Hello all, I am new to this site, but would like to express my views on certain subjects and how they may in fact really be just a case of over imagination. Before I write however may I press to you that I in fact have always believed in a NWO, ET's, 9/11 being a conspiracy and the like. I just like to see things from other perspectives in order to gather what I believe to be personal evidence.

Firstly, in the case of the Aids virus and how it was apparently used by the NWO in order to wipe out the coloured civilisation. (This is one conspiracy I do not believe and do wish to try and disprove) Why can people not understand that our primal instincts to copulate with each other is the reason for the spread of aids in third world countries? Is our race so egotistical that it cannot grasp a well known flaw in our very existence? Aids, whether labratory made or a natural virus, spread throughout the world, due to ignorance of contraception, or in the case of third world countries, unaffordable contraception and a belief that the virus is curable through sleeping with a virgin. For every intelligent man or woman in the world there will always be ignorant people. I cannot say, (read as, didn't do the research) whether the Aids virus was created in a lab, or if it is a natural virus, but if it was from a lab, surely it was a byproduct of something they were working on.

The 9/11 conspiracy theorists always make a point that the trade centres destruction was the catalyst for a war on terror which many believe is for oil and nothing else. (I love how when it happened people took the time to look for prophesies in Wingdings.) In the twin towers there were real people, with real families. Why would a civilised government kill all them people in order to risk even more for oil, which in all fairness Iraq, and Afghanistan weren't exactly keeping for themselves anyway, yes they had the monopoly on it, but in the long run there is no benefit for America or England, or any other nation that takes part in these wars. This is another basic flaw of Humanity, why is it that people cannot understand that the middle east, through happenings throughout history, as well as a disregard for there beliefs in general, hate the West. Maybe that is why the 9/11 terrorist attacks took place (Or it could be that Osama Bin Laden knowing he was on dialasis and wouldn't last much longer agreed to help Mr. Bush to start the war on terror).

Humans have always said, why are we so egotistical that we believe we are the only beings of greater intelligence out there in the vast Universe? To that, for the purpose of debate, what makes us so egotistical that we believe they would come visit us? I mean the Universe is huge, theres no scientific proof of ETs, and there is no guarantee that the government have anything of ET origin. It is all just speculation.

Thats my post over, I probably have just stated a whole load of obviousness there, but like I say I am new here and for he record believe in a lot of Conspiracies. Thankyou for your time.

Hello.

As far as 9/11 goes, and "Why would a civilised government kill all them people in order to risk even more for oil", I think the usual answer to that seems to be that either Bush, and/or the US goverment, or whatever shadowy organisation is the real power behind the front put up by Bush and the US government, are evil, or power crazed, or just plain indifferent to however many people suffer as a result of their actions. Not saying that that's a theory I necessarily agree with (yet), but that seems to be what they generally say. As for whether it was just about oil; Iraq was, i think, last time I looked, about 6th on the list of oil suppliers to the US, but I think there's probably a case for arguing that, while oil was a consideration, it was more about a secure base in the middle east from where Syria, Iran, and so on, could be threatened, given that Saudi Arabia is not exactly a 100% trustworthy ally. And i don't think you can underestimate the power of the grudge, and the Bush family's grudge against Saddam, who they nurtured as an ally and who then turned on them.

I totally agree with you, I will share my positive views when the topics come up. I am just basically trying to say how sometimes we do sound like loons to people who do not understand, or cannot see.

Just as a quick response regarding real people with real families dying on 9/11 (along with everyone else that did) - the thing is, history has shown us leaders in the past have done this to their own people. Why should one think it'd be so impossible to have it happening now? Look at how many troops in Iraq have died for this "War on Terror". Their real people with real families too, yet their sitting in Iraq, many of them dying while there, all to fight a war that the majority of people are sick and tired of. George Bush has his own agenda, had it before he became President, and clearly doesn't give a damn what the people want.

As I have said before, if George Bush had his way, he'd run this country for as long as he lives or until old age forced him aside and he would keep this "War on Terror" going for at least another 20 years or so. It's sick.

This war is suppossed to make Americans safer. Quite frankly, I feel the least safe about living in America then I ever have before. We never had to deal with the media pumping "terror" and terrorists down are throats before. Now they try filling everyones head with fear about it. It's a bit much in my opinion.

couldn't help but notice this..


you seem to be saying that only people in 3rd world countries have 'primal urges'


our race..? lemme guess.. you're 'white'?


well.. single out the 3rd world folks again..


anyone else see it now?


by-product?? LMAO..

i'd hate to be your next door neighbour

He did mean human race when he said race, but I DO see the rest.

About the aids thing, anyone watch "Dave chappelle, live at the filmore?" He said something I had always thought. I doubt I could repeat the actual joke here. But he was basically saying:

scientists still think Aids started when someone (had sex) with a monkey. Word? Is that the best they can come up with? If you're (having sex) with monkeys you're out of the human (*&$$%) game for good. It's a FIRM decision. You don't get monkey (*&$$%) on tuesday, and call up charlene on wednesday. Your friends call you up to go to the club, "nahh, I'm going to stay home with my monkey. You know how long it took me to train this monkey to (#$%^ %^ #$%^) without (hurting) it?" And it's not like monkeys want to be (had). You know how hard it would be to catch a monkey, let alone to ($&#^) it?


anyway I think I went far enough with that one. He was saying what I have always thought about that story. I mean really? Seriously? Monkeys?

Not sure about ETs.
I bleieve 9/11 was an inside job.

-Muddy

Nuff said.

Except maybe that I disagree with Unit's interpretation of Premonition's post. The latter basically wrote: we really like sex, HIV spreads through sexual intercourse, contraception can help prevent that from happening, for various reasons contraception often isn't widely available or used in third world countries, and because of this HIV has been spreading in third world countries. Something wrong with this chain of thought?

Dunno man, I see it plain as day. The corporations call all the shots, they control media via advertising, they control the nominees of the political parties. Its that perverse second meaning of the golden rule... them that got the gold, makes the rules.

I'm looking down to the South (you dudes in the states) and I'm looking at both the popularity of your President which is much the lowest approval rating of all time. Looking at how your media just masks everything (what is no longer seen does not exist).

And I'm just wondering what kind of drugs are they using on you guys to keep you all subservient?
If it was the 60's you would have stormed the gates and took back the Government, fix the economy, stop illegal aliens, get your buts back into defeating the Taliban/Al queda instead of following some Oil-baron dictators dream.

seriously, what drugs are they feeding you guys? why are you letting this happen to what was once a great country?

Interesting perspectives...



Not American leaders....



People tend to get tired of war. Most, however, understand that war...especially this war, is essential for the safety and security of free people everywhere...and certainly in the United States...since the enemy attacked us here as if we were in the toilet with our pants down....




President Bush has had a hard time with his way...however, to think his agenda involves a desire to run the country until old age forces him out of office and that he wants the war on terror to go on for another 20 years is hokum.

He knows full well he had 8 possible years, and when he took office , he certainly wasn't thinking about terrorists attacking the United States 8 months later.



And because terrorism is a reality now (as if it wasn't before), and that we slept through the warning signs for years prior to Bush...you think that the fact that we're being fed a lot of info about the prevalent topic in the world today, something that must be dealt with forcefully and decisively, is a problem?

You're scared about that, and thus, it should go away?

What's a little much is allowing 3000 American civilians to be killed by 19 towel headed freaks who followed a skewed, radical religious ideology of hatred and intolerance, and then tiring of the effort being waged against the most insidious and unusual enemy anyone's ever fought--an enemy that hides behind civilians, which doesn't have a country affiliation, which wears no uniform, which attacks in cowardly fashion, which commits heinous acts of murder and torture against utterly defenseless people and which broadcasts these acts on TV?

What's a little much is the spineless crap spewed by people who are too gutless to continue what must continue, people who think that losing 4000 troops in 5 years of involvement is somehow unbelievable when they don't realize that in the 4 years of WW2, we lost over 400,000 Americans in that short time span! A hundred times as many in less time!

...and this illustrates the kicker here. The emphasis on the number of American dead by the mainstream media is in fact an insidious little device, used to bolster the bleeding hearts into thinking that those of us who tell it like it is (as above) are heartless, war-mongering individuals who don't care about the deaths of 4000 American troops. Utter B.S. of course...when you stand along the side of the road at attention, and salute the flag draped coffin of a young American soldier killed in Iraq...and have to listen to morons protesting in the distance while a family grieves, then you can tell me about it. The death of any American soldier is tragic...from my viewpoint, whether or not you knew him or her. But I know, as do all the troops, that this is what they willingly risk for the freedom, safety and security of America.

What's a little much is listening to Congressmen and Senators who seem to have forgotten, if they ever actually knew, what is required in a war, and who abjectly lie about our troops, and say things that equate our American troops to Hitler's, and accuse them of atrocities, and of raping and terrorizing innocent civilians in the dead of night (thank you Murtha and Kerry...utterly shameful individuals). These people, and many like them, have undermined the men and women who are there, fighting this fight...young people who risk their lives every day (and, who don't like these bozos!). We actually have a PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE running around out there today who actually impuned the integrity of the Commanding General of U.S. Forces in the theater and accused him of lying in a public forum!

Here's a man who's military record is unimpeachable, who holds a PhD, who is a full general who's been in the military since before Hillary Clinton even met Bill Clinton, and who has been demonstrably successful in his Iraq theatre endeavors...and she calls him a liar...


That's all a little much in my view.

Yes, unfortunately our race is... that is the nail right on the head...



Depends on how you look at it, what makes your ego assume they weren't here from the very beginning, a higher intelligence "playing god" with early man, r******ing his mental capacities maybe?
It makes more sense than you think... and i have my proof right below.

These are real images, and it is your concern whether you choose to think it is by chance, or by design.
Some interesting things to think about...
Giza from space...
there are pyramids all around the world, built by people's who had no historical records of ever having contacted, the oldest pyramid is actually not even in Egypt either, it was discovered recently in bosnia...
Oldest pyramid
What is a pyramid then? it is a "stargate". Giza is aligned to orions belt, it is also aligned to the sun, moon, and earth, acting as both clock, calendar, and device for communication with extra-terrestrial and extra-dimensional beings... Ghost, spirit, all that.

Something to note, ancient and even pre-"modern" world idea's still incorporated spirituality at their root. This is not the case today, as alchemy shed these idea's and became chemistry.

the real shocker is this famous alchemaical image...




Hard to see, but the point is perspective. in the real world the point is always perspective, in this case, it is a representation of what you would see...
from inside or overhead a pyramid. The lines of perspective, that make the X that is "the box".



Oh yes, thats what guantanamo was all about... the East hating the West... The picture's that were shown to the rest of the world are far worse than those shown to the american public, who should be hated for letting their government get away with so much BS. Afghanistan... Opium, Iraq... Oil. And as far as throughout history, the Palestinians and Jews have been fighting forever, and America is backing Israel because...

...Well ill leave that one to this link



Whats a little much is swallowing that two of the hijackers passports were found after the planes EXPLODED... ON THE STREET. AND ONE GUY WAS ALIVE.
Then ofcourse both of the towers structure's suspiciously give out one after another... then WTC7... then ofcourse the 10 by 20 foot "hole" in shanksville that had a plane "underneath"(?!?!??) the ground and then later vaporized... Ofcourse the pentagon also, that wouldn't release the tapes that the CIA had confiscated until a FOIA(Freedom of Information Act) was filed and they released some really crappy, obviously edited crappy footage...

The above sounds more like america than "terrorists", besides anyone can labeled a "terrorist", because the truth is very far from what is believed to be the truth by the masses...

as Lincoln said it(because he had experience...) "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you cant fool all the people all the time. But in all reality they have fooled far more than the majority ever should have been...

American or not, the point is it has been proven people are capable of it. And yes, American leaders have done things to harm their own people. Such as treating unwilling and unknowing Americans as if they were nothing more than lab rats while they erased their brain and then used it for their own experiments.



There was prior knowledge this was going to happen. The government did nothing to stop it. Then went and used it as propoganda in order to launch this absurd war which they had planned before 9/11 to begin with.

Also, I think you are misinformed with your opinion that most people understand war, and the degree to which it is essential in order to provide for the safety and security of people.



He was going to find a way to go to war with Iraq during his tenure before 9/11 ever happened. You choose not to realize that fact.

As for how long Bush would like to run the country, it is not hokum at all. The only reason he'll be in for 8 years is because that is the maximum amount of time he is allowed to be President of the United States, hence the reason he made sure to waste little time in getting started with his agenda as President.

I have very little doubt, that if he could, he would most certainly like to be President for the next 4 years and watch over this war as Commander in Chief. Then if he could, another 4 years after that, and so on and so on.



What I'm scared of is that this war has only made the United States more vulnerable than it was prior to it. Like I said, the government knew 9/11 was coming. They chose not to do what was needed to make certain it didn't. It wasn't a matter of sleeping through the warnings, it was a matter of flat out ignoring them and waiting for disaster to strike.

As you stated, terrorism was an issue before 9/11. This war isn't going to accomplish much in making it disappear throughout the world. It will always be there. That's why this war is ridiculous. We aren't going to be able to make it go away.

Now that this one unfortunate event happened (again, keep in mind it was allowed to happen, it isn't some random thing that the government knew nothing about) the propaganda machine is in full affect. It's a shame.

Terrorism is no different now than it had already been for decades. The only difference now is that they constantly fill our heads with it more than they ever did before. It's more like a fear tactic that anything else.



Wow, I'm impressed. It sounds like you got the George Dubya talk down to a tee with that little bit there.

All that stuff is a bunch of garbage. That's not to say it isn't true, but it is no more true than it has always been. Now it is simply pumped up more. It's thrown in your face constantly as if it's suddenly gotten worse because they "got us". Simply another part of progressing with the agenda at hand.



No, what's a little much is your thoughts of people who have a different perspective of things then you do.

Let's see, maybe if I can make more deragotory comments about those who don't agree with me it will make my opinion about things more correct than theirs - sorry, but it doesn't work that way. You go ahead and keep calling those "types of people" spineless and gutless though.

Talking about how many troops died in WW2 or any other war has nothing to do with this.



Again, simply because you feel more strongly about your opinion than you do about others doesn't make it anymore correct. It doesn't make you right in your assumption that you are the one really "telling it like it is" either. And it certainly doesn't make those that disagree with you morons, gutless, or spineless. But I tend to notice you like to belittle people simply because they don't agree with your point of view. Not the approach I would take, but it seems you don't know any other way of doing it.



So people in the government are doing this, yet because you disagree with them and side with Bush, they are all the crazy ones?

Tell me, what has George Bush ever done that makes you think he has any better clue as to what war is about?

Furthermore, I tend to think what happened at Abu Ghraib has more to do with the negative image of our troops than anything Kerry or others have said.



Again, this has nothing to do with my comments. I'm certainly not defending the Clinton's about anything they've done - neither Bill nor Hillary. Despite what you might be thinking, I am not a supporter of either of them.




I think I picked up on that by the fact you resorted to insults in making comments about others who don't agree with your point of view.

Yet isn't American military presence in the Middle East more or less the reason for al-Qaeda's existence -- and still a big help when it comes to convincing idealistic, hot-headed and misguided muslim youth to join their ranks in a fight against an invader that (as it must seem to them) seeks to destroy their way of life?

ok, I can see that.

-Muddy

No, not at all. Al Qaeda existed long before American military presence at its current levels was present.
The reason for their existence has to do with promoting their own skewed pseudo-religious agenda, which is perversion and which involves the very dangerous idea of making the planet the kingdom of Allah...and of course implying death to ALL infidels, where ever they may be and who ever they may be.



I see what you're saying here.

American military presence in the Middle East has drawn them out of the woodwork indeed. It has brought the battle ground to where we are...which is over there. However, I think it is slightly off beat to think that Al Qaeda exists because of Americans (or Brits, or any other coalition forces who are enjoined in the battle).

Personally, I think we brought the battle to them, which is a hack of a lot better than having them continue to attempt to bring it to us here...or anywhere else. It has allowed us to kill them in better than a 5:1 ratio on their turf.

Was it not Pa Bush who s*&t on Saddam by making him think it was ok to go into Kuwait?

You said this...



Because people are capable of it is not evidence of American leaders doing so. What's implicit in your statement is rather obvious.



And there you have it. Yes, of course, we had prior knowledge that something as untenable as 19 hijackers absconding with 4 U.S. airliners and either ramming, or attempting to ram them into the WTC towers, and other targets...?

What there was knowledge of, compartmentalized and un-shared, were terrorist activities, possible plans for this, that or the other thing. No one was communicating with anyone else, and no one took it seriously enough...and that state of affairs was full-blown during the Clinton administration.



I would like to think that most people understand that peace in the modern world is only ever obtained by force. It's difficult to say, and personally, I wish it could be another way, but facts are facts.





Not at all. Firstly, it's not a confirmed fact. However, I wouldn't be surprized if there was a concerted effort to pay attention to Hussein, with an careful eye toward doing something about him if any evidence or intel arose which confirmed, for the poweres that be, that he was in fact developing WMD (again). The factsa about that are well understood.



Duh.
Every President fully realizes this. His agenda as President was radically altered by 9-11-01. The Bush administration became spring loaded to do something about the Middle East, Hussein, and Terrorism 8 months after it took office. That's their job.

If your asking whether an invasion of Iraq might have taken place with or without 9-11, I personally think so...




I can't imagine any modern President wanting the job for more than two terms...especially a war time President. President Bush has taken pretty good care of himself in his two terms, but the strain is immense, especially for him. I wouldn't want the job to begin with!





I cannot see how we're more vulnerable.

But, I'll agree in principal with the rest of this paragraph (save that we actually knew 9-11-01 was coming as it did...). We as a country had been asleep for several decades, and woke up...for the most part on September 11, 2001. I cannot completely agree with ignorance of concrete warnings...I think of it as not understanding, or in many cases not fully knowing about the warning signs in a concrete and universal fashion.

It's very easy in 20:20 hindsight to make statements such as yours. It should've been obvious! The fact is, it wasn't. What one agency had, another didn't. The President probably didn't have anything completely concrete at all. Of course, everything changed on a September morn....




That smacks of defeatism, which unfortunately is a common far left-wing position these days (this isn't to say you're far left, it's just an observation of the common left-wing paradigm, which would have us accept defeat).

It was indeed an issue prior to 9-11-01. Today, it is a fully understood issue. We were attacked by these crazys. You're calling this war insane...because it's difficult, and more unique than any we have ever engaged in?
We cannot win it...make it go away?

When America has ever collectively held such a position I don't know. And I'm hoping we never, ever do.

If we can't root out and kill a bunch of pseudo-religious fanatics to the point of rendering them a non-factor, then we are a failure. America has never been a failure.





?

And you're not afraid of the threat of terrorism?
I've got to wonder if you've watched films of people who left their families a couple hours before, jumping 800 feet to their deaths from the upper floors of a high-rise building, because that was preferable to burning to death?

If that wasn't the ultimate fear tactic, the ultimate impetus to do something about it...I don't know what was.
Perhaps I should post grotesque photos I have of bosy parts lying in New York City streets...puddles of blood with a foot...still in a shoe lying in it???

For Christ's sake, Left...

Give up...after that?

...I'm not posting any such thing. Don't worry. I'm fully aware than many Americans still think it's inappropriate to see films of 9-11 in NYC, because they're not yet ready for that...I wonder sometimes when they'll be ready to actually see the gory details of why we're doing what we're doing.



.

With all due respect, left...can the W talk.
You sit there and say you agree with with it, and call it a bunch of garbage...at the same time?

Of course it's the same as it ever was. We just woke up to the seriousness of it, and you think because some media is pumping it into you (and I don't know who that is, since the mainstream media is only stressing the American deaths in the war, and never talks about the threat we face to any extent, or the 5:1 ratio of terrorist deaths to our own, or speaks to the obvious successes we have attained of recent date...that's not news, apparently).

It DID SUDDENLY GET WORSE...or I should say, IT GOT REAL, because THEY GOT US. What is so difficult to understand about that?





When you want to give up...to accept defeat, to say that we cannot win, and you're an American...well, it's not an insult to describe that as spineless and gutless. It's a fact. Ask a soldier, who's volunteered to go to Iraq...who does several tours...who has lost a leg and his only desire is to get back to his men!

Talk to groups of young Marines, as I have, about their feelings (buy them a few drinks while you're at it....). You'll see young people who are Americans.



It has everything to do with it. It illustrates just how far we've come...or how far we've descended as a nation to compare the reality of WW2 with the reality of the war on terror.

When we lost 400,000 people in 4 years from 1941 to 1945, and we've lost 4000 men and women in the 5 years of this war on terror, and we compare the can do, we must and will win attitude of America as a whole in that generration with the run away because we can't win attitude that seems to be growing in America today...it's a sad statement for our character.


275 men a DAY in the 1940s....to almost 1100 enemy killed per day. And we can win, and we will win was the attitude.
2 men a day in the 2000s...to the 10 enemy killed per day and we can't win and we should bail???

What's happening here?





Left...with all due respect, America is a place where opinions are permitted, and expression is allowed.
But if you think that such opinions are simply going to be accepted without a rebuttal by someone who knows what is going on, and who clearly sees the trouble this country is in on many fronts today, you are mistaken.

When I see someone expressing nothing but defeatism in the face of a difficult problem, I'm going to say something, because those opinions are what the problem really is in this country.

If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. We have no choice but to win. There is no other equiitable or satisfactory solution, and running away from it is not an option.

JFK once said, "When the going gets tough, the tough get going."
That wasn't meant to be interpreted as "When the going gets tough, we give up."


"Tell me, what has George Bush ever done that makes you think he has any better clue as to what war is about?"

Than who?
President Bush has surrounded himself with exceedingly capable military people, and has appointed exceedingly qualified and capable field commanders, like Gen. Petraus, who has attained success, who knows what he's talking about, and who is listened to by a President who knows who he needs to listen to.

"Furthermore, I tend to think what happened at Abu Ghraib has more to do with the negative image of our troops than anything Kerry or others have said."

And THAT'S because of the media.
It was a minor event...not torture, just stupidity among a few who are now suffering the penalty...Kerry was accusing American soldiers of atrocities in the 1970s...none of which was shown to be anything but a fabrication. He's not credible, and his recent statements about American soldiers make him virtually mad...but you see, he's allowed to be a moron. It's America. And Murtha's the same...entitled to his opinion, but also entitled to receive the wrath of those murderous hitler like criminals that serve in our military today...both of them are disgraces.

Fortunately, I don't think Kerry's or Murtha's stupid comments have an effect on the majority of Americans...at least I hope not.





"Again, this has nothing to do with my comments. I'm certainly not defending the Clinton's about anything they've done - neither Bill nor Hillary. Despite what you might be thinking, I am not a supporter of either of them."


Nor am I. Nor could I support Obama, nor am I a huge fan of McCain in several key areas.

(We long ago lost the best possible candidates for the 2008 Presidential race)

And truth be known, I disagree with many of President Bush's positions as well. I do not, however, disagree with his position on terror. He's done a good job in many areas, and not so great in others. Perfection is largely an illusion, of course.

"I think I picked up on that by the fact you resorted to insults in making comments about others who don't agree with your point of view."

If the opposing point of view is , "Give up and bail..." then expect commentary...not insults, just telling it like it is, or rather, like it's always been in the America I grew up in....

Again, if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

If you want to run away...you can expect to be called a coward. Further, I didn't call you that, I was adressing people as a whole who think that way, and don't understand that Americans don't run away from a challenge.

You know Zaus, 99% of what you post doesn't actually deserve comment...

This one is part of that 99%...

No offense intended but to be blunt, it seems to me that you're unaware of how certain criminal elements in control of society right now will do anything it takes to get their money or agenda or both, in place. They're fascinated by eugenics studies and I think they believe that by eliminating those they feel to be lower-class, that it will make the overrall average higher, thus speeding up the evolutionary process that they obviously whole-heartedly believe in. And about the AIDS thing, perhaps you should watch the video "In Lies We Trust", it has footage of the guy who basically invented and spread the AIDS virus with the why and how, so on so forth.

Sometime inbetween then (the 1940s) and now, TPTB decided to only count the troops killed "in country" in the death toll, so they don't count the many thousands who got shrapnel in their bodies and died on the flight back to the U.S. So, just over 4,000 have died in country true, but the real death count of our troops is actually around 40,000 from what I've heard. And the whole "can do" attitude is a bit ridiculous when brought into a situation of war, because the central bankers have been funding both sides of every war, and playing both sides against the middle (casualty total) for too long now, see the book "War is a Racket" to see how a very decorated U.S. Marine agrees with my point, and the only "can do" attitude I think we need about it is that we can do without it. Support our troops by letting them know, that they have more options than to prostitute themselves for cash, by joining the military. Just my opinion.

What is meant by the statement is simply what I said, and that is that history has taught us leaders are capable of doing what would otherwise be considered unfathomable.

And as I also stated, yes American leaders have done things that have harmed their own people.



And there we have what? Is that meant as sarcasm?

As for the rest of that comment, yes, we did have knowledge prior to 9/11 that terrorists were planning on hijacking planes and had WTC 1 & 2, along with other sites, as their targets. Are you claiming that is not the case? If you are then you are incorrect in your assessment.



What there was knowledge of is what happened on 9/11. I don't know why you are trying to spin it another way.

They knew terrorists had plans of hijacking planes and using them as if they were missiles to destroy the WTC and other targets. Your comments imply that that was not the case, when in fact it is.



That is not a fact. And no, most people don't believe what you claim they should "understand". A lot of people think the complete opposite and think that others should understand their point of view.



You mean the WMDs that didn't exist and have never been found?

Furthermore, why was Osama Bin Laden pinpointed as the mastermind of 9/11, yet George Bush decides to target Iraq and Saddam Hussein instead?

It should be obvious to most now that 9/11 was used as a reason for invading Iraq. It was a misguided representation to the American people as to why we went in there. Especially when you realize the plan by George Bush was to invade Iraq at some point during his term before 9/11 ever happened.



Again, it was their intent to do those things before 9/11 ever happened. They used the event as if it was the sole reason they decided to go there when that in fact, was not the case. It was a misrepresentation of the truth, and the people of America deserve better than that.



And so do I.



Hell, I don't know why anyone would ever really want the job of President other than the power you get by obtaining the title.

I also disagree with your comments about a war time President not wanting to serve more than two terms. At least not for a President that is the one who started the war to begin with. I think George Bush would love nothing more than to remain President throughout the length of this war so that he could call all the shots.



Because people hate us even more than they already did. What's going to happen once we are no longer a presence in Iraq?



I disagree. I think there was more than enough information that should have made it very clear what was being planned. The fact they lied about it aftwerwards by claiming they had no idea planes would have, or could have been used as missiles and flown into the Twin Towers only makes them look more guilty. They knew.



Well, I'd say thats pretty damn embarressing then for the United States, wouldn't you?



That's the thing, this defeatism stuff is nonsense. Stating the war was ridiculous to begin with doesn't make one what you try to portray them as. I also think this labeling people in general as far right wing, left wing, republican, or democrat is a bunch of baloney too. People have different opinions, this labeling people only leads to what normally amounts to name calling and insults and straying from what the real topic should be focused on.



The war is insane because we don't even know who the hell the enemy is. Oh wait, it's the terrorists. Well where are we going to get them all? How are we going to stop them? Do you think their just going to disappear all the sudden never to reel their ugly face again.

The reason I think this war is absurd is because it could go on forever. If you are going to declare a war on terror you can just keep attacking anyone you feel poses a threat against the United States.

Tell me, since you think I have a defeatist attitude, when will this war be won? What is the goal we want to accomplish where we can than declare victory?

Terrorism is always going to exist unfortunately, and therefore I find it nearly impossible to ever really declare victory in regards to this war.

Furthermore, when did rebuilding Iraq become a part of the plan? It isn't what the American people were informed was going to happen.

Hey, I don't think of America as a failure, but if you think we are going to be capable of rooting out all the "pseudo-religious fanatics to the point of rendering them a non-factor" then I think you are going to be mighty disappointed when this war happens to end.

Either that, or you must be someone that thinks this war is worth being a never ending pursuit, because terrorism is never going to be fully wiped out. And that is not a defeatist attitude, it is simply the unfortunate reality of the world today.



I'm well aware of such footage and the death that took place in New York on 9/11. If you think you feel any more strongly about the unfortunate events of that day than I do, you are mistaken.



Why would you even state such things? You say it as if one, I don't realize it happened, and that two, by realizing it happened it would suddenly change my view points. I already realize what happened. I just think the war is misguided and started out by focusing in the wrong spot to begin with. I think it's a big clusterf*ck at the moment.

I'm not saying we didn't have reason to take action. I'm saying the action that was taken didn't and doesn't make sense. Terrorists attack us so we decide we're going to rebuild Iraq?

The garbage is how they pump it into our heads nonstop as if I'm gonna have a suicide bomber take me out everytime I step outside.

Do you remember that ridiculous colored bar they use to show on TV after 9/11 letting us know what the "state of terror" was? What kinda joke was that? It was a fear tactic - "Hey everybody, be very afraid, the boogy man just might be coming to get you." "Here's a little colored bar on your television set just to let you know how high of a state of terror we are in this morning."

Give me a break. Did we really need that? Did it accomplish anything? No, it was just a bunch a BS to keep everyone reminded of the fact terrorist exists in the world, as if the chances of them getting us on one day are any higher then they are for the next.

I use to listen to the loacal sports talk radio station and end up hearing the mayor of the city coming on with commercials on a daily basis reminding listeners of what to do in case of a terrorist attack and the steps we can all take to help prevent one. It's nonsense. Nothing I do, or any other average American that goes about their daily routine does is going to have any major impact on what is going to happen in regards to a terrorist strike in the United States.

I swear I've heard the word terrorists more in the last 5-7 years then I had ever heard before in every year of my life prior to 9/11. Do I really need to be any more concerned about a terrorist threat now then I did 10, 15, 25 years ago? I tend to think not. It's just that we started this war against it now, so now it needs to be built up as if terrorists can and will strike at any moment, moreso than they ever could before.



You just said it yourself - it's the same as it ever was. So with that said, the only thing that changed is the fact we got hit. We got hit due to the countries own negligence in preventing such an attack. They could have stopped it if they wanted to and/or if they weren't so naive about it to begin with.



I would say "It got real" is most certainly the better portrayal of it. The thing is, I wonder just why it is that it was allowed to get real. Could it be that they wanted it to in order to have the people of America's support in order to launch this war? The answer to that is yes, it could have been.

If you don't think the government isn't aware of the fact 9/11 brought Americans together and knew it made them more supportive at the time to go forth with this war in Iraq that Bush had planned well before 9/11, then you are only fooling yourself. They've stated as much in regards to what this type of event could mean in terms of the support it will garner from Americans in regards to war with their "it will take a new Pearl Harbor" coment.



No, it is not a fact. It is a difference of opinion. It has nothing to do with "accepting defeat" as you like to put it.



I'd gladly buy them a drink. I support the troops just as much as you do. That does not mean I must support the war as well however.



Fair enough. I will grant you I hadn't thought about it in that manner. I'd have to learn more about WW2 in order to understand if there are different reasons as to why there was such a difference in the amount of lives lost in these two wars, but I understand the point you are making with your comment above.




I understand the point you are getting at. And I wouldn't even say I disagree with it. The thing is, I don't understand how this war is ever going to truly be won. And it is not because I have a defeatist attitude, it's because I don't see how any amount of fighting in this war is going to truly stop the threat of terrorists. The way I see it, it is an issue that goes beyond war.



Exactly, of course opinions are permitted, both yours and mine. That is all I'm saying. The difference is, when I disagree with those that have your point of view I don't begin calling them pigheaded and nonsensical simply because they don't agree with me.

I'd also like to know why you think you know what is really going on anymore then anyone else that has an opinion on the issue.



Again, you state things as fact that are not fact. In my opinion, people that take the stance you do and then resort to belittling others who disagree with them is what is just as equally what the problem is in this country. It's that type of attitude that tends to lead to bickering and fighting, and more name calling, and hate towards others, and violence and so on and so on. It is far from being a healthy approach to the situation.



Again, when will be able to claim victory? What exactly is the goal of this war right now?

I know what the purpose was when it started, but now, I have no idea. It seems to me like were trying to rebuild Iraq, which is not the war Americans were sold on at the start.



I don't know anything about Murtha or his comments and I am only vaguely familiar with those of Kerry. I guess my point however, is that I tend to think most Americans have heard just as little about both of their comments as I have. I don't see it as something that has hurt the image of American soldiers much because I don't believe most know what those comments were to begin with. Maybe I am wrong with that assumption however.

As for Abu Ghraib, I am under the impression it was worse than what you have portrayed it as above. Either way, the fact remains it did not make American soldiers look very good. The media simply showed some of the images and reported the story, they didn't go and take the actions that the soldiers themselves took, which resulted in showing themselves in a very, very poor light.



Exactly, ties into what I just wrote above.



Well, we do seem to agree on some things cause I'm not exactly a fan of any of the 3 canidates we are unfortunately left to pick from. Out of all of them, I probablly like and trust Hillary Clinton the least. I just don't want you thinking I'm some staunch democrat that gets caught up in bashing Bush only to than act as if the democractic party is somehow better. I think they are both flawed and quite frankly I hate the labeling process as it is. I try to keep an open mind about things and simply make decisions and form my thoughts based upon what my minds intelligence guides me to.



Well, I don't know what you mean by if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. I understand what the phrase means, but I don't know what you are trying to imply it to within this discussion.

My point is that when you call people gutless and spineless, it is most often viewed as an insult to those you are talking about, which can very easily lead to name calling. If that is how you feel about such people however, then so be it. I just don't think it is fair to lump all that disagree with your take in regards to this war into that same category.

People have many different reasons for the thoughts they think, and I can assure you that mine have nothing to do with being gutless or spineless.



Like I said though, you shouldn't address people as a whole in that way, because then it implies you think of the person you are having this discussion with as a coward, does it not?

If someone's viewpoint is that the war is wrong to begin with, then it doesn't mean they are thinking we need to run away, or accept defeat. It simply means they disagree with the whole entire thing to begin with. There is a big difference between those two thoughts.

To say someone thinks we are defeated is to say they believe in the cause, but simply don't think we can or will win.

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that the occupation of Iraq was the reason, and it looks like my memory played tricks on me, it was actually the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan that initially gave birth to the group. Yet I think that the whole "during the first Gulf War the Saudis felt a bit vulnerable, Osama Bin Laden offered his help, the Saudis opted for US help instead, OBL got pissed at the Saudis and the US" scenario is probably correct. So I think they are fighting to free the Middle East of western influence, and any world conquering plans (similar to Christianizing and westernizing, I might add) are probably pretty low on their priority heap right now.

Wanted to comment on this as well:

I fear that the US war effort against the Islamists is kind of like having a tub of soap water in front of you and trying to pop the bubbles forming on the surface by striking the water. The ripples, sprinkles, spurts and waves just create more bubbles. Every shot you fire can be used against you. Not physically, but politically.

I have to say, I think that you've put your finger on it there, sadly. How can the war against "terrorism" be won unless every single terrorist is killed? And how can we possibly do that, because the more that are killed, the more will be ready to take their place? That's how terrorists work, on the martyrdom system. Even if the situation in Iraq might, gradulaly, be improving, that won't put a stop to terrorism, because terrorism isn't restricted to Iraq. it's not like defeating Nazism by defeating Germany. Look at how it's been so far; first it was Afghanistan; then Iraq; now Iran, and does anyone think it's going to end there? it's an endlessly shifting target. If the root cause of terrorism is underlying attitudes towards the West, represented, globally, by the USA, these attitudes aren't going to be changed by threatening military action constantly. Bullying people just tends to cause resentment.

1. That's what I would like to know. Especially when there are apparently some people who believe we mustn't stop going forward with this war until ALL the terrorists are wiped out. Or at least so many that it will then render them useless. Which is a farce in itself because as long as any exist, they will always create more. And unfortunately, they will always exist.

2. Exactly! We can't even pinpoint who the hell the enemy is. If we can't do that, how are we supposed to ever be able to declare victory? What is the goal that we want accomplished that will then allow us to say the war is won?

And as mentioned earlier, when did rebuilding Iraq become part of the equation?

It seems like it wasn't a very well thought out war in my opinion. Not to mention the intel they relied on that led to the invasion in the first place wasn't even true.

You know Left,

I've spent alot of time reading through your extensive responses. I have to say I'm impressed.
I haven't directly responded to anything yet because I wanted to take the whole picture in. In doing so, I have to say that I think you and I are not actually in disagreement about too much.

I perceive a difference in emphasis regarding the present situation, wherein I am concerned with the action we must take in it, and you seem to be concerned more with the seeming inappropriateness of our being in the situation.

The latter aspect has been discussed, investigated, and appears to be agreed on by a majority of people both inside and outside the government. We could've done things differently. We should've had more extensive plans for the aftermath of the Iraq invasion. It wasn't anticipated that we'd draw the enemy out of the woodwork the way we did, nor the difficulty of what we have to do in Iraq with them in our faces all the time.

One point you mention is reflected in your statement above. I would say it's not entirely correct to say that we're attacked by terrorists so we decide to rebuild Iraq.

Now, we could argue about the bad intel until the cows come home, and it would do no good. We know the intel that stated that Saddham had active WMD and was planning to use them was wrong. We could argue about the fact that they didn't find any WMD, but that too would be pointless since they obviously didn't. I would however point out that intel, combined with the fact that he'd had them, and he used them, provided impetus to take action. The fact that we also found constituents of them buried all over the place, and his alleged ties to Al Qaeda (which I personally feel is a no-brainer) and the fact that he'd been taking deliberate actions in defiance of surrender agreements put in place after the Gulf War, seems to indicate that our action was probably prudent...although we found no active weapons as a whole.

We could also argue that Bush had an agenda to at least keep a close eye on Hussein when he came into office. I don't know this to be a fact, but I can imagine it's probably true (personally, I always felt we'd left the job undone years before, and perhaps President Bush, et. al. felt the same way). But again, I can't say for sure.


However, we went into Iraq to take out the government of Hussein. That of course was a stunning success, which was expected. Part of the process for America when doing such a thing is not to just go in there, make a mess, and come home. We are obligated to restore the place. We re-establish infrastructure, we re-build schools and hospitals, help establish democratic governments, provide for the security and stability of that government during the transition, and basically, get things going again. We've always done this.
It's not the action we took against terrorists...it's the action America takes after it takes care of business. It's always been part of the plan.

The fact is, we are in Iraq, and the enemy has come to us there. We may not have banked on that result, and it's certainly made the process of Iraq re-building much more difficult, but that's where we are and we can't do anything about it but drive them out and get the government of Iraq ready to keep them out. Only then can we continue to press the enemy elsewhere. At this point in time, it's well understood that we certainly may have been able to execute this process differently, or at least have anticipated where we were going to wind up and prepapre for that eventuality. However, we have what we have, and we know what will happen if we bag out of there prematurely.

Some say we should've gone after Bin Laden exclusively. Perhaps. However, Iraq's threat may well have raised it's ugly head down the road in the middle of that operation. Somehow, I think we may have wound up in Iraq anyway, and Hussein may have become a much more serious problem that he was when we took him out. One simply cannot say for sure.

Onto some specifics:





Buried in this section is a matter that I have been highly critical of, and which I completely agree with.
The knee-jerking that went on post-9-11 with all that nonsensical terror alert status, etc...
I consider it garbage too. It took people's attention away from the problem at hand and filled their heads with all kinds of fear.

Know what? I agree with that. I thought it all stupid overkill. I somewhat understand it, in a way. It's human nature to over-react when you get your ass kicked like we did. But nonetheless, it was indeed silly.

The fact is, we got our butts kicked. The fact is, it had been going on for 10 years and no one took it seriously enough...until they actually went all the way.




I did indeed, Left. But again, coulda, shoulda, woulda is water under the bridge. We didn't. Now, we are. It may not be the best scenario. We should've seen it coming and nailed it before it happened. But we didn't. That's just the way it is, and you nor I can change that.





Of course, I used the analogy of the death tolls in WW2 as a gague to underscore