[quote]Professor X wrote:
Do you feel as safe as you did on 9/10? [/quote]
Personally I do, but I think that is a great point.
I only feel as safe because of the small town that I live in (I’m not saying it’s impossible for a terroist attack, but there would be less of an effect for them).
I definitley don’t feel as free.
[quote]snipeout wrote:
I’m sorry I forgot you’re from canada, what has your country done lately to combat terrorism?[/quote]
I’ll start a topic outlying exactly what Canada’s contributions to date have been. I was quite surprised by what I found out when I started looking.
Slightly on topic:
The only speech I heard by G.W. was the one he gave here in Canada (Halifax) thanking the communities that took in the 33,000 displaced air travellers on Sept 11. It was a great speech, and he seemed very genuine - I can see why many people like him.
[quote]prot wrote:
As I recall 9/11 happened on George W Bush’s watch![/quote]
You were on your way to a decently intelligent post.
Right up until the above douchebag comment.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
You need to co-ordinate your story better with the anti war crowd. Maybe go talk to Cindy Sheehan. She prefers the term ‘freedom fighters’.[/quote]
I’m with ya on that RJ. I can’t stand it when the shitbirds refer to terrorists as “insurgents”, “freedom fighters”, whatever. It’s bullshit.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
AZMojo wrote:
When was the last offensive launched by Al Qaeda?
Insurgents, terrorists, whatever - they are nonuniformed combatants. bigdon said that they were calling the shots. I showed how they really weren’t. But I’ll be sure to pass it on that you imply the U.S. forces are not being attacked. I’m sure they’ll be relieved to know that all the exloding road side bombs are all in their head. [/quote]
-Hmm, didn’t your question imply that there weren’t any Al-queda offensives lately? Are roadside bombs defensive in Texas?
-Insurgents and terrorists are two different things. Excuse me, I though we were fighting the war on TERROR. So, now is anybody who dares fight against us a terrorist? I’m sure in your book they are.
-That’s your problem. You assume that everybody who disagrees with you falls into a nice little box of thought. You pick the most extreme example of somebody with a different opinion and lump everybody else who disagrees with you into that category.
-Everybody understands how pro-war you are, which I guess is easy to be as an American. I mean who’s gonna do anything about it, right?
[quote]
I don’t have a website link, but it doesn’t take a roket scientist to figure out that we have killed a shitload more of the people trying to kill us than they have of us. [/quote]
-THEY WEREN"T TRYING TO KILL US UNTIL WE INVADED THEM!!!(sorry no web link either)
[quote]
I could give a shit what you think we can or can’t include in the casualty numbers. [/quote]
-Obviously, but you should. Because the number of actual terrorists killed in this war is likely LOWER than the number of U.S. soldiers who’ve died, and their numbers are rising, unlike miltary recruitment.
Shit, we could go into any backward ass country in the world and kill as many people as we like, but that doesn’t make them terrorists, even if they fight back.
-If you accept the above as fact(which I doubt you will), is the war still worth it?
Maybe your anti-war poster girl has a point.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Please define ‘running the show’. If by that you mean they are cowaring in the shadows, and making sneak attacks on innicent women and children - maybe. [/quote]
Isn’t that what terrorists do? You truly believe that people who are that willing to blow themselves up for their cause are “running scared”? I seriously doubt they think this way.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Isn’t that what terrorists do? You truly believe that people who are that willing to blow themselves up for their cause are “running scared”? I seriously doubt they think this way.[/quote]
If that’s what they do - how do you keep score? They have done that since the we took over. But there have been 2 free elections and and a constitution drafted.
I don’t think they are calling the shots. They are still doing what they do - but how does get from that to saying that they are calling the shots? Maybe someone should define that term for me. The fact that Zarqowi, et al are still alive can hardly be considered as them calling the shots in Iraq.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
prot wrote:
As I recall 9/11 happened on George W Bush’s watch!
You were on your way to a decently intelligent post.
Right up until the above douchebag comment.
[/quote]
Was this an incorrect statement? My memory is that Bush took office on 1/20 and the attack took place almost 8 months into his presidency. In fact, Richard Clark, who was in charge of counter terrorism, could not get a meeting with Bush and the administration refused to listen to him.
I think this is what was meant by the “running the show” comment:
If you consider the war in Iraq as ‘our side’ vs. ‘their side,’ then their side is being run by Al Queda, i.e. Al Queda is running the show.
[quote]skrying wrote:
I think this is what was meant by the “running the show” comment:
If you consider the war in Iraq as ‘our side’ vs. ‘their side,’ then their side is being run by Al Queda, i.e. Al Queda is running the show.[/quote]
Now I will agree with that definition.
However - from the way I read it, and considering the source, I think it was more a way of insinuating that the bad guys are winning, than saying that Al Qaeda was the enemy.
[quote]mmg_4 wrote:
So, in other words, proof did not exist that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Pre-wmptive strikes should be undertaken with a little more care and proof, dont you think? Otherwise, we could pre-emptively strike almost any nation we have fault with.
[/quote]
That’s right, we could pre-emptively blow the living crap out of whoever we want to. The question is if we should.
A little off-topic, but relevant: You’re a liberal, right? So am I. So why am I arguing FOR a military conflict? Simple. Have you seen what the UN sanctions and our ignoring of Saddam did to the people of Iraq? Especially the poor? There are pictures and stories on the internet I found while posting my “Cheesetastics Anonymous” thread a while back that were heartbreaking and disgusting.
Whole villages having to dig a hole every morning for drinking water. Health care? Out of the question. Until the US military FINALLY – after over a decade of watching and doing nothing – decided to get off their ass and step back in to finish what we started, many of the Iraqianian people had no access to even the most basic of amenities.
If you have a single compassionate part at all in you, you would realize that the UN sanctions, apart from making Saddam (and France) richer, did nothing but harm to the people of Iraq. FUCK that. That’s bullshit, and I’m pissed off and ashamed at us for taking so long to clean up the Iraq mess. The thought that we had allied ourselves at all with this Hussein jerk (a necessary evil?) at any time in the past fills me with a hulk-like rage. HULK SMASH!! 
But really, who cares about all of that, we just went to steal oil, and that’s why gas prices are so goddamn low right now.
Right on JeffR. I dont agree with all of Bush’s policies, but the war with Iraq was needed. Has it beed managed the way I think it should be? No, but unfortunately that is the natue of the world we live in now. Personally I think the gloves should be off and we should go door to door everyday to root out the terrosrists in Iraq, but that would cause an uproar.
The simple fact is that Iraq did have WMD’s, wanted to make more, had the capability to do it, and gave safehaven as well as training locations for Zarqawi and other Al Queda members.
War sucks. I’ve lost 2 friends in Iraq. Could lose more. Could die myself. But someone has to fight the terroists. Is France willing to do it? Germany? Canada, Vroom? Russia? Nope. Have they helped us? Yes, but very little.
America doesnt need permission to fight for freedom and to rid terrorism wherever it sees fit. Thats the “enlightened” thinking that has ensued since the UN. Screw the UN. Its a corrupt, liberal, puppet-body, run by liberals that have no sense of reality. They only want to do what feels good. They dont want to have to roll up their sleeves and get a little dirty. Its pathetic.
Now I just feel sorry for W. He probably doesn’t even remember the FIRST TIME he gave this speech.
http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/002012.html
And you’d think they would have learned after the Niger documents - sadly no.
[quote]
“Last month the world learned of a letter written by al Qaeda’s number-two man, a guy named Zawahiri.”[/quote]
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051014/ts_nm/iraq_usa_letter_dc
[quote]“In my line of work you gotta keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kinda catapult the propaganda.”[/quote] ~ GWB, May 24, 2005
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Now I just feel sorry for W. He probably doesn’t even remember the FIRST TIME he gave this speech.
http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/002012.html [/quote]
It was a good speach BOTH times.
[quote]
And you’d think they would have learned after the Niger documents - sadly no.
“Last month the world learned of a letter written by al Qaeda’s number-two man, a guy named Zawahiri.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051014/ts_nm/iraq_usa_letter_dc
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Al-Qaeda disowns 'fake letter' [/quote]
You’re right. Al-queda has denied it. Bush should apoligize immediately.
Good job JTF, you found another Bushism. The gravity of your combined evidence is overwhelming.
I’ll sound the conservative retreat right now.
Here is a snippet from the CIA’s report on the War on Terror, specifically the war in Iraq. The NIC is the CIA thinktank - not exactly a liberal group:
According to the NIC report, Iraq has joined the list of conflicts – including the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate, and independence movements in Chechnya, Kashmir, Mindanao in the Philippines, and southern Thailand – that have deepened solidarity among Muslims and helped spread radical Islamic ideology.
At the same time, the report says that by 2020, al Qaeda “will be superseded” by other Islamic extremist groups that will merge with local separatist movements. Most terrorism experts say this is already well underway. The NIC says this kind of ever-morphing decentralized movement is much more difficult to uncover and defea
A plus/minus (terrorists/troops killed) system is pointless. This war has, according to our CIA, spread radical muslim ideology. This is what grows terrorism.
[quote]snipeout wrote:
vroom wrote:
Jerffy, why don’t you recap where they found the WMD’s for us, didn’t you start a few threads on that before?
Would those be the same WMD’s that the entire BI-PARTISAN house and senate believed they had due to our intel and foreign intel? I’m sorry I forgot you’re from canada, what has your country done lately to combat terrorism?[/quote]
This has been gone over and gone over. Entirely aside from the fact that Bush MAY have been mislead by the intel community and made an honest mistake, Congress (both sides) does not have access to intel and information like Bush does. They are not the fucking president. They do get some information, but much of what they believe and necessarily base their actions on stems from reliance on the president. They have to presume it’s true and has been thorougly checked out. You can’t run a government with the presumption that what the president passes along is wrong.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
This has been gone ober and gone over. Entirely aside from the fact that Bush MAY have been mislead by the intel community and made an honest mistake, Congress (both sides) does not have access to intel and information like Bush does. They are not the fucking president. They do get some information, but much of what they believe and necessarily base their actions on stems from reliance on the president. They have to presume it’s true and has been thorougly checked out. You can’t run a government with the presumption that what the president passes along is wrong.[/quote]
They were looking at the same damn intel reports that Bush was looking at when the left joined in and voted to give the president authority to go to war. Now they want to change the story and change their vote. I think everyone but the most ardent left wing hacks see this.
[quote]GeneralLee wrote:
Right on JeffR. I dont agree with all of Bush’s policies, but the war with Iraq was needed. Has it beed managed the way I think it should be? No, but unfortunately that is the natue of the world we live in now. Personally I think the gloves should be off and we should go door to door everyday to root out the terrosrists in Iraq, but that would cause an uproar.
The simple fact is that Iraq did have WMD’s, wanted to make more, had the capability to do it, and gave safehaven as well as training locations for Zarqawi and other Al Queda members.
War sucks. I’ve lost 2 friends in Iraq. Could lose more. Could die myself. But someone has to fight the terroists. Is France willing to do it? Germany? Canada, Vroom? Russia? Nope. Have they helped us? Yes, but very little.
[/quote]
To further beat a dead horse, part of the very reason they haven’t helped us is that it was went about wrong. People/countries, including America, act out of self-interest. They were not given sufficient reason to be interested-they didn’t stand to reap any of the benefits of gain (besides the possible decrease to the amorphous threat of terrorism that is entirely questionable existed in the first place or that anything has been accomplished beyond ending an oppresive regime that only did and ever would affect the Iraquis themselves. Of course, that is a good thing) But it’s not other countries that have a no-bid contract. Who does? Oh, wait.
However, no matter how it’s been bungled, we have to commit to the war now. This does mean properly arming our troops, but I think we’re doing a much better of that now. We just need to continue to realize that ‘the army you have’ that you go to war with is the army we give them.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
To further beat a dead horse, part of the very reason they haven’t helped us is that it was went about wrong. People/countries, including America, act out of self-interest. They were not given sufficient reason to be interested-they didn’t stand to reap any of the benefits of gain [/quote]
Mabe. Just maybe, it’s because these countries had their hands DEEP in sadam’s pockets.
Remember the oil for food scandel?
The US earned the right to shut out France, Germany, and the other shitbird countries. Should we reward their past behavior with yet even MORE profit? I don’t think so.
[quote]
However, no matter how it’s been bungled, we have to commit to the war now. This does mean properly arming our troops, but I think we’re doing a much better of that now. We just need to continue to realize that ‘the army you have’ that you go to war with is the army we give them.[/quote]
I agree.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
To further beat a dead horse, part of the very reason they haven’t helped us is that it was went about wrong. People/countries, including America, act out of self-interest. They were not given sufficient reason to be interested-they didn’t stand to reap any of the benefits of gain
Mabe. Just maybe, it’s because these countries had their hands DEEP in sadam’s pockets.
Remember the oil for food scandel?
(But it’s not other countries that have a no-bid contract. Who does? Oh, wait.
The US earned the right to shut out France, Germany, and the other shitbird countries. Should we reward their past behavior with yet even MORE profit? I don’t think so.
However, no matter how it’s been bungled, we have to commit to the war now. This does mean properly arming our troops, but I think we’re doing a much better of that now. We just need to continue to realize that ‘the army you have’ that you go to war with is the army we give them.
I agree.
[/quote]
Fair enough. But don’t complain about other countries not helping if they have no economic reason to do so. That’s not how the world works. And don’t be fooled that that’s not a very big part of why the U.S. is there; though ending a brutal regime, bringing liberty, and combatting terrorism may be part of the agenda. There are plenty of places with brutal regimes and where there is probably a greater world threat relating to terrorism. And we are not there because we have no additional economic reason to be or potential benefits down the line-either for our country or private large companies.