...and 3000 more americans have died in yet another terrorist attack on US soil?

I understand and DIG Bush, because I am the same way,
I'd rather be blamed for something I've done,
than blamed for inaction.

HISTORY will judge Bush, not moores....

P.S. everything said about Bush could have been said about...Stalin, who didn't forsee at all Hitler's appetites for USSR,
readyness for war and Stalin was sleeping at the wheel.
Unless Stal;in's mistake, Bush's mistake didn't cost lives of 20,000,000 soviets,
and we all know how Stalin corrected his mistake in Berlin in 1945.

Serge I am with you 100%.

Bush is a man of action. Other President's saw the same thing he did, but did nothing. After 9-11, the equation changed and strong action was needed. We could not sit behind 2 oceans and pretend things were ok.

This is World War III, the sooner the rest of the country understands this, the sooner we can have all out war, and overcome islamic fundamentalists.

Europe thinks they can play off of the US and be safe, but they are making a deal with the devil and are only buying a little time - just like Stalin with Hitler.

Mike,
aparently Europeans do NOT take history lessons....

NONE of the countries secured their borders by negotiating with terrorists,
from Egyptian days forward....

Mike,
aparently Europeans do NOT take history lessons....

NONE of the countries secured their borders by negotiating with terrorists,
from Egyptian days forward.... [/b][/quote]


Europeans think they can appease the terrorists, then hope the US will clean up the mess again.

It must be great to be a European country - you can criticize the US and appease the terrorist, but also benefit from the United States taking care of business.

Sounds like a familiar plot.

Even with their tiny spending on military, the European economies still SUCK and continues to go down. Though Austria has been doing very well.

Mike, once again Europeans show to be penny wise and dollar foolish...oh well,
they can NOT escape their destiny with all those "half measures" and will lose more at the end, as US achieves all their goals and some more...
USA risks the most, and win the most at the end leaving Europeans at envy once again.

Serge, good question, but like many things in life, there is many different answers between "go to war and take ove the whole country and get a bunch of american kids killed doing it" and "ignore him completely".

There are many other things that could have been done, there were many other actions that might have worked better or worse, and there was a level of inaction that might have worked as well.

I am not certain at this point that the world is a safer place than it was when Saddam was in power. The terrorists and extremists seem to use the US action as a reason for more extreme actions, and that has made the world much less safer in my eyes.

As a westerner, I can see that there are many more places I would never travel to now than there was 4 years ago. That is a sign of less security in the world.

Alex

...and I appreciate for somebody in charge like Bush who takes actions instead of weighing for 20 years "how many devils can dance on the tip of the needle"

as for inaction would work....BULLSHIT,
inaction NEVER work and I dare you go with me tit for tat with historical examples
to prove our points...
how about I give you handicap with 2:1 of my examples of action
for every example of inaction you throw?

Let's see WHO knows the world hoistory better and "causes and effects"
I bet you gonna lose, and I let you name the amount of the bet,
from $1 to $2000, whatever you feel comfortable with.


As for terrorists using Iraq as excuse...when exactly terrorists needed excuses or were having troubles finding excuses for their actions?

remember the begining of WWI with killingof Austrian crown prince in Serbia?
He had excuse....and Austria wasn't in the war
;-))))

as for safety of travel....as a wsterner, you now can travel to LYBIA and enjoy the best preserved roman buildings outside of Italy,
somethign you couldn't do 4 years ago,
there is always a trade
;-))))

Meni is parroting Michael Moore now, I wonder what they would say if the US invaded Saudi Arabia?


As Ronald Reagan said, this is not a question of WAR or PEACE, its a question of WAR or SURRENDER.

I guess we know where the liberals stand.

I don't see Alex willing to engage either....Moore's demagogy has no problems penetrating the country,
demagogy has difficulties flourish on Oprano.
There are few of us who KNOW facts and history and can put 1+1 together.

The funny thing is Moore readily admits he is a propagandist, a muckracker - yet I have seen tosn of people posting things from the movie, or what Moore says as if its facts straight from God.

It must be embarassing to be so dumb.... but I guess they don't even realize it.

Ignorance I guess can be bliss.

Another things is Moore routinely bashes American's as being stupid, uncultured, rednecks who are sheep - he does this on all of his European interviews. ( of course he does have a point, but he should be nicer about his fans). Of course the Eruopeans love this, and hail Moore as what all American's should be.

why?
THIS objectivity is what gives him some credebility
;-)))))

14 of the hijackers were Saudi
bin laden has not been caught
you feel safer
how long did it take to pull off 9 /11?
6 years planning
and you are happy now cuz 9/11 hasn't happened again
and ONLY BUSH could do this?
our borders are not sealed
INS sucks
trust me, going over to Iraq did not slow down terrorism
GW keeps us in fear
orange alert
yellow alert
no explanation

only serge and mike are talking about this
hey mike if what would you say if
there was a request of the McVeigh's family to fly to paris 2 days after OK bombing?
you guys think Bush is leader?
What the fuck did he ever lead? 3 corps down the hill?
he never served
start the war and make his buddies rich building iraq
show everyone who's boss in the world? we got the fire power?
we are not safer, check any reliable stat moron

STATE DEPARTMENT FUDGED TERRORISM STATISTICS
R. JEFFREY SMITH WASHINGTON POST - Two months ago, the Bush administration released its annual report card on counterterrorism and gave itself an A. The number of terrorist attacks around the globe, according to the State Department report called "Patterns of Global Terrorism," was at the lowest ebb in the past 34 years. Ambassador at Large for Counterterrorism J. Cofer Black, citing the existence of only 190 acts of terrorism in 2003, called it "good news" attributable in part to unprecedented U.S. collaboration with foreign partners. He predicted the trend would continue in 2004. Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage cited the data as "clear evidence that we are prevailing in the fight."

Not long afterward, however, the report was pilloried by academics, a lawmaker and others. They said its math defied the reality of a steady growth in the number and significance of terrorist attacks in 2003, as well as the worst type of attacks spreading from just a few countries to at least 10. . .

Yesterday, after reviewing the matter more carefully, the department formally conceded it made a few mistakes. . . One senior official, speaking on the condition that he not be cited by name, said the corrections could fill eight pages, including a revised chronology of events, "a list of some things that should have been put in or left out," and various explanatory notes. . .

Larry C. Johnson, a former CIA analyst and former deputy director of State's counterterrorism office, is among those who have urged a wide-ranging correction. He said that even using the report's own data, as presented in its statistical tables, the total number of terrorist incidents in 2003 rose, not fell, compared with 2002. The number of deaths in the tables was 390, not 307 as department officials asserted in public comments; the number of wounded was 1,895, not 1,593, Johnson said. He said the number of significant incidents -- involving victims who were killed, injured or kidnapped -- rose from 60 percent of incidents in 2002 to 89 percent in 2003

and Mike what with
the optoin
do nothing or do what he did
where's do the right thing?
where's make a real coalition
we are 90% of the troops
thats not a coalition

Howard Stern should start posting under his real name.

Meni we had a coaltion World War II,
how many soldiers fought against Japan i
n most of the islands we had battles on?
I am all for going after Saudi Arabia, I think
one of the reason's we went into Iraq was
to put pressure on SA for the long term.
Things have to change there, and if house
of Saud does not want to handle it, we will.
We conviently have 140k troops nextdoor
that will be there for a LONG time.

Your post about terrorsit numbers is old
news, already has been discussed on Oprano.
To anyone with a brain they would know
that original numbers had to be wrong,
they defies common sense and logic.
I know those are difficult concepts
for a parrot to learn.



I like posting like this, it makes my posts look longer and me smarter! :agrin:

Serge, wrong, I am all for engagement - but that doesn't mean all out war without any real backup. Yes, I know, the coalition of the willing - which was a nice way of saying "The US military and anyone else we could find to lend us 10 troops and a jeep". Very few of the major players from Gulf War I were back this time.

Without the fudged proof of WMD, it would have probably been the US all alone.

My question always is this: Why is Iraq different from North Korea, different from Lybia, different from Iran, etc? I don't see where NK's actual nuclear weapons are less of a threat than Saddam MAYBE having WMDs... I just don't get the logic.

Then again, I ain't a repulican... maybe it's something you understand once you get the magic decoder ring.

Alex :yowsa:

I've seen the same thing from fans of O'Reilly and Rush as well....
the left hardly has the monopoly on parroting their "leaders"

See Alex, you are full of it.

Liberal's always say what about N. Korea, Iran, Syria - like they are willing to slap them down.

But if Bush launched a strike on any of those countries YOU and the rest of the bleeding heart anti-Bush crowd with have a stroke!

There would be protests, and headlines reading how Bush is a warmonger and is leading the world to annilation.

We should be beefing up our military so we can take on N. Korea, Syria and Iran at the same time if need be within the next 2-3 years.

As far as WMD, who fudged proof? the UN, the French, Russians, Clinton, Pakistanies, Kerry?? All thought that Saddam had WMDs and are on the record stating so.

Why is it when Bush takes action on evidence that everyone agrees on that HE is wrong.

Either the WORLD was wrong, or there are weapons still out there.

You know what I think!

I've seen the same thing from fans of O'Reilly and Rush as well....
the left hardly has the monopoly on parroting their "leaders" [/b][/quote]


Do you even know that O'Reilly and Rush hate each other?

And I agree, both have a lot in common with Moore.

Mike, I forget, are you within dafting age if they re-instate the draft to beef up our military?

Personally, I would have bitched less about going after Syria than Iraq. Hell, I still think we should be bombing the fuck out of Saudi Arabia. More 9/11 hijackers where from there then Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, etc.

Do you even know that O'Reilly and Rush hate each other?

And I agree, both have a lot in common with Moore. [/b][/quote]
I'm quite aware of that, just mention in passing, that they all have their share of parrots...hell, Rush Limbaugh fans proudly call themselves dittoheads ;-)

Europeans think they can appease the terrorists, then hope the US will clean up the mess again.

It must be great to be a European country - you can criticize the US and appease the terrorist, but also benefit from the United States taking care of business.

Sounds like a familiar plot.

Even with their tiny spending on military, the European economies still SUCK and continues to go down. Though Austria has been doing very well. [/b][/quote]
hmm, I think there's more than the black&white pictures you're constructing here.

I think a lot of europeans know a lot about history and a lot of europeans (like me) still are very thankful that the allied saved us from Hitler (although Stalin wasn't that much better).

and today tenthousands of european soldiers are doing their duties in serbia or afghanistan, africa and lot of other countries - they just don't make so much "noise" than the US-soldiers. :awinky:

and regarding the terrorists, especially the ones from 9/11, I think no one would have expected something like that happening. They lived anonymously in germany, but also in the US they had no problem taking flying lessons.
to be honest: I worked in a copy shop next to the university where they studied, maybe I sold them even their scripts. who knows.

i think the world is much too large to have everything 100% under control - you have to offer opportunities. as long there is no money for food and education in so much countries, there is always space for radicalism. this has to be solved.

and i don't think that you can bomb people into their fortune.

my 2 cents

hmm, I think there's more than the black&white pictures you're constructing here.

I think a lot of europeans know a lot about history and a lot of europeans (like me) still are very thankful that the allied saved us from Hitler (although Stalin wasn't that much better).

and today tenthousands of european soldiers are doing their duties in serbia or afghanistan, africa and lot of other countries - they just don't make so much "noise" than the US-soldiers. :awinky:

and regarding the terrorists, especially the ones from 9/11, I think no one would have expected something like that happening. They lived anonymously in germany, but also in the US they had no problem taking flying lessons.
to be honest: I worked in a copy shop next to the university where they studied, maybe I sold them even their scripts. who knows.

i think the world is much too large to have everything 100% under control - you have to offer opportunities. as long there is no money for food and education in so much countries, there is always space for radicalism. this has to be solved.

and i don't think that you can bomb people into their fortune.

my 2 cents [/b][/quote]
All very good points.

However, Europeans would NOT have been in the former Yugoslavia if it were not for the United States unilaterally attackin Milosovich's troops for 35 days or so.

The reality is Europe does not have the military to handle offensive operations across the globe. They do not spend enough money on their military. Which is fine, but Europe should not work against the US on issues that in the long term will help the WORLD and EUROPE.

If France had not vetoed the Iraq resolution ( along with Russia who was telling Saddam they would do everything to keep the American's from attacking up until the day of war) maybe Saddam would have acted and let inspectors back in and we would not have had to fight a war.

yeah,
you avoid engaement with me and I'll answer your question nevertheless:
take a look at the MAP and YOU'll see WHy Iraq is different from all of the above

thats a point which will be never 100% verified, I think. can you swear that Bush would have taken care for the results? That he would not have gone to war when no weapons were found? or was it in revenge for his father who failed? and, the most important question for me, is it really bush, who is in control of the situation or are people like cheney, rumsfeld and rice the real leader? hard for me to say cause i have to take what i get from our newspapers and television. same for you regarding european politics and economics. it's always not from the own point of view but filtered through media which is never 100% objective.

thats a point which will be never 100% verified, I think. can you swear that Bush would have taken care for the results? That he would not have gone to war when no weapons were found? or was it in revenge for his father who failed? and, the most important question for me, is it really bush, who is in control of the situation or are people like cheney, rumsfeld and rice the real leader? hard for me to say cause i have to take what i get from our newspapers and television. same for you regarding european politics and economics. it's always not from the own point of view but filtered through media which is never 100% objective. [/b][/quote]


There are a lot of what ifs. I could not say 100% if this would have worked. But I think if the western world would have stood together, I think the results could have been better without as much blood shed.

Saddam really thought he would be able to avoid war since there was no UN backing. Aziz reported that the day before Russia and France both told Saddam they were doing everything they could to preven the war.

If the US did nothing in world politics, then I´m sure the next movie from Michael Moore would be called "Fortress USA - not caring for the world"... Like all men who desire another world order, then Michael Moore needs an enemy... The islamist choosed the US, because the western world is heavly represented by the US in economy, entertainment, science, power etc.... Even though the Islamist probably is more against the morals and values Michael Moore praises, then Michael Moore will rather choose the US goverment (no matter who is in power), because its difficult chasing down an islamist in Tehran asking him questions like "Mr. Mullah, why don´t you send your child to Paradise as a suicide bomber?" - the freedom of the US makes it possible for him to have an endless supply of "enemies" who are in power, but can not harm him. :unsure:

I have seen Fahrenheit 9/11... My first tought was that if the theme had been about "Area 51", then it would not have been "Bush Haters" cheering, but "UFO Fanatics", however in both cases they started seeing the movie having a t-shirt on with the words "I want to believe"... goverment failure to protect, conspiracy against the people, foreign/alien power in the US, coverups, mysteries etc. All great ingredients in a Michael Moore movie, or in a X-File episode. :yowsa:

Each fact was followed by a short conclusion or comment, which left no room for doubt or question... ex. Iraq was a peaceful country according to Michael Moore, then BAM the US invades, and soldiers start slaughtering the people, while lisiting to western rock music.... ehhhh didn´t Moore forget about the MILLIONS of iraqis who live as refugees outside Iraq, and how they got there?:ph34r:

Also when he shows "the fact" about the unity behind Bush after 9/11, then he shows us an interview with young blonde Britney Spears talking about politics? Come on, there were people much older, much more wise, and with a democratic opinion who supported the war on terror - why show us a video with Britney Spears... is he saying that it was only the naive persons who supported this, because they lacked the insight? I had never heard Britney Spears talk about politics before, however Michael Moore tought it was important that I got her opinion :blink:

I could go on, however just like the UFO Fanatics already have a firm opinion about UFOs, then Moore Fanatics probably also have one about his movies... but to those of you who like Michael Moore´s movie, because you do not like Bush, well then do not get a tatoo with Michael Moore´s name, because once your politician is elected as President, then Michael Moore will have a new enemy :o

this is definitely a point I have to agree and it is very sad that this did not work.

After 9-11, the most timid tree-hugging flower-wearing marshmellow would have been a "man of action". No one holding the office of President at that time could have nor would have remained idle. Bush gets no points for doing something in a situation where anyone would have done something.

... Ok, that said now watch this golf swing. :agrin:

did not see the movie yet - but this was really hilarious! :biglaugh:

After 9-11, the most timid tree-hugging flower-wearing marshmellow would have been a "man of action". No one holding the office of President at that time could have nor would have remained idle. Bush gets no points for doing something in a situation where anyone would have done something.

... Ok, that said now watch this golf swing. :agrin: [/b][/quote]
OH???

We had attack on Marine barracks in Beruit. Original attack on twin towers. ( remember truck bomb - they tried to knock them down.) Attack on the USS Cole. Khobar towers in Saudi Arabia.

What action was taken? lobe a few cruise missiles at empty camps and asprin factories?

The Bush administration has taken out 2 regimes of 2 seperate countries.

I will give you Afganistan and ousting the Taliban, I think most President's including Clinton would have done that. But Clinton would not have gone after Iraq. ( Drav you don't remember Clinton's rehtoric about Iraq when he was President? Hell he is the one who signed the law making it the official policy of the US to overthrow Saddam. Bush just acted rather then talked.)


As far as the American people demanding after 9-11. I agree with you. I made post a few weeks ago about Bush saving middle east. If terrorsits ever hit the US with some kind of WMD and there are mass casualties ( 10k+ which is not unthinkable - on some al quada websites they are saying 4 million US deaths would make US collapse) who ever the President is will feel a LOT of pressure to turn the whole area into a parking lot.

Mike, yup, 2 countries, 2 regimes, and probably 200,000 new potential terrorists created. This is really going to help. Woo hoo! Go get'em Bubba!

Yup.

Serge, if there is a difference because of where Iraq is on the map, then why doesn't Bush just come out and say so? Why hide behind the WMD bs? I asked the question rhetorically... the answer is obvious but why the heck does Bush beat around the bush on this?

Alex

There is no doubt in the short run there will be more alienated people who become terrorists, but the number is not much different then the status quo of doing nothing.

I know you would rather talk and rationalize with them, but they would cut your head off. Hard to negotiate when you head is no longer on your body.

Mike, it is also hard to negotiate with people who have just had their father / mother / brother / sister killed in an air strike or had their homes or businesses destroyed... or had their store looted or lost their job as a government official or as part of the military. They just don't give a shit about what anyone else has to say, they lost stuff, and they know who took it from them.

At that point, the radical terrorist message starts to sound way closer to the truth (as they know it) than anything the US can say.

Terrorism breeds terrorism... and so on. The actions of Isreal against the palestinians should be a clear indication that you can take their land, you can kill them, you can kill their leaders, and still they attack, they still launch suicide attacks, and they still inflict painful losses on Isreal on a daily basis. Any "win" that involves your citizens dying on a daily basis is a pretty hollow victory.

Alex

from what i see and read, the opposite is happening more and more.

200,000 new terrorists?

more and more Iraqis are challenging terrorists and starting to fight back. terrorists are killing mostly Iraqi's... not Americans... and a large % of those terrorists are not even Iraqi's.

you make it sound as if things are getting worse and worse... but there is just no evidence to support that. in fact, things are clearly getting better by the day. where are the 10's of thousands of people protesting? where are the religious leaders demanding everyone rebel as they were before? Fallujah... quiet. Takrit... no news from there. New government, new Constitution, economy booming etc etc. Bagdad now suffering occasional blackouts because of the massive surge in consumer goods being purchased and used such as washing machines, home electronics etc.

sorry to dissapoint you with a reality that is a little more optimistic than your doom and gloom and deep rooted desire to see America and Bush fail.

from what i see and read, the opposite is happening more and more.

200,000 new terrorists?

more and more Iraqis are challenging terrorists and starting to fight back. terrorists are killing mostly Iraqi's... not Americans... and a large % of those terrorists are not even Iraqi's.

you make it sound as if things are getting worse and worse... but there is just no evidence to support that. in fact, things are clearly getting better by the day. where are the 10's of thousands of people protesting? where are the religious leaders demanding everyone rebel as they were before? Fallujah... quiet. New government, new Constitution, economy booming etc etc. Bagdad now suffering occasional blackouts because of the massive surge in consumer goods being purchased and used such as washing machines, home electronics etc.

sorry to dissapoint you with a reality that is a little more optimistic than your doom and gloom and deep rooted desire to see America and Bush fail. [/b][/quote]


These are the same people who were talking about quagmire a week into combat operations. The same people who said the operational pause was the US military grinding to a halt. The same people who said tens of thousands of American soldiers will be coming home in body bags.

These are the same people who give Bush no credit for anything possitive, even if he backed into something accidently.

The same people who tried to talk down the economy. Who fought against tax cuts. How is the economy doing? Here is headlines from news today: U.S. companies set to post 25% profit growth for April-to-June quarter compared with year ago...

This is the same people who criticized Bush for not going to UN or allies. Now that Bush HAS gone to them and has both UN Support and NATO support, that Bush is still not doing it right.

It is crazy. The Bush administration has its fair share of blunders and mistakes, and they are wrong on some policies in my opinion, but he has accomplished some major things.

I cannot stand Clinton, I think he was a waste of amazing talent and very selfish. On top of it I cannot stand most of his policies, but I can give credit where credit is do, Clinton did do somethings that were great for this country.

Mike, I think Clinton's "keep them in a bottle" policy on Iraq was not wrong for the time. Yep, I think any president would have done the Taliban thing. I don't know if Clinton would have then used that as an excuse to go over Saddam afterwards. But again, I'm not sure how necessary it was even now. And yes, that's mindful of our hindsight on WMDs.

As to the way you think of Clinton, I think the same of Bush. :)

As to Alex and his 200,000 terrorists ... sorry man, you have to understand Muslim extremists -- hell, all terrorist extremists -- know one thing only, strength. If you scale back the fight, they think you are cowards. If you talk of peace, they think you are cowards.

These are NOT people you can put your little Daisy in their rifles and think they won't blow your head off -- they will. Is it ashame that the enlightened have to resort to the ways of the primative? It is ashame overall peaceful people have to resort to the ways of violence. Yes, it is ashame. It is also the only language they understand. It is also Life. So get your head out of the sand and recognize it!

i can prove God exists.
i can prove God does not exist.

what i can prove, does change what is.

Drav, you fight them, they fight back. You talk peace, they fight back. There is no difference. Except when you fight back, more and more of them have personal reasons to hate americans as their neighbors, friends, and other people they know are killed. They understand hate, and they understand more than anything REVENEGE.

They never forget.

Alex

Neither do we, Alex. :salute:

Do it

I've searched for proof for years :unsure:

Edit - I forgot to say Please

Well since I enjoy oversimplifactions

If "they" are going to fight for any and every reason

What does that leave "us" to do?

Fuck what the world needs now is love sweet love

Or a bomb plugged up some asses

any solutions?

Vick, alas, the solutions are not readily at hand. If I had one, i am sure that the current President and his soon to be replacement would both like to hear about it.

Alex

not true..
dead people have no memories

Alex, I don't know how you missed it in school,
but talking without any idead or solutions propodsed just for the sake of talking/critisizm is called...
DEMAGOGY

to be fair, nobody saw 9/11 or what preceded it.

Bush is a man of action?
so saudi's fly the planes on 9/11
and he goes into Iraq?
and gives Haliburton the contract worth $7 billion?
and his daddys Carlyle group gets involved?
Why do anyone think ONLY BUSH can do this job?
yeah ONLY BUSH could get his VP's corp the no bid rebuild