NationStates Jolt Archive

This time as an excuse to invade Iran in June

Saying that he would allow a terrorist attack in order to further his goals is stupid. He's a lot of bad things, but wouldn't do that, it goes beyond inhuman.

i think that it is impossible for bush to allow another terrorist attack inside the US becasue he did not allow the first one.

he may fail to prevent, but it wont be an attack by iran any more than it was an attack by iraq (or for that matter, afghanistan).

Saying that he would allow a terrorist attack in order to further his goals is stupid. He's a lot of bad things, but wouldn't do that, it goes beyond inhuman.
and thats exactly why he'd do it

he has inhuman values

He's invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and they attack Spain.

They attacked the US without bush doing anything. Since he's doing things now, it's obvious that nothing will be done.

i think that it is impossible for bush to allow another terrorist attack inside the US becasue he did not allow the first one.

he may fail to prevent, but it wont be an attack by iran any more than it was an attack by iraq (or for that matter, afghanistan).
deliberately failing to prevent a terrorist attack is just a nicer way of saying allowed

*but I agree with your other point*

and thats exactly why he'd do it

he has inhuman values

Question: do you care about people dying or would you be glad to see another terrorist attack so you can have a masturbation session after giving bush a good scathing?

He's invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and they attack Spain.

They attacked the US without bush doing anything. Since he's doing things now, it's obvious that nothing will be done.
In New York, at least one small explosion occurred early this morning outside the British consulate in midtown. No injuries were reported

and thats exactly why he'd do it

he has inhuman values
You're saying he's watch citizens die, basically. That's taking Bush-Bashing to a whole new level; it goes into idiocy.

June is already too late - would be too hot...

I bet that the next attack will be around November/December, maybe on a Christian holiday?

Question: do you care about people dying or would you be glad to see another terrorist attack so you can have a masturbation session after giving bush a good scathing?
I care deeply about people dying

thats the main reason why I hate Bush the murderer

You're saying he's watch citizens die, basically. That's taking Bush-Bashing to a whole new level; it goes into idiocy.
No he didnt watch it--his father did with the Bin Ladens on a TV while drinking champagne

Im compelled to report that Evil exists

I'd hardly call it "idiocy." Get this: a week before 9/11, a Prfessional Golfer's private plaen went off course. His planbe was intercepted and excorted to a safe landing zones by F-15s. Yet four jumbo jets could fly off course thorugh NYC without an F-15 even leaving the ground? explain that one

Who cares...


The stupid americian public voted him back in, so if he fails to prevent another terrorist strike that causes several thousand deaths, well thats just fewer dumb asses to vote for him.

June is already too late - would be too hot...

I bet that the next attack will be around November/December, maybe on a Christian holiday?
but Scott Ritter said June...

Who cares...


The stupid americian public voted him back in, so if he fails to prevent another terrorist strike that causes several thousand deaths, well thats just fewer dumb asses to vote for him.
the deaths Bush causes is on a global scale

Question: do you care about people dying or would you be glad to see another terrorist attack so you can have a masturbation session after giving bush a good scathing?
That's a good point. In fact, I'm sure whoever wrote that probably would like it if Bush DID allow another terrorist attack. By the way, I know he's got ''inhuman values'' and all, but he at least deserves to have his name capitalized. YES, he still counts as a proper noun!

*sniff sniff*
I smell...troll.
Cha-chink
*rolls into thread SWAT style and blasts the troll with 12 gauge rounds*
Oh my God! ITS ADAPTING! RUNN AWAYYYYY!!!!

Who cares...


The stupid americian public voted him back in, so if he fails to prevent another terrorist strike that causes several thousand deaths, well thats just fewer dumb asses to vote for him.


Actually, what real choice did they have? The candidate opposite him couldn't say the same thing twice in the same sentence.
I may not like what our President does in some situations, but at least I know he's not going to 'hop into bed' with our enemies and play nice with them. I know 'where' he stands, even if I don't necessarily agree with it.
So along those lines, I'll be a 'dumbass' rather than vote for a 'kissass' anyday.

Im compelled to report that Evil exists
I'm compelled to report that we have a no trolling policy on these forums. I strongly suggest you read all about it in the link under my name. Right below Moderator, in fact.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023)

*sniff sniff*
I smell...troll.
Cha-chink
*rolls into thread SWAT style and blasts the troll with 12 gauge rounds*
Oh my God! ITS ADAPTING! RUNN AWAYYYYY!!!!
I bow to the Mother of all Trolls--her name is the TRUTH

Actually, what real choice did they have? The candidate opposite him couldn't say the same thing twice in the same sentence.
I may not like what our President does in some situations, but at least I know he's not going to 'hop into bed' with our enemies and play nice with them. I know 'where' he stands, even if I don't necessarily agree with it.
So along those lines, I'll be a 'dumbass' rather than vote for a 'kissass' anyday.
As an American I recognize Bush as the enemy

I'm compelled to report that we have a no trolling policy on these forums. I strongly suggest you read all about it in the link under my name. Right below Moderator, in fact.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023)
But Im not trying to troll. Im trying to speak the absolute Truth about the biggest threat facing human existence in the world today

OOh, you can be our new Skapedroe!

OOh, you can be our new Skapedroe!
ok

I care deeply about people dying

thats the main reason why I hate Bush the murderer

Bush the murderer? First of all most of the military is glad to be fighting for their President in Iraq. Many jump at the opportunity for deployment or voluntarily serve multiple duties in Iraq because they dont like sitting on their butts doing nothing while dictators, terrorists, and the nations that house them threaten our country. If Bush was not such an action President, if he'd done nothing after 9/11 but talk, the attacks would have continued on America. Instead Bush chose action and showed the terrorist bastards that America will not stand by to be f**ked with. Also, you say Bush is a murderer, but he is opposed to abortion which is undoubtedly the murder of many Americans.

OOh, you can be our new Skapedroe!
Better yet, he could be an incarnation of MKULTRA!

Maybe you should rephrase the question as this. Why did Clinton allow 9-11 terrorist attack? Will GW Bush allow it to happen again? I mean Clinton did have a chance to capture Osama a couple times. Would sound about right to me. Just so you understand the whole operation wasnt put into effect only during Bush's 8 months in office. It was obviously done during Clinton years.

Who cares...


The stupid americian public voted him back in, so if he fails to prevent another terrorist strike that causes several thousand deaths, well thats just fewer dumb asses to vote for him.

You sick fucking troll, do you think the people that died on 9/11 were dumbasses? Let me ask you, on 9/11 did you mourn the deaths of the victims or of the terrorists? This kind of thread makes me want to puke, it is sickening to think people are fucking dumb enough to believe that the United States government caused 9/11. Has hatred for the United States of America gone that far? Whats next? Will you start suggesting that all American citizens should be sent to death camps? For a stupid country full of stupid they sure have done alot of amazing things. They put the first person on the moon, they have the most technologically advanced military in the world, pretty amazing for a bunch of dumbasses, eh? If anyone one should die in a terrorist attack it is you and others like you, so that dumbasses like you can't vote in another Clinton, because then you will get another 9/11.

Maybe you should rephrase the question as this. Why did Clinton allow 9-11 terrorist attack? Will GW Bush allow it to happen again? I mean Clinton did have a chance to capture Osama a couple times. Would sound about right to me. Just so you understand the whole operation wasnt put into effect only during Bush's 8 months in office. It was obviously done during Clinton years.
On what grounds? Do present to the grand jury the evidence allowing the United States to place him into custody (pre-1998, when it became clear that Osama was behind that mess, which is after the alledged communication and handover between Sudan and the US)? Why didn't George W. Bush, upon seeing this clear and compelling evidence, jump into action and being massive miltary operations against him?

(I'm not saying that Bush ignored it either. They both fucked up, but neither of them did anything like that which they have both been accused of.)

Who cares...


The stupid americian public voted him back in, so if he fails to prevent another terrorist strike that causes several thousand deaths, well thats just fewer dumb asses to vote for him.


correction... not the entire public did..in fact Kerry was close to winning...but it is under speculation that Bush tampered wiht the votes yet again. So really it's very unclear whether the 'majority' actually DID vote him in, or it was a farse :) Do keep that in mind, as I am an american and I voted for kerry..but yes, those who did vote for him did it for only a few of the reasons ;p mainly because he is a 'christian' when kerry is also the same. Most people are simply blind (the people who voted) and can't see through th e false image. I do agree that a few thousand deaths might open up some eyes....however it might have the opposite effect and clsoe down a few people even more than before. Honestly what would open some eyes is if the news like CNN and C-Span would show evidence that all the shit he's been talking about as being wrong or needing changed was actually false....he;l if news companies would do that in general...of course that won't happen ebcause they are either funded or aided by the republicans or they are friends of them. ;p ok I'm done ranting.

Better yet, he could be an incarnation of MKULTRA!
Skapedroe was MKULTRA.

But Im not trying to troll. Im trying to speak the absolute Truth about the biggest threat facing human existence in the world today

I don't know, I'd say full fledged nuke war is a bit worse then the U.S. invading say Iran or Syria.

Skapedroe was MKULTRA.
Sigh...yes, I know.

As an American I recognize Bush as the enemy


So, what... you consider yourself a terrorist, then?

Bush is not the enemy. The enemy hides behind bombs and kills innocent civilians because it doesn't have the guts to fight according to the rules of the Geneva convention. Our soldiers are in Iraq to draw the fire of terrorists who would otherwise have plenty of free time to kill people in other parts of the world. (And to possibly give the allies a base of operations, with which to keep an eye out for possible future attacks)
Besides, enemy of what?

Sigh...yes, I know.
Ah. Did I miss an attempt at humour or something? I tend to do that.

On what grounds? Do present to the grand jury the evidence allowing the United States to place him into custody (pre-1998, when it became clear that Osama was behind that mess, which is after the alledged communication and handover between Sudan and the US)? Why didn't George W. Bush, upon seeing this clear and compelling evidence, jump into action and being massive miltary operations against him?

(I'm not saying that Bush ignored it either. They both fucked up, but neither of them did anything like that which they have both been accused of.)


He admitted to the bombings of two African Embassies. Also his org. claimed responsibility for the USS Cole attack in Yemen. What else do you need. Sudan offered to turn him over. They had him in custody. What did Clinton do? Bomb some pharmacy mfg. Stupid.

Bush the murderer? First of all most of the military is glad to be fighting for their President in Iraq. Many jump at the opportunity for deployment or voluntarily serve multiple duties in Iraq because they dont like sitting on their butts doing nothing while dictators, terrorists, and the nations that house them threaten our country. If Bush was not such an action President, if he'd done nothing after 9/11 but talk, the attacks would have continued on America. Instead Bush chose action and showed the terrorist bastards that America will not stand by to be f**ked with. Also, you say Bush is a murderer, but he is opposed to abortion which is undoubtedly the murder of many Americans.
the reason 911 happened at all is exactly because Bush allowed it and refused to ACT to stop it. He only ACTED when it was to do something he always wanted to do in the first place. Bush failed to ACT on 911 when America was under direct assault. Also Abortion isnt murder its recycling

Maybe you should rephrase the question as this. Why did Clinton allow 9-11 terrorist attack? Will GW Bush allow it to happen again? I mean Clinton did have a chance to capture Osama a couple times. Would sound about right to me. Just so you understand the whole operation wasnt put into effect only during Bush's 8 months in office. It was obviously done during Clinton years.
Actually it was Clinton who DID warn Bush about Osama prior to 911 but Bush needed a terrorist attack to happen so he can have an excuse to invade Iraq for oil--to this day Bush doesnt consider Osama to be his priority in catching. Afterall he never knows when he may need to use him again

He admitted to the bombings of two African Embassies. Also his org. claimed responsibility for the USS Cole attack in Yemen. What else do you need. Sudan offered to turn him over. They had him in custody. What did Clinton do? Bomb some pharmacy mfg. Stupid.
When did he claim responsibility for this? After 1998?

Remember when the Sudan offer was? 1996-early 1998?


Care to retract your statement?


Oh, and he thought that it was a chemical weapon producing factory. As did the CIA and various other intelligence agencies. They were wrong. We went to war believing that Iraq had chemical weapons. They were wrong. Don't start.

You sick fucking troll, do you think the people that died on 9/11 were dumbasses? Let me ask you, on 9/11 did you mourn the deaths of the victims or of the terrorists? This kind of thread makes me want to puke, it is sickening to think people are fucking dumb enough to believe that the United States government caused 9/11. Has hatred for the United States of America gone that far? Whats next? Will you start suggesting that all American citizens should be sent to death camps? For a stupid country full of stupid they sure have done alot of amazing things. They put the first person on the moon, they have the most technologically advanced military in the world, pretty amazing for a bunch of dumbasses, eh? If anyone one should die in a terrorist attack it is you and others like you, so that dumbasses like you can't vote in another Clinton, because then you will get another 9/11.
meanwhile 911 happened on Bushs non-watch :rolleyes:

the reason 911 happened at all is exactly because Bush allowed it and refused to ACT to stop it. He only ACTED when it was to do something he always wanted to do in the first place. Bush failed to ACT on 911 when America was under direct assault. Also Abortion isnt murder its recycling


Ahhh.... someone who hides and condones the killing of innocent children....Maybe President Bush really is your enemy.
So, what were we doing in Afghanastan... if Bush failed to act on 911? You don't really know what you're talking about do? You just don't like Bush, and are grasping at reasons to slam him. Fine, you go ahead. President Bush is just following the lead of just about every other war time President America has had. If the people can see an enemy, they can fight it.

I don't know, I'd say full fledged nuke war is a bit worse then the U.S. invading say Iran or Syria.
full fledged nuke war is the ultimate result of what Bush is doing now

"who thinks Bush will allow another terrorist attack in America?"

"Another" attack? He already allowed one? Care to explain yourself on that? :mad:

full fledged nuke war is the ultimate result of what Bush is doing now
You must have brown eyes! Gotta be! :mad:

So, what... you consider yourself a terrorist, then?

Bush is not the enemy. The enemy hides behind bombs and kills innocent civilians because it doesn't have the guts to fight according to the rules of the Geneva convention. Our soldiers are in Iraq to draw the fire of terrorists who would otherwise have plenty of free time to kill people in other parts of the world. (And to possibly give the allies a base of operations, with which to keep an eye out for possible future attacks)
Besides, enemy of what?
And Bush used schoolkids as human shields on 911
Bush is the one who turned terrorism into a profitable business for his cronies and him-Bush is the enemy and continues to destablize the world and endangers the security of all Americans and europeans by extension

I bow to the Mother of all Trolls--her name is the TRUTH
You wouldn't recognize the truth if it slapped you so hard your grandchildren's ears would ache! :mad:

He admitted to the bombings of two African Embassies. Also his org. claimed responsibility for the USS Cole attack in Yemen. What else do you need. Sudan offered to turn him over. They had him in custody. What did Clinton do? Bomb some pharmacy mfg. Stupid.
Bush is the one who said Osama is not a priority-Bush is the one who outsourced the hunt for Osama to Afghan warlords who were his allies a week before. Bush is the one who allowed America to be attacked on 911

"who thinks Bush will allow another terrorist attack in America?"

"Another" attack? He already allowed one? Care to explain yourself on that? :mad:


How can a person allow something, that they don't know was going to happen? Any more than President Clinton allowed Bin Laden to bomb the world trade center the first time it was bombed. Why didn't we go after the bastard then? There is no one to blame for 911 except for the terrorists. They are the sick f***ks who seem to have a problem with America.

Fishin's good here.


Bush = Liar


He attacked Iraq for no reason. And lets face it, he lied to you all, to all of us in fact. This is the same person who went AWOL. This is the person who has stated that he hasn't done drugs in the last 25 years ( I may be wrong but I think bush jr is older than 25 years old so what was he doing before that)? This is the person that has done a record low number of press conferences because his advisors dont want him to put his foot in his mouth too often, although he still manages this too.

Oh yes and lets all forget about the deficit(higher than ever). Unemployment(Higher than ever). Healthcare(whats that). Education(edumincation?). All things that Bush has forgotten in his blind race towards world domination.

Lets also forget about North Korea. A nation that has nucleur weapons, and will use them. A far greater threat than either Afganastan (now producing more opium than ever) or Iraq (a country under sanctions for 10 years must put up a hell of a tough fight). Keep in mind that good ol general Patton covered more ground in world war two against the battle hardened German forces in less time, than the invincible american army of today could against an under trained under equiped Iraq army.

It is unfortunate that Bush was reelected. But I know many americians are sorry.

www.sorryeverybody.com

;)

You can slander my opinion, but you cant argue with it.

correction... not the entire public did..in fact Kerry was close to winning...but it is under speculation that Bush tampered wiht the votes yet again. So really it's very unclear whether the 'majority' actually DID vote him in, or it was a farse :) Do keep that in mind, as I am an american and I voted for kerry..but yes, those who did vote for him did it for only a few of the reasons ;p mainly because he is a 'christian' when kerry is also the same. Most people are simply blind (the people who voted) and can't see through th e false image. I do agree that a few thousand deaths might open up some eyes....however it might have the opposite effect and clsoe down a few people even more than before. Honestly what would open some eyes is if the news like CNN and C-Span would show evidence that all the shit he's been talking about as being wrong or needing changed was actually false....he;l if news companies would do that in general...of course that won't happen ebcause they are either funded or aided by the republicans or they are friends of them. ;p ok I'm done ranting.


Kerry is a pinko bent on big government Europeanism. Bush flaunts intrusive Spanish inquisition government. His government is also big. But I do think it is insane to think he wants another 9/11 to happen. I'll give you one slap, it would further his Wilsonean desires to remake the Middle East if it did happen again. Look out world.

Ahhh.... someone who hides and condones the killing of innocent children....Maybe President Bush really is your enemy.
So, what were we doing in Afghanastan... if Bush failed to act on 911? You don't really know what you're talking about do? You just don't like Bush, and are grasping at reasons to slam him. Fine, you go ahead. President Bush is just following the lead of just about every other war time President America has had. If the people can see an enemy, they can fight it.
Bush tried to link 911 to Iraq cause thats the country he wanted to invade first. Thats why he allowed the 911 attack in the first place afterall. He only attacked Afghanistan first cause Tony Blair shamed him into it

And Bush used schoolkids as human shields on 911
Bush is the one who turned terrorism into a profitable business for his cronies and him-Bush is the enemy and continues to destablize the world and endangers the security of all Americans and europeans by extension


Human shields? Someone was shooting at him at he grabbed a kid as a shield? It was a planned event and he was doing his job.
The only ones responsible for destablizing the world are the terrorist. And as for the security of Americans, have you tried to fly in the last few years? Have you tried to get a drivers license? or crossed the border?
On to the profitable business part... is it the Presidents fault he knows who to call to get the job done?

He attacked Iraq for no reason. And lets face it, he lied to you all, to all of us in fact. This is the same person who went AWOL. This is the person who has stated that he hasn't done drugs in the last 25 years ( I may be wrong but I think bush jr is older than 25 years old so what was he doing before that)? This is the person that has done a record low number of press conferences because his advisors dont want him to put his foot in his mouth too often, although he still manages this too.

Oh yes and lets all forget about the deficit(higher than ever). Unemployment(Higher than ever). Healthcare(whats that). Education(edumincation?). All things that Bush has forgotten in his blind race towards world domination.

Lets also forget about North Korea. A nation that has nucleur weapons, and will use them. A far greater threat than either Afganastan (now producing more opium than ever) or Iraq (a country under sanctions for 10 years must put up a hell of a tough fight). Keep in mind that good ol general Patton covered more ground in world war two against the battle hardened German forces in less time, than the invincible american army of today could against an under trained under equiped Iraq army.

You can slander my opinion, but you cant argue with it.
I could easily argue with it, but even if I did you would simply find some other reason to justify your obvious bias and hatred. I'm done with you intellectual midgets who bash the US, bash the US military, bash the US President, bash anything at all remotely having to do with the US. I voted for President Bush and I would gladly vote for him again, if for no other reason than the sort of idiots who oppose him.

You wouldn't recognize the truth if it slapped you so hard your grandchildren's ears would ache! :mad:
you have P.artisan D.enial S.yndrome

This is going to get locked. Quickly. Most everyone in here besides me, Mark, and possibly Eutrusca are either trolling, flaming, or countertrolling.

Just a warning. Quite a few people seem to be headed towards a rather quick forum ban.

you have P.artisan D.enial S.yndrome
And you have F.oot I.n M.outh S.yndrome.

How can a person allow something, that they don't know was going to happen? Any more than President Clinton allowed Bin Laden to bomb the world trade center the first time it was bombed. Why didn't we go after the bastard then? There is no one to blame for 911 except for the terrorists. They are the sick f***ks who seem to have a problem with America.
Bush received numerous SPECIFIC warnings-But Bush needed a cataclysmic attack. Its as simple and ugly as that-get used to it

Fishin's good here.


Bush = Liar


He attacked Iraq for no reason. And lets face it, he lied to you all, to all of us in fact. This is the same person who went AWOL. This is the person who has stated that he hasn't done drugs in the last 25 years ( I may be wrong but I think bush jr is older than 25 years old so what was he doing before that)? This is the person that has done a record low number of press conferences because his advisors dont want him to put his foot in his mouth too often, although he still manages this too.

Oh yes and lets all forget about the deficit(higher than ever). Unemployment(Higher than ever). Healthcare(whats that). Education(edumincation?). All things that Bush has forgotten in his blind race towards world domination.

Lets also forget about North Korea. A nation that has nucleur weapons, and will use them. A far greater threat than either Afganastan (now producing more opium than ever) or Iraq (a country under sanctions for 10 years must put up a hell of a tough fight). Keep in mind that good ol general Patton covered more ground in world war two against the battle hardened German forces in less time, than the invincible american army of today could against an under trained under equiped Iraq army.

You can slander my opinion, but you cant argue with it.
You're right. It's hard to argue with nonsense.
He attacked Iraq for Saddam's 12 years of impeding UN resolution, for the multiple SAM launches against American and British planes, for the thousands of dollars given to Palestinian terrorists, for the medical care given to Al Zarqawi after the Afghanistan invasion, and to prevent the proliferation of WMDs that American, British, Israeli, and Russian intelligence said Saddam had.

Unemployment is at the same levels as it was in the mid-90's under Clinton.

I don't see anyone forgetting about N Korea. I see a multi-national coalition (something Bush's opponents seem to think is absolutely vital) pressuring N Korea to give up its ambitions. I hope you're not implying we should have invaded them rather than Iraq.

Bush tried to link 911 to Iraq cause thats the country he wanted to invade first. Thats why he allowed the 911 attack in the first place afterall. He only attacked Afghanistan first cause Tony Blair shamed him into it

Quick question what would England gain from the invasion of Afghanistan?

Bush received numerous SPECIFIC warnings-But Bush needed a cataclysmic attack. Its as simple and ugly as that-get used to it

Whatever...

Human shields? Someone was shooting at him at he grabbed a kid as a shield? It was a planned event and he was doing his job.
The only ones responsible for destablizing the world are the terrorist. And as for the security of Americans, have you tried to fly in the last few years? Have you tried to get a drivers license? or crossed the border?
On to the profitable business part... is it the Presidents fault he knows who to call to get the job done?
Bushs job was to sit in a classroom for 40 minutes while America was under direct attack looking like the worlds biggest jackass?

I could easily argue with it, but even if I did you would simply find some other reason to justify your obvious bias and hatred. I'm done with you intellectual midgets who bash the US, bash the US military, bash the US President, bash anything at all remotely having to do with the US. I voted for President Bush and I would gladly vote for him again, if for no other reason than the sort of idiots who oppose him.
Bashing Bush is the single most PRO-AMERICAN thing I think anyone can do

Bushs job was to sit in a classroom for 40 minutes while America was under direct attack looking like the worlds biggest jackass?


Sorry, he couldn't look like the worlds biggest... because in my honest opinion... you've got that pretty well tied up.

This is going to get locked. Quickly. Most everyone in here besides me, Mark, and possibly Eutrusca are either trolling, flaming, or countertrolling.

Just a warning. Quite a few people seem to be headed towards a rather quick forum ban.
have things really gotten that bad around here that any kind of controversial and heated debate is now censored?

have things really gotten that bad around here that any kind of controversial and heated debate is now censored?

How often do you think a thread that starts out saying when Bush will allow the next terrorist attack to happen end well??

You're right. It's hard to argue with nonsense.
He attacked Iraq for Saddam's 12 years of impeding UN resolution, for the multiple SAM launches against American and British planes, for the thousands of dollars given to Palestinian terrorists, for the medical care given to Al Zarqawi after the Afghanistan invasion, and to prevent the proliferation of WMDs that American, British, Israeli, and Russian intelligence said Saddam had.

Unemployment is at the same levels as it was in the mid-90's under Clinton.

I don't see anyone forgetting about N Korea. I see a multi-national coalition (something Bush's opponents seem to think is absolutely vital) pressuring N Korea to give up its ambitions. I hope you're not implying we should have invaded them rather than Iraq.
everyone knew Saddam had no WMDs and Bush who hates the UN doesnt give a rats ass about UN resolutions get real.In reality, Saddam was the most helpless man in the mideast.
Unemployment and the levels are underemployed are higher now then under Clinton plus Bush tanked the economy on top of that
If it wasnt for Bushs total failures on the diplomatic front we wouldnt even be talking about NK nukes right now

everyone knew Saddam had no WMDs and Bush who hates the UN doesnt give a rats ass about UN resolutions get real.In reality, Saddam was the most helpless man in the mideast.
Unemployment and the levels are underemployed are higher now then under Clinton plus Bush tanked the economy on top of that
If it wasnt for Bushs total failures on the diplomatic front we wouldnt even be talking about NK nukes right now

I don't know about you, but I'm thinking Bush or no Bush Kim would still be trying to get nukes. I can't say I'm a Bush supporter, but Kim is one crazy guy.

Quick question what would England gain from the invasion of Afghanistan?
they had to invade Afghanistan first--they didnt want to look THAT obvious

they had to invade Afghanistan first--they didnt want to look THAT obvious

You didn't answer my question, what did England stand to gain from invading there?

How often do you think a thread that starts out saying when Bush will allow the next terrorist attack to happen end well??
controversial opinions are the bedrock for the kind of debates that lead to greater understandings of the world around us

I don't know about you, but I'm thinking Bush or no Bush Kim would still be trying to get nukes. I can't say I'm a Bush supporter, but Kim is one crazy guy.
He is but Clinton was able to keep him on a leash--Bushs idea of diplomacy is to call people tyrants and the axis of evil and then thinking their gonna bend to his dictates

You didn't answer my question, what did England stand to gain from invading there?
I dont know why Blair chooses to be Bushs poodle--I just assume they have their own oil interests

I could easily argue with it, but even if I did you would simply find some other reason to justify your obvious bias and hatred. I'm done with you intellectual midgets who bash the US, bash the US military, bash the US President, bash anything at all remotely having to do with the US. I voted for President Bush and I would gladly vote for him again, if for no other reason than the sort of idiots who oppose him.

I'm not bashing the US, or its military. But its elected president is open for bashin. Just as in any democratic society. Just because their elected doesn't mean they can't do any wrong while in office. It's our job as citizens to question every move our elected representives make. If we didn't it then our society would seem rather more like a militaristic dictatorship.

It is our obligation as citizens of a free democratic society to jump up and down when they do something we dont want.

I'm not for flaming, but I feel I must state my opinion, as is my right, and to correct people who misquote my statements.

Just because someone is elected, does not mean you have to agree with everything they do. If you disagree with the president, that does not mean your unpatriotic. It simply means you have an opinion. An opinion that is yours.

He is but Clinton was able to keep him on a leash--Bushs idea of diplomacy is to call people tyrants and the axis of evil and then thinking their gonna bend to his dictates


Keep him on a leash? Oh, you mean turn a blind eye, and smile when they lie to us? Sure he kept him on a leash. ROFLMAO

I'm unclear as to which dictate you're talking about. There are so many of them.

I'm also unclear as to why you are accusing the President of the United States of America... of Treason. Because, that is what you are doing. Unfortunately, in the real world, you have to have a little thing called evidence. And, if you don't, then what you say can be construed as liable, if it weren't so damn popular to bash the President. Free speech is well and good and all, but there are rules which must be adhered to, even with it.

I'm not bashing the US, or its military. But its elected president is open for bashin. Just as in any democratic society. Just because their elected doesn't mean they can't do any wrong while in office. It's our job as citizens to question every move our elected representives make. If we didn't it then our society would seem rather more like a militaristic dictatorship.

It is our obligation as citizens of a free democratic society to jump up and down when they do something we dont want.

I'm not for flaming, but I feel I must state my opinion, as is my right, and to correct people who misquote my statements.

Just because someone is elected, does not mean you have to agree with everything they do. If you disagree with the president, that does not mean your unpatriotic. It simply means you have an opinion. An opinion that is yours.

Being able to have a converstation like this is one of the things that makes america great. This may not be the best titled or the most conducive thread to have a debate on the president but at least you can do this. To all the posters who dont like this thread well if you dont like the thread dont post in it.

Being able to have a converstation like this is one of the things that makes america great. This may not be the best titled or the most conducive thread to have a debate on the president but at least you can do this. To all the posters who dont like this thread well if you dont like the thread dont post in it.
thats my whole point. People have a right to have controversial opinions that other may find offensives. Its our right to speak them publicly too. Only when people are willing to speak the unthinkable can we discover what used to be unknowable

thats my whole point. People have a right to have controversial opinions that other may find offensives. Its our right to speak them publicly too. Only when people are willing to speak the unthinkable can we discover what used to be unknowable

I agree with this but you could have done this in a better way rather than starting out with what is tantamount to a slap in the face to people with a different view than yours. You can say what you think but that doesnt give you a liscense to be a jerk.

Who cares...


The stupid americian public voted him back in, so if he fails to prevent another terrorist strike that causes several thousand deaths, well thats just fewer dumb asses to vote for him.HAHAHAHAHA True that! Although insanely in America it is still pretty much accepted that the election was stolen with the crappy electronic-lack-of-paper-trail-voting machines. :headbang:

there are an amazing number of "just joineds" and "new members" in this thread. are we getting a new influx of people? is it bringing out lurkers? are these brand new puppets of those who dont have the balls to say what they think?

inquiring minds want to know.

I agree with this but you could have done this in a better way rather than starting out with what is tantamount to a slap in the face to people with a different view than yours. You can say what you think but that doesnt give you a liscense to be a jerk.
OH CRY!!! :(
(Happy Cinco de Mayo bitches!!!!) :p

OH CRY!!! :(
(Happy Cinco de Mayo bitches!!!!) :p

I find this more apropriate :upyours:

HAHAHAHAHA True that! Although insanely in America it is still pretty much accepted that the election was stolen with the crappy electronic-lack-of-paper-trail-voting machines. :headbang:
Maybe in the Young Far-Leftist club of Los Angeles, California, but you shouldn't really make America look so stupid by saying we believe things ilke that.

Wow i can see what kind of people are on this forum. The stupid liberal american haters. I just have to wonder were the hell you get your facts from thin air? If i put this all together your saying the president diliberatly allowed september eleventh to happen just so he could invade afghanistan and iraq. Wow have you ever heard of anything called evidence its a thing we find to discern facts from lies. Its kindof helpful to have facts behind your political views not strange conspiracy theories, But hey who am i to bring you down cause ya no bush is an evil warmonger and has a world domination scheme. Were did this all come from? We all know why we invaded afghanistan because thats were Osam Binladen was hiding and we all no that the reason we indvaded iraq is because suspected weapons of mass destruction and the fact that he killed and tortured thousands of people and used chemical weapons on the kurds when they rebelled. I always hear that iraq was doing fine before we came in well if you call that fine then i honestly have no idea how you manage to walk around your house without killing yourself, or even walk in the first place. And wait theres something else your seem to be under the dilusion we have a bad economy because of bush. Well i sometimes hear actual facts about that, but id like to prove them all wrong wright now. first of all though in the first four years of Bushes presidentcy we lost 2.5 million jobs last year we gained 2.5 million and this year were expected to gain 2.2 million this year so hows that for your bad economy. I dont have enough time to type everything i could say to show you how ilogical your ideas are but if youd like to dispute anything ive said here or start a new argument with me be my guest. Im a 14 year old kid from wisconsin and im a conservative republican and i can already make you look really stupid.

And economic jerk your wright people have the wright to believe whatever they want but i cant help but being a jerk because i find liberal views just so godamn stupid.

Bush will not allow another terroist attack because it will damage his reputation too much as President. But I would not be surprised if another attack happens when the Democrats get power, probably towards the end of their 4 years.

I don't like to think that the Bush administration allowed/supported 9/11 but I do think that the neo-con hawks who dominate the White House administration needed such an atrocity to stimulate the American people into supporting aggressive war.

These people have been campaigning for America to aggressively pursue its international interests for a long time now, for reasons of strategic interest.

The problem with democracies, I think, is that it is very hard for the people who run foreign policies designed to maximise their own nation's strength to justify these policies to the electorate. One has to be very naieve to not appreciate the fundamental link that exists between the American domestic economy and its international interests. Oil is only one example, that is perhaps too overplayed by the left. American strategists have been forced to consider the emerging power of China, India and the EU with respect to the US's own dominance. And they have begun to take action, not wanting to see America become a second-rate power, unable to promote its cultural and business influence globally. Even as we speak alliances are shifting, indicating that new economic and strategic battlelines are being drawn. France seems to get on better with the Chinese, even carrying out naval exercises together. Both China and the US are campaigning for Pakistani support. Under the Bush administration US bases have increased in all the middle-asian dictatorship states such as Uzbekistan and Khazakstan - not democracies, yet needed in order to control the oil lines, and encircle the potential communist threat.

But these things are not presented to the populace because they are both opposed to the values of the mainstream (how can Bush justify attacking Iraq for having WMD, whilst supplying Pakistan with aid just after it has joined the nuclear club?), and they are temporary measures in a truly dog-eat-dog world of international politics liable to change at any moment.

The War on Terror is an excellent Orwellian device in creating an aura o fear, and a battle with no discernible enemy. How would the average American know when the War on Terror was over? How can it ever be over when human nature is shown to produce conflict regardless of good intentions? What distinguishes Al-Quaeda terror from state sponsored Terror?

If we take terror to mean the terrorising of individual people then how do we distinguish 9/11 from American strikes on baghdad. Both are motivated by a higher cause, that many do not recognise. Both result in civilian fear.

My guess is that the American administration is dominated by people who trained for an all-out war with Soviet Russia, where the maxim Means justify the Ends is completely true. If these people were prepared to launch nukes at Russia knowing that Russia would respond in kind (in order to protect the American Dream - "better dead than red"), then surely the deaths of under 3000 civilians is a small price to pay if it allows one to embark on a course of strategic conquests that gaurantee American dominance (and wealth and happiness) for the next century. there is no firm evidence (though there is a wealth of information about the possible involvement of the American admin in 9/11 on the internet) suggesting that 9/11 was a false flag op but it sure does nicely coincide with n American strategic need to expand its power base.


Finally I do like to laugh about the apparent hipocrasy of the American republic regarding terrorism. Back in the 80/90s the IRA had a huge base of support in America (being one of the major old world providers of rooted Americans) despite the fact that they were conducting a terrorist campaign against a democratically elected British government. Bless em.

And funnily enough (and this will shock you) the only way to end the violence was to bring these people to the negotiating table.

Nasferatu said:

We all know why we invaded afghanistan because thats were Osam Binladen was hiding and we all no that the reason we indvaded iraq is because suspected weapons of mass destruction and the fact that he killed and tortured thousands of people and used chemical weapons on the kurds when they rebelled. I always hear that iraq was doing fine before we came in well if you call that fine then i honestly have no idea how you manage to walk around your house without killing yourself, or even walk in the first place.

www.newamericancentury.org - warmongering rhetoric since 1998.

Invaded Afghanistan to get bin Laden. Fair enough. Where was the proof that he was there? Where is he now? Personally I suspect that he might be in Florida. Lets go bomb it to find out...

Iraq. Suspected weapons of mass destruction. Because we like the idea that one carries out the senteance on suspects, not the proven guilty.

Tortured. Abu Gharib. The deportation of terrorist suspects to Syria (where they get tortured without upsetting American lawyers). Fair enough.

Chemical weapons. Depleted Uranium shells. All over Afghanistan and Iraq. Not chemical. Just radioactive.

Was Iraq doing fine? Well it wasnt the happiest of places addmittedly. But since those times 20,000 civilians have died, and who knows how many poor conscripted Iraqi soldiers.

Is Iraq fine now. A killing a day suggests otherwise.

Will Iraq be fine in the future? Well we are told that that is up to the Iraqi people. (So what the hell was the point in America going in? after failing to support the various domestic anti-Saddam revolts that occurred throughout the 90's?)

.....

Actually I just saw (and ammended this post) that Nasfaratu is 14. Well done kid for showing political interest. Unfortunately you seem to take everything that is said on TV with gospel truth. I reccomend watching a bit of BBC news, visiting www.libertyforum.org, or reading one of the huge number of books debating the present issue. Don't become another clone of a TV-led system, and remember it is your duty as a child (as it is all of ours) to challenge everything you hear and read. Please don't think that America is devoid of corruption. Personally I think one should argue with everything one sees, even if you might like the opposing argument. That way you will learn to disseminate all the half-truths and lies that all sides present, and form your own truly individual opinion. Always listen but never agree.

In New York, at least one small explosion occurred early this morning outside the British consulate in midtown. No injuries were reported
Toy grenades stuffed with black powder. Possibly a dry run, however.

And economic jerk your wright people have the wright to believe whatever they want but i cant help but being a jerk because i find liberal views just so godamn stupid.

Ahhh it feels good to see one conservative go after another.

What? Is Bush standing on the coast with an M-16, a bandalier and a can-opener just waiting, WAITING, for "dem dam terr-er-ists"?

You seem to give way, WAY too much credit to the elected government and not enough credit to the men and women who actually help protect our country through surveillance and counter-intelligence. Bush has little or nothing to do with allowing or preventing an attack on the United States. Whether Democrat or Republican, elected officials are simply figureheads; little more.

I don't believe any elected officials would deliberately allow an attack in the U.S. just for economic and political gain. That would be unheard of, right?

Well, there is that whole thing about the U.S. allowing the Pearl Harbor attack to justify our continuing----and thereafter overt----participation in WWII.

And that whole contribution of the CIA and private defense contractors in influencing the U.S. decision to enter and remain in Vietnam.

And the "Where's the WMD, I mean, White Women, I mean, Waldo---wait, not really" issue in Iraq (part I and part II, the sequel.) Just HOW many millions have the defense and oil (as if they were separate entities) industries made from this "War on Terror?"

I seem to recall soldiers dying "over there" to protect us from repeated terror attacks by Iran. Sorry, I meant Iraq.

Not that we'd know it, given the limited media coverage of the caskets returning "over here."

OK, theoretically Liberal rant over.

But the answer is yes, if you must know. You can bet Cheney would never let him admit it, though. He will just tell everyone to "Go F**K yourself."

Including those dying "over there."

...Im a 14 year old kid from wisconsin and im a conservative republican and i can already make you look really stupid.

And economic jerk your wright people have the wright to believe whatever they want but i cant help but being a jerk because i find liberal views just so godamn stupid.(move to a red state!)

And economic jerk your wright people have the wright to believe whatever they want but i cant help but being a jerk because i find liberal views just so godamn stupid.

I hope this isnt a reference to me because if so :upyours: you dont know anything about me and you have already made a judgement.

There was a bombing in NYC this morning, if anyone hasn't already mentioned it.

No-one was hurt though.

I hope this isnt a reference to me because if so :upyours: you dont know anything about me and you have already made a judgement.

Calm down bro, not everyone can be expected to act rationally and provide arguments that can be discussed in a civil matter instead of trying to incite deliberate responses with what they post.

Powell of DEN said:

I don't believe any elected officials would deliberately allow an attack in the U.S. just for economic and political gain. That would be unheard of, right?

Is it all coincidence or something else... personally I think such events go back even further.

Alamo. American settlers sent into Mexico to provoke a war. The dead glorified, justifying mobilisation?


And besides, since when was Wolfowitz elected?

Thursday, 6 May 2005

To Whom It May Concern:
This has to be one of the most disgusting things I have ever read. The person who created this thread should be executed for treason.

I want the people reading this thread to understand that we are not talking about an actual issue. There is no way that a leader of a large, relatively stable democracy with a good economy would actually allow the people who vote for him to be killed for mere personal and financial gain. In fact, Bush probably LOST more money in the subsequent economic downturn than he could gain in 50 years of war.
I also find it inconceivable that the entire attack was planned in the 8 months Bush was in office, or even the 10 months since he was elected. The logistics of such an operation are daunting. It is impossible for one to obtain 20 student visas for these creatures (I call them creatures for they do not deserve to be called human with such inhumane actions), transport them to the country, obtain multiple identities for each of the 20 creatures (including passports, driver’s licenses and social security cards), move them across the country many times, obtain flight training for each, transfer thousands of dollars from foreign bank accounts, coordinate all of these operations from the other side of the world, and act in a way that would not arouse the suspicion of law enforcement here or abroad in 8 months. Such an operation could have started no later than the 2nd year of Clinton’s second term.
I also feel that the people posting here need to understand we are talking about people’s lives. I live on Long Island, where life can never be the same again because of what happened. I know people who died in the attacks. I know that these people’s families will never be the same again. My father was a New York City police officer working 16-hour shifts for weeks after the attacks with no days off or about a month.
I in no way intend to anger those who post here, and I understand that you are open to have your own personal opinions but I feel that you should know that the discussion of such a topic is seriously out of line, and does not belong as a topic for civilized debate. 50 years ago, or maybe even 20 years ago, one would never have made such slanderous attacks on the leader of our nation, if they agreed with him or not. One would have tried to debate an actual topic rather than create a lie from the depths of their sick imaginations. The individual who calls himself “The United Socialist States of BonePosse” and all the other like-minded individuals should really reconsider what they are saying.

We would request that "BonePosse" close this thread at once.

-The Government of Manhands

Powell of DEN said:



Is it all coincidence or something else... personally I think such events go back even further.

Alamo. American settlers sent into Mexico to provoke a war. The dead glorified, justifying mobilisation?


And besides, since when was Wolfowitz elected?

I couldn't agree more, G.I.. I was, of course, being sarcastic.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8821915&postcount=89

I think the problem with this question is that it lies in a dead end answer. No, he won't ALLOW it as in, "yes, please bomb my country." But if one succeeds then everybody says he did allow it.

If a Coward group (or in this case, groups) want to bomb us, there is little we can do but do our best. When they attempt enough attacks, one will eventually succeed.

PS Terrorist = Coward

Maybe in the Young Far-Leftist club of Los Angeles, California, but you shouldn't really make America look so stupid by saying we believe things ilke that.*Come on. If Republicans had lost the election, Karl Rove and company would be contesting every vote.*

(Interesting that your bigotry includes young people and inner-cities?)

Let me give you some facts that are scarey and somehow don't seem to matter:

Voting machine malfunctions in several precincts in Pennsylvania forced voters to vote "backwards"
Bush gets extra 3893 votes in Gahanna Precinct in Ohio's Franklin County - only 638 total voters cast ballots in that precinct
10,000 more votes than voters recorded in Nebraska county
Over 50,000 votes not counted in Democratic Indiana county due to electronic voting machine "glitch"
In Florida, electronic voting machines subtracted about 70,000 votes from vote totals in Broward County and by about 8400 in Orange county
Over 11,000 more votes for President recorded in North Carolina county than were actually cast
More voting irregularities in Arizona include display of large photo of President Bush at polling site, understaffed polling location leading to extra long lines/delays and a closed polling site in an area with a large Mexican-American population
GOP in South Dakota intimidates Native American voters by writing down their license plate numbers - judge orders them to stop the practice

more here: http://vote2004.eriposte.com/

Do you think I am making this up? Or are your just smug because your guy won?
And I will correct myself that not all Americans believe this, thank you for pointing that out to everyone.

(Okay, this needs it's own thread I suppose.)

Thursday, 6 May 2005

To Whom It May Concern:
This has to be one of the most disgusting things I have ever read. The person who wrote this should be executed for treason.

I want the people reading this thread to understand that we are not talking about an actual issue. There is no way that a leader of a large, relatively stable democracy with a good economy would actually allow the people who vote for him to be killed for mere personal and financial gain. In fact, Bush probably LOST more money in the subsequent economic downturn than he could gain in 50 years of war.
I also find it inconceivable that the entire attack was planned in the 8 months Bush was in office, or even the 10 months since he was elected. The logistics of such an operation are daunting. It is impossible for one to obtain 20 student visas for these creatures (I call them creatures for they do not deserve to be called human with such inhumane actions), transport them to the country, obtain multiple identities for each of the 20 creatures (including passports, driver’s licenses and social security cards), move them across the country many times, obtain flight training for each, transfer thousands of dollars from foreign bank accounts, coordinate all of these operations from the other side of the world, and act in a way that would not arouse the suspicion of law enforcement here or abroad in 8 months. Such an operation could have started no later than the 2nd year of Clinton’s second term.
I also feel that the people posting here need to understand we are talking about people’s lives. I live on Long Island, where life can never be the same again because of what happened. I know people who died in the attacks. I know that these people’s families will never be the same again. My father was a New York City police officer working 16-hour shifts for weeks after the attacks with no days off or about a month.
I in no way intend to anger those who post here, and I understand that you are open to have your own personal opinions but I feel that you should know that the discussion of such a topic is seriously out of line, and does not belong as a topic for civilized debate. 50 years ago, or maybe even 20 years ago, one would never have made such slanderous attacks on the leader of our nation, if they agreed with him or not. One would have tried to debate an actual topic rather than create a lie from the depths of their sick imaginations. The individual who calls himself “The United Socialist States of BonePosse” and all the other like-minded individuals should really reconsider what they are saying.

We would request that "BonePosse" close this thread at once.

-The Government of Manhands


Mate, I dont want to offend, and I appreciate your polite rebuttal.

And I want to pass on commiserations to all those who suffered.

No one on this thread has direct evidence. But no one is in a position to get the evidence even if it did exist.

But one must retain an open mind, particularly when business and strategic interests collide.

The American elite have much to gain from this war. The defence and oil industries stand out.

And to not question ones leaders is to embrace the idea of democratic tyranny.

Was Vietnam good for the country? The political will created it.

We have no means to find out what thse people mean or believe beyond superficial reckoning.

America IS the empire of our time (whether it chooses to be or not), and imperial policy has never cared for the individual.

What is civilised debate? The discussion of things which people agree upon? The acceptance of what our leaders say is gospel truth?

We know that Clinton, bless him, lied. About a BJ.

We do not know if Bush and his pals are lying, but only through rigorous independent analysis can this be determined.

And remember, plans can be set up ready to go before a particular faction gets into power. The Project for the American century has been campaigning vocally for an invasion of Iraq since 1998. They knew it was only a matter of time before they were in power (looking at American political history, and their own power base).

I apologise if these arguments offend, but I do not rescind them.

Mate, I dont want to offend, and I appreciate your polite rebuttal.

And I want to pass on commiserations to all those who suffered.

No one on this thread has direct evidence. But no one is in a position to get the evidence even if it did exist.

But one must retain an open mind, particularly when business and strategic interests collide.

The American elite have much to gain from this war. The defence and oil industries stand out.

And to not question ones leaders is to embrace the idea of democratic tyranny.

Was Vietnam good for the country? The political will created it.

We have no means to find out what thse people mean or believe beyond superficial reckoning.

America IS the empire of our time (whether it chooses to be or not), and imperial policy has never cared for the individual.

What is civilised debate? The discussion of things which people agree upon? The acceptance of what our leaders say is gospel truth?

We know that Clinton, bless him, lied. About a BJ.

We do not know if Bush and his pals are lying, but only through rigorous independent analysis can this be determined.

And remember, plans can be set up ready to go before a particular faction gets into power. The Project for the American century has been campaigning vocally for an invasion of Iraq since 1998. They knew it was only a matter of time before they were in power (looking at American political history, and their own power base).

I apologise if these arguments offend, but I do not rescind them.


I bet you think the CIA killed JFK too, don't you?

I dont know. Do you? Any evidence to support one way or the other?

So where does that leave us. Nowhere. But we could examine what made JFK important. His policies.

Personally I wonder about his obtuse stance towards the Israeli Nuclear Ambiguity policy. He tried to stop Israel developing nukes. He is assasinated. His brother, who also opposes Israeli nukes, is also assasinated before he can become President. The next man for the job supports the ambiguity policy. No assasination.


P.S. Baiting will not work.

Don't know.

I dont know. Do you? Any evidence to support one way or the other?

So where does that leave us. Nowhere. But we could examine what made JFK important. His policies.

Personally I wonder about his obtuse stance towards the Israeli Nuclear Ambiguity policy. He tried to stop Israel developing nukes. He is assasinated. His brother, who also opposes Israeli nukes, is also assasinated before he can become President. The next man for the job supports the ambiguity policy. No assasination.


P.S. Baiting will not work.

My point was, you can always tie these types of ridiculous things into a conspiracy theory if you want. Anything of great consequence always effects a host of unrelated factors, and it is easy to draw imaginary lines to them.

The september 11th attacks are what they are. There is no sinster cabal of US neo-cons behind them. For every positive inference you can draw in support of that, there is probably many more negative inferences that demonstrate the opposite.

And as for that silly new american century thing, it is just a silly position paper, that has been seized upon to further these half baked ideas.

After all, you would'nt countenance an american policy based upon Lenin's "What must be done" essay in 1902.

Mate, I dont want to offend, and I appreciate your polite rebuttal.

And I want to pass on commiserations to all those who suffered.

No one on this thread has direct evidence. But no one is in a position to get the evidence even if it did exist.

But one must retain an open mind, particularly when business and strategic interests collide.

The American elite have much to gain from this war. The defence and oil industries stand out.

And to not question ones leaders is to embrace the idea of democratic tyranny.

Was Vietnam good for the country? The political will created it.

We have no means to find out what thse people mean or believe beyond superficial reckoning.

America IS the empire of our time (whether it chooses to be or not), and imperial policy has never cared for the individual.

What is civilised debate? The discussion of things which people agree upon? The acceptance of what our leaders say is gospel truth?

We know that Clinton, bless him, lied. About a BJ.

We do not know if Bush and his pals are lying, but only through rigorous independent analysis can this be determined.

And remember, plans can be set up ready to go before a particular faction gets into power. The Project for the American century has been campaigning vocally for an invasion of Iraq since 1998. They knew it was only a matter of time before they were in power (looking at American political history, and their own power base).

I apologise if these arguments offend, but I do not rescind them.


There is a big difference between rigorous independent analysis and just claiming things that arent true. I might be new here but i see too many people saying that Bush kills innocent citizens and that bush is lying. We dont know either way and as things go in the united states if you want to say that he is lying or killing innocent people the burden of proof rests on you. You cant just say something and claim it is true. It is easy to be a pacifist when you arent responsible for defending 300 million lives. Manhands was right about the logistics. This wasnt an overnight thing. You may try to blame bush but i can almost gaurentee that we would be in the same boat with Gore.

On another side note. Why is it that the democratic party which is in shambles always has to go back to the old immature grade school response that bush "CHeated" in the election. Seems to be that the motto of the democratic party should be "its not fair". Fact is you lost so get over it. If Bush would have lost i wouldnt be crying id be getting along with my life not sitting in front of a computer bitching about how bad life is. Part of living in america and being mature citizens is that we accept the leader that we have. At least thats how i see it. I guess one would argue that you do have the right to sit there and complain. But i am of the opinion that there are more productive things to do with your time.

On the original note of the topic being that bush would let another attack happen, i think that this is an ignorant topic to say the least. This is not in the realm of somehting that is possible. Bush would not let people die to invade another country. First off he doesnt need a reason like that to go invade iran or syria. We can do that on our own. 90% of the people in iraq want us there and want us to help them out with democracy. 10% dont and those are the people we are fighting. Of that 10 8% of the people fighting us are from foreign countries such as Iran Syria and Jordan. This is straight from the streets of iraq because i got it from a friend of mine serving in iraq. Im also quite tired of the vietnam comparisons. Vietnam wasnt good because we failed there and left. Thus it went communist. In iraq we have set up a friendly democracy. They are very different situations so dont compare them.

I know most of you are going to say well he has 2 posts what does he know. I further know that there will be some liberals out there that wont like this post. But i have come to accept that liberals tend to be more bitter with their political beliefs and they tend to resort to name callign and using fallicies to support their claims. If you must please fire away.

What can I say? Bubba Bush is a bad bad boy, but...
He hasn't the foggiest of a clue what's going on.
He's a figurehead put in place by the people who tell him what to do.
No real power. Just a puppet on a string who sometimes refuses to follow the "suggestions" he's given.
Who here saw the footage of GWB when he was told the US was under attack? He looked absolutely stunned and lost. All colour drained from his face and he sat there and did... nothing!

Go back to bed Mr. President. It's all just a bad dream.

What can I say? Bubba Bush is a bad bad boy, but...
He hasn't the foggiest of a clue what's going on.
He's a figurehead put in place by the people who tell him what to do.
No real power. Just a puppet on a string who sometimes refuses to follow the "suggestions" he's given.
Who here saw the footage of GWB when he was told the US was under attack? He looked absolutely stunned and lost. All colour drained from his face and he sat there and did... nothing!

Go back to bed Mr. President. It's all just a bad dream.

Puppet government? Bush is dumb? Do you have a college degree? If so from where? Bush looked stunned when the US was attacked? Really? I wonder what i was like. I mean i was probably dancing around and happy. OR maybe it is a somber and sad thing. A shocking thing. Were you jovial because of 4 planes and 3000 deaths? Ignorance. Get a clue.

My point was, you can always tie these types of ridiculous things into a conspiracy theory if you want. Anything of great consequence always effects a host of unrelated factors, and it is easy to draw imaginary lines to them.

The september 11th attacks are what they are. There is no sinster cabal of US neo-cons behind them. For every positive inference you can draw in support of that, there is probably many more negative inferences that demonstrate the opposite.

And as for that silly new american century thing, it is just a silly position paper, that has been seized upon to further these half baked ideas.

After all, you would'nt countenance an american policy based upon Lenin's "What must be done" essay in 1902.


And my point is that just because I cannot prove anything does not mean there is nothing to prove.

But I can look at policy and strategy and historical patterns and draw conclusions.

Please explain your comment about the silly new american century thing. I don't think Rumsfeld, Cheney, Jeb Bush, Wolfowitz or any of the other members of PNAC would regard it as silly.

You ask me for proof but then say that there is no sinsiter cabal at work. How do you really know? All information that we get about the attacks comes from the people who gained the most from it (because Al-Quaeda certainly did not).

No I wouldn't ascribe American policy to a Lenin document. That makes no sense.

check out www.newamericancentury.org before replying.

Why the reluctance to speak before the inquiry? Condi and Bush.

http://www.911truth.org/


I know it all sounds mad, but one should not think that we have really reached the end of history ( ;-) ). People in high places still make power plays just like every other erson in high places.

Money is power, and the powerful care not for the proles who serve them.

America is a great country, but as Plato noted corruption is endemic to human existence.

Perhaps I am mistaken. I hope so. But human nature is one of cynical self-serving, and one would be a fool to think that those at the top do not use their power to serve their own interests.

Worse still is ideolouges, and there are enough running around the halls of power.

I probably can't convince you otherwise, but do check out the above sites...and keep an open mind.

Mannschaft Seig said:

There is a big difference between rigorous independent analysis and just claiming things that arent true. I might be new here but i see too many people saying that Bush kills innocent citizens and that bush is lying. We dont know either way and as things go in the united states if you want to say that he is lying or killing innocent people the burden of proof rests on you. You cant just say something and claim it is true. It is easy to be a pacifist when you arent responsible for defending 300 million lives. Manhands was right about the logistics. This wasnt an overnight thing. You may try to blame bush but i can almost gaurentee that we would be in the same boat with Gore.

Where is my proof?

Check out http://www.911truth.org/index.php?topic=strategy

Where is my own personal logic?

Simply in that the neo-cons needed to mobilise America to help them achieve their grand strategic aims. To mobilise America one needs to be attacked. Bingo. No proof just thinking outside of the official line.

And no it wasn't an overnight thing, but these people had the entire Clinton presidency to prepare. They get into power and set their plan into action. They have a plethora of Saudi contacts. They have full control over the military. They have their targets ready and waiting. They set a pattern of unilateralism. They believe America is GOOD and anyhting justifies the ascension of american power.

Bush looked shocked, sure, but why did he continue to sit in that classroom? What sort of national leader and c-in-c sits in a classroom whilst his nation is attacked? Why did he seek to make no phone call?

I did not come to this conclusion idly, and it was the first "conspiracy" theory that I ever took on board. (and I hate the word conspiracy - talk about Orwellian doublethink - because it instantly conjures up the idea that the theory should be dismissed; call it a political theory instead...)

Where is my proof?

Check out http://www.911truth.org/index.php?topic=strategy
ROFLMAO! Really credible source. As if! LOL! :D

Bush looked shocked, sure, but why did he continue to sit in that classroom? What sort of national leader and c-in-c sits in a classroom whilst his nation is attacked? Why did he seek to make no phone call?
Jeeze. If that's all it takes for you to posit some wild conspiracy, you're deficient in something, although without a full battery of psychological testing, I'm not sure what it is.

And my point is that just because I cannot prove anything does not mean there is nothing to prove.

But I can look at policy and strategy and historical patterns and draw conclusions.

Please explain your comment about the silly new american century thing. I don't think Rumsfeld, Cheney, Jeb Bush, Wolfowitz or any of the other members of PNAC would regard it as silly.

You ask me for proof but then say that there is no sinsiter cabal at work. How do you really know? All information that we get about the attacks comes from the people who gained the most from it (because Al-Quaeda certainly did not).

No I wouldn't ascribe American policy to a Lenin document. That makes no sense.

check out www.newamericancentury.org before replying.

Why the reluctance to speak before the inquiry? Condi and Bush.

http://www.911truth.org/


I know it all sounds mad, but one should not think that we have really reached the end of history ( ;-) ). People in high places still make power plays just like every other erson in high places.

Money is power, and the powerful care not for the proles who serve them.

America is a great country, but as Plato noted corruption is endemic to human existence.

Perhaps I am mistaken. I hope so. But human nature is one of cynical self-serving, and one would be a fool to think that those at the top do not use their power to serve their own interests.

Worse still is ideolouges, and there are enough running around the halls of power.

I probably can't convince you otherwise, but do check out the above sites...and keep an open mind.


Look, disagree with their policies, that is fair enough. But what you suggest is implausible. I could say the Margaret Thatcher planned the Falkands ahead of time to ensure her re-election, but that also would be untrue.

You are the one saying these things, thus the burden of proof is on you. You do, in fact, have to find some proof before these claims can be taken seriously.

I could claim that China was behind Al-queda, and draw many reasonable inferences supporting that assertation. Doesn't mean it is true.

(My point about Lenin was, that the rest of the world - and rightly so - didn't act towards the USSR upon the assumption that lenin's essay was actual USSR policy, because it wasn't, in general)

Jeeze. If that's all it takes for you to posit some wild conspiracy, you're deficient in something, although without a full battery of psychological testing, I'm not sure what it is.

I was in NYC that day. I vividly remember it because I had to go down into a meeting in mid-town, and a girlfriend was over. When I got up, she was just watching TV (one of those early risers). Before I even looked at the set, the first thing she said to me was: "Don't go down to the city."

I asked her why not, and she said: "I don't know, there are planes flying into buildings."

I got in my car and tried to go. It took me about fifteen minutes of listening the radio to figure out what was going on and turn back. I got back home in time to see the towers fall. :mad:

Anyone who claims that people should have known straight away what was going on, or should have acted instantly, was so far removed from the thing, they don't know what they are talking about.

I agree with this but you could have done this in a better way rather than starting out with what is tantamount to a slap in the face to people with a different view than yours. You can say what you think but that doesnt give you a liscense to be a jerk.
the neocon rightwing in America is the face of pure evil

Thursday, 6 May 2005

To Whom It May Concern:
This has to be one of the most disgusting things I have ever read. The person who created this thread should be executed for treason.

I want the people reading this thread to understand that we are not talking about an actual issue. There is no way that a leader of a large, relatively stable democracy with a good economy would actually allow the people who vote for him to be killed for mere personal and financial gain. In fact, Bush probably LOST more money in the subsequent economic downturn than he could gain in 50 years of war.
I also find it inconceivable that the entire attack was planned in the 8 months Bush was in office, or even the 10 months since he was elected. The logistics of such an operation are daunting. It is impossible for one to obtain 20 student visas for these creatures (I call them creatures for they do not deserve to be called human with such inhumane actions), transport them to the country, obtain multiple identities for each of the 20 creatures (including passports, driver’s licenses and social security cards), move them across the country many times, obtain flight training for each, transfer thousands of dollars from foreign bank accounts, coordinate all of these operations from the other side of the world, and act in a way that would not arouse the suspicion of law enforcement here or abroad in 8 months. Such an operation could have started no later than the 2nd year of Clinton’s second term.
I also feel that the people posting here need to understand we are talking about people’s lives. I live on Long Island, where life can never be the same again because of what happened. I know people who died in the attacks. I know that these people’s families will never be the same again. My father was a New York City police officer working 16-hour shifts for weeks after the attacks with no days off or about a month.
I in no way intend to anger those who post here, and I understand that you are open to have your own personal opinions but I feel that you should know that the discussion of such a topic is seriously out of line, and does not belong as a topic for civilized debate. 50 years ago, or maybe even 20 years ago, one would never have made such slanderous attacks on the leader of our nation, if they agreed with him or not. One would have tried to debate an actual topic rather than create a lie from the depths of their sick imaginations. The individual who calls himself “The United Socialist States of BonePosse” and all the other like-minded individuals should really reconsider what they are saying.

We would request that "BonePosse" close this thread at once.

-The Government of Manhands
I got all my facts from the 911 Truth commission in NYC

I bet you think the CIA killed JFK too, don't you?
they did--and Bushs father knows who really killed JFK too

My point was, you can always tie these types of ridiculous things into a conspiracy theory if you want. Anything of great consequence always effects a host of unrelated factors, and it is easy to draw imaginary lines to them.

The september 11th attacks are what they are. There is no sinster cabal of US neo-cons behind them. For every positive inference you can draw in support of that, there is probably many more negative inferences that demonstrate the opposite.

And as for that silly new american century thing, it is just a silly position paper, that has been seized upon to further these half baked ideas.

After all, you would'nt countenance an american policy based upon Lenin's "What must be done" essay in 1902.
when the so-called "conspiracy theories" make more sense then the official storys why should we believe the govt blindly?

ROFLMAO! Really credible source. As if! LOL! :D
alot more credible then Bush

Jeeze. If that's all it takes for you to posit some wild conspiracy, you're deficient in something, although without a full battery of psychological testing, I'm not sure what it is.
yet your the one choosing to believe a proven liar instead

I was in NYC that day. I vividly remember it because I had to go down into a meeting in mid-town, and a girlfriend was over. When I got up, she was just watching TV (one of those early risers). Before I even looked at the set, the first thing she said to me was: "Don't go down to the city."

I asked her why not, and she said: "I don't know, there are planes flying into buildings."

I got in my car and tried to go. It took me about fifteen minutes of listening the radio to figure out what was going on and turn back. I got back home in time to see the towers fall. :mad:

Anyone who claims that people should have known straight away what was going on, or should have acted instantly, was so far removed from the thing, they don't know what they are talking about.
yes they do--they were fully aware of the possiblity of an attack by airplanes. You are the one who is uninformed

when the so-called "conspiracy theories" make more sense then the official storys why should we believe the govt blindly?

They don't make more sense though.

They don't make more sense though.
theres enough evidence that Bush was clearly warned about 911--also when you have Israeli mossad agents filming the event from the rooftops that means the Israeli govt knew too--and if they knew then Bush definitely knew

yes they do--they were fully aware of the possiblity of an attack by airplanes. You are the one who is uninformed

Oh bullshit. You weren't there. No-one had any idea what the hell was going on; it had never happened before.

If I walked up to you in the street and just smashed you in the face with a brick then ran away, to this day you still wouldn't know what the fuck had happened. (Other than you were smashed in the face with a brick).

Before I posted this however, I am sure you were aware of the possibility of being smashed in the face with a brick though.

I got all my facts from the 911 Truth commission in NYC

Facts? ROFLMAO

Oh bullshit. You weren't there. No-one had any idea what the hell was going on; it had never happened before.

If I walked up to you in the street and just smashed you in the face with a brick then ran away, to this day you still wouldn't know what the fuck had happened. (Other than you were smashed in the face with a brick).

Before I posted this however, I am sure you were aware of the possibility of being smashed in the face with a brick though.
they were fully aware of a potential attack using airplanes cause they were training for that exact possibility before 911--it was no surprise at all

theres enough evidence that Bush was clearly warned about 911--also when you have Israeli mossad agents filming the event from the rooftops that means the Israeli govt knew too--and if they knew then Bush definitely knew

Not really. Even if you go with the Mossad theory - which has since been debunked - you still have to face the fact that the Isreali's have never been completely candid with the US government. (To the point that they traded US secrets with the USSR to gain release of soviet Jews to Isreal).

they were fully aware of a potential attack using airplanes cause they were training for that exact possibility before 911--it was no surprise at all

I hope you are training for a brick smashing then.

And actually, you are playing telephone here. No one was training for that kind of attack. It's an urban myth that comes out of the fact that both towers were designed to survive a 707 impact, and that Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, had mentioned that it was one possibility during his earlier trial.

When it actually happened, no-one knew what was going on, I was there, trust me on this.

Not really. Even if you go with the Mossad theory - which has since been debunked - you still have to face the fact that the Isreali's have never been completely candid with the US government. (To the point that they traded US secrets with the USSR to gain release of soviet Jews to Isreal).
how was it debunked? I remember reading in the papers the day they were deported

I hope you are training for a brick smashing then.

And actually, you are playing telephone here. No one was training for that kind of attack. It's an urban myth that comes out of the fact that both towers were designed to survive a 707 impact, and that Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, had mentioned that it was one possibility during his earlier trial.

When it actually happened, no-one knew what was going on, I was there, trust me on this.
I remember an article last year sometime on it--some kinda training exercise in Italy where they specifically were discussing airplane attacks

how was it debunked? I remember reading in the papers the day they were deported

It was fairly well covered in the local press. As was the rumor that an Isreali telecom firm had told its workers not to go to work that day.

Both turned out to be groundless.

I remember an article last year sometime on it--some kinda training exercise in Italy where they specifically were discussing airplane attacks

I have no doubt, that given earlier statements, that it was considered at some level and at some time.

My point is, during the actual attacks, no-one knew actually what was going on. Certianly, after the first crash, people at first thought it was some type of accident (and they weren't even sure if it was a commercial airliner at that time).

By the time of the second strike, people knew that it was deliberate, but it was hard to process. There was a signifigant interval between the two - at least if you were there - and no-one could grasp what was happening.

What? Is Bush standing on the coast with an M-16, a bandalier and a can-opener just waiting, WAITING, for "dem dam terr-er-ists"?

You seem to give way, WAY too much credit to the elected government and not enough credit to the men and women who actually help protect our country through surveillance and counter-intelligence. Bush has little or nothing to do with allowing or preventing an attack on the United States. Whether Democrat or Republican, elected officials are simply figureheads; little more.

I don't believe any elected officials would deliberately allow an attack in the U.S. just for economic and political gain. That would be unheard of, right?

Well, there is that whole thing about the U.S. allowing the Pearl Harbor attack to justify our continuing----and thereafter overt----participation in WWII.

And that whole contribution of the CIA and private defense contractors in influencing the U.S. decision to enter and remain in Vietnam.

And the "Where's the WMD, I mean, White Women, I mean, Waldo---wait, not really" issue in Iraq (part I and part II, the sequel.) Just HOW many millions have the defense and oil (as if they were separate entities) industries made from this "War on Terror?"

I seem to recall soldiers dying "over there" to protect us from repeated terror attacks by Iran. Sorry, I meant Iraq.

Not that we'd know it, given the limited media coverage of the caskets returning "over here."

OK, theoretically Liberal rant over.

But the answer is yes, if you must know. You can bet Cheney would never let him admit it, though. He will just tell everyone to "Go F**K yourself."

Including those dying "over there."

Indeed.

So, in reading this thread I question whether this is really a chance to discuss terrorism, or if Bone guy just wanted a forum to spew antisemitism. We've had the "neo-con" codeword for jew, we've had the Mossad cannard, and Israeli duplicity. I guess I'm just waiting for some reference to a world banking conspiracy to wrap up the Jew-baiting trifecta. will it never end?

So, in reading this thread I question whether this is really a chance to discuss terrorism, or if Bone guy just wanted a forum to spew antisemitism. We've had the "neo-con" codeword for jew, we've had the Mossad cannard, and Israeli duplicity. I guess I'm just waiting for some reference to a world banking conspiracy to wrap up the Jew-baiting trifecta. will it never end?

Eh? He's anti "neo-con"

Make sense at least.

This time as an excuse to invade Iran in June

Want to know what's really going on? It's as simple as reading the PNAC document:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

This is not an editorial, or a blog, it's the actual outline of the neo-con agenda, laid bare on the web for anyone so inclined to read. You owe it to yourself, whatever your political persuasion, to find out exactly what this Administration is up to and why. While you're there, you'll also discover that this Iraqi invasion was not some off the cuff plan that Bush dreamed up after 9/11, but is infact part of a geopolitical facelift planned for the entire middle east since the early 90's.

"Will Bush allow another 911?"

Well, if he manages to find the numbers "9" and "1" on his phone, then yes, he might be able to dial 911, or he might allow Cheney to dial it for him.



Allowing another 9/11? Well, first of it wasn't really his fault that the CIA and the rest hadn't enough money to do their job properly, and I'm sure there were tons of warnings that didn't lead to anything before that. It's like the story with the boy who always yelled "the wolves are coming!", but none came. In the end the wolves really came and nobody believed him.

Invading Iran... how? They can't even control the camel herding insurgents in Iraq (just last weekend there were more bomb attacks). How would they deal with Iran? That'd be far too expensive, and well, I doubt that the US military would be able to deal with basically a two front war in that area. Sure, it's powerful, but hello, there are reservists in Iraq... And the majority of the forces are actually in the rotation, that's so messed up. If they would unleash the full combat force, then maybe it would work, but imagine the terror that would come after that and well, I'd say that in such a case the USA would be really alone. I doubt that even the Brits would move with them in an attack on Iran.

Bush the murderer? First of all most of the military is glad to be fighting for their President in Iraq. Many jump at the opportunity for deployment or voluntarily serve multiple duties in Iraq because they dont like sitting on their butts doing nothing while dictators, terrorists, and the nations that house them threaten our country. If Bush was not such an action President, if he'd done nothing after 9/11 but talk, the attacks would have continued on America. Instead Bush chose action and showed the terrorist bastards that America will not stand by to be f**ked with. Also, you say Bush is a murderer, but he is opposed to abortion which is undoubtedly the murder of many Americans.

I think you know that most of what you are saying is untrue, so I won't waste much time correcting you. I'll simply remind you once more that:


1: Military recruitment is at an alltime low and still falling. No one wants to serve any more.

2: Saddam Hussein never threatened our country. He threatened GW Bush, but not the US. Unless you believe Bush=USA, you're wrong.

3: Iraq did not support terrorism against the US, and did not house Al Quaeda members. They supported terrorism against Israel, but Israel is not the US.


Oh yes and a minor technicality: A baby isn't American until it's born on American soil. Or have you forgotten about all the pregnant immigrants trying to sneak in to give birth here.

The rest of your post is speculation. It might be true, it might not. Unless you're the 13th disciple, I don't see how you could know for sure.

everyone knew Saddam had no WMDs and Bush who hates the UN doesnt give a rats ass about UN resolutions get real.In reality, Saddam was the most helpless man in the mideast.
Unemployment and the levels are underemployed are higher now then under Clinton plus Bush tanked the economy on top of that
If it wasnt for Bushs total failures on the diplomatic front we wouldnt even be talking about NK nukes right now

What are you talking about? Do you have any sense of reality? Why dont you read some financial papers/magazines to get an understanding of the US economy and unemployment. Do you just parrot out nonsense that you get from partisan web sites?

Saddam helpless? Well, he did a fair job of convincing the world's intelligence services otherwise. Is your memory so limitted that you cannot remember back a few years?

And how exactly did Bush(or any president for that matter) tank the economy? Tell me one policy, executive order or piece of legislation that he signed that could conceivably tank the US economy.

I suppose you are attempting to contrast Bush's diplomacy with Clinton/Carter's with regard to N. Korea. I am sure someone as wise and intelligent as yourself knows what the N. Korean's did immediatelly after they inked the deal that won Carter a Nobel Peace Prize. That's right, they continued on with their nuclear weapons development, except now they were also getting fuel and nuclear material and know how from America. Great dimplomacy that was.

The level of idiocy in this forum astounds me.

Saying that he would allow a terrorist attack in order to further his goals is stupid. He's a lot of bad things, but wouldn't do that, it goes beyond inhuman.

Read some articles on 9/11 out there. You might be in for a shock.
As for "inhuman", I believe that term can adequately be applied to Abu Ghraib.

As for Iran and June, I'm hesitant to decide either way. Reason tells me that there is no way the United States can fight another war against a country like Iran, in their current state. Experience with Bush tells me that Reason doesn't enter into the equation.

So, in reading this thread I question whether this is really a chance to discuss terrorism, or if Bone guy just wanted a forum to spew antisemitism. We've had the "neo-con" codeword for jew, we've had the Mossad cannard, and Israeli duplicity. I guess I'm just waiting for some reference to a world banking conspiracy to wrap up the Jew-baiting trifecta. will it never end?

Sorry this doesn't really belong is this thread so if some wants to move it go ahead. But I would just say that you Youngistan does the fight against racism and anti-semitism a disservice with connecting it so tightly to not critizing mossad and Israel. Because I think you should be able to be against Israel politics and the practice of Mossad without being a anti semitist. Else is just like being called anti-christian just because you dislike the vaticans politics. Because like all people jews is no homegon group with the same ideas many lives outside israel and also many dislike todays politic in Israel. But yes I agree that some of theories like the mossad one and 9/11 is gooffy.

..... And how exactly did Bush(or any president for that matter) tank the economy? Tell me one policy, executive order or piece of legislation that he signed that could conceivably tank the US economy. ......


Ummmm? Where do we start?

- Further excessive tax cuts for the already rich.

- A current account deficit of $665 billion, or 5.7% of the total GDP, the largest in history.

- Past 25 Year Growth Rates (on an inflation-adjusted average annual rate):

China: 8%+
U.S. 3%

- Increased millions unemployed

- 40% without adequate health care

To return to the original thread, Bush is destroying America more than any terrorist could.

(By the way .... nowadays, the term 'terrorist' seems only to apply to people from outside the US - have you forgotten all the home grown terrorists that you have?)

Don't forget Rumefelds increase in military spending...

all your war veterans from previous caampaigns are set to go hungry as US social welfare disintergrates.

BUT DONT WORRY

There are plans to get military spending up to 500 billion dollars by 2010.

(and this is more than likely to go mainly to computer intensive hi-tech weapon systems as outlined by JV2020. and who will benefit most from this increased spending...maybe Halliburton...)

Ok lets remember a few things here, 1) the first terroist attack happened under Bill Clinton not George Bush in 1993. 2) There is no way beside declaring martial law around the world that you can prevent a terrorist attack from happening, to many political ramifications to consider(although we should close our borders to the north and south off with national guard troops). 3) Bush is an oil man from Texas, and will always be after one thing MONEY! He will find a way to drill in the Anwar Wildlife preserve, which I think is wrong, becuase we alll need to explore alternative fule sources like natural gas or nuclear power(but then the debate about how and where to get rid of the fuel rods comes into play). 4) The United Nations which has no back bone at all whatsoever needs to stop being afraid of it's own shadow and take a larger role...stop being afriad of a fight becuase that is and will always be the terrorists greatest weapon FEAR!! 5) With a choices like John Kerry and George Bush who feels safe anyway? Maybe Hiliary? 6) I'm a memebr of the RNC, but I have allot of moderate points of view.......but fo0lks we need to start listening to one another and stop hating people for thier religious points of view or political points of view the world will never be perfect, we just need to do allot better than what we have done so far. :sniper:

Once you post you cant stop...(err)

1. Whoever thinks that criticism of neo-cons/mossad/israeli policy (its a goddam state - not a genetic lineage) equates to anti-semitism is a proper fool. Does criticsim of Al-Quaeda equate to islamiphobia or anti-arabic...no so don't tell people who question official stories that they are rascist.

Mossad do the occasional bad thing. So do the CIA. So do MI5.

Therefore I am obviousl anti-semetic, anti-american and anti-British.

And they say I draw imaginary lines of radical conclusions...


2. The main doubt about 9/11 conspiracy theories is the lack of proof. Now there is a wealth of information regarding losse ends out there on the non-coporate controlled internet.

But what about the official proof?

We have pictures of all 19 highjackers. No bodies. Is this proof? No. (they could be anyone - dead prisoners from harsh saudi prisons).

We have a tape from Osama bin Laden. Did anyone see the recording take place? No. Can you ascertain 100% validity? No. Does it speccifically mention the nature of the 9/11 operations? No. Had he been making threats like this for years anyway? Yes.

We all saw the planes fly into the buildings. Does this prove who was flying the planes, and what their intentions were? No.


Now how the hell do 19 saudi arabians (a nation that had been previously identified as a terrorist threat throughout the clinton years) get control of airliners on domestic flights? Presumably with guns...because we all know how easy it was before 9/11 to get guns on board an aeroplane, especially if one is a 'dodgy looking arab'.

Did saddam threaten us? Well Bush talked about British intelligence as he made the case for war. And british intelligence apparently said that Britain could be attacked in 45 minutes... because Saddam really DID have ballistic missiles with that range...(too much credit methinks).

No one knew what was going on at the time of the attacks. Fair enough. Conspiracies do not involve everyone however. My point about Bush's inability to leave a classroom when his nation is under attack stands.


3. What really peeves me off is that people are so unwilling to be open minded about this. They trust the government without doubt (the Founding Fathers would be so proud...).

People are falliable. Being elected does not make one infalliable.

And remember the argument here is not that these people are betraying their country...it is that their strategic vision for the country requires a few casualties to get the ball rolling.

If you look at PNAC (and if you still don't understand who they are then you are not adequately researched to discuss the Bush administration geo-strategic policy) and its members and goals you might want to wonder how they could achieve their grand plans without 9/11.

If 9/11 never happened could Bush have ever whipped up support to invade Iraq? (and Iraq has long been in the pipeline).

My own personal dilema is that it might actually be in my interests for these people to succeed with their plans of hegemony (or the "unique role" America has in leading the world...) because it would probably be better than a Chinese one.

Bush is an eejit, everyone knows that. Why more than half of you Americans voted him in for a second term (aswell as the first) will always remain a mystery to us Brits (or at least those who are remotely near sane). If you want to have him run your country, then theres something obviously daft with you. Furthermore, tell him to keep his hands of Britain...there is absolutely no reason why we should be roped into his illegal wars (and yes, both Iraq and Afghanistan were illegal; no doubt Iran will be too). If he wants to send American soldiers to their deaths, fine by me...but he can f*ck off our British soldiers. He is also, as is pretty obvious, declaring war on these countries under false presumptions, in order to increase the amount of oil owned by US companies.

Having finished that rant, I think that Bush will not create another attack on American soil simply because he is too damned stupid. Tosser.

- Increased millions unemployed

- 40% without adequate health care

To return to the original thread, Bush is destroying America more than any terrorist could.

(By the way .... nowadays, the term 'terrorist' seems only to apply to people from outside the US - have you forgotten all the home grown terrorists that you have?)


Bush will not "allow another terrorist attack". He is doing everything he can do to disrupt terrorists plans and capture them. I hope he continues as he is succeeding so far. Maybe we arent catching all these scumbags fast enough-ALIVE, I might add.

I know how many of you are waiting for the US to be attacked again so you can say President Bush was wrong. You all suck and I dont even have to tell you that, because you already know it. That is the source of your absurd bias and petty hatred.

274,000 jobs were added to the US economy this past April 2005. I'm sure one of you detractors will have some source that can show Bush's administration had nothing to do with that though. Detractors always have all the answers. Keep spouting your bs if it makes you feel better.

Bush is an eejit, everyone knows that. Why more than half of you Americans voted him in for a second term (aswell as the first) will always remain a mystery to us Brits (or at least those who are remotely near sane). If you want to have him run your country, then theres something obviously daft with you. Furthermore, tell him to keep his hands of Britain...there is absolutely no reason why we should be roped into his illegal wars (and yes, both Iraq and Afghanistan were illegal; no doubt Iran will be too). If he wants to send American soldiers to their deaths, fine by me...but he can f*ck off our British soldiers. He is also, as is pretty obvious, declaring war on these countries under false presumptions, in order to increase the amount of oil owned by US companies.

Having finished that rant, I think that Bush will not create another attack on American soil simply because he is too damned stupid. Tosser.

Actually, most of us know that President Bush was the better man for the job. And I'm quite certain if we voted Kerry into office, you Brits wouldnt now be saying we were smart, right?
SO-maybe next time, try keeping your small,ignorant yap closed, ok?

Hmmm-it looks like Mr.Blair is in for another term too. We're glad over in The US, as he is our friend and ally.

BTW- Happy Birthday, Mr.Blair !

Bush the murderer? First of all most of the military is glad to be fighting for their President in Iraq. Many jump at the opportunity for deployment or voluntarily serve multiple duties in Iraq because they dont like sitting on their butts doing nothing while dictators, terrorists, and the nations that house them threaten our country. If Bush was not such an action President, if he'd done nothing after 9/11 but talk, the attacks would have continued on America. Instead Bush chose action and showed the terrorist bastards that America will not stand by to be f**ked with. Also, you say Bush is a murderer, but he is opposed to abortion which is undoubtedly the murder of many Americans.

Firstly, I doubt they 'jump at the opportuniy'...they have to swear an oath of alleigence and therefore have to fight or be dishonourably discharged. Secondly, I live in Britain and British soldiers sure as hell don't want to follow Bush on his wholly stupid campagins across the Middle East (and probably China and North Korea in the end) in order to gain more oil; the evil Texan wanker.

Thirdly, fair enough the September 11th attacks were horrific, but there was sod all proof to link them to Afghanistan or Osama bin Laden. But Bush, being the eejit that he is, doesn't need proof. Fourthly, I know you Americans (especially those tossers who support Bush) rarely know about history outside of the United States, but if you did take a kek at British history, you will see that Irish 'terrorists' (I put this in inverted commas because I support the IRA's cause...chuck all the Prods out of Northern Ireland and tell them to bugger off home to Scotland) have, for the past century or so, been bombing the British mainland in order to promote their cause. We tried to invade and impose martial law on Northern Ireland during "the Troubles" of the 1970s, and look what happened there...bugger all in the way of a solution, just more pointless deaths on both sides. Bush invading 'terrorist' countries willy nilly will not work.

Fifthly, it should be 11/9 not 9/11 cos its the eleventh day of the 9th month, not the other way round. Finally, as a Catholic, i'm against abortion (but thank goodness im not a bible bashing Catholic like much of you rednecks out there)...but I'm also not a big fan or murder, and, yes, Bush is sending troops out to kill and be killed (on false pretexts), the murderous little shite.

Actually, most of us know that President Bush was the better man for the job. And I'm quite certain if we voted Kerry into office, you Brits wouldnt now be saying we were smart, right?
SO-maybe next time, try keeping your small,ignorant yap closed, ok?

Hmmm-it looks like Mr.Blair is in for another term too. We're glad over in The US, as he is our friend and ally.

BTW- Happy Birthday, Mr.Blair !

Hey, if Kerry got into office i would feel a lot safer than have Bush their (and, incidentally, I would think Americans were a lot smarter if Kerry had got in). And no, I think I might continue to express my views...freedom of speech has yet to be oppressed in Britain. Im kinda glad that Blair got in...though I would have preferred Charles Kennedy. Still Blair is a hell of a lot better than Michael Howard; the Tories screwed up this country under Thatcher and Major and we certainly don't want to go back to those days.

Oh, and I nearly forgot, f*uck u, u Bush loving American c*nt

Oh, and I nearly forgot, f*uck u, u Bush loving American c*nt


Thanks-I never expected better from you.

Thanks-I never expected better from you.


No Problem...there's more if you want it?

One can only "allow" (or permit, or fail to stop) somthing they know about in advance. It is not a terrorist attack if it is known about in advance.

If you want to say "Will Bush be implicitly or explicitly involved in the next attack upon US citizens?" you can. It is a foolish conspiracy-theorist nutter question, but you can ask it. But as asked, the question is a nonsensical nonsequiter.

(Oh, BTW, IMO the whole US government is implicitly responsible for "allowing" terrorist attack(s) on US soil, but for a different (positive) reason... because they kow-tow to "advocacy groups" like CAIR and fail to use known terrorist Profiles to interrogate non-citizen residents and visitors.

But that's the price of a Free Society - not to oppress people because of a belief - no matter how "justified". Sort of like my right to own a gun.

1: Military recruitment is at an alltime low and still falling. No one wants to serve any more.

They have failed to meet the recruiting goal the past three months but they are not at all time lows. Thousands are still signing up, just a few thousand less.



2: Saddam Hussein never threatened our country. He threatened GW Bush, but not the US. Unless you believe Bush=USA, you're wrong.

Saddam Hussein violated the Coalition Ceasefire of the Gulf War on a daily basis. He purposely misled the UN about his possession of chemical weapons and paid the price when we called his bluff.



3: Iraq did not support terrorism against the US, and did not house Al Quaeda members. They supported terrorism against Israel, but Israel is not the US.



We will all benefit from a more stable Middle East if it occurs. 25 million people were freed from the brutal Taliban Theocracy. Afghanistan is now a free republic. 62% of Iraqi voters turned out amidst bombings to vote in the first multiparty elections in most of their lifetimes. They have leaders the populace has chosen. Egyptian dictator, Hosni Mubarak has conceeded to national multiparty elections in Egypt. The Lebanese turned out in the hundreds of thousands pressuring the Syrian government to end it's 25 year occupation of Lebanon. The Saudi king has agreed to allow multiparty local elections. Lybia has handed over it's chemical weapons research to the British and Americans. The Extremist are losing. These facts may depress some but it looks like the Arab world has gotten excited about something.
Self Determination.

No Problem...there's more if you want it?

No-I do appreciate the offer, but you've already rendered yourself invalid. Nothing you say now is of any importance. Even your opinions can now be regarded as mere flatulence.

You're saying he's watch citizens die, basically. That's taking Bush-Bashing to a whole new level; it goes into idiocy.

That's right. Bush wouldn't do nothing. He'd valiantly and decisivly continue doing whatever the hell he was doing at the time. Like reading children's stories.

Well at least now no one can come back with that retarded refrain "at least he's attacking them there so they can't attack us here."

BTW I think Venezuela is next up on the chopping block. They just need a little time to make "Communist" a dirty word again.

He purposely misled the UN about his possession of chemical weapons and paid the price when we called his bluff.
I dont remember him having any chemical weapons this time around. In fact other than a few second hand russian tanks and a couple of Ak 47's he didnt really seem to have any weapons at all. But then hell, America wouldnt have been so gung-ho if it was anything like a fair fight would they ?
Another thing, All the terro's from 911 were from Saudi Arabia. Osama is from Saudi Arabia. Saudi money likely paid for the attacks. WHY DO YOU BOMB EVERYONE BUT THEM BUSH? Answer : OMG !!!!! they might fight back.

They have failed to meet the recruiting goal the past three months but they are not at all time lows. Thousands are still signing up, just a few thousand less.



[QUOTE]Saddam Hussein violated the Coalition Ceasefire of the Gulf War on a daily basis. He purposely misled the UN about his possession of chemical weapons and paid the price when we called his bluff.

Bullshit. It's clear to pretty much all thinking people now that we went in on a lie. He had no WMD's and Bush knew it.

We will all benefit from a more stable Middle East if it occurs. 25 million people were freed from the brutal Taliban Theocracy. Afghanistan is now a free republic. 62% of Iraqi voters turned out amidst bombings to vote in the first multiparty elections in most of their lifetimes. They have leaders the populace has chosen. Egyptian dictator, Hosni Mubarak has conceeded to national multiparty elections in Egypt. The Lebanese turned out in the hundreds of thousands pressuring the Syrian government to end it's 25 year occupation of Lebanon. The Saudi king has agreed to allow multiparty local elections. Lybia has handed over it's chemical weapons research to the British and Americans. The Extremist are losing. These facts may depress some but it looks like the Arab world has gotten excited about something.
Self Determination.

While the facts are technically true, your conclusions from them are bullshit. Afghanistan has a democratic government in name only. The government controls practically nothing outside of the capital city, and the only economic base now is drugs.

The Saudi elections are for meaningless positions. All it means is that their absolute monarchy doesn't have a byzantine nobility structure that extends all the way down to menial bureaucratic functions that no noble would stoop to occupy.

The Lybian detente had nothing to do with Iraq, it was the long standing economic sanctions. Our most powerful weapon has always been economics, if we were really worried about him getting nukes wouldn't we have invaded there instead?

I dont remember him having any chemical weapons this time around. In fact other than a few second hand russian tanks and a couple of Ak 47's he didnt really seem to have any weapons at all. But then hell, America wouldnt have been so gung-ho if it was anything like a fair fight would they ?
Another thing, All the terro's from 911 were from Saudi Arabia. Osama is from Saudi Arabia. Saudi money likely paid for the attacks. WHY DO YOU BOMB EVERYONE BUT THEM BUSH? Answer : OMG !!!!! they might fight back.

No, its because we actually control their oil market. Why would we invade when they already give us everything we want. Note, not everything we ask for, like "stop trying to blow us up" but the things we really want "don't make me give up my SUV." Sadam Hussein gave us what we asked for, he gave up all weapons of mass destruction, but didn't give us anything we wanted, continuing to trade oil in dollars rather than euros and stop selling to Europe behind our backs.

<snip>Another thing, All the terro's from 911 were from Saudi Arabia. Osama is from Saudi Arabia. Saudi money likely paid for the attacks. WHY DO YOU BOMB EVERYONE BUT THEM BUSH? Answer : OMG !!!!! they might fight back.
No, they wouldn't fight back (we ARE their military...) and I would personally like to see the House of Saud and their little Wahabi thugs roasted over a spit. But our "no drilling in ANWAR" enviornmental faction won't allow it. They need to feed their SUVs.

[QUOTE=Matchopolis]
Bullshit. It's clear to pretty much all thinking people now that we went in on a lie. He had no WMD's and Bush knew it.


I usually never ask people to back up any absolute statement they make in here.
In this case, however, I would like you to show that President Bush KNEW saddam hussein didnt have any weapons of mass destruction.

[QUOTE=Matchopolis]
Bullshit. It's clear to pretty much all thinking people now that we went in on a lie. He had no WMD's and Bush knew it.

How could Bush know it, if Saddam continued to refuse access to certain key areas? When Saddam lost in the gulf, he signed treaties agreeing to allow UN inspectors anywhere in his country. Bill Clinton should have invaded the country when he kicked them out the first time. Even after letting them in, he still restricted areas for them to search! When the police have a warrant to search someone's home, and that person won't let them into a certain room, the police can arrest him.

And while we never did find the weapons we had every right to suspect were present, every other purpose for going into that country was perfectly valid. He shot at our planes, he commited genocide against his own people, and continually commited other human rights violations. Now what are the reasons people want us to go in to Sudan for again?

Also, oil had more to do with the opposition for the war than the cause for war. Germany, Russia, and France all had billions invested in Iraq's oil under the Hussein's regime, and they didn't want to lose it.

No-I do appreciate the offer, but you've already rendered yourself invalid. Nothing you say now is of any importance. Even your opinions can now be regarded as mere flatulence.


Personally I dont see how I've 'rendered myself invalid;' all my opinions have been based on events that have happened. Ive had a one of my relatives die in Iraq cos the British armed forces were forced to support that **** Bush in his trigger-happy, 'lets get more oil, regardless of legitimate reasons' tosspottery. he is a twat, and anyone who supports him must be either sick in the mind, evil or just plain stupid...which one are you?

[QUOTE=Domici]

How could Bush know it, if Saddam continued to refuse access to certain key areas? When Saddam lost in the gulf, he signed treaties agreeing to allow UN inspectors anywhere in his country. Bill Clinton should have invaded the country when he kicked them out the first time. Even after letting them in, he still restricted areas for them to search! When the police have a warrant to search someone's home, and that person won't let them into a certain room, the police can arrest him.

And while we never did find the weapons we had every right to suspect were present, every other purpose for going into that country was perfectly valid. He shot at our planes, he commited genocide against his own people, and continually commited other human rights violations. Now what are the reasons people want us to go in to Sudan for again?

Also, oil had more to do with the opposition for the war than the cause for war. Germany, Russia, and France all had billions invested in Iraq's oil under the Hussein's regime, and they didn't want to lose it.
Yes. Yes. Yes. I suspect, no, I firmly believe that any illegal weapons will be eventually discovered in a nearby Arab country. Probably Syria.

The best thing about this invasion was the aftermath. Elections in Iraq, Ashcanistan, and Egypt. Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon. Voluntary disarmament in Libya. New progress between Israel and the Palestinians.

A lot has happened in the Middle East since the invasion of Iraq two years ago. Bush promised it all in his second inaugural address and I think it still galls the opposition that he was right.

Personally I dont see how I've 'rendered myself invalid;' all my opinions have been based on events that have happened. Ive had a one of my relatives die in Iraq cos the British armed forces were forced to support that **** Bush in his trigger-happy, 'lets get more oil, regardless of legitimate reasons' tosspottery. he is a twat, and anyone who supports him must be either sick in the mind, evil or just plain stupid...which one are you?


It wasnt your opinion that reduced you to total insignificance, it was your absurd and infantile attack on me.

You now fit into each of the categories you gave me to chose from.

Run along now-there is traffic waiting for you to play in.

Personally I dont see how I've 'rendered myself invalid;' all my opinions have been based on events that have happened. Ive had a one of my relatives die in Iraq cos the British armed forces were forced to support that **** Bush in his trigger-happy, 'lets get more oil, regardless of legitimate reasons' tosspottery. he is a twat, and anyone who supports him must be either sick in the mind, evil or just plain stupid...which one are you?

Dont let your petty anger and hatred blame someone that is not responsible for a relatives death. Bush didnt kill them, the iraqi with the gun did remember that. They were in the military for a reason and that is to fight not get paid to hold a gun and look special. And since when did britian want to be so much of an isolationist? Where would you be right now if the united states hadnt decided to come to britians aid in the 1940's? We dont sit here and say that your country cost us hundereds of thousands of lives. We accept that Freedom and Peace are worth fighting for. When did Europe become so self righteous that they are more driven by money that by the good of man. You may claim that america is worse but i say that your european union is worse that our capitalist nation. Corruption exists even in blameless Europe. As much as you dont want to realize it it does. We werent supposed to go to iraq because France Germany and Russia were making money off of the oil for food program. Now that its over they want to help rebuild. Europe needs to see that they are not that different from us and they also need to see that we have been there for them and the time we need them to be there for us they turn their back because americans are "stupid" and we are "corrupt". Ignorance abounds from most liberal mouths.

I also feel that these WMDs have made it across the border. Why else would saddam have wanted to keep inspectors out of his country?

--SPQR

who thinks Bush will allow another terrorist attack in America?

This time as an excuse to invade Iran in June

That begs the question: Did Bush actually allow the first attack? I may not like the man, but I certainly don't think he did.

This time as an excuse to invade Iran in June

um... he didn't allow the first one. if he'd known about it, he would have stopped it.

if you want to blame a politician for 9/11, blame Clinton, who had a chance THREE TIMES to nab Bin Laden.

Even then, someone else mgiht have taken over for UBL... these people are nuts.

As for Iraq, lol, for the hundredth time, IT IS JUSTIFIED.

-They wanted freedom/to be rid of Saddam, as shown by the vote's success.
-Saddam was a BAD GUY who had to be deposed.

Those are two facts that justify the war in Iraq.

He allows Terrorism to go on every day in this country by not properly funding the police. Gang membership is at an extremely high level in the big cities right now. Gangs are small cells of terrorists as far as I'm concerned. Until we get rid of them we will have terrorism in this naton.

whose responsibility is it to fund police?

the state's?

county's?

city's?

That begs the question: Did Bush actually allow the first attack? I may not like the man, but I certainly don't think he did.


Thanks for saying that.

Its prefectly reasonable for you to not like him or agree what he does. But I appreciate the fact that you agree with what any rationally thinking person does- the man never would have "allowed" any attack.

Thanks for saying that.

Its prefectly reasonable for you to not like him or agree what he does. But I appreciate the fact that you agree with what any rationally thinking person does- the man never would have "allowed" any attack.

Quite welcome.

While I may think many uncomplimentary things about the current administration and its policies, I'm a long way from thinking Bush the type of man that would allow his own people to be killed in order to further his own personal agenda. He's a human being, perhaps misguided, but certainly not a monster.

Who cares...

The stupid americian public voted him back in, so if he fails to prevent another terrorist strike that causes several thousand deaths, well thats just fewer dumb asses to vote for him.
How can you say something like this? No-one deserves to die just because they voted for Bush.

And besides, the next terrorist attack will more likely be in a big city and thus will kill people who probably voted for Kerry.

How can you say something like this? No-one deserves to die just because they voted for Bush.

And besides, the next terrorist attack will more likely be in a big city and thus will kill people who probably voted for Kerry.


We can only hope that the day never comes. I would like to see people united with the same fervor as right after 9/11, but without a 9/11 tragedy.

Don't forget Rumefelds increase in military spending...

all your war veterans from previous caampaigns are set to go hungry as US social welfare disintergrates.

BUT DONT WORRY

There are plans to get military spending up to 500 billion dollars by 2010.

(and this is more than likely to go mainly to computer intensive hi-tech weapon systems as outlined by JV2020. and who will benefit most from this increased spending...maybe Halliburton...)


Yeah that's scary. I'm afraid we're going to end up like the Soviet Union, having the best and most advanced military in the world but with a bunch of starving citizens to show for it. Militaristic societies tend to collapse upon themselves.

Who cares...

The stupid americian public voted him back in, so if he fails to prevent another terrorist strike that causes several thousand deaths, well thats just fewer dumb asses to vote for him.

It's funny about the re-election thing. Bush supported the invasion of Iraq. He was re-elected. John Howard supported the invasion of Iraq. He was re-elected. Tony Blair supported the invasion of Iraq. Guess what? He, too, was re-elected. Jose Maria Aznar ended up giving in to the terrorists. He was thrown out.

I think there is a pattern starting to emerge. It's a little easier to see than the 0.9r = 1 proof.

Yeah that's scary. I'm afraid we're going to end up like the Soviet Union, having the best and most advanced military in the world but with a bunch of starving citizens to show for it. Militaristic societies tend to collapse upon themselves.
Nah, look at the difference between our military spending as a percent of GDP compared to what Soviets spent. Plus, we don't depend on central planning to determine what our farmers are going to grow. Thank goodness for Capitalism.

It's funny about the re-election thing. Bush supported the invasion of Iraq. He was re-elected. John Howard supported the invasion of Iraq. He was re-elected. Tony Blair supported the invasion of Iraq. Guess what? He, too, was re-elected. Jose Maria Aznar ended up giving in to the terrorists. He was thrown out.

I think there is a pattern starting to emerge. It's a little easier to see than the 0.9r = 1 proof.

Bush won by a rather slim margin. (Mandate of the people, my ass.) I don't know about the tallies for Howard, Blair, or Aznar, but again, "thrown out" could be too strong a term, depending on how close the voting was.

thousands of Americans dead, many more wounded
1/2 million Iraqis dead due to the embargo
100,000 Iraqis dead for a war that can not be justified?
And why did we go there in the first place, because
Cheney's Halliburton thought it would be good for business?

Kerry was right when he said that invading Iraq because of 9-11 makes about as much sense as invading Mexico because of Pearl Harbor.

but what gets me is all the people who voted for W because he is 'pro life'.
Now there's an Orwellian phrase if there ever was one.

I don't get why people voted for Bush, he didn't do anything to protect us from terrorism. What did he do to stop 9-11? How can people buy this nonsense?

Bush won by a rather slim margin. (Mandate of the people, my ass.) I don't know about the tallies for Howard, Blair, or Aznar, but again, "thrown out" could be too strong a term, depending on how close the voting was.
Anzar was heavily favored in the pre-election polls. The stories about the election aren't hard to find on the WSJ site. USAToday probably has a version you can read without a subscription.

I didn't say 'mandate'. I did point out how three heads of state won re-election despite some pretty stiff opposition to the liberation of Iraq. That might be a "Global Test" for a mandate, though.

Anzar was heavily favored in the pre-election polls.
No, he wasn't. It was pretty much split down the middle in the pre-election polls. There was no massive shift in public opinion. Aznar lost the election for two main reasons

1) The Iraq War, opposed by 90% of Spanish people.
2) He kept insisting that ETA was behind the 11/3 attacks despite the evidence that pointed to Muslim terrorists.

Anzar was heavily favored in the pre-election polls. The stories about the election aren't hard to find on the WSJ site. USAToday probably has a version you can read without a subscription.

I didn't say 'mandate'. I did point out how three heads of state won re-election despite some pretty stiff opposition to the liberation of Iraq. That might be a "Global Test" for a mandate, though.

I know you didn't say 'mandate.' That was just a vent about the whole post-election spin, where it was called a mandate by Bush supporters, nothing directed toward you personally.

Bush won by a rather slim margin. (Mandate of the people, my ass.) I don't know about the tallies for Howard, Blair, or Aznar, but again, "thrown out" could be too strong a term, depending on how close the voting was.


In the Presidential Election of 2004, President Bush's margin of victory over Senator Kerry was a little over 3.5 million popular votes.

Thats hardly a "slim margin".

No, he wasn't. It was pretty much split down the middle in the pre-election polls. There was no massive shift in public opinion. Aznar lost the election for two main reasons

1) The Iraq War, opposed by 90% of Spanish people.
2) He kept insisting that ETA was behind the 11/3 attacks despite the evidence that pointed to Muslim terrorists.
The way I read it is that the turnout was far greater than expected. That overcame the large lead he held going into the election. Why is a matter of opinion more than fact. On the other hand, facts show three heads of state re-elected...

I know you didn't say 'mandate.' That was just a vent about the whole post-election spin, where it was called a mandate by Bush supporters, nothing directed toward you personally.
Shucks, I had hoped you would have picked up on the Global Test reference. Anyone who wins anything anymore "has" a mandate.

Allow another 9.11? Yeah because the first one was his fault. What a putrid question. Who thinks another 9.11 will happen? Yeah better...

In the Presidential Election of 2004, President Bush's margin of victory over Senator Kerry was a little over 3.5 million popular votes.

Thats hardly a "slim margin".

Essentially Bush won 51.3% of the popular vote while Kerry won 48.7%. That is a slim margin.

However, since it all basically boiled down to Ohio and there were voting irregularities throughout the state, who knows?

If you look up Cuyahoga County's results alone, you'd be wondering about the validity of the results. I'm still curious about how there were so many examples in that county of heavily Republican townships turning out 115% of the number of registered voters for their area. Sigh...

um... he didn't allow the first one. if he'd known about it, he would have stopped it.

if you want to blame a politician for 9/11, blame Clinton, who had a chance THREE TIMES to nab Bin Laden.

Even then, someone else mgiht have taken over for UBL... these people are nuts.

As for Iraq, lol, for the hundredth time, IT IS JUSTIFIED.

-They wanted freedom/to be rid of Saddam, as shown by the vote's success.
-Saddam was a BAD GUY who had to be deposed.

Those are two facts that justify the war in Iraq.
Dealt with. Rather early on.

Essentially Bush won 51.3% of the popular vote while Kerry won 48.7%. That is a slim margin.

However, since it all basically boiled down to Ohio and there were voting irregularities throughout the state, who knows?

If you look up Cuyahoga County's results alone, you'd be wondering about the validity of the results. I'm still curious about how there were so many examples in that county of heavily Republican townships turning out 115% of the number of registered voters for their area. Sigh...
There's a simple way to fix that problem without electronic ballots, or voting chips or even paper reciepts. But everywhere it's proposed, the Democrats resist. It's called positive ID when voting and proof of citizenship when registering.

Allow?

I didn't know that HE controlled these things.

There's a simple way to fix that problem without electronic ballots, or voting chips or even paper reciepts. But everywhere it's proposed, the Democrats resist. It's called positive ID when voting and proof of citizenship when registering.

No, that's not a way to fix the problem. Say you go that route (which I wouldn't mind by the way) and you have 20,000 perfectly legitimate voters who voted in a precinct. Without a receipt to verify that the votes were not changed by the voting machine, how on earth is having 20,000 legitimate voters worth any more than a wooden nickel? You're way doesn't solve the problem one bit.

But since the Republicans have been the ones resisting the changes necessary to fix the machines, then we are always left to wonder if our votes really mattered. Its disheartening to realize that the Powerball drawings carry more legitimacy than casting a vote in a presidential campaign on a Diebold machine.

The way I read it is that the turnout was far greater than expected. That overcame the large lead he held going into the election. Why is a matter of opinion more than fact.
Yes, the turn out was far greater than expected, probably prompted by the terrorist attacks. Greater turnout in a democratic country is always a good thing, IMO.

On the other hand, facts show three heads of state re-elected...
The people of Spain are not the people of America or the people of Australia or the people of Britain. In Spain, Britain and Australia, however, polls have consitently shown that large majorities of people were and remain against the Iraq War.

It was fairly well covered in the local press. As was the rumor that an Isreali telecom firm had told its workers not to go to work that day.

Both turned out to be groundless.
then who were those Israelis that were deported?

So, in reading this thread I question whether this is really a chance to discuss terrorism, or if Bone guy just wanted a forum to spew antisemitism. We've had the "neo-con" codeword for jew, we've had the Mossad cannard, and Israeli duplicity. I guess I'm just waiting for some reference to a world banking conspiracy to wrap up the Jew-baiting trifecta. will it never end?
now your being paranoid. I distrust neocons of ALL religions.

It wasnt your opinion that reduced you to total insignificance, it was your absurd and infantile attack on me.

You now fit into each of the categories you gave me to chose from.

Run along now-there is traffic waiting for you to play in.

I only came out with my 'absurd' attack because you insulted me first, and I quote: "try keeping your small ignorant yap closed".

If I do fit into any of the categories that I gave you to choose from (and yes, that is 'choose', not 'chose' because 'chose' simply does not make sense there; then again neither does your argument which has more holes in it than Swiss cheese), then I'll enjoy seeing you there.

Why not societies all over the world a favour, pick your nearest tall building, walk to the roof and take a leap.

Bush will not "allow another terrorist attack". He is doing everything he can do to disrupt terrorists plans and capture them. I hope he continues as he is succeeding so far. Maybe we arent catching all these scumbags fast enough-ALIVE, I might add.

I know how many of you are waiting for the US to be attacked again so you can say President Bush was wrong. You all suck and I dont even have to tell you that, because you already know it. That is the source of your absurd bias and petty hatred.

274,000 jobs were added to the US economy this past April 2005. I'm sure one of you detractors will have some source that can show Bush's administration had nothing to do with that though. Detractors always have all the answers. Keep spouting your bs if it makes you feel better.
Im sorry but republican propaganda spin cycles dont work on me

One can only "allow" (or permit, or fail to stop) somthing they know about in advance. It is not a terrorist attack if it is known about in advance.

If you want to say "Will Bush be implicitly or explicitly involved in the next attack upon US citizens?" you can. It is a foolish conspiracy-theorist nutter question, but you can ask it. But as asked, the question is a nonsensical nonsequiter.

(Oh, BTW, IMO the whole US government is implicitly responsible for "allowing" terrorist attack(s) on US soil, but for a different (positive) reason... because they kow-tow to "advocacy groups" like CAIR and fail to use known terrorist Profiles to interrogate non-citizen residents and visitors.

But that's the price of a Free Society - not to oppress people because of a belief - no matter how "justified". Sort of like my right to own a gun.
Bush knew and we dont live in a free society-Americans are among the most oppressed people in the world today

That begs the question: Did Bush actually allow the first attack? I may not like the man, but I certainly don't think he did.
if you add up all the unanswered questions the only conclusion you can draw is that he either knew or is a total retard--your call

what a stoopid poll. No bias in this poll, nosirree.

um... he didn't allow the first one. if he'd known about it, he would have stopped it.

if you want to blame a politician for 9/11, blame Clinton, who had a chance THREE TIMES to nab Bin Laden.

Even then, someone else mgiht have taken over for UBL... these people are nuts.

As for Iraq, lol, for the hundredth time, IT IS JUSTIFIED.

-They wanted freedom/to be rid of Saddam, as shown by the vote's success.
-Saddam was a BAD GUY who had to be deposed.

Those are two facts that justify the war in Iraq.
Bush was the one who needed a 911 not Clinton.

Iraq war is a monumental waste
why would they want to be rid of Saddam? The US has a long history of supporting monsters

Quite welcome.

While I may think many uncomplimentary things about the current administration and its policies, I'm a long way from thinking Bush the type of man that would allow his own people to be killed in order to further his own personal agenda. He's a human being, perhaps misguided, but certainly not a monster.
he IS a monster--and the Pope who just died agreed with that assessment

Bush knew and we dont live in a free society-Americans are among the most oppressed people in the world today

I'm sorry what was that???? While I believe that certian times the American public is kept intentionally in the dark with some events I would hardly say we are the most opressed people in the world.

I'm sorry what was that???? While I believe that certian times the American public is kept intentionally in the dark with some events I would hardly say we are the most opressed people in the world.
BonePosse's just doing a poor Red Arrow impersonation.

Look, there's evil (Hitler, Stalin, Osama) and there's Republican evil (Strom Thurmond swearing to "whistle Dixie 'til she cries.") Regular evil is the fire and brimstone stuff we're all familiar with. Republican evil is "will anyone REALLY notice the extra toxins in their water?" Evil is Satan orchestrating the downfall of humanity. Republican Evil is a deadbeat dad sitting on his porch drinking Wild Turkey and wishing that black people wouldn't go to the restaurants he likes. Dubya is typical Republican evil. He'll give tax breaks to his friends and wear a cowboy hat just to piss of liberals because he's a bastard. However, it's still unthinkable for small-time evil like the neoconservatives to let their own people die. A lot of people, especially foreigners think they're these Machiavellian Darth Vaders plotting the destruction of humanity. No way. These guys are content ripping people off, giving their enemies the finger and practicing polite, country-club-racism. The republicans are the equivalent of a bunch of college jocks with collars popped up jugging Millwaulkee's Besta and accosting bystanders for kicks. Not evil, just annoying pricks.

I'm sorry what was that???? While I believe that certian times the American public is kept intentionally in the dark with some events I would hardly say we are the most opressed people in the world.
Under the PNAC terrorist in the White House America is sliding into police state hellhole--Bush is doing more to tear apart the fabric that made America great then any terrorist attack from outside can ever do. Hes turned the world against America--made us an evil empire and even divided the nation. Hes the REAL threat to America and the world

BonePosse's just doing a poor Red Arrow impersonation.

Right now I just wish I could have seen half the people who pull this stuff (jesussaves ect..) because this is some pretty funny stuff.

BonePosse's just doing a poor Red Arrow impersonation.
HAH--thats pretty dam funny :D

Under the PNAC terrorist in the White House America is sliding into police state hellhole--Bush is doing more to tear apart the fabric that made America great then any terrorist attack from outside can ever do. Hes turned the world against America--made us an evil empire and even divided the nation. Hes the REAL threat to America and the world


Damn true.

America in the early nineties was THE place to be. Every European was envious of the 'American Dream'.

Now europeans see how unlicensed capitalist individualism essentially leads to a form of warlordism, no matter what political system is in place.

American politics is dominated by money. Who was the last working class senator? Who represents the non-elite?

Those with the most money can buy seats in government, and thus control government. In Afghanistan, those with the most money buy men with guns and thus control the land.

Keep up the good work Bon Posse cause there are a lot of cynics out there...

(and I think the biggest problem is the fact that the idea that Bush (or rather the men who direct him) is using the institutions of American power to further self-interested and extremist (PNAC) goals is actually bloody terrifying. One sleeps happier at night assuming our masters are truly good guys... no one wants to wake up to the (Orwellian?) truth).


Although we might have misjudged the poor old fool...

Damn true.

America in the early nineties was THE place to be. Every European was envious of the 'American Dream'.

Now europeans see how unlicensed capitalist individualism essentially leads to a form of warlordism, no matter what political system is in place.

American politics is dominated by money. Who was the last working class senator? Who represents the non-elite?

Those with the most money can buy seats in government, and thus control government. In Afghanistan, those with the most money buy men with guns and thus control the land.

Keep up the good work Bon Posse cause there are a lot of cynics out there...

(and I think the biggest problem is the fact that the idea that Bush (or rather the men who direct him) is using the institutions of American power to further self-interested and extremist (PNAC) goals is actually bloody terrifying. One sleeps happier at night assuming our masters are truly good guys... no one wants to wake up to the (Orwellian?) truth).


Although we might have misjudged the poor old fool...
Im sure in Germany in the 30s the German people couldnt have conceived the true depths of the evil in their leader then either. History truely does repeat itself. Too many Americans are more concerned with being good little germans instead of looking at the evil straight in the face