up a WMD threat, gave his finger the the UN, and totally screwed up...this was an absolute mistake, and I can predict that he will not be reelected for that.
My last comment would be that terrorism is an extremely powerfull political tool: anybody can be called terrorist, and depending on the need of the day, one can say that killing terrorists will cause more terror or less terror. One can also decide that killing the heads of terrorist groups destroys the group, or that it does nothing since these are horizontal organizations. In the end, maybe the real question is: who is truly behind those terorist groups and what are their real motivations ?
You see, I still don`t get the`destroying or freedom` thing. The Swiss and the Swedish are free and rich too...

Aurel

Did you see that talkshow where Rumsfeld was caught bald-faced lying, regarding the term "Imminent" or "immediate" threat? When they pulled out his actual quotes, he looked like he was about to have a heart attack.

We should be so lucky......

Aurel,

I'll take that bet, care to make it interesting? We could wager P parts.

Really? With their income taxes?

And we're much better?

Do you realize that the average American pays more in taxes to federal, state, and local government (to say nothing of "fees") proportionate to their income than the colonists did under English rule? There's some food for thought. . .

Yes, we are:

http://www.worldtaxpayers.org/statpurc.htm

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1080167619.jpg


The experts being the government.

Blue,

I had it 50% right with Switzerland. And still, all the countries in your list are *rich* by terrorist standards.
WhiteRaven530, this is hilarious; looks like a Rumsfeld quote :D

I meant to start a thread about the declarations of Clarke too, which I have found confirming what O`Neil said a few months earlier, i.e. that the war in Iraq was more the priority#1 than war on terror. I watched him on 60 minutes, and all I can say is that he sounded sincere and honnest. What amuses me is how a dickhead like Sean Hannity tries to discredit him all day long, depicting him like a disgruntled man trying to sell a book. Just like they did with O`Neil. One more, and I think the Bush team is going to implode SmileWavy. Maybe Colin Powell wil do it :rolleyes:

Aurel

Lendaddy, I take the bet. If you win, I`ll send you a used guide fork ;) I also have a sump plate with a leaky oil thread...

Aurel

You're the professor; 50% was an "F" where I went to school. ;)

Why do you live here, Aurel? Why not live "free" in Switzerland or Sweden, where you don't have to get involved. C'mon, you really believe that stomping the crap out of Hussein wasn't welcomed by every civil Arab in the Middle East? You've had life a little too "cushy" in the good-'ol US of A, I'd say. Get out and look into the eyes of some people who've been oppressed, I mean really oppressed. Ask them if they'd like a change of address to Main Street, USA.

Mr.Hannity, unfortunately, parses everything he says to include only those snippets that conform to his narrow view. There is a book "The Logic of Failure" (non political) that examines decision making. It concludes that only two types of people make decisions; those with very limited information (thus not muddying up their predisposition) and those with all the facts (which is rare indeed). A statement in the book states that this is the reason there are so few engineers and scientists in elected positions; situations are more complex that most people can handle. Elected officials, for the most part, like Hannity, parse the available nformation and make decisions based on inadequate factual data. This is not to say they are always wrong, simply that some people enter into the decision making process with their minds already made up. And, BTW..as for the Muddle East, I have been there. Much of the problems there are self-made.

If you have nothing else to add to the discussion than personally attacking me for living here and criticising your beloved war, I`d say this is a rather poor defense of your opininon. And why do YOU live here ? Why are not you in Iraq helping liberate the country if you are so convinced ? See, it is really easy and stupid to discuss like that. And will not get you anywhere. I happen to have a different opinion of you, and this is not a good enough reason to leave ;)

Aurel

Well, Aurel,

I DID serve my country, and my son leaves tomorrow to do the same as well. I did that so that you could share your opinion with us, regardless of it's obvious ignorance.

Are you going to answer any of the questions posed, or simply deflect your argument by calling me names?

Have you asked an Iraqi whether they feel safer today?
Do you think the Middle East prefers Saddam?

I suppose you have the "freedom" to act like the Swiss and not do anything, so I won't hold my breath for the answers.

The Swiss and the Swedes would be under Nazi control right now if it weren't for the United States rescuing their asses in WWII ..... :rolleyes:

where was the name calling??

I hate the political threads, yet I happened to read this one...

Aurel has stated and defended his position well

Blah Blah...Same crap all over again. The topic of the thread was not `WWII and how the world would be if the allies did not win the war`.

The question of whether or not the Iraqui are better off without Saddam is beyond the point: of course they are (or they will be). And there are dozens of other countries in Africa that would be better off without their dictators too.

However, those were not the reasons invoked to go to war. The reasons were:
1-To seize WMDs
2-To prevent future terrorist threats
3-To give the Iraqui a democratic regime

So far, MORE terrorism has been generated in Iraq, the place is a total mess, and I do not see how it could become a democracy with all the surrounding countries sending their jihadists. It will simply become the same impasse as Israel and Palestine.

But let us know when you son gets there what he has to say about it, Zoanas. He will certainlly have to opportunity to interview some Iraquis. And unless you fought during world war two, I owe you strictly nothing.

Aurel

ok, so how is Iraq connected to 9/11?


Bush wanted Iraq from day 1 in power, it was on the agenda and it was gonna happen no matter what.... 9/11 was just an excuse.

Were not most of the hijackers from Saudi Arabia?

Are people stupid or what?