Iraq or N. Korea? Or neither?

[Quarto]

Originally posted by Phillip Tanaka
Did YOU know Binladen was going to bomb the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and, if sucessful, the White House (?) on Sunday, September 10th 2001? No one could have known, but to me that still does not excuse Clinton loetting terrorists get away with murder.

My point is that it's hypocritical to single out Clinton, when his policies towards Bin Laden were no different to his immediate predecessor and his successor. Admittedly, they were very different indeed to the policies of Reagan, but I would assume that continuing to financially support Bin Laden like Reagan did would have gotten Clinton in trouble .

In other words, feel free to complain about Clinton's actions, but only if you complain about Reagan, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr. in the same breath.

 

[T8H3X11]

We are not superior to the rest of the world.

We are superior in our leadership, our government, our military might. I as an individual, a proud citizen of the United States of America am no superior to any person in this world.

 

[Cam]

Originally posted by Phillip Tanaka
No one could have known, but to me that still does not excuse Clinton loetting terrorists get away with murder.

It's not murder when the other side says your civilians are enemy combatants.

 

[TC]

Originally posted by T8H3X11
We are superior in our leadership, our government

Interesting... prove.

 

[WildWeasel]

Originally posted by T8H3X11
We are superior in our leadership, our government, our military might.

And our arrogance, our cockiness, our self-delusions...

 

[Skyfire]

You make that attitude out to be bad, when it has also had some beneficial impacts upon the US. (Maybe not for others, but it has served us well at times.)

Although I do not dispute your claim of us being such.

 

[WildWeasel]

Originally posted by Skyfire
Although I do not dispute your claim of us being such.

You are wise!

 

[Phillip Tanaka]

Originally posted by Cam
Phillip: can you point me to a non-CNN news source, or rather, a non-American news network which has proof that he organized the bombing?

Didn't the video tapes have him claim responsibility? Of course, these could have been done by Hollywood, but I highly doubt it. Plus he promise more attacks if the war on terrorism is continued. More as in the Embassies and the USS Cole? Or Sept 11? I'm certain to the length that you can take it to the bank and count it that he was reffering to Sept 11.

Originally posted by Cam
I just don't remember him admitting to anything. I know that he praised the attacks, but a praise is not an admission

You are correct, Cam. But to my knowledge he has admitted responsibility, and as soon as I can lay my hands on one that I can show here I will show a non CNN\non yankee source.

Originally posted by Quarto
My point is that it's hypocritical to single out Clinton, when his policies towards Bin Laden were no different to his immediate predecessor and his successor. Admittedly, they were very different indeed to the policies of Reagan, but I would assume that continuing to financially support Bin Laden like Reagan did would have gotten Clinton in trouble

True, Quarto. But in this case I have decided to ignore what policies Clinton and Reagan and Bush had.
And why is that, Phillip?
Because, at the time, the Taliban were being funded to fight the Soviets. With the collapse of communism, the Taliban were still handy to have around to keep the Russians in check. So in this case, I don't believe it to be fair to blame policy. However, with the Taliban betraying America and bombing the Embassies and the USS Cole, I feel that something should have been done.

Originally posted by Cam
It's not murder when the other side says your civilians are enemy combatants.

And how, in the blue hell, are ordinary people combatents?

 

[Cam]

Originally posted by Phillip Tanaka
And how, in the blue hell, are ordinary people combatents?

Good question. I ask the same thing when I think of the Patriot Act.

 

[Quarto]

Originally posted by Phillip Tanaka
Because, at the time, the Taliban were being funded to fight the Soviets. With the collapse of communism, the Taliban were still handy to have around to keep the Russians in check. So in this case, I don't believe it to be fair to blame policy. However, with the Taliban betraying America and bombing the Embassies and the USS Cole, I feel that something should have been done.

Which still doesn't justify singling out Clinton, because Bush Jr. also did absolutely nothing until the WTC attack - and that's in spite of receiving numerous warnings about the upcoming attacks.

 

[Phillip Tanaka]

Or, perhaps more accurately, the law enforcement and intelligence agencies such as the FBI, CIA, NSA and other various alphebet soup who would have recieved thousands of these threats daily. I'm not trying to lay blame on any one person, or, fot that matter, lay blame period. I know that I would have laughed off the possibility of a coordinated attack such as Sept 11.

 

[Aries]

Originally posted by Quarto
Which still doesn't justify singling out Clinton, because Bush Jr. also did absolutely nothing until the WTC attack - and that's in spite of receiving numerous warnings about the upcoming attacks.

and how many terror attack warnings have we had SINCE 9/11? a hell of a lot. just cause your people get warnings doesn't mean that anything will come of them, or, more importantly, that those warnings will give specific dates, times, targets, methods of attack, etc. and yes it does justify baming clinton, cause bush didn't do anything BEFORE 9/11, and clinton didn't do anything AFTER those incidents, cept lobbing a few missiles, which, in context of world relations, is a slap on the wrist

 

[Quarto]

Originally posted by Aries
and yes it does justify baming clinton, cause bush didn't do anything BEFORE 9/11, and clinton didn't do anything AFTER those incidents, cept lobbing a few missiles, which, in context of world relations, is a slap on the wrist

Wow, so let me get this straight. You're saying basically that it's ok for Bush to have ignored Bin Laden because those earlier attacks took place before he was president? That's even more hypocrisy, considering that you probably also blame Clinton for the Somalia debacle. It's also downright insane, since it essentially amounts to ignoring the enemies of your country just because they haven't attacked you personally.

 

[Napoleon]

Quarto is completely right here, if you want to blame people, you must blame all leaders whove been around since this whole crap started.


Another point someone said we should make "terrorists extinct" the problem with that is simple, by attacking these countries, killing people, killing ordinary civilians (collateral damage it is called, it was leaked about 1-2 weeks ago that it is suspected that the numbers for when we attack iraq will be somewhere along the lines of 500,000 non-combatants killed), we will breed terrorists. WHy you ask, simply put imagine this, you are a 25 year old guy living in bagdad, you just got married last week, you work the night shift as a janitor somewhere. THe us starts bombing bagdad, and one day comming home after a long night's work, bam your entire block was bombed and blown up by some US plane trying to hit an instalation across the street from you and missing (it happens, i think it is 1/4 of the time that we miss nowadays, at least thats what i remember being the ratio in serbia). Now your wife and unborn son are dead, and the US is directly responsable. You now hate the US and correctly blame them for killing your family, what are the chances that you are going to want revenge? pretty high right? Considering that alot of survivors after a murder want the murderer to be executed, this would be a similar concept. Even if only 1/10 or 1/100 actually do decide to be terrorists, you still just gave the badguys hundreds if not thousands of willing new recruits with little left to live for except revenge.

 

[steampunk]

With great apprehension:

You also have to compound that with the fact that in many of these countries religion is taught in schools. And is in fact a part of everyday life. Unfortunately it seems that they take their teachings right out of the book without modifying it to reflect current society. For exmaple traditionally you can't loan money and expect interest when the loan is repaid. Now consider th modern banking system.

Even in non extremist countries like Singapore and Malaysia there's a problem. So while we're bombing, we need to correct education systems and peoples attitudes as well.

 

[Quarto]

Well, I suppose blowing up schools is always a good way to change an education system . It may be difficult to simultaneously bomb a nation and persuade it to like you. Truth be told, I think that when the WTC was bombed, the terrorists were actually counting on an American response.

 

[Aries]

Originally posted by Quarto
Wow, so let me get this straight. You're saying basically that it's ok for Bush to have ignored Bin Laden because those earlier attacks took place before he was president? That's even more hypocrisy, considering that you probably also blame Clinton for the Somalia debacle. It's also downright insane, since it essentially amounts to ignoring the enemies of your country just because they haven't attacked you personally.

no, i'm not saying that. what i'm saying is take a look at those two pres. responses to terrorist attacks. bush did something, while clinton didn't. and actually, the UN was responsible for somalia. clinton is just responsible for pulling our guys out just cause things weren't looking great at the moment. and i'd be the last to say ignore our enemies just cause they haven't attacked

Originally posted by Napoleon
it was leaked about 1-2 weeks ago that it is suspected that the numbers for when we attack iraq will be somewhere along the lines of 500,000 non-combatants killed

where did you get that info?

bam your entire block was bombed and blown up by some US plane trying to hit an instalation across the street from you and missing (it happens, i think it is 1/4 of the time that we miss nowadays, at least thats what i remember being the ratio in serbia).

well, the 75% hit ratio is pretty good considering the overwhelming majority of bombs dropped are unguided bombs. if you look are the smart bomb hit ratio, i believe it was somewhere on the order or 85-95% in the gulf war (and guidence systems have improved since then) and considering the only bombs we would be dropping on baghdad would be smart bombs, the chances that enough bombs would go astray to cause the mass enlistment you speak of is so small it's as close to impossible as anything can get in war

Considering that alot of survivors after a murder want the murderer to be executed, this would be a similar concept. Even if only 1/10 or 1/100 actually do decide to be terrorists, you still just gave the badguys hundreds if not thousands of willing new recruits with little left to live for except revenge.

don't start with the soldiers being murderers again, i don't wanna hear it. and even if those hundreds or thousands of willing recruits do show up, all it will be is hundreds or thousands of willing targets

Originally posted by Quarto
Truth be told, I think that when the WTC was bombed, the terrorists were actually counting on an American response.

yeah, they hoped we would withdraw from world affairs, not go over there and kick their ass

 

[Phillip Tanaka]

Originally posted by Napoleon
Another point someone said we should make "terrorists extinct" the problem with that is simple...

That was me. You've been around enough to know about my misgivings about cunt Colson, right? You remember? Good. Same principle here. But I don't see what Bush is doing with Iraq as fighting terrorism. Fighting terrorism, to me, is a united effort between American Navy SEALS, Delta Force, Army Rangers, British SAS, French Forign Legion, German GSG-9, Russian Spetznaz, Japanese Black Dragons, Australian SASR, and the rest, to sneak and peak, prowl and growl, hop and pop, shoot and loot, disintegrate, annihilate, maim, rape, pillage, slaughter and burn wherever terrorists lurk. Start by having extremist militia groups in your own backyard swooped on by law enforcement. Then, expand into neighbouring countries until you are able to cover the entire world. Sending in masses of soldiers, aircraft and armor is waging war. Using a few good men and women who give a shit and would go balls and boobs to the wall to kill many of those who do not give a shit about human life is anti terror.

Originally posted by Quarto Truth be told, I think that when the WTC was bombed, the terrorists were actually counting on an American response.

What do you mean by that, Quarto?

Originally posted by Aries
don't start with the soldiers being murderers again, i don't wanna hear it.

I''ve said it before, but since you were too lazy to go back and read it, I'll say it again. Soldiers fight for your life to badmouth them. Killers will kill you if you badmouth them. Am I making myself clear, or am I going to have to start throwing about the F word?

 

[WildWeasel]

Originally posted by Phillip Tanaka
Soldiers fight for your life to badmouth them.

Wow, people are fighting for my life? That's sad. They should go find something better to do.

 

[TC]

Originally posted by Phillip Tanaka
What do you mean by that, Quarto?

Suprisingly, I bet he means exactly what he said!

I''ve said it before, but since you were too lazy to go back and read it, I'll say it again. Soldiers fight for your life to badmouth them. Killers will kill you if you badmouth them. Am I making myself clear, or am I going to have to start throwing about the F word? [/B]

Go ahead and say fuck all you'd like... just don't say it in such a way that you'd violate the rules or I'll have to give you a good thwacking.