Don't believe everything you read, Tornado/Gent!

Goes for you too. Let's hear what the real story was about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Oh, I forgot, poor little George and his supersmart administration were TRICKED by nasty Irani intelligence officers... right!

WMD's (weapons of mass hysteria) abound here, that's for sure.

There were four unique factors in the calculus involving Saddam Hussein and his so-called weapons of mass destruction: (1) Saddam Hussein had petrodollars to buy such strategic weapons; (2) He had acquired and stockpiled such arms and used them in war against Iran and in peace against his own people; (3) He had a long history of aggression against the United States — from Gulf War I to trying to assassinate an American president; and (4) His Baathist police state had a systematic policy of hiding such weapons, from both the United States postwar intelligence gatherers and the U.N. inspectors.

Therefore as long as Saddam Hussein was in power it didn't matter what the professed status of his chemical and biological arsenal was at any particular time, since our only certain knowledge was that he had a proven desire and ability to purchase, recreate, and use them on any given day — and that day would be mostly unknown to everyone outside of Iraq.

"The majority of the planet seems to think Bush had something to do with it"

Source?

I posted the source, maybe you should read a bit more often.

The ones who flew the planes had been in the country for years training to fly the planes, way before W got into the white house. He planned it back then, did he? Made sure they were given their visas, work permits and whatever else is required to do that in the US in the hope that, when he was elected president, he could unleash them on those people in the towers to enable him to finish daddy's job with Madass?

That he's taken advantage of a situation does seem to be clear-cut. Thinking that he orchestrated it is far-fetched.

The ones who flew the planes had been in the country for years training to fly the planes, way before W got into the white house. He planned it back then, did he? Made sure they were given their visas, work permits and whatever else is required to do that in the US in the hope that, when he was elected president, he could unleash them on those people in the towers to enable him to finish daddy's job with Madass?

That he's taken advantage of a situation does seem to be clear-cut. Thinking that he orchestrated it is far-fetched.

They had been planning it right after the first bombing of the Trade Center back in what, '96 so yes, sounds a bit far-fetched that Dubya was responsible. But then, if you hate Bush bad enough you blame him for the scores of dead from Hurricane Ivan that just chewed up Florida again!

The ones who flew the planes had been in the country for years training to fly the planes, way before W got into the white house. He planned it back then, did he? Made sure they were given their visas, work permits and whatever else is required to do that in the US in the hope that, when he was elected president, he could unleash them on those people in the towers to enable him to finish daddy's job with Madass?

That he's taken advantage of a situation does seem to be clear-cut. Thinking that he orchestrated it is far-fetched.

They had been planning it right after the first bombing of the Trade Center back in what, '96 so yes, sounds a bit far-fetched that Dubya was responsible. But then, if you hate Bush bad enough you blame him for the scores of dead from Hurricane Ivan that just chewed up Florida again!

We've agreed on something?

Errr.....

Nah! Must be this beer.

hi'

I saw in a report that some victims of the 9/11 wanted to sue bush and his administration

for being responsible to what happened ...

at least, because they seemed to know that this was going to happen ...and did nothing really to prevent it ...

is this true ?

francois

hi'

I saw in a report that some victims of the 9/11 wanted to sue bush and his administration

for being responsible to what happened ...

at least, because they seemed to know that this was going to happen ...and did nothing really to prevent it ...

is this true ?

francois

Premise being you're not a Troll, the answer is no, Bush was not responsible. If there's any blame to be cast it would be on "Bubba" Clinton's administration...

I think some people on this forum should add more ice to their beer, or water to their whiskey

hi'

I saw in a report that some victims of the 9/11 wanted to sue bush and his administration

for being responsible to what happened ...

at least, because they seemed to know that this was going to happen ...and did nothing really to prevent it ...

is this true ?

francois

I guess what you really want to know is "will they sue Bush for knowing what happened", and not "did Bush know/plan it or not"?

Who knows. Either way the reaction seems a little weird. We are attacked by terrorists with links to a loosely knitted network of radical Islamic organisations. Let us then find the most logical way to retaliate... Yeah! Let's attack Afghanistan. And Iraq. And Poland.

"Poland is a would-be ally, and a non-muslim country in Europe, Sir."

"Oh. Never mind. But do attack the rest and find a bunch of lame reasons for doing so, so that my faithful patriots will have something to say when they get bashed on the Internet..."

"Sir."

"...and bring me that friiiiiiiiiiiiied chicken."

"Will do."

American voters have a very big decision to make this November, a decision that could have more effect on the safety of not only the USA, but the entire world,

than ever before. I have spoken to many non-Americans about politics and usually I get the response that they love Americans, but have a strong dislike and distrust of American government policy.

During the last election Americans were given the benefit of the doubt because there was so much irregularity and corruption, so many do not blame the people for the outcome. This time around the world is waiting to see. If the election is deemed fair and the incumbant, George W. Bush is elected, then this will send a strong message to people around the world that the American people are complicite in American government foreign policy and that they have little regard for the well being of the planet and the other human beings who occupy it.

I doubt very much that the same shinanigans that occurred in Florida can be repeated, so it is up the people to make the right choice. Hopefully they will do just that.

hi'

I saw in a report that some victims of the 9/11 wanted to sue bush and his administration

for being responsible to what happened ...

at least, because they seemed to know that this was going to happen ...and did nothing really to prevent it ...

is this true ?

francois

I guess what you really want to know is "will they sue Bush for knowing what happened", and not "did Bush know/plan it or not"?

Who knows. Either way the reaction seems a little weird. We are attacked by terrorists with links to a loosely knitted network of radical Islamic organisations. Let us then find the most logical way to retaliate... Yeah! Let's attack Afghanistan. And Iraq. And Poland.

"Poland is a would-be ally, and a non-muslim country in Europe, Sir."

"Oh. Never mind. But do attack the rest and find a bunch of lame reasons for doing so, so that my faithful patriots will have something to say when they get bashed on the Internet..."

"Sir."

"...and bring me that friiiiiiiiiiiiied chicken."

"Will do."

55555555555555555

Lets have more of the same please.....

hi'

I saw in a report that some victims of the 9/11 wanted to sue bush and his administration

for being responsible to what happened ...

at least, because they seemed to know that this was going to happen ...and did nothing really to prevent it ...

is this true ?

francois

I guess what you really want to know is "will they sue Bush for knowing what happened", and not "did Bush know/plan it or not"?

Who knows. Either way the reaction seems a little weird. We are attacked by terrorists with links to a loosely knitted network of radical Islamic organisations. Let us then find the most logical way to retaliate... Yeah! Let's attack Afghanistan. And Iraq. And Poland.

"Poland is a would-be ally, and a non-muslim country in Europe, Sir."

"Oh. Never mind. But do attack the rest and find a bunch of lame reasons for doing so, so that my faithful patriots will have something to say when they get bashed on the Internet..."

"Sir."

"...and bring me that friiiiiiiiiiiiied chicken."

"Will do."

Can't believe the preposterous idea the coalition would attack Afganistan for no reason. Never mind bin laden had extensive Al Queda training camps there and from which came the 9/11 bombers.

"Terrorists with links to networks..." Are you saying, sir, that you don't support the concept of "Preemption"?

..."[/i] Are you saying, sir, that you don't support the concept of "Preemption"?

Boonmee dear, he was joking, so please untwist your knickers.

Perhaps you can offer some explanation for the following:

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/plissken.htm

http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/augus...ctsstraight.htm

American voters have a very big decision to make this November, a decision that could have more effect on the safety of not only the USA, but the entire world,

than ever before. I have spoken to many non-Americans about politics and usually I get the response that they love Americans, but have a strong dislike and distrust of American government policy.

During the last election Americans were given the benefit of the doubt because there was so much irregularity and corruption, so many do not blame the people for the outcome. This time around the world is waiting to see. If the election is deemed fair and the incumbant, George W. Bush is elected, then this will send a strong message to people around the world that the American people are complicite in American government foreign policy and that they have little regard for the well being of the planet and the other human beings who occupy it.

I doubt very much that the same shinanigans that occurred in Florida can be repeated, so it is up the people to make the right choice. Hopefully they will do just that.

Dangerous thinking mate- maybe GWB is the right choice? Not up to you, but for the yanks to decide. I'm secretly hoping GWB wins by a landslide - just to piss your sort off.

..."[/i]  Are you saying, sir, that you don't support the concept of "Preemption"?

Boonmee dear, he was joking, so please untwist your knickers.

Perhaps you can offer some explanation for the following:

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/plissken.htm

http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/augus...ctsstraight.htm

Don't really know what to make of those reports other than there's always a conspiracy theorist about.

Have you heard the one where all the Jeeeews were told to stay home on 9/11 too? Utterly ridiculous...

Instead of fighting terror, perhaps we should look at what created it in the first place. Overly simple yes, but straight to the source. The great divide between the West and the East, nation building, weapon supplying, land grabbing, government overthrowing, etc., etc; we created this mess. It's up to us to solve it. The relentless bombing of people is not the solution. Ignorant little boys wacking a hornet's nest with a stick pretty much sums up this supposed war on terror. Its time to wake the <deleted>*k up.

Not up to you, but for the yanks to decide.

Actually it is up to me, Spaniel, because I am an American citizen and I am not going to vote for the biggest ###### who ever held the office in the White House,

George W. Bush. You are not able to vote so you should not concern yourself with this too much.

Not up to you, but for the yanks to decide.

Actually it is up to me, Spaniel, because I am American citizen and I am not going to vote for the biggest ###### who ever held the office in the White House,

George W. Bush. You are not able to vote so you should not concern yourself with this too much.

Not to worry, britmaveric, 'ol mbkudu represents the appeasment wing - the retreat & defeat faction of the war on terror...

Not up to you, but for the yanks to decide.

Actually it is up to me, Spaniel, because I am American citizen and I am not going to vote for the biggest ###### who ever held the office in the White House,

George W. Bush. You are not able to vote so you should not concern yourself with this too much.

A bit of a problem here. You see, the Preznid of the Good Ole' USA is the only politician whose policies, ideas and hicchups impact on virtually every other citizen on the planet. So all have an absolute right to be interested, concerned and even voice opinions.

It is true that non US citizens have no say in his appointment. (In fact, US citizens have very little say, it is all decided by a non democratinc electoral council.) Ironic isn't it: No "one man, one vote" for the one who trumpets "Democracy and Freedom" the loudest!

Studies were conducted following the presidential election in year 2000 whether or not to keep the Electoral College. Overwhelmingly it was shown that for fair elections to take place in America - that's all the people's votes now, the US will continue with the existing system.

Studies were conducted following the presidential election in year 2000 whether or not to keep the Electoral College. Overwhelmingly it was shown that for fair elections to take place in America - that's all the people's votes now, the US will continue with the existing system.

Do you have a link to those studies?

Not up to you, but for the yanks to decide.

Actually it is up to me, Spaniel, because I am American citizen and I am not going to vote for the biggest ###### who ever held the office in the White House,

George W. Bush. You are not able to vote so you should not concern yourself with this too much.

A bit of a problem here. You see, the Preznid of the Good Ole' USA is the only politician whose policies, ideas and hicchups impact on virtually every other citizen on the planet. So all have an absolute right to be interested, concerned and even voice opinions.

It is true that non US citizens have no say in his appointment. (In fact, US citizens have very little say, it is all decided by a non democratinc electoral council.) Ironic isn't it: No "one man, one vote" for the one who trumpets "Democracy and Freedom" the loudest!

PlP, I agree with you 100%. I was just irritated and had to vent on a twitknocker

who rubbed me the wrong way. One of my earlier posts in this thread is parallel in thinking to what you are saying.

Funny how we have all this freedom in the VIP area and which topic dominates?,

politics. Remember my fellow Americans and US allied Europeans, whether rich or poor, if you vote for Bush, be prepared to send your children off to war. If Kerry is voted in, the war may still go on, but rest assured that Bush will milk it for every

last possible minute, day, month, year, decade that he can. The money for Them

is just too good. Them, being arms traders, commodities brokers/traders, oil companies, infrastructure contractors, manufacturers of bomb scanning machines in airports, security companies, drug cartels and a host of other businesses not only in the US, but worldwide. Take care folks, and keep working to keep those tax dollars flowing to Israel and the rest of the Middle East.

PlP, I agree with you 100%. I was just irritated and had to vent on a twitknocker

who rubbed me the wrong way. One of my earlier posts in this thread is parallel in thinking to what you are saying.

I saw your earlier post and understand where you were coming from.

I had to make the point though, because so many US citizens believe they are gods' (sic) gift and the only ones to have any right to have an opinion on the US leadership.

I had to make the point though, because so many US citizens believe they are gods' (sic) gift and the only ones to have any right to have an opinion on the US leadership.

Well, we are all entitled to our opinions but it's our responsibility too to point out where some of y'all are taking the defeatist/surrender-at-all-costs approach to this war on terror.

Keep up the good work!

Studies were conducted following the presidential election in year 2000 whether or not to keep the Electoral College. Overwhelmingly it was shown that for fair elections to take place in America - that's all the people's votes now, the US will continue with the existing system.

Colorado is considering a change to the electoral system. Now if a candidate gets

51% of the electoral votes, he/she takes all the votes for that state. The change would allow the winner of a state to only take whatever percentage of the votes he/she wins. This would be fairer. California is usually a clean sweep for Democrats so Republicans don't bother with much or any campaigning there. With this change, a Republican candidate would consider making an effort there. This obviously would work for Democrats as well in areas like the Midwest where it is mostly conservative. In other words these hosers should be made to WORK for their wages that we pay in tax dollars. There are I believe 3 or 4 other states that follow this model, but I don't know which ones.

Getting back to the main topic re. war on terror, the OpinionJournal, has a must-read column by Victor Davis Hanson: The U.N.? Who Cares?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/fe...ml?id=110005658

"These are surreal times. Americans in Iraq are beheaded on videotape. Russian children are machine-gunned in their schools. The elderly in Israel continue to be blown apart on buses. No one—whether in Madrid, Istanbul, Riyadh, Bali, Tel Aviv or New York—is safe from the Islamic fascist, whose real enemy is modernism and Western-inspired freedom of the individual.

In response to such international lawlessness, our global watchdog, the United Nations, had been largely silent. It abdicates its responsibility of ostracizing those states that harbor such mass murderers, much less organizes a multilateral posse to bring them to justice."

Saw on the news that the UN has agreed to train a token number of Iraqui police - big deal. The UN is a corrupt, useless organization. For example, the oil-for-terror program. Rawanda, Bosina etc...

Getting back to the main topic re. war on terror, the OpinionJournal, has a must-read column by Victor Davis Hanson: The U.N.? Who Cares?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/fe...ml?id=110005658

"These are surreal times. Americans in Iraq are beheaded on videotape. Russian children are machine-gunned in their schools. The elderly in Israel continue to be blown apart on buses. No one—whether in Madrid, Istanbul, Riyadh, Bali, Tel Aviv or New York—is safe from the Islamic fascist, whose real enemy is modernism and Western-inspired freedom of the individual.

In response to such international lawlessness, our global watchdog, the United Nations, had been largely silent. It abdicates its responsibility of ostracizing those states that harbor such mass murderers, much less organizes a multilateral posse to bring them to justice."

Saw on the news that the UN has agreed to train a token number of Iraqui police - big deal. The UN is a corrupt, useless organization. For example, the oil-for-terror program. Rawanda, Bosina etc...

I give up.

I really give up.

Canute could not stop the tides, Mahommed could not call the mountain, my head hurts......

Saw on the news that the UN has agreed to train a token number of Iraqui police - big deal. The UN is a corrupt, useless organization. For example, the oil-for-terror program. Rawanda, Bosina etc...

Well America can do a much better job single-handedly. Just look at Iraq itself...

Bugger.

Anybody got a better example? Vietn.... No, I won't even bother.

In the weeks immediately following 9/11 there is another anniversary — that of the U.N.'s response to the global threat of terrorism. On September 28, 2001, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1373, which requires states to take steps to combat terrorism.

Three years after resolution 1373 was passed, the U.N. still can't even define terrorism. Member states are essentially divided into two camps. In one corner is the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) composed of 56 states insisting that terrorism excludes the "armed struggle for liberation and self-determination." More precisely, blowing up Israelis of all ages in cafes, synagogues, buses, and discotheques is considered legitimate. In the other corner is the rest of the world.

Another U.N. committee was created in 1999 under Security Council Resolution 1267, in response to al Qaeda and the Taliban. This so-called sanctions committee has never agreed about which states have failed to comply with their obligations, nor has it given the council a list of delinquent states for further action.

Meanwhile, almost all of the rest of the world stands paralyzed, intimidated, or furiously giving campaign speeches about U.N. multilateralism as the sensitive way forward in the war against terror.

I had an idea how America can fight terror. Sell $US 350,000,000 worth of bombs to a rogue terrorist country in the Middle East and then ask them to pay for the bombs with money that was given to that country by America, which was funded through US tax payers' money taken from their pay checks by the IRS.

Sounds pretty clever, doesn't it? Whoops, sorry, it's already been done. Somebody beat me to it.