photo, why we are here

[bodypilot90 0]

kind of says it all

[sinker 0]

yes indeedie.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[Skymonkey13 0]

I could,nt have said it better.

[billvon 2,435]

It's too bad we have this habit of blaming every terrorist attack in the past 20 years on our enemy du jour instead of blaming the people who planned and carried out the attacks. Those words would be a lot more fitting on Bin Laden's house just before we demolished it. And until they _do_ appear on his house, the person responsible for many of those attacks will go unpunished - no matter how many countries we invade.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

It's too bad we have this habit of blaming every terrorist attack in the past 20 years on our enemy du jour instead of blaming the people who planned and carried out the attacks. Those words would be a lot more fitting on Bin Laden's house just before we demolished it. And until they _do_ appear on his house, the person responsible for many of those attacks will go unpunished - no matter how many countries we invade.

It is too bad that you're not seeing the fruits of our labors in response to these events:

-- Libya is ready to accept full accountabilty for Pan Am Flt 103 and pay reparations
-- Ramsey Yousef was just denied an appeal for WTC 1 and while his affiliation with Al Qaeda is up for discussion and debate, it is undeniable that they shop at the same stores
--Khobar Towers, US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and USS Cole and WTC2 ... Al Qaeda, no longer able to function freely in Afghanistan, the US, and Iraq
--The Buffalo "6" have plead guilty
--Untold arrests worldwide against terror cells
--The current war in Iraq will quickly remove a prime financier of Hamas and Palestinian "martyr" terrorists against Israel. No more $25K rewards for families of homicide bombers.

James Woolsey said it best, Iraq is more than WMD, Saddam, Al Qaeda, or Terrorism it also sends a message to Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, in his words, "...does that make you nervous? Our response should be, 'Good'."

It is clear that we can walk and chew gum at the same time. Osama is not the only problem here, if anything he is a symptom of the situation we are currently engaged in. As I've said before, the unconvinced, are the unconvinceable.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[PhillyKev 0]

So...we invaded Iraq to convince other countries to change their ways?

Quote

James Woolsey said it best, Iraq is more than WMD, Saddam, Al Qaeda, or Terrorism it also sends a message to Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, in his words, "...does that make you nervous?

And you think that it will work?

Quote

As I've said before, the unconvinced, are the unconvinceable.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

So...we invaded Iraq to convince other countries to change their ways?

I didn't say that. I simply said that the depth of our position with Iraq is more than what is making the headlines.

Quote

Quote

James Woolsey said it best, Iraq is more than WMD, Saddam, Al Qaeda, or Terrorism it also sends a message to Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, in his words, "...does that make you nervous?

And you think that it will work?

What else has worked? The Oslo agreements after the first Gulf War only worked because it was essentially at the end of a the barrel of a gun. What has diplomacy ever worked on its own? When President Carter brokered a deal between Israel and Egypt, what was the result? Peace for one, but the Egyptian President Anwar Al-Sadat was assassinated in a military parade and the populace barely noticed.

Woolsey is not alone in this assessment. Read up on available material that Paul Wolfowitz (Deputy Secty of Def.). His predictions about events in the middle east have essentially come true since the oil crisis in the 70s. Nearly everything from Cold War initiatives, to Iraq.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Read up on available material that Paul Wolfowitz (Deputy Secty of Def.). His predictions about events in the middle east have essentially come true since the oil crisis in the 70s. Nearly everything from Cold War initiatives, to Iraq.

Maybe that's because him and the rest of the Wolfowitz Cabal have had a strong hand in shaping those events.

I predict I'll be drunk tonight....wanna bet on the accuracy?

[quade 3]

Something really wierd about that photo. I can't place it. Maybe it's just the amount of compression, but it sure does strike the eye as not being real.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,435]

>Iraq is more than WMD, Saddam, Al Qaeda, or Terrorism it also
> sends a message to Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, in his
> words, "...does that make you nervous? Our response should
> be, 'Good'."

So our new policy is to invade countries sufficiently often to inspire fear in those who would otherwise oppose our policies? Does it matter who we invade? Or do we just invade the country that is annoying us the most?

And how well has that policy worked in Israel? Surely after years of killing and destruction of their homes, the Palestinians are very, very nervous now. No doubt that will bring permanent peace to occupied areas of Israel.

>Osama is not the only problem here, if anything he is a symptom of
> the situation we are currently engaged in.

I agree. So far, most arrests/deaths of Al Quaeda members have come about due to cooperation with other countries. The future "war against terror" will be won (or at least fought to a stalemate) because other countries cooperate with us - not because they fear and hate us. The onion's blurb on the new US bomb, the GBU-15A, capable of "creating 1200 terrorists at once" isn't too far off. I hope our diplomatic efforts are up to the task of countering the hatred our attacks will generate.

>As I've said before, the unconvinced, are the unconvinceable.

Very true.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

So our new policy is to invade countries sufficiently often to inspire fear in those who would otherwise oppose our policies? Does it matter who we invade? Or do we just invade the country that is annoying us the most?

Why not? Worked in 1984 (should have been called 2004)

[wmw999 2,149]

Why we are where?

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Why we are where?

Wendy W.

Good point, Wendy! And allow me to elaborate:

We are here because if we weren't, we'd be somewhere else. Which we would then designate as here, and refer to our current "here" as "over there!" Everyone got that?
There will be a test!

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

Something really wierd about that photo. I can't place it. Maybe it's just the amount of compression, but it sure does strike the eye as not being real.

might be how I trimed it and conveted it to jpeg. I will send you the preadjusted one if you'd like

[newshooter12 0]

Quote

--The Buffalo "6" have plead guilty

Hey they're from Lackawanna... Stop picking on poor Buffalo, we've lost enough superbowls and even a Stanely Cup.
matt
P.S. but on a more serious note. I got a bit nervous heading into "Sunny LA" aka... Lackawanna when all that was going on. Especially knowing the alligations and now plea deals. Can't imagine what else has gone through there.

[Kinaa 0]

While you are there you are doing that (see pic) I just hope that someone won't use that picture as a reminder why he is in New York whit truck full of explosive.

I.P.

[Snowflake 0]

I would offer an argument but your so locked in to your point of view that it would be useless. One question though, didn't we help put S.H. in power over 20 years ago even though we knew he was bloodthirsty SOB?

[Dolemite 0]

Quote

Something really wierd about that photo. I can't place it. Maybe it's just the amount of compression, but it sure does strike the eye as not being real.

-Dolemite

"Officially disapproved by the man"

[cgross 1]

-Quote_____________________________
One question though, didn't we help put S.H. in power over 20 years ago even though we knew he was bloodthirsty SOB?
___________________________________________

I notice a lot of people put this comment in with out really understanding the situation. Read up on history, and you will understand. Did we help put him in? NO. Did we help support his fight with IRAN? To some degree yes, but our support stopped the moment he used Chem weapons. Then we began to support IRAN(secretly).

See, there were several things going on at the time, one of them was a baraks bomb which killed 250 US soldiers. The culpret... Humas stationed in IRAN.

We weren't about to go to war with IRAN, however, we could support a country which was at war with IRAN to make up for what they did to us.

But we played both sides, because we knew SH was a looney, and we didn't want to get in too deep with him. SH was under the impression we were his best friend, up until the IRAN contra scandal came out. Then SH realized he had been played. After 8yrs of war with IRAN, and only winning by using chem weapons, his country was broke. So, how could he get money???? Well, he could invade Kuait (sp?).

SH is such a moron, he really believed no one would care, unfortunately for him he was wrong.

Th US went to the UN, and the use of force was authorized to remove Iraqi's from Kuait. BUT, and this is important to remember...Th UN did not authorize the removal of SH. The US could have done it with out their approval, however, much like now, Bush Snr though it would be a bad political move.


So, did we help him? not as much as some people would like you to believe.

Chris
ps- sorry for the spelling

[Kinaa 0]

Quote

Something really wierd about that photo. I can't place it. Maybe it's just the amount of compression, but it sure does strike the eye as not being real.

Well I don't really know what to say on that...
Try look here and see if it's fake.

[cgross 1]

Yeah.... It is called war!!!! That's what it looks like.

Funny though, you didn't post any pics of the Kurds or iranians burned to death by chemical weapons.

It doesn't surprize me though. You like many arab news agencies only want to show one side of the story.

[Kinaa 0]

First, see what is the name of thread, and my response to it.
Second, if I don't support the war, does that automatically make me supporter of S.H. or his actions?
Oh, and If the S.H. actions against Iran and Kurds justify your actions in Iraq and those civil victims in Iraq, then is there really differnece between S.H. and Bush? It is a matter of point of view. The reason is irrelevant
Who has a right to decide about lives of that children?
Do you really think that in this world subsist some cause, or treasure, or reason, or political belief that could justify that dead children?
If you think that there is, then you are the same as the war criminal Saddam Husein. He also thought that there is reason that justify his actions against Kurds, Iranians or his own people.
I almost forgot...it is funny how your country was not disturbed when that genocid against Kurds happened? Maybe 'cos at that time S.H. was USA partner?
Now you can say that USA is trying to repair mistakes from past, but it sure doesn't look so. (at least to the majority of the world.)

[cgross 1]

Sorry, but I need to correct you on a few FACTs you mis spoke about.

First off, we did not support Iraq when he fried the Kurds. We stopped supporting Iraq when they used Chem weapons against Iran (before the Kurds). IN FACT, we began to support IRAN again Iraq at that time. If you are going to state something factual then source it. My facts are coming form th NY TIMES in a piece called "Understanding Iraq" it was presented about 3 weeks ago... Look it up, maybe you will learn something.

Now,... let me explain to you the difference between a war with civilian casualties and terrorism.

Terrorism targets civilians without discrimination.
Modern war targets enemy forces, and at times civilian casualties happen.

Is it OK that this happens??? Well, that is the price of war. Sacrifice for the greater good.

Let me explain one other important thing. The USA will also kill it's own civilians for the greater good.
Example:
We have reasonable knowledge a hijacked plane filled with passengers is going to fly into a building with thousands in it. If we could get there in time, WE WILL SHOOT it down to save the others on the ground.[/B]

If it wasn't for nessesary war, you wouldn't be here to have this discussion.

What gives us the right to decide about lives of the children? THe fact that Iraq's leadership doesn't care about them, and the morality of the USA! Why do people in Iraq starve during an "OIL FOR FOOD" program while SH wealth increased by 4 times?

If 1000 innocents die to save 1,000,000, then that is justified in my book.

I guess you stand with the POPE. Just sit back while murder rape and torture happens, it will work itself out. Right? Just like it did in WWII when the church took the same stance.

If you remember we came to the rescue. Everyone called Churchill an idiot, just like they do with bush today. But now Churchill is praised, and I think you will see the same with Bush and Blair.

[VectorBoy 0]

One question though, didn't we help put S.H. in power over 20 years ago even though we knew he was bloodthirsty SOB?

[wmw999 2,149]

A couple of things.

First, you can't assign reasons to other people -- you can only assign them to yourself. Really. As it happens, the person you just wrote so eloquently to doesn't live in the US, and has been a soldier in a war where his country was invaded. That doesn't make his viewpoint sacrosanct, but the fact that he doesn't assign the same weight to things that you do doesn't make it wrong, either. But I think he has quite a bit of experience in some of the things that are happening in Iraq.

Second -- we supported the Saddam Hussein who gassed his own people. Yes, we quit at some time after that. But it was the same person we supported. And he was still the same person who tortured his Olympic athletes for losing (while we supported him).

One of the main objections to this was is that Iraq really doesn't appear to have been a direct threat to the US. They're really far away, and they don't have a lot of resources. Yes, Saddam might have WMD (of course, we haven't found a significant cache yet, but that's irrelevant now, because we're there).

We can't go back in time and un-invade Iraq. We can't force people to like us, or think like us. All we can do is make it attractive to be like us, and live our own lives.

Something that scares me right now is the possibility of whatever government we install in Iraq disagreeing with us. We're not buying a country (at least we'd better not be), and we'd better not count on their support in the future. Every independent person and country has their own needs, and it's their responsibility to meet what they think are their own needs.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)