Hmmmm............

[straffo]

Had the airliner hijack/attacks not happened, the "War on Terror" would NEVER have begun.

To bad you to be hurted on your own soil to react ... (*)

Terrorism wasn't something new ... It din't appear the 11 of september 2001
Fact is that US troop payed the hard price previouly but the "US public" wasn't paying attention perhaps because it was only soldier ?
Or was Joe more interrested in the play off  (or any local news) than what happen outside US boundaries ?

(*) you want it or no USA cannot live out of the real world.
Your country is to big and as to many interrest to live ignoring what happen elsewere ...

[Udie at Work]

About oil.....


 It's not just for gas and oil anymore (really never was).  Do you guys realise how much stuff that we use was invented because of oil?  Do you guys know how many products are made out of oil or oil byproducts?    It's absolutely amazing how many diferent products are made out of crude oil.   Even if they found an alternate fuel source we will still be dependant on oil...

[Udie at Work]

Originally posted by Kieran
Weazel, I believe I have tried to converse with you intelligently, despite being a "shrub" supporter. I do note the irony of your calling for adult discourse while continuing with the immature appellation.

 That's why he's on my ignore list.  Don't need to read his post to know what he's saying.  

Argue any thing but the facts!!!!!!  

If that don't work change the subject!!!!

Finaly if none of the above works, attack the person!!!!


See enough of that from DC and all the pundants....

[Toad]

Originally posted by straffo

To bad you to be hurted on your own soil to react ... (*)

Terrorism wasn't something new ... It din't appear the 11 of september 2001

Well, I will agree with you that it took 9/11 WTC to make the US take off the gloves and use its military might in an essentially unrestricted fashion. After 9/11, we went after what we perceived as the immediate threat with a radically altered Rules of Engagement. I agree.

I will disagree with your insinuation that we were doing NOTHING prior to 9/11. There are examples of taking action against terrorists prior to that date. The actions were just ineffective, poorly thought out or half-hearted.

However, let me ask you this....

IF the US had gone into Afghanistan after the USS Cole or after the US Embassy bombings  (or even after the FIRST WTC bombing, because Al-Quaeda had its fingerprints all over that one and we knew it)  in EXACTLY the way we just went after Taliban Afghanistan...

what would "world opinion" have been? I think, if you are honest, you'll admit the US would have been scourged in the UN and the world press as "overreacting".

9/11 removed that from the picture.

Now further, I ask you this...

If you watched or have since read about last night's State of the Union, I think you'll agree that Bush made it REALLY CLEAR that we are not "done" yet.

He essentially directly told a few nations that they have a very short time to "clean up their act" or we'll be coming for them.

The realist in me says that these nations will thumb their noses at his warning and that US forces will again be in "hot" combat in the not too distant future.

The cynic in me says the next attack will come when the military says "we have rebuilt our stocks of smart weapons and are ready to attack" ... but the truth of it will be that the next round will be timed to coincide with the Fall 2002 House/Senate elections. In other words, it will be politically timed. (...and don't make this out to be a solely Republican strategy. The Democrats would and have done the same type of thing. Politics is never totally out of any decision.)

Anyway... we all know IRAQ is indeed deep into weapons of mass destruction and that they do have links to and have sponsored terrorism.

So, Straffo... when we go after IRAQ, all-out, gloves off.. what will you say then?

[weazel]

Kieren, "shrub" is an expression of my contempt for the scum in the white house and not meant as an attack on you or anyone else.


Udie I'm glad to be on your "mommy that man doesn't agree with me list".  Your just another PC like groinhurtz.

[Udie at Work]

Originally posted by weazel
Udie I'm glad to be on your "mommy that man doesn't agree with me list".  Your just another PC like groinhurtz.

 Weazle you stupid fool,  you don't know what we agree or don't agree on.  You're too interested in personal attacks with people who don't agree with you[ to get far enough in a debate or conversation about what we agree on or not.   Go back over you're post of the last month or two and you just might come to the same conclusion I have,  You and Grun are 2 sides of the same coin.
 

 I'll make a deal with ya,  start debating instead of slurring and I'll take you off the ignore list (which is really stupid anyway because I still see your posts and open them like I pick at a scab that trying to heal)  It's real simple,  I think you're to pissed at me to do this though.  Please prove me wrong?

[Toad]

Originally posted by weazel
Kieren, "shrub" is an expression of my contempt for the scum in the white house and not meant as an attack on you or anyone else.

Yes, and it's comments like these that undermine your arguments before they begin.

I think you'll find people more receptive to discussing topics with you if you refrain from pointless ad hominem attacks.

Just my .02.

[weazel]

I don't see you jumping on the *conservatives* who use expressions like *Clintonistas* or other derogatory words to describe dems.

Sounds like a double standard to me toad.

Weazle you stupid fool, you don't know what we agree or don't agree on. You're too interested in personal attacks with people who don't agree with you[ to get far enough in a debate or conversation about what we agree on or not. Go back over you're post of the last month or two and you just might come to the same conclusion I have, You and Grun are 2 sides of the same coin.


Hmmmm, the pot calls the kettle black.

[Toad]

Show me an example of where I use those terms Weazel.

That's my point. ANYONE that uses baseless pejoratives to make their argument... instead of just discussing the issues calmly... negatively biases their case.

Lead by example.

If you become indistinguishable from your enemy... are you your own enemy?

[straffo]

I won't take position about Iraq
Anyway my position is known I think I support the Iraqui not their dictature ...
The work was not terminated in 1990 why ? perhaps because of the Iran ?

What I discuss is the fact that none of your previous president took a clear and public position concerning terrorism.

And I'm not sure that in the absence of the WTC tragedie such think would have happened ...

btw I will post tomorrow as here it's 21:30 and I waked up at 4:30 ... the only think I was is going to bed not having an internet debate

[Toad]

Originally posted by straffo
I won't take position about Iraq
Anyway my position is known I think I support the Iraqui not their dictature ...

What? You won't take a clear and public position against terrorism? I'm shocked, I say, SHOCKED!


What I discuss is the fact that none of your previous president took a clear and public position concerning terrorism.

Well, apparently none that YOU noticed. Several President's have stated their policies against terrorists and some have resulted in military action, admittedly with varying success.

But to say US President's have not publicly opposed terrorism...


And I'm not sure that in the absence of the WTC tragedie such think would have happened ...

The WTC simply allowed us to act in an essentially unrestricted manner against Bin Laden and his supporters.. including the Taliban. It allowed us to "go to war" instead of trying to handle it yet again through diplomatic channels (a method that has had little if any success.)

[straffo]

My little girl won't sleep ... So I'm back ...but as tired as before ...well no I'm more tired ...

It's obvious I didn't make my point clear :

I'm against any form of terrorism.
Period.

The fact that for some time we (westerner) supported Saddam and now let  the average Iraqui support our anger disgust me as we didn't terminate the job in the 90's ...
you didn't answered ? was it because of Iran ? ....

I'm not sure that the Iraqui are more or less evil than our current "friends" the saoudi who are the lowest form of Bastard I know with those poor Koweiti ...
May they burn in hell...

Concerning your previous president ... they don't speak loud enought to cross the Atlantic ... especially when all other country expect something (as I said before USA as a big role to play worldwide even if some US citizen believe le contraire)

And I strongly beleive that saying that only Corea Irak and Iran are supporting terrorism is an ENORMOUS mistake ...

Well you need the support of the Pakistani (*) so they can't support terrorism it would be in contradiction we your principles no ?
I'm sure the Indian are pleased to hear that ... but who care of the sentiment of a (I spit ... berk it's disguting ...) "socialistic country" ?

And the founding of Isreal was cought... cought... sorry not terrorism ?


(*) ouch ... I put you nose in your own toejam ? I feel so ... sorry
Don't make me a speech about real-politik ...
I know what dirty thinks need to be done for a country ....


I'm pretty sure to be mis-understood ...
but as I'm too tired to re-write or re-read my post I will commen't later ...
tomorrow in fact ...

[Toad]

Originally posted by straffo
The fact that for some time we (westerner) supported Saddam and now let  the average Iraqui support our anger disgust me as we didn't terminate the job in the 90's ...

Well, situations change, don't they? We were allies with the Soviet Union...next thing you know Cold War enemies.  Were we wrong to support the Soviets as allies in WW2?

I don't think so but... things change.

I wish we had finished it. I think the "100 hour war" was a stupid mistake. We needed another week or so.


you didn't answered ? was it because of Iran ? ....

No, I don't think it was Iran.  

IMO it was two things... The coalition hadn't planned on being so successful (total rout of Iraqi forces) so fast and had no idea how they would run Iraq or propose as its leader if they deposed him. Also, the "highway of death" BS (and it was BS.. those were mostly kills of empty vehicles after the initial missions) playing on CNN brought out a strong sentiment amonst timid politicians that it was time to stop.

Just my opinion, though.

I'm not sure that the Iraqui are more or less evil than our current "friends" the saoudi who are the lowest form of Bastard I know with those poor Koweiti ...
May they burn in hell...

I am. The Saudis, bast*rds or not, aren't openly training folks to take over airliners nor are they building weapons of mass destruction of the nuke/chemical/biological type. Iraq IS.

Concerning your previous president ... they don't speak loud enought to cross the Atlantic ... especially when all other country expect something (as I said before USA as a big role to play worldwide even if some US citizen believe le contraire)

Or it may be no one listens closely when "those stupid Americans" are talking. I admit our politicians send confusing signals sometimes... but sometimes they don't.

As for USA's leadership... agreed. But to lead you have to have followers. The US has been working on BOTH Israel and the Palestinians to stop the terror.  Maybe I'm not hearing, but where have the Euro's been on this issue? Why do I see few if any Euro statesmen in Israel or Palestine offering to help?

And I strongly beleive that saying that only Corea Irak and Iran are supporting terrorism is an ENORMOUS mistake ...

I don't think he said "only". He said we'll be working on these FIRST.  Be patient.  

Well you need the support of the Pakistani (*) so they can't support terrorism it would be in contradiction we your principles no ?

Have you noticed Powell and Bush working on Pakistani leadership to get them to STOP their anti-Indian rhetoric and to crack down on Pakistani terrorists? Do you think they didn't talk about that when Musharraf came to DC?

I'm sure the Indian are pleased to hear that ... but who care of the sentiment of a (I spit ... berk it's disguting ...) "socialistic country" ?

Did you notice Powell going to India also to help defuse the situation?


Bottom line..despite the artillery barrages and shooting, did India and Pakistan go to war over Kashmir... yet?  No. And who was doing the intermediary diplomacy? You guessed it, didn't you?

What other Euro's, other than England's Blair have tried to help defuse India/Pakistan? It's going to take ALL of us... you can't realistically expect us to do it all.

And the founding of Isreal was cought... cought... sorry not terrorism ?

Sure, the Jews used terror as a weapon to achieve statehood. Begin was a terrorist, just like Arafat.

But the UN, not the US granted "statehood" to Israel. Right now, the US has said that "statehood" is probably warranted for Palestine... but the Palestinians have used terror to get to this situation... so..   should we deny the Palestinians?

Sorry its not a perfect world, Straffo. Even the US alone can't make it perfect. We do what we can... what are the rest of you doing?


(*) ouch ... I put you nose in your own toejam ? I feel so ... sorry
Don't make me a speech about real-politik ...
I know what dirty thinks need to be done for a country ....[

Not my nose, not my sh*t.

I think there's plenty of sh*t left all around the world by colonial powers that just about everyone has either stuck their nose in or stepped in.

Do you want to talk about French dealings with Iraq prior to and after the Gulf war? Plenty of sh*t my friend. Or perhaps VietNam right after WW2?

Point is we can talk about it or forget the blame and just all help clean it up.

[straffo]

// I'm still trying to have a rest but the little is still  sick
 she is making her teeth  ...

in short : I agree.

What is truly strange is that I agree point by point ...
I'm either to tired to think a bit or I do really agree

About toejam I know that our toejam stink as strong as the other's ...

Concerning colonial behaviour (or mis-behaviour)

The Last fact made me jump to the ceilling (dunno if it's an correct english expression but her we use it )  :

A french Veteran got (depending on condition ...)  something like 3000  euro per month ... an strictly EQUIVALENT African Veteran got less than 200 Euro !

Why ? frankly I boiled ....


Concening cleaning up the mess ...

Well I'm not optimistic enought to believe It wil happen ...

[midnight Target]

I have heard it suggested that we didn't finish the job in Iraq because we actually want Saddam Hussien in power. That he is one of the only influencial leaders in the area that is not considered an Islamic Fundamentalist, and thus provides a balance in the region in his own sick way.

Maybe with the softening of relations with Iran, this will change and we will be able to safely take the bastard out without creating a holy war for Bagdad.