156 replies to this topic

[bloodmoon]

so if this war is against terrorists and osama, then why didnt we actually go after him and keep going after him? instead we just jumped right to sadam, bush flew osamas family out of the country, but arrests his driver, that dosent make sence to me in the least.

1000 dead americans is terrable, 7000 wounded, alot of which have lost limbs is terrable, but what about the 11000 innocent people that died in the bombing and fighting, who were just living their lives when all of a sudden BOOM!!!
what about their families, Iraqi men women and children dead...

i think if sadam is such a terrable person, then why didnt we kill him when we had the chance, cause once he left the oil alone bush sr. didnt really care anymore.

also, does anyone know how much money bush is making off of this war? i would sure like to know...

Edited by bloodmoon, 09 September 2004 - 09:32 PM.

[Lottie]

Lottie, I couldn't agree with you more. You took my statement out of context. The quote above was my reply to Kismit.
Kismit stated: "Shouldn't George Bush if he is trully interested in defending us all against terrorist attack be putting more resourses into these other events?" and "I believe George really needs to appear to be helping out particularly in Beslan , to avoid what could become an international incident."

My response, as noted, was that it isn't only up to the U.S., but the global community as a whole.

Oh yes I see, apologies...and I agree with you also now the light is back on.

[Lottie]

i think if sadam is such a terrable person, then why didnt we kill him when we had the chance, cause once he left the oil alone bush sr. didnt really care anymore.

Sadam is an evil person. One of the reasons why Sadam got away with this is because of the Human Rights laws. Other countries cannot just go into a country and take out a Leader because it wants to. There needs to be a good reason

[Homer]

What a great membership we have here. I have been debating this literally for years on this forum. Ask any of the old timers like Kismit, Kira, MC and others, and we remember discussions real heated, where members were actually insulting each other. There were many locked threads in those days.
I appreciate the way we have our differences, but we also respect each other enough to not take things personally

[Michelle]

Homer, it's really funny (for lack of a better word) but before I let myself be known I hovered in the background. I went into the archives and read about who I was getting mixed up with. It's really interesting what was said before and after 9/11.

[joc]

Does the IRA not count no????

Wun,

On one hand terrorism = terrorism no matter who the participants are or what their motives are.  On the other hand the IRA did not have as an agenda, the total destruction and breakdown of the entire civilized world.  As I have stated before and was poo-pooed for it, this is a world war.  The Islamic Terrorists are not the IRA and I think when Babs talks about terrorism she is exclusively speaking of it in the context of the Islamic Fundamentalists.  What the big picture is that we see you on the left not getting, is that it is in fact a World War.  Not countries against countries but a War on the World, being waged against the World.  

joc

[PolkaTulk]

too bad

*sighs*

Edited by Tull, 09 September 2004 - 11:05 PM.

[Kismit]

Thank-you Homer , we have been arguing this for years  haven't we   And I don't believe that  ever in that time , you stooped low enough to insult any-one . Your posts are allways informative and posted from the point of view of someone who does know what they are talking about .

  And thank-you for the information about the Russian borders I was unaware of that , it makes a little more sense now,  Still I would have expected atleast condemnation or a press release of some sort , he is after all promoting himself as the leader in the war against terrorism .

[bathory]

so if this war is against terrorists and osama, then why didnt we actually go after him and keep going after him? instead we just jumped right to sadam, bush flew osamas family out of the country, but arrests his driver, that dosent make sence to me in the least.

i think if sadam is such a terrable person, then why didnt we kill him when we had the chance, cause once he left the oil alone bush sr. didnt really care anymore.

what a bunch of misinformed rubbish

1) Osama isn't the only terrorist out there, he's just a figurehead, do you think if/when the US or whoever captures Osama, islamist terrorism will suddenly stop?
2) Bush didn't fly the bin laden family out of the country, typical Moorist garbage. The Bin Ladens (and other Saudi nationals) were all rounded up under the request of the Saudi Government and with the permission of Richard Clarke, the order came from him, it didn't go any higher. Now, the FBI got the oppurtunity to question/interrogate everyone they wanted, no problems there. After airspace was opened, they Bin Ladens/Saudis left, the only special treatment they got was that they were rounded up and flown around while airspace was closed, they however didn't leave the country until airspace was opened. 9/11 Report thanks.

Because there are laws in place that don't allow for the american government to just ''kill" a head of state, that said, killing Saddam would have accomplished nothing, Uday and Qusai would have loved the oppurtunity to take the reigns..

cause once he left the oil alone bush sr. didnt really care anymore.

nah that was the UN, Bush Snr wanted to go in.

[Lottie]

cause once he left the oil alone bush sr. didnt really care anymore.

Its not to do with that. I have already  explained and so has Bathroy that you cannot just go into a country and take out its leader. There are laws that protect this from happening.

[wunarmdscissor]

Wun,

On one hand terrorism = terrorism no matter who the participants are or what their motives are. On the other hand the IRA did not have as an agenda, the total destruction and breakdown of the entire civilized world. As I have stated before and was poo-pooed for it, this is a world war. The Islamic Terrorists are not the IRA and I think when Babs talks about terrorism she is exclusively speaking of it in the context of the Islamic Fundamentalists. What the big picture is that we see you on the left not getting, is that it is in fact a World War. Not countries against countries but a War on the World, being waged against the World.

joc

No the IRA's agenda was just the total and complete destruction of the UK.

The IRA ARE religious fundamentalists.

DOnt you know that??

Go tell that to the people of Omagh Joc and the families of the thousands of dead all around my coutnry,

could it be that in the end my government sorted the problem out a little better than the war on terrorism.

The way its percievd in my country and many accross europe is America wasnt too bothered about The Irish troubles (in fact in New york especially , most of the IRA's funding came from america, is america gonna weed out those sponsors of terror???), America never mentioned much about Basque seperatism didit?, no it only became a War on terroism when america got attacked. Then people like Babs get all high and mighty and dare to lecture US on terrorists, as if we have never experienced it before.

Terrorism is terrorism, joc you clearly havent read mcuh if anything regarding the Troubles in  ireland, so dont lecture me on that type of terrorism.

I mean babs has the audacity to claim that "non-islamic" country's claimed america deserved it... I mean we all know shes talking about europeans , i have never met a soul who declared that america got what it deserved, it seems she can just make things up to satisfy her clear hatred towards us.

[joc]

I mean babs has the audacity to claim that "non-islamic" country's claimed america deserved it... I mean we all know shes talking about europeans , i have never met a soul who declared that america got what it deserved, it seems she can just make things up to satisfy her clear hatred towards us.

I don't know what Babs is refering to but I do know one American who has made such claims.  His name is Bill Clinton.

Terrorism is terrorism, joc you clearly havent read mcuh if anything regarding the Troubles in ireland, so dont lecture me on that type of terrorism.

I said: On one hand terrorism = terrorism no matter who the participants are or what their motives are.

The 'fundamentalist' issues at stake in the UK were protestant vs. catholic were they not?  This brand of 'terrorism' is different.  That is all I am saying.  Different agenda and the stakes are everything.

[wunarmdscissor]

The 'fundamentalist' issues at stake in the UK were protestant vs. catholic were they not? This brand of 'terrorism' is different. That is all I am saying. Different agenda and the stakes are everything.

How s that different???

It wasnt as simple as just protestants vrs catholic , but youve obviously never experienced this type of sectarian bigotry, let me tell you its just as funbdamental and theres just as much hatred involved as there is with islamic fundamentalists, the only difference is the Irish and british people would never support the barbaric acts like beheading and killing schoolchildren that the islamic world seems to condone.

The terrorists hatred is ust as pure but tehy still need the support of their people.

Joc seeing as you dont seem to have much information on this issue take it form someone who has lived through it and lives ina sectarian divided country just bow, its just as bad and there is as much hatred.

[Talon]

True wun, very true

[Lottie]

Yes, this is far to true. Wun you have described this well.