freeflir29 0 #101 March 8, 2003 QuoteI bet there won't be another plane hijacked on American soil in my lifetime.. Hijacked......I don't think so either. Bombed......I'd be willing to bet on it. Let's hope those fancy new machines at the airport are working correctly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #102 March 8, 2003 Quote Quote I have to assume that you weren't paying attention during all the previous occasions when US leaders lied to the US people and Congress. During my lifetime the following administrations were known to have lied: Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, BushI, Clinton. BLA BLA BLA VLA... B A C K T O T H E P R E S E N T !! Those who fail to study history.... include you, apparently. You might want to read this: www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ Also read the ACTUAL TEXT of UN resolutions 1441 and 687 (from the end of the Gulf War) and tell me exactly where anyone is authorized to use force.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #103 March 8, 2003 Quote Those who fail to study history.... include you, apparently. Nothing but love bro!! Nothing but love!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 259 #104 March 9, 2003 And again, I've removed your attacks on each other and put them in a nice safe place. What is so hard about obeying a few rules?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #105 March 9, 2003 What did I miss?? lol Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #106 March 9, 2003 /rodney king channeling/ can't we all just get along? I've re-read this entire thread. Man I tell you, each side has some pretty valid points. True, some people on each side, me included, are pretty pig-headed, sarcastic, and insulting in trying to explain themselves and in failing to try to understand the other side. Let's face it... none of us have all the answers. There's room on either side for conscessions that we may be WRONG. Don't know what to say except... I love my country. I lived a military life ALL my life until my dad retired and I was told I couldn't "sign the dotted line" due to a bone disorder. I've lived in many other countries, lived with many other cultures. I still think our country is the best country around. But have we been arrogant and self-righteous about it? Hell yes we have. And we should eat crow for it. We should be the servants of others, not the "lord it over all of them" rich snobs that we can be. (Now, we haven't always done that either. Jealousy or hatred by some non-americans doesn't mean we've done something to provoke it) But that doesn't mean other people should bomb us, kill us, fly planes into our buildings. We didn't "ask for it." I also realize that the career politicians lie. Many have deceived us, republicans and conservatives. Deplorable, all of it. Is GWB right this time? Is it the thing to do to bomb Saddam? Man, I can't tell you. Sometimes I think so, sometimes I think, what in God's name is GWB thinking??? But you know, you couldn't pay me a million dollars to be in his shoes. I do know that deplomacy w/ Saddam hasn't worked. And I do believe he should be disarmed. I think he is a threat. But I do think we should be consistant and not selective with other countries, even if to avoid the appearance that this Iraq thing is a personal vendetta or whatever. I hope GWB is right when he says that this Iraq thing will make us -and the world- safer. I hope he is right. All I know is, I'm sorry if I offended anyone in this thread. It's so easy to loose track in these threads of what is most important. What's far more important to me is that our troops are well protected and that loss of life is minimal, for both sides, and that none of us need to pointlessly suffer or die at the hands of terrorists again. How we ensure that doesn't happen? Well... that's another thing... I wish peace to all of you, on both sides of this heated issue. -michael -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JJohnson 0 #107 March 9, 2003 If you really want to call what Pat Robertson did as ties to Al Quaeda........thats messed up. Pat was trying to spread his religion...without blowing someone up to do it. To think that this gives him closer ties to terrorism than Saddam Hussien is pretty insulting to the intelligence.JJ "Call me Darth Balls" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JJohnson 0 #108 March 9, 2003 Wrong. I'm 39, honorably discharged Marine, have been to more countries than most Americans have been to states, have family members on active duty. I still say Iraq has an ass-kicking coming unless they comply. Yes I agree with you that the US has been and still is the top dog. But we did not bring 9/11 on ourselves. Mankind has waged war on itself for as long as their has been a mankind. The reasons don't matter cause we don't learn from our mistakes anyway...obviously. Perhaps war is just natural selection for a species that doesn't have any predators in the food chain.JJ "Call me Darth Balls" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #109 March 9, 2003 Uhh...ditto there. You summed up my stance on the matter exactly. The one difference being that I have a strong belief in the value of life (not infering that you don't). But because the issue is not so cut and dry (some people may think it is, but the fact that there is such a rift in peoples opinions proves that it's not), I'd much rather see actions pursued that don't involve the deliberate use of violence unless absolutely necessary. I don't think we've reached that point yet. Most likely, yes, I believe we will reach a point where it is absolutely necessary. But as long as there's a chance that our goals can be accomplished without bloodshed, that's the path we should take until we reach the end of that road. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #110 March 9, 2003 I think you and I are in just about complete agreement. I may think that military action is necessary sooner than you, but in essence, I also value human live and really don't want to see innocent people die. Incidentally, my wife recently began teaching English as a second language to Kurdish women who came from that area. They are incredible people. I'd hate to see those like them that are still over there suffer much more than they have. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,476 #111 March 9, 2003 > If you really want to call what Pat Robertson did as ties to Al >Quaeda........thats messed up. I didn't claim that. Robertson gave millions to Robert Taylor, a ruthless dictator who sheltered Al Quaeda agents before, during and after 9/11. That's more than Hussein did for Bin Laden. Neither Robertson nor Hussein has strong ties to Al Quaeda, though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cgross 1 #112 March 9, 2003 Bill, I notice you have the same theme in every thread. SH has nothing to do with UBL... Do you know something we don't. I think what you are doing is speculating. You mean to say you do not think SH helps UBL. When you can prove it, you can state it as fact. You may think the Government is speculating too, but I would bet money they know more about it than you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #113 March 9, 2003 QuoteBill, I notice you have the same theme in every thread. SH has nothing to do with UBL... Do you know something we don't. I think what you are doing is speculating. You mean to say you do not think SH helps UBL. When you can prove it, you can state it as fact. You may think the Government is speculating too, but I would bet money they know more about it than you. Guilty until proven innocent? An interesting philosophy that I doubt you'd like applied to your own life. I am appalled by some of the things I'm reading here, Americans saying things that are completely the reverse of every principle America was founded on. When does the "Bill of Rights" get renamed "The Bill of Privileges"?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cgross 1 #114 March 9, 2003 But we are not dealing with americans here!!!! So, in war we shouldn't shoot the "bad" guys... We should take them all back to the US and put them on trial. Is that hat you are saying. Yes a man like SH in the UN's mind is guily until proven innocent. That is what 1441 said. We know you've got bad stuff, prove you don't, or we will prove it. And if you remember, every nation in the UN agreed. Now these "PUSSY" nations are backing out. Talk about a reversal of views. Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #115 March 9, 2003 QuoteBut we are not dealing with americans here!!!! So, in war we shouldn't shoot the "bad" guys... We should take them all back to the US and put them on trial. Is that hat you are saying. Yes a man like SH in the UN's mind is guily until proven innocent. That is what 1441 said. We know you've got bad stuff, prove you don't, or we will prove it. And if you remember, every nation in the UN agreed. Now these "PUSSY" nations are backing out. Talk about a reversal of views. Chris But you were not writing about 1441, you were writing about Iraq's "alleged" links with Al Quaeda. Don't try to put words in my mouth! Have you ACTUALLY read the text of 1441? Who gets to judge compliance? You? or GWB? or the UN Security Council based on the evidence presented by the UN Inspectors?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,175 #116 March 9, 2003 You know, I like this part. I'm in pretty solid agreement with the vast majority of this, too. Funny how arguing against something makes you polarize your thoughts and feelings. The dangerous part is when you decide that the polarized view you stated to counter someone is, in fact, your new viewpoint. 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) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cgross 1 #117 March 9, 2003 I agree, but I would hate too to see families in america suffer anymore than they have to if another plane flys through a building Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,175 #118 March 9, 2003 QuoteWe should take them all back to the US and put them on trial. Is that hat you are saying. Yes a man like SH in the UN's mind is guily until proven innocent A couple of things. One, if you remember from books, the trial of Adolf Eichmann was kind of interesting; he was tried in public court in Israel. Exposing that rotten core of Nazism to a formal legal process helped (along with the passage of time), to move the second world war and the Holocaust into history. Which is where it belongs. That way you can learn from it, rather than hold it to your heart as the most important thing ever. As far as guilty until proven innocent -- you have to decide what exactly he's guilty of until he's proven innocent. It's a whole lot harder to prove someone innocent. The mass of evidence that's available to people indicates that SH and AlQaeda have nothing to do with each other. Which would be a pretty strong indication that SH had nothing to do with 9/11 as far as planning or funding it, other than incidentally. He's a really bad guy. No doubt. But we don't string him up without due process, and in the world community, the world community should get to participate in due process. 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) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cgross 1 #119 March 9, 2003 But we did give due process. The UN said, declare everything by 12/8/02 or "serious Consequences" will follow. He clearly did not declare everything, and I am guessing that "serious Consequences" didn't mean a trial in a US court. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,476 #120 March 9, 2003 >SH has nothing to do with UBL... Do you know something we don't. I think >what you are doing is speculating. You mean to say you do not think SH >helps UBL. No, I mean to say there is no evidence that Hussein helped Bin Laden. Even our administration hasn't found any links, and they've looked as hard and as deep as they can. Do you think you know _more_ than our administration? Sure, there might have been a connection. There might be an Easter bunny, too. Until I see evidence of either I'll view them both as myths. >When you can prove it, you can state it as fact. And when you have even a shred of proof the two were involved, you might have a leg to stand on. >You may think the Government is speculating too, but I would bet money >they know more about it than you. Please post any evidence the government has produced to tie Hussein to 9/11. Evidence, not "well, maybe there might be some connection, after all they're both really bad and sorta Arab looking." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rgoper 0 #121 March 9, 2003 This Should Clarify This Topic everything here is fact, not fiction, or made up bs, facts. when will we see we're actually "chasing our tails?" it's good to see someone out there has enough individual morality, and clarity to expose the truth, i couldn't have done it.--Richard-- "We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cgross 1 #122 March 9, 2003 Common bill you know better than that. If I had the evidence, you would too, and we wouldn't be discussing that. What I am saying is, they know a lot more than ME and YOU on this subject. What they release to the press isn't obviously the whole picture. But, for a moment, let's say you are right. As of now there is no evidence of a connection. That doesn't mean there is not a connection. It just means we haven't found it yet. Likewise, the inspectors say there is no Anthrax in Iraq. They know they had some so where did it go???? GUess what, it is still there, they just haven't found it yet!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #123 March 9, 2003 QuoteCommon bill you know better than that. If I had the evidence, you would too, and we wouldn't be discussing that. What I am saying is, they know a lot more than ME and YOU on this subject. What they release to the press isn't obviously the whole picture. Yes, and Nixon had a "secret" plan to end the Vietnam War. "Fool me once..."... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,476 #124 March 9, 2003 >But, for a moment, let's say you are right. As of now there is no >evidence of a connection. That doesn't mean there is not a connection. >It just means we haven't found it yet. Right, and if we do find it, then we have all the reason we need to invade. Until then, we might as well invade New Zealand to punish them for 9/11 - it would make as much sense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #125 March 9, 2003 "we might as well invade New Zealand to punish them for 9/11 - it would make as much sense. " Hmmm, Maui gas/oil field off the coast of Taranaki. A local people that have been allegedly abused by the government, Maoris dispossesed by land treaties. Links to illegal bombing activities, the sinking of Rainbow Warrior in Auckland harbour... Hmmmmm, you have something there Bill-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
