now Israel is saying the same thing about Iran....maybe that is a good thing,Iran is truly in need of some CORRECTION ...
Afgahinistan was/is a correct war. i won't argue we were ALONE, but we circumvented the UN in Iraq, the argument against that was that it weakens the UN now they only need to point at Iraq and say, so who cares what US thinks?
the definitions of terrorists are different depending on who you ask.....
the whole thing is in danger of spinning out of control
This is excerpted without bias from the White House Web site...... there is a very gooddatabase there... For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary September 7, 2002
President's Remarks view listen
President Bush, Prime Minister Blair Discuss Keeping the Peace Remarks by the President and Prime Minister Tony Blair in Photo Opportunity Camp David, Maryland
3:51 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: We just heard the Prime Minister talk about the new report. I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied -- finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic -- the IAEA that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need.
PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: Absolutely right. And what we -- what we know from what has been going on there for a long period of time is not just the chemical, biological weapons capability, but we know that they were trying to develop nuclear weapons capability. And the importance of this morning's report is it yet again it shows that there is a real issue that has to be tackled here.
i personally believe that this was the reason we Americans were prepared to support the President to go to Iraq.......
the manufacture of nuclear weapons requires SIGNIFICANT capital. this capital would have been presented by now....it doesn't and probably never existed......
they were wrong...
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited September 11, 2004).]
LOL- of course, they will, mentioned it on other thread. No, it isnt the u.s. the started preemption. scheming and planning an attack should also be considered an act of war, and all terrorists are doing that...
I'm hoping Russia goes after Iran for their al-queda support, if not, syria.
I doubt if the Saudis have "clean hands" either. I honestly believe that the real problem is with religious fanatics...in the case of terrorism it seems to be muslims.
Posts: 3607 | From: NJ - Outside Phila. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wallace#1: I doubt if the Saudis have "clean hands" either. I honestly believe that the real problem is with religious fanatics...in the case of terrorism it seems to be muslims.
agreed on Saudi arabia, i'm guessing they will do some low level worthless crap that doesnt help their hand any. Hopefully the war on terrorism could use someone pro active.
hmmmm.... http://cfrterrorism.org/causes/saudiarabia2.html Does the U.S. Air Force fly missions from Saudi bases? Yes. But over time, Saudi Arabia has placed more and more restrictions on U.S. operations originating from its territory. In 1996, after Saddam attacked Iraqi Kurds in northern Iraq, Saudi Arabia for the first time withheld support for a U.S. mission against Iraq. Due to continuing Saudi restrictions, the U.S. Air Force moved about 20 jet fighters out of Saudi Arabia in 1999 and no longer keeps attack aircraft in the country, according to a senior Pentagon official.
But American forces in the Middle East are not just unnecessary, they are demonstrably harmful. In late February 2003, before the start of the war, Wolfowitz admitted that the price paid to keep forces in the region had been "far more than money." Anger at American pressure on Iraq, and resentment over the stationing of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia, Wolfowitz conceded, had "been Osama bin Laden's principal recruiting device." Looking ahead to the post-Hussein period, Wolfowitz implied that the removal of Hussein would enable the United States to withdraw troops from the region. "I can't imagine anyone here wanting to . . . be there for another 12 years to continue helping recruit terrorists."
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited September 09, 2004).]
But American forces in the Middle East are not just unnecessary, they are demonstrably harmful. In late February 2003, before the start of the war, Wolfowitz admitted that the price paid to keep forces in the region had been "far more than money." Anger at American pressure on Iraq, and resentment over the stationing of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia, Wolfowitz conceded, had "been Osama bin Laden's principal recruiting device."
On February 5, 2001, President Bush announced his intention to nominate Dr. Paul Wolfowitz to be Deputy Secretary of Defense. He was unanimously confirmed by the Senate on Feb. 28th and sworn in March 2, 2001 as the 28th Deputy Secretary of Defense. This is Dr. Wolfowitz's third tour of duty in the Pentagon.
is this FLIP-FLOPPING??????
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited September 11, 2004).]
"No, it isnt the u.s. the started preemption. scheming and planning an attack should also be considered an act of war, and all terrorists are doing that..."
So if terrorists do it, so can we...And we should have carte blanche to attack anyone we want...!?
For me, this excercise helps me put things into perspective: When I am trying to understand what US actions mean to the rest of the world, I think "If this was the Soviet Union, or Britain, or another empire, how would I interpret this?" So for example, in the instance of the Cuban 'missile crisis', it helps to keep in mind that US missiles were based in Turkey and pointed at Moscow (in plain view) for years before hand. Or imagine if France adopted a "Munroe Doctrine" and a "Roosevelt Corallary" (my spelling suks!) that declared all of Africa their "sphere of influence"...It's kind of like trying to be an objective referee when you are a member of one of the teams...It's pretty hard even for the best of us!
In the real world, morality is simply a political issue - might makes right.
In the fantasy world of idealism, morality can be set by principles. If you say your moral principles come from a non-existent God, then you can sell your morality better.
Fools waste their time arguing morality - the issues are always settled in the real world politically. War is politics at its most basic level of operation.
The US was right to strike pre-emptively. The only mistake we made was not using neutron bombs - could have wiped out Afghanistan and Iraq with few losses of our on.
In war, if killing a billion of the enemy, including killing all civilians that allow the enemy on their territory, to spare one of your one, then do it. Anything less is aiding and abetting the enemy.
If we don't destroy Iran's nuclear facilities we are fools.
To understand a correct morality, you need a realistic understanding of the world.
too bad we agreed not to build neutron bombs...LOL
i think a daisy-cutter will work just fine on Iran's nuke sites....
of course getting something as big and slow-moving as a daisy-cutter deliverd on target will require quite a bit of "softnening up" of their defenses...LOL
of course that leaves them with a pretty bad cleanup problem...as i understand the processing, the uranium would be in POWDER form, might even get airborn.... guess we better check the wind patterns before we get too far along on the planning stages...
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited September 16, 2004).]
Fox news claims to have been invited to Russia by the Russian intelligence agency (no longer the KGB) the report they presented was pretty clearly trying to point the finger right at Saudi Arabia being the source of world terror.......
i can't believe i am agreeing with the Russki's and Pat Buchanan all in one month....LOL
i have said all along that i think the Saudis are dirty....
i am also trying to point out who the Russki's target is likely to be and how that can lead to another cold war type postion between us.....
Yes,the show Fox did was cheesey....
on the other hand, i personally believe Saudi is a lot dirtier than we have been led to believe... my DD indicates to me that the terror war with Osama is really a side effect of the succession war for the crown of saudi.... during the first gulf war, osama wanted to re-build his afghan fighting group to defend the Saudi/kuwait border from saddam... the saudi crown said no because they felt that would give osama too much influence towards the succession..... they called US to come help and it took us quite awhile to mobilize...we citizens were originally told we were going to defend the saudis, but when we got there, we (CORRECTLY IMO) went to Baghdad, we just stopped too soon...
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited September 24, 2004).]