He's right. There have always been loonies.

Speaking for myself as a layman citizen, I grew up with a far larger threat hanging over my head (as did all of America): 10,000 hydrogen and nuclear missles aimed at America by the Soviet Union - a FAR larger threat in real terms.

The best thing the next president can do is to engage the ME countries in the kind of effort for which they offered to partner with Bush - stamping out radical Islamic elements within their own countries that pose an even greater threat internally than externally here. Unfortunately, Bush told them, "no thanks".

The next president can hopefully focus on the real problem areas like Afghanistan and mending fences with both our allies and in creating new allies on the 'war on terror' in the ME.

Keeping us nervous and afraid is the equivilent to the sexist remark "keep women barefoot and pregnant." Bush, Cheney, Rove... they have this country scared shitless.

So many have been saying this and the jerk in the WH keeps fanning the flames of his own personal fears. Either Shrubbie is personally the most fearful leader we have seen or more likely he has manipulated everything he has done scaring the people with false bogymen. The end result has been the destruction of as much of the bill of rights as he possibly could.

Because of his created and unneeded lying, it will take a long period of years to restore of rights and position in the world.

A hundred years from now historians will ask, an rightfully so, how did the American people allow themselves to be taken in by this Administration. This group elected this president on two occasions with the fear factor that the Republicians milked since the 1960's.

The Republician Party has run for National office since the 1960's on a Southern Strategy, an they will run on a Fear factor as long as the American people allow this crap continue. History will blame the American people for thier lack of common sense an good judgement. "YOU GET THE GOVERNMENT YOU DESERVE"

"they have this country scared shitless"

I'm not afraid.

American Annuity -- I wonder then what we would do? Pull all our resources back within our borders, leaving no military overseas? That way no US personnel could be attacked overseas except at the embassies. How would get intelligence then? Through the new FISA bill just passed? Or rely only on material traded from allies?

If we don't pull all our military back within our borders, is it okay for radical Islamic extermists to attack them like the US Cole, Berlin night club, barracks, etc. etc.?

Then how do we respond if we happend to get indications that something is going to happen inside the US again? We haven't done anything in this arena (according to your thesis) so our intelligence wall goes back up that Jamie Gareleck so nicely created for the FBI, etc. and we are right back to where we were on September 10th, 2001.

I know there is no easy answer to these questions. But Harry Stimson, Secretary of State for President Roosevelt between World War I and II was completely wrong in his statement that "gentlemen do not read other gentlemen's mail." Having your head in the sand is not a way to go through the world today. Businesses and governments need information and intelligence that much has been proved. It also needs to be correct also.

No one has to be nervous and afraid -- I don't ever recall be afraid during the height of the Cold War, even in October 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis. President Kennedy took a major step of toward war by declaring the blockade. We were at DefCon 2 so close to actual all-out war.

How do you work to solve the real problem areas? Afghanistan hasn't been solved in centuries by any outsiders and yet you are proposing just that. Plus that is just what everyone has been accusing the Bush administration of doing -- interfering in the internal politics of a foreign country.

Bush, Cheney, Rove... they have this country scared shitless.

By definition couldn't their actions be defined as 'terrorism'?

No, he's right...

I am terrified of what my Government can do now in my name...

WARD

I wasn't scared during the Cold War either.

Unlike the Cold War, Bush has given the bird to our allies, and further inflamed our enemies.

I pointed out we had offers of cooperation from most of the ME governments which Bush promptly spurned.

If we're going to keep the Islamic radicals, who've been there since the West has been in the ME, then we'll need to parter up with western friendly ME countries (yes, there are many), and talk to our 'enemies'.

We did so during the Cold War and averted WW3. We need to be doing the same now. The 'hawks' during the Cold War didn't want to talk to the Soviet Union either. They were wrong then, and those saying we shouldn't talk to Iran and others now are just as wrong - as history has proven .

"....keep the Islamic radicals AT BAY...."

"....keep the Islamic radicals AT BAY...."

"....keep the Islamic radicals AT BAY...."

AU-
What would these talks consist of? They own nothing, no land, etc. They kill innocent people in their own areas and anywhere they can.

As a side note it seems there have been numerous cease fires between Israel and its foes. Isn't it the foe who typically breaks the cease fire - in large part because there isn't a centralized government determining when/where to attack, but rather an ideological group beholden to no nation?

I'd be curious to your take on how to approach this enemy and what it would take for us to ensure our safety.

One other thing....

During WW2, and all throughout the Cold War, our Presidents never used the threats to induce fear.

Bush and Co. have used the threat of a terrorist attack to instill fear in us and do all manner of iffy Constitutional things.

FDR, during WW2, suspended certain rights, but once the war was over, our government reinstated all those rights. During the Cold War our Presidents told us we were strong and protected.

Bush has made us weaker in every way. The idea we should tremble at the thought of a rag tag band of radicals is ludicrous in comparison to past conflicts. He's a friggin' wimp.

OOHRAH

No one can fight Islamic radicals as well as the governments of the countries in which they live.

Talk to them

We talked to the Soviets over the strong protestations of all kinds of hawks who were itching for a fight.

OOHRAH

Case in point:

After the 9/11 attacks, moderate reformer President of Iran Khatami, sent a letter to Bush through the Swiss offering to talk. He did this after using all his political capital within the Assembly of Experts - the clerics. When the offer was turned down the hard liners in Iran said, "See? We told you so", and thus we got Ahmadinejad, and the hard liners got their way instead of open dialogue to restore relations with Iran. They further offered to help us in Iraq because they didn't want a war next door.

To make matters worse, once the war in Iraq was on, Khatami, now out of office, came to D.C. to give a talk. He offered to meet with Bush to give his expert insight into Iranian politics, diffuse the sabre rattling, and build bridges. Once again, Bush turned him down flat.

That's nonsensical.

How effective is a government in the ME when it publicly is linked to support for the USA? You see all sorts of issues a place like Pakistan has to deal with. I think we are having talks behind the scenes with most all but perhaps Iran. It's just not something we see mentioned in the media, for good reason.

As to your "fear" comment, I disagree. The Cold War was very much about fear. From basement bunkers to school drills to the whole MAD concept.

Sure there were bunkers, OOHRAH

But, our Presidents wasn't telling us to tremble in fear. The Presidents always presented a position of strength.

Bush is a wimp in comparison. Especially since we're dealing with rag tag bands of radicals.

Bush's "Dead or Alive" promise vis a vis Bin Laden was hot air.

AU-
I am not at all familiar with your Khatami story... not to say it didn't happen, but there is typically more than one side to a story. Take the Rove/Plame story, for example.

My understanding with North Korea, for example, is the US didn't want one-on-one negotations with them. Instead, we pushed for and got the Chinese and other regional nations involved.

If we had a cadre of ME nations band together to lean on Iran and anywhere else radical Islam was allowed safe haven we might make some headway. Might.

OOHRAH

"But, our Presidents wasn't telling us to tremble in fear. The Presidents always presented a position of strength." - AU

I respectfully disagree, AU. Bush isn't telling us to tremble in fear. He's taken the fight to the enemy and implored us to be vigilent and steadfast in seeing this battle through to its conclusion.

He's encouraged us by indicated that it's winnable, even though it'll be a long struggle. Bush has presented our nation as one of strength, one of a freedom loving people unwilling to consent to an "acceptable" level of domestic terror as so many European nations have.

Perhaps the fear you're referring to was the never-ending "Terror Alert" and the associated colors we saw for quite a while after 9/11. I don't even know whether they still exist. If they do I don't notice them.

OOHRAH

So we DO talk to members of the 'Axis of Evil' after all. Imagine that.

Libs want it both ways. If there are no serious attacks since 9/11 then Bush and Cheney are just trying to scare us. If there would be an attack, Bush and Cheney were not doing enough to protect us. Libs are equivacating pussies.

OOHRAH

How quickly you forget all the public "Orange Alerts".

BS they weren't using fear on us. They used fear to get us into a war we shouldn't have fought for Cripe's sake.

OOHRAH

Most average Arabs were moderates and had no bone to pick with us until they started seeing the images of hundreds of thousands of innocents killed in Iraq. Images we don't get to see here.

Thus, we turned moderates into angry Arabs. Public opinion of America shifted from one of, if not friendliness then ambivalence, into outright disdain.

Most Arabs abhor the acts of the radicals. I don't think their governments would have as hard a time as you propose in stamping out radicals. After all, regimes such as those in SA have a lot to lose if the radicals win.

AU-
I looked through that link. Rice denies ever seeing such a document. Given the Rather forgery and all the people dead set against this war I am quite skeptical of accusations and/or documents, videos, photos, etc. We've seen so much doctored stuff that it's difficult to be persuaded when those on either side of the issue present "evidence" to support their views.

Rice told us of 'looming mushroom clouds' too.

The Swiss say it happened. Khatami says it happened.

I'd believe anyone over Rice these days. The WH is full of liars.

That isn't the only article that says the same exact thing either. You can find hundreds from around the world saying the same thing.

AU

Libya certainly listened when we didn't talk after Sept 11th.

During the Cold War, the 'Wall' didn't come down in 1956 when Hungary tried for its freedom. No one came to their rescue. It didn't come down in 1968 during the Prague spring under Dubcek. It didn't come down in 1980 when Lech Walensa and the union people in Gdansk/Gdynia Poland tried with Solidarity. Only when the Soviet Union could no longer respond due to its own problems could the 'Iron Curtain' fall along with the Berlin Wall and those countries in Eastern Europe became democratic.

The Islamic extremists do not control any country today. And no country controls them. Iran does have influence over the Hezbollah and Hamas through support money and arms. Other state support terrorism like with Saudi Arabia is in the form of trying to keep it out of that country/off their block if you will. I can just picture someone stopping by the palace to pick up their protection money to keep the peace in Saudi Arabia.

So again AU, whom do we 'talk' with? And even in a perfect world, what do we negotiate? To keep the out of our country like Saudi Arabia? The reason they call us the Great Satan is because of culture and values and how we act, not necessarily because of President Bush's policies. That is not something new. They have more complaints against our movies and how women look in the street then any decision made in the last 7 years. I do not think OBL attacked us here, the US Cole, the embassies in Africa (those last 3 during Clinton) because of our foreign policies. It was because of our morale values.

Do we negotiate that? And then with whom? There was a thread about Britain saying Shariya law might be good over there. The radicals won't rest until shariya is valid for all residents. Who wins and loses then?

That phrase "When in Rome" doesn't appear to be a valid concept for them. The do not assimilate and we appear to be allowing them to continue their practices. So, when they become the majority in the country, they will enforce their laws on all. Just look at the problems that Lebanon is going through for the paradigm!

"How quickly you forget all the public "Orange Alerts"." - AU

Actually, I acknowledged those, but maybe I did so while you were typing a message.

A few years ago I have a lib friend who voiced disgust at Bush Inc when a terror alert was raised at airports or somewhere.

I asked him how he would feel if there were no terror alerts, an attack occured, and it was determined the gov't knew of info that should have caused them to alert us.

So I'll ask you the same question - what would your reaction be? Would you be blaming Bush for failing to properly inform the public?

As for you introducing the "get us into a war we shouldn't have fought for Cripe's sake" concept, that's your opinion and an entirely separate issue.

"Most Arabs abhor the acts of the radicals." - AU

Perhaps you're correct. Maybe they cower in fear. Nevertheless, it's a rare day when we see any Muslim condemning militant actions. Do you disagree?

Rice denies ever seeing such a document.

Amazing...and from an administration that refuses to open reports from the EPA.

Rice might just as well stay home and warn her piano to behave itself at this stage.

Perhaps you're correct. Maybe they cower in fear. Nevertheless, it's a rare day when we see any Muslim condemning militant actions. Do you disagree?

Posted by OohRah

Actually, it's happened a lot. Many clerics have spoken out against jihad as against the fundamental principles of Islam.

As to the airport alerts, they would be on high alert whether or not we know about a potential threat.

What a shame Bush didn't raise the threat level to the FAA and airports countrywide when the CIA staffer, sent to Crawford in August 2001, warned him of an impending attack using airplanes as weapons, huh?

Instead, 10 Saudis got box openers on planes and 9/11 happened. In addition, the FBI knew and warned the WH about several of the hijackers. Nothing was done.

"Actually, it's happened a lot. Many clerics have spoken out against jihad as against the fundamental principles of Islam." - AU

Interesting. How many is "many?" Any links to support that contention?

It's a rare day when we see Muslims go public to condemn terrorism... particulary when the Muslim is in the Middle East and at greater physical risk than some American Muslim who's free to speak without serious fear of retribution.

OOHRAH

Please don't ask me to do your homework :-)

Use 'The Google'. LOL

I agree with Oorah on this issue. The Arab world in particular has been regrettably reluctant to condemn the actions of terrorists. Criticism is usually muted or accompanied by condemnations of Israel and the West. Screw that. A mature society and it's populace should have zero reluctance in openly condemning Al Qaeda and their ilk. In several Western nations, the acts of indigenous terror groups are frequently protested by the masses in large street protests. Argentina and Spain come to mind in recent years.

MOEER8

Arab governments would have had a heck of a lot less of a hard time speaking publicly if we hadn't invaded Iraq and images of children with their legs blown off shown all over the ME.

We tied their hands on that one, publicly anyway.

They DID publicly condemn the 9/11 attacks within hours - even Iran. Heck, there, thousands of citizens poured out into the streets in spontaneous candlelight vigils in support of us. In downtown Tehran.

And in the Palestinian territories and Jordan and Syria and - even Iran, the local populations were dancing in the streets celebrating the 9/11 attacks within a week of those same attacks.

Listen, don't doubt for a moment that the Arabs of the Middle East by and large do not like us. Maybe they have reason not to, but that is not the point. On the whole these societies have enabled the terrorists in their midsts both financially and morally. Let us not lose sight of this reality. In other words, just because our own behavior may be less than perfect, let's not kid ourselves about the other guys behavior as well.

In several Western nations, the acts of indigenous terror groups are frequently protested by the masses in large street protests. Argentina and Spain come to mind in recent years.

Speaking of terror groups, mass protests against Washington are long overdue.

As several of the above posts illustrate, what scares me is how easily so many Americans are duped.

AU-
You claimed there were "many." I asked you to try to quantify how many is "many." If your contention is to have merit, surely there must be "many" sources. Is "many" over 5? Over 10?

I did some checking. Most of those who chose to speak out seem to fit into two categories:

1. They did so right after 9/11 and in response specifically to 9/11... and NOT in response to the ongoing terror issue.

2. They were a bit removed from the Middle East - they were from England, etc.

In the past couple of years can we really see any Muslim of note coming out publicly to condemn terrorism and its ties to Islam? If so, they've certainly been few and far between.

Ray,

I would like to know if you think that I am one of the duped people? I think the terror problem is being over-hyped - probably for political gain. But terrorist acts having been on against the United States since the 80's.

Yes the Iranians took the embassy because of our support for the Shah. Okay, but did Kennedy or Johnson or anyone change that since the Shah took over? No, he was allowed to stay in power.

The Ayatollah and Iran waged a jihad agains the Great Satan since then. Why? Once the embassy was taken over and then the staff released after Carter left office, why continue to rage against the US? Because of our lifestyles, as depicted by the press, the movies, the magazines, etc. This is why he labled us the Great Satan. It wasn't because of the Shah -- he was no longer in power. The mullahs were in control in Iran.

The US personnel were killed in the Berlin nightclub because of US morality and lifestyle -- not foreign policy. We support Israsel yes, but that has not been the reason they have given for the strikes/bombings against the United States military personnel overseas.

The embassy bombings done in the late 90's during Carter and the USS Cole were done for the same reason. Not our support of Israel. The radical muslim does not care to strike the United States over that. They join Hamas and Hezbollah to strike out against Israel directly. Lob some rockets over the border from the confines of a mosque and then complain when Israel retaliates. That has been the action against Israel.

If you counter that the embassies and the USS Cole were against the US policies, then it was against Clinton policies, not Bush.

And as far as warning the airports that something was up in the summer/fall of 2001, which ones? When? I am always reminded of the 'little boy who called wolf' and how everyone here reacts when Homeland Security announces a threat today. It is seen first and foremost as a political statement and not a threat.

How does anyone expect the threat system to work when nobody thinks that it anything but Bush sabre rattling again to drum up political gain.

Maybe Ray or AU can develop a system that is better?

During WW2, and all throughout the Cold War, our Presidents never used the threats to induce fear.

Because the threat of nuclear war was real. Terrorism as it's been represented by this Administration isn't. Neither was Iraq a threat. You don't tell the American people about an imminent threat from a country and then, behind the scenes, brainstorm about how you can provoke that same country into war.

Can we end the "War" on Terror? It wouldn't involve much, just acknowledging the fact that we aren't at war, thereby stripping the President of his wartime privileges. Bush has used the fake war as an excuse to do whatever the fuck he wants. That's just wrong.

no kidding...it is time for Dennis to reintroduce the impeachment resolution in Congress again.

Then Nancy & her fellow 'congress' pals can show off their Aipac stripes again:>)

Outside of organized religion, war is the most profitable con man has devised.

From what the last few comments suggest then, previous to Sept 11th, as long as the terrorists struck military people overseas, it doesn't count as an attack on the United States. It doesn't count because it doesn't effect only but a few people in the country and most certainly hardly any in this group.

Those people in the Berlin nightclub were targetted specifically by the terrorists. The USS Cole was targetted specifically. The embassies in Africa were targetted specifically. Why? Because of the number of US military or civilian personnel there.

It is easy to ignore something when it doesn't happen in New York City or Washington D.C. or doesn't happen to immediate family. But the above events happened to US citizens.

Was the outrage over Sept 11th only because the United States was struck at home? And now that outrage has dulled because no subsequent attacks have occurred thankfully.

I don't know if that is because of the lack of terrorist activity or our success in keeping the terrorists over in Iraq, but it is nice that there hasn't been any more attacks here on our soil for sure.

Years after Sept 11th this country is more fractured than ever before. We can no longer talk to one another across the aisle in a friendly manner. Growing up, my politic idol was Everett Dirksen of Illinois. I wasn't from his district, but I was proud to be from the state that he represented.

Today, almost every vote is along party lines, not if it is good or bad for the country. If there are cross over votes, then it is only because of the pork loaded into the bill to get those votes.

Another head in the sand Neville Chamberlain.I wonder how his fellow agent Michael Spahn at Tora Bora felt about this

Sure there were bunkers, OOHRAH

But, our Presidents wasn't telling us to tremble in fear. The Presidents always presented a position of strength.

Bush is a wimp in comparison. Especially since we're dealing with rag tag bands of radicals.

Bush's "Dead or Alive" promise vis a vis Bin Laden was hot air.

Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2008-07-13 06:22 PM | Reply |

With all due respect, to compare the threat of mother russia in her prime to al qaeda and a few splinter cells is nonsensical.

Was there fear mongering during the cold war? Sure, but it just might have been slightly more justified.

In any case, all the u.s. needed was another bogey man to replace the ussr. When communism fell, the big question that was being asked by most of the international community was: how is the u.s. going to justify its military budget, actions, covert ops, etc. now? Well, OBL supplied us all with the answer: what better way to justify the unjustifiable than to prop up the specter of an ever-lasting, global, dangerous and (gasp) religious war?

Most every u.s. citizen gobbled it up, and it is in great part because of gross exaggeration, lies, omissions, etc. etc.

911 was a hit and run, the apex of what AQ could accomplish and that is the reason nothing else has happened on u.s. soil. The u.s. kneejerked into a global war on terror when all you had to do was round up about 20 idiots. Bravo.

"The u.s. kneejerked into a global war on terror when all you had to do was round up about 20 idiots. Bravo."

You realize the 20 guys on the planes were dead, right? I'd say it was pretty important to eliminate their accomplices' ability to do worse. And given that the government of a country was one of those accomplices, it isn't as easy as "rounding people up". Remember, the US was attacked half a dozen times by Al Queda prior to 9/11 and we pretty much ignored them. Made them have to get creative in figuring out a way to get our attention. Had we ignored 9/11, they'd of had to think of something worse.

That said the "global war on terror" is a transparent lie and it is shameful that the country ever bought into it. But your making it sound like this could have been handled by police is equally dishonest.

But without the global war on terriers Lil Bush could not justify his oil grab in Iraq.

Sully,

It could have been handled more effectively with special forces to "eliminate" the masterminds in the middle of the night much more effectively then the current stategery that Lil Bush has so brilliantly fucked the nation with.

It could have been handled more effectively with special forces to "eliminate" the masterminds in the middle of the night much more effectively then the current stategery that Lil Bush has so brilliantly fucked the nation with.

Posted by 726

But then where's the profit for the cronies?

""But your making it sound like this could have been handled by police is equally dishonest."""

Agreed. 20 is a little low, maybe 200.

"""And given that the government of a country was one of those accomplices, it isn't as easy as "rounding people up". """

And that's why we are there in Afghanistan with you. It's a war to topple a government, not a "no-border, no-law, no-reason" carte blanche to justify geo-political and military maneuvers.

"And that's why we are there in Afghanistan with you. It's a war to topple a government, not a "no-border, no-law, no-reason" carte blanche to justify geo-political and military maneuvers."

Agreed. Except Bush has even managed to bastardize our once clear motives in Afghanistan. Now its morphed from taking away the ability of people to attack us yet again to "spreading Demcoracy". This was an inexplicably naive and foolish strategic decision.

Although I will say, there did seem to be a loud international outcry that the US somehow owed it to Afghanis to rebuild their country. Conventional wisdom around the world seemed to be that the only way to make Afghanis happy involved occupying their country for an indefinite period of time. Because "blowing the country up and then leaving without rebuilding is how we got to this position in the first place". As if the Afghanis weren't busy blowing their own country up from the time the Russians left to the time we invaded. Never understood the theory that we owed them anything. If people attack you, you aren't indebted to them. And history proves that Afghanis don't like foreigners occupying their country so the whole idea of nation building there is incredibly ignorant.

"It could have been handled more effectively with special forces to "eliminate" the masterminds in the middle of the night much more effectively then the current stategery that Lil Bush has so brilliantly fucked the nation with."

If that was possible. Reality is that it would be damn hard to drop a handful of guys into that country and tell them to kill terror leaders in their sleep. Rambo is only a movie.

Our strategy early in the war wasn't bad. We just didn't have enough Americans on the ground to close the net at Tora Bora. By that time, Iraq was already on the agenda and Afghanistan was already taking a back seat.

PC MYTH- A SMALL PERCENTAGE ARE EXTREMISTS

TRUTH HURTS

" There are a billion plus Muslims in the Arab world, 90% of whom support Hamas."

Bernard Haykel,professor Islamic studies N.Y. University.2005

" 10-15% of the worlds Muslims support the jihadist agenda"
Daniel Pipes ,terrorism expert

" 50% of the Muslims world wide support jihad"

Kamal Nawash, American moderate Muslim leader. Aug 2004

" I believe that 99% of the Muslim people ANYWHERE in the world want the same thing, a caliphate(Islamic Government) to rule them,

Dr. Imran Waheed, London spokesman for the international "peaceful" jihadist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, May 2005.

And - someone please define to me - Moderate Muslim?

"And - someone please define to me - Moderate Muslim?"
-----------------------
A Muslim who will saw your head off very quickly so as to avoid some pain for the victim

FACT!

How about the weapon of Jihad-"Islamaphobia?"

Always used by dumbass insane libruls to shift

blame away from jihad terrorists.

"dumbass insane libruls "

You sure NAILED THAT one Bub!

FACT!

Just talking from experience, not from my ass or chickenhawk keyboard warrior like most of these people on this site.

If people attack you, you aren't indebted to them. And history proves that Afghanis don't like foreigners occupying their country so the whole idea of nation building there is incredibly ignorant.

Posted by Sully at 2008-07-14 12:42 PM | Reply |

Agreed, though I believe that a hit and run operation would only have change a buck for 4 quarters in terms of the type of government that would have replaced the taliban.

They dont need remote countries to train recruits anymore ,they can us the internet.

PC MYTH- A SMALL PERCENTAGE ARE EXTREMISTS

TRUTH HURTS

" There are a billion plus Muslims in the Arab world, 90% of whom support Hamas."

Bernard Haykel,professor Islamic studies N.Y. University.2005

" 10-15% of the worlds Muslims support the jihadist agenda"
Daniel Pipes ,terrorism expert

" 50% of the Muslims world wide support jihad"

Kamal Nawash, American moderate Muslim leader. Aug 2004

" I believe that 99% of the Muslim people ANYWHERE in the world want the same thing, a caliphate(Islamic Government) to rule them,

Dr. Imran Waheed, London spokesman for the international "peaceful" jihadist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, May 2005.

Double post, double dud...not so controlled after all.

And history proves that Afghanis don't like foreigners occupying their country so the whole idea of nation building there is incredibly ignorant.

Posted by Sully at 2008-07-14 12:42 PM | Reply |

Good Point- Beat the soviets with our help with stingers to shoot down thier flying tank the Hind helicopter.

And 100 years earlier killed most of the British expeditionary force, skinned them and turned them inside out wrapped in thier own skin.

At least we have "minimal" casualties compared to those other 2 failed ventures.

Cant rebut the facts so attack the messenger. And from a criminal named Pancho Villa.

Fact? You've posted the opinion of 4 individuals you fucking tool and you're confusing those opinions with fact. So there ya go: refuted and still retarded.

You want a real criminal? Here ya go:

"Agreed, though I believe that a hit and run operation would only have change a buck for 4 quarters in terms of the type of government that would have replaced the taliban."

The Northern Alliance had been fighting Al Queda for a decade or so. It is possible that they would have allowed terrorists to operate in Afghanistan had we left them in charge but not likely. They also would have let people fly kites and listen to music.

The problem would have been that the NA was made up of several minority groups that suffered under the Pashtun Taliban and they probably would have engaged in ethnic cleansing in order to even up the numbers.

The problem would have been that the NA was made up of several minority groups that suffered under the Pashtun Taliban and they probably would have engaged in ethnic cleansing in order to even up the numbers.

Posted by Sully at 2008-07-14 03:52 PM | Reply |

Agreed. One of those situations where the alliance is only as strong as its enemy is. The splintering would have eventually left a power vacuum, which usually tends to be filled by less than charitable individuals or organizations...back to square one.

Pancho sez-Fact? You've posted the opinion of 4 individuals you fucking tool and you're confusing those opinions with fact. So there ya go: refuted and still retarded.

These pople are experts asshole,some of them Muslims.(traitors huh) Your the tool, you know better than all of them. BWAAAAAAAA,Bwaaaaaaaaa

Another arm chair qb with a hand full of darts.

I'm surprised Bush didn't order the destruction of the Opium poppy fields in Afghanistan. It's been stated by our intelligence services the profits are being funneled to the Taliban to fund their efforts. Why hasn't Bush cut the snake's head off?

Meanwhile, we spend billions on the 'War on Drugs', and yet the largest single source of poppies that make their way into heroin are left untouched in a country we're supposed to control.

Opium grown for medicinal purposes is grown in Turkey and a couple of other places. Tightly controlled and guarded.

Hey Pancho- What the fuck do you think this CIA guy is doing? Giving his opinion. Is he a tool also?

The Swiss have the right idea.

I know from experience that Muslims in general DON'T all want the entire world to be under Islamic rule. I do know from experience that many people, especially conservatives, are Islamaphobes. Keep spewing the same shit, it's still shit each time.

"YOU GET THE GOVERNMENT YOU DESERVE"

You got the SC you deserve.

These pople are experts asshole,some of them Muslims.(traitors huh) Your the tool, you know better than all of them. BWAAAAAAAA,Bwaaaaaaaaa

Another arm chair qb with a hand full of darts.

Posted by controlledpairs at 2008-07-14 05:00 PM | Reply |

Ok. Expert opinion. Still not a fact. I'm almost embarrassed for you. Are you drunk or are you really that much of a stupid fucking tool? Did I ever claim to know more than them? Don't think so. Does their opinion constitute facts? Don't think so either.

____________

Hey Pancho- What the fuck do you think this CIA guy is doing? Giving his opinion. Is he a tool also?

Posted by controlledpairs at 2008-07-14 05:05 PM | Reply |

Almost there albert. You see, even you can state that he is giving his opinion, not presenting facts. Is he a tool? Don't know about him, but my mind and that of others on this thread are made up about you. Actually, you're so far gone I don't even think you can claim the intelligence of a tool.

I grew up with 1500 nukes pointed at my head. Fuck the terrorists.

"I grew up with 1500 nukes pointed at my head. Fuck the terrorists."

Posted by igmoramus

Have a beer on me.
And not a Bud, either.

I did think the "Duck and cover" stuff was a bit silly, though.