|
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. |
Quote:
|
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. . . |
|
|
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 |
Quote:
Aurel |
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
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:
|
Quote:
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? |
Exactly ! Are people stupid, ignorant, intellectually manipulable, fearfull to the point that they will go fight anywhere their president tells them to go ? Can`t people think for themselves ? Can`t they read books, see what is going on ???? DAMMIT !
Aurel |
I think some need to "walk away from the keyboard, just walk away" Or, as I usually say, "chill out dudes, surfs up" But either way - relax, take deep breaths and go hug your family members.
|
|
POST HIJACK!
Actually the surf is coming up as I type this. 3-5 NW Period 13 1-2 SW Period 16 filling in thru Sat 2-4 Low tide in L.A. county 6 am 0.61 feet Makes for a optimal morning of surfing...chill out dudes, surf's up. |
Quote:
|
Actually, Aurel, people ARE stupid, ignorant, and intellectually manipulable when they blindly believe everything they see or read in the media. If you think for one second that you or I, or any other citizen of this country has better information about foreign issues than the President, you really scare me. Anyone who refuses to dig deeper, and simply gets in line with the rest of the lemmings, is blind, in my view.
Also, I certainly never said you owed me a thing for my service to this country, but you can bet I'll let you know what I think about someone enjoying the freedom I helped provide, who doesn't seem to appreciate it. I earned that freedom. If you chose not to serve, that's for you to deal with. As for Iraq's links to 9/11, again, I'll defer to the people we pay to know those things, and until I see differently, there is no conspiracy. I know it might not fit with your "inside knowledge" of all the "real" facts, but Iraq DID have over a decade to hide the WMD's. It's not like they're all stacked in a warehouse, with labels that say "Hidden WMD's" on them. Finally, I have no axe to grind, and I'm really not that worked up about it. I simply wanted to find out why, if you think Sweden and Switzerland are so great, do you live in the United States? I happen to think this is the best system in the world, as bad as it may be. There are too many hypocrites, in my estimation, who'll glady enlighten us all to the failings of this nation, yet take it for granted that they will not be killed for simply speaking their mind. |
To me, the 9/11 hearings are not showing whether or not there was conspiracy, but it is truly showing that this country was ill-prepared for 9/11, and continues to be unprepared for what terrorist attacks can occur in the future.
Conspiracy is a large conjecture toward Bush. His only conspiracy might have been providing special Saudis special flights to get their special Saudi butts out of the country after 9/11, but that's a personal deal he and his daddy have with the Saudi government. Big problem here: vendetta. Bush's vendetta against Saddam because of his father's impotency toward defeating Iraq. It clouded Bush's views of iminent threat, which was al Queda. Trust factor has been hit badly in the Bush cabinet. In any event, Richard Clark may be the Republican's version of Ralph Nader; read; "spoiler." Why? In a poll two or so weeks ago, the leading reason anyone would vote for Bush this November would be because of his stance on Nat'l security - not the economy or taxes, where Kerry leads. Regardless, if Nat'l Security is Bush's trump card, and Richard Clark systematically shows that there truly is no national security, Bush will lose this Nov. Something else that doesn't help Bush: the news interviewing the 9/11 widows. Those women are pulling major American heart strings. BTW: shame on Condolezza Rice. She thinks she's above 3,000+ lives to not testify in person, and instead send Armitage to do her bidding. Her excuse is national security. What national security. Shame, shame, shame. As well, shame on Bush and Cheney - but that seems to go without saying these days. :( |
What could anyone have done about 9/11? Do you think it could have been stopped? Ridiculous. What happened on 9/11/01 was that Americans were kicked in the teeth hard enough to open their eyes to the reality of the hatred that exists for our freedom. Americans will NEVER sit idly by and allow a hijacking again. The next attack will not be the same. It will also be unstoppable, because we are FREE. If we were to do what it takes to prevent another attack, we would not be free.
Wait and see, we are on notice right now that Al Qaeda is out to get us. We will see another attack, and we will not be able to predict it or prevent it. Get used to it. The only way to handle it is to eliminate them in their lair. |
9/11/01 could have easily been prevented with airline security, period. Locking cockpit doors. How might our leaders have known that a highjacking might have been planned? Simple. A guy named Zacherias Musomething, (the so-called 20th highjacker), was arrested shortly before 9/11 after suspicions were risen when he attended flight school and wasn't interested in landing or take-off procedures. One of his instructors found this strange and alerted a friend who was a retired FBI agent. My father, (a retired judge in Mpls., MN.), knows the agent. This is old hat info at this point.
A quick primer on terrorism: Our multi-zillion dollar defense budget and the proposed starwars missile defense system couldn't stop a bunch of Akbars w/ box-cutters. Real intelligence, in both senses of the word, could have. And we were already paying for it. The invasion of Iraq's relation to terrorism is that it will increase it. And it has cost a lot, more than can be calculated. Trusting that GW Bush knows more than anyone in the country about how to make the world safe? You're kidding, right? Turn on your TV or read a paper. Even if you discount half the news, he's a dishonest scumbag who has done zip/nada to make anyone safer. Richer, yes. Not safer. :cool: |
<i>"The topic of the thread was not `WWII and how the world would be if the allies did not win the war`. "</i>
Oh. Well why did you bring up the Swiss and the Swedes and how they are free and rich countries??? They are in the position they are in for one reason and one reason only - the United States fought their battles for them, just like we do for every other po-dunk country in this world. Maybe the Middle East will be "free and rich" someday too ...... |
Quote:
Quote:
I have heard over and over that the USA had been attacked by terrorists because the terrorists are jealous of the freedom and wealth that we enjoy here. Sooo, I used the example of the Swiss and the Swedes to illustrate the fact that one may be free and wealthy and not a be terrorist target. That is all. I never said I wanted to go live there. Or that Switzerland and Seweden were *better* countries, for whatever that means. It simply means that there may be a little more to understand about the attacks against the US than jealousy. I hope I made myself clear this time. Aurel |
I usually stay out when the discussion gets this heated, BUT:
I think the respect and appreciation that I and others feel for members of our military will diminish if those soliders, sailors, etc start to adopt a "I'm better than you because I serve(d) and you didn't" attitude. Zoanas has not gone over that line, in my view, but he might be getting close. As for deferring to the government's knowledge, I will do that as well and that is why I originally supported the war in Iraq. However, at some point the weight of the evidence has got to open your eyes. The US government's own expert (David Kay) has concluded, after searching Iraq and interrogating Iraqis and reviewing Iraqi records for months, that Iraq didn't have effective WMD weapons. Iraqi scientists have admitted as much. It turns out that our pre-war intelligence was flawed and, while maybe no Whitehouse aide instructed any CIA analyst what to write, the pressure to provide the desired conclusion was very high. When do you sit up and say "my government was wrong"? Does President Bush have to get on Larry King and admit it? Do you still think Nixon didn't order Watergate, or The Reagan Administration didn't support the contras, or that Clinton didn't have sex with Lewinsky? Being a loyal American doesn't mean not doing your own thinking. It means - to me - that initially you give your government the benefit of the doubt, but if it turns out they were lying or wrong, you call it as it is. Quote:
|
Curt,
Just a couple of clarifications on your assertions about the Swiss and the Swedes re WW2. With a certain respect to your knowledge from your other posts it hurts me to say you are more than little incorrect about the role of the US in maintaining their freedom. As a review of the time line of WW2 will show both nations were 'encircled' for want of a better word long before the US formally entered the war. They 'remained' neutral becuase to put it bluntly, it served all parties well that they should do so. Especially the Third Reich and the relevant countries. It is well known that the communications routes thro Switzerland from Germany to Italy were well used by the Nazis to move men and materiel from one to another. Why was this allowed, with quid pro quo was 'don't invade and we won't blow the tunnels'. The Military advantage this gave the Reich was more than enough to offset the lack of domination. It also provided good ground for meetings between the Allies and the Nazis at anytime, to say nothing of Ford and General Motors Executives meeting 'their' Nazi employees. The rather important issue of gold also comes into it. Again the Nazis benefitted from the 'hideaway' and the Swiss agreed not to bury the stuff. Switzerland was until very recently well equipped to cut the major artificial communication links going thro it, bridges, tunnels etc. Whilst this would not stop and invasion it would render the resultant aquisition rather useless. Similarly Sweden, provider of the very high quality steel, especially ball bearings needed by both sides in the conflict was a neutral territory becuase it suited both sides. At any time the Nazis could have decided enough was enough and suffered the consequences with little or no gain and plenty of pain. It just wasn't worth their while. As to wealth of both. Switzerland has relatively lower taxes than most of Europe, at least on the formal scales. What is not referenced in those tables are the local tax variations form State to State and the other obligatory expenses needed to live within the Society. I refer to our beloved Health Insurance which now, when taken as a percentage of income raises the overall tax base another 5%. Admittedly one can opt to not pay it but there is no safety net, no Medicaid or Medicare...They will come after you for the money....BTDT. Sweden, whilst burdened by very high taxes has a fantastic health service, great child and elderly care facilities, education facilites which most of us can only dream of and a great Social inclusion which means a whole multitude of societal probelms are avoided, further reducing basic spending. It may not suit everyone but it works for them. I would say that their average 'quality' of life is generally far higher many including the US but they do not have the discretionary finances which the US enjoys with its own connotations of 'quality' of life and freedom of choice. The real reason these two nations are relatively envied but do not have the same reaction from people in other geographical areas and cultures is that they are relatively absent from the World stage. They do not overtly provide support to one party or another. Its not to say they do nothing but they prefer to act without the profile. Back to the topic. 9/11 was avoidable. But by the time it was being planned and the parties being trained an attack on the US was not avoidable. Its reasons belong far further in the past, before the current generation of politicians and government were in place. I would support the idea that the information in hand was not clear or sufficient to link together at the time to pin point it to the day and places. I would also support the idea that a new incoming administration would not have the same priorities and agenda as an out going one, especially as the change in political colour was more drastic than usual. Airline seciruty would have delayed or altered the nature of the attack but not that there was one. The overall stances adopted by the US and its enemies means conflict remains the most effective method. Not always the best or the worst but the one which; 'gets this done'; 'gets on with it' ;'shows we are serious'. It goes in both directions BTW, and nobody emerges unscathed. As with many of these political issues, the truth, whatever that might be is what one side or other presents as all the avliable evidence. At this level impartiality is almost impossible as the stakes are too high for those involved. After even if GW does know he made a mistake he's hardly likely to stand down from a job he really wants, any more then BC stood down after the Monica affair. That was a mistake, and it seriously called into question his judgement yet it was not enough to get him out office. I hardly think that bar, a taped conversationof GW clearly saying ignore the Al' Queda treat go after Saddam at all costs, this mistake would casue a resignation. May cause him to lose the election to the Democrats (!) but that's politics. I'd be interested to know if the voices who say the Spanish gave in would say the same to te Democrati victory in November? |
Quote:
I absolutely support anyone's right to voice their opinion, regardless of their military service. It was my intention to assert my own opinion, and I did not intend to imply that my service entitled me to any greater voice. As for the "news media", I always find it interesting how people will take what they see on the news as the truth when it supports their political views. What I have read is that the top Iraqi nuclear scientist reported that they were in posession of 2.5 lbs of depleted uranium, and working towards a supply big enough to create a nuclear weapon. Also, the fact that the Kurds were gassed should have been evidence enough that the WMD's existed, at some point. Also, my reading has indicated that the US had furnished some of the WMD material in the past, so where is it? If there was none, why the 10-year dance with inspectors? Quote:
Again, I say that the media is the last place you should turn for information on what takes place inside the halls of the Pentagon or the White House. It seems to be the case that spending cuts over several administrations have reduced the intelligence community's "agent-based" gathering techniques, and replaced them with more high-tech methods, which has severely reduced our ability to infiltrate groups like Al Qaeda. Pointing a finger at one man for that lapse, in my opinion, is less than justified. You can bet that the money is now flowing back into the grass-roots, human-based intelligence gathering community, and the lesson has been learned. It has always been that way in government. Change comes after the fact. This whole thing has been a spin in one direction or the other from day 1. The left spins it to try and unseat the President, and the President spins it back the other way. Somewhere in there lies the truth, and it isn't partisan. Your opinion, as well as mine, are simply not based on anything but the information we are specifically allowed to hear. Because of that, I find it difficult to make any statements of fact. I can only ask questions and use only facts that are indisputable for argument. |
I wonder if the next guy who accidentally picks up a tranny hooker on Santa Monica Blvd., thinking that it was a woman, could honestly say that "his intelligence was flawed"? :D
How about just "DEAD WRONG"?? How about ignoring all warnings and info that doesn't support your conclusion? How about lying and saying that you have "bullet-proof evidence" that "she" is a woman? This is the best analogy for Bush/Cheney/etc....., they are world class liars. :cool: |
"This is the best analogy for Bush/Cheney/etc....., they are world class liars. "
Since you base this on WMD's, perhaps you can enlighten us to the state official whom said "there are no WMD's in Iraq" Preferrably before the invasion thanks. I like how term "lie" has evolved over the last 8 years according to libs. |
Quote:
|
A lie is a lie, whether it be a liberal lie or a conservative lie. Stop using labels you cannot define.
|
Apparently, Bush tried to make a big joke last night about that wmd hunt. This is truly apaling that a president would do that, and totally disrespectfull of those who lost their lives for this search. I hope he wil apologize for that, but I doubt it. At least, Kerry did not miss him Lately, I`d say the Bushies just took two good hits with Clarke and that :cool:
Aurel |
Hey Aurel, since we're off topic now, exactly how offended are you that Kerry is using the Vietnam War where thousands of brave Americans died to further his election campaign? Or haven't you seen his latest ad? My "doublestandardsenses" are tingling:)
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:56 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2025 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website