I agree with the second article, and, it is cited and dated.

Where did the first article come from?

The reporter worked for MSNBC.

Wrong country for chuchok - Mind you we did send our convicts to Oz. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

oh right -the term "Wallys" should have tipped me off. Well, they come a long way since they were convicts, but they are still subjects of Mother England - who are the Wallys now

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Kiwi

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Kat, do you know where Kiwis come from?

Wrong country for chuchok - Mind you we did send our convicts to Oz. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

oh right -the term "Wallys" should have tipped me off. Well, they come a long way since they were convicts, but they are still subjects of Mother England - who are the Wallys now

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Kiwi

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Kat, do you know where Kiwis come from?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wrong country for chuchok - Mind you we did send our convicts to Oz. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

oh right -the term "Wallys" should have tipped me off. Well, they come a long way since they were convicts, but they are still subjects of Mother England - who are the Wallys now

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Kiwi

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Kat, do you know where Kiwis come from?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

She's not allowed to google...that's cheating!

ok, I didn't google, but now I feel paranoid. Don't Kiwis come from trees

No - just kidding. Kiwis are from NZ, right? If that's the case, I have nothing bad to say about them, but sheep may have a grumble or two

Plus, NZ also has an inordinate amount of very handsome Maori men

ok, I didn't google, but now I feel paranoid.  Don't Kiwis come from trees

No - just kidding.  Kiwis are from NZ, right?  If that's the case, I have nothing bad to say about them, but sheep may have a grumble or two 

Plus, NZ also has an inordinate amount of very handsome Maori men 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tena tatou katoa

Kiwis are nocturnal flightless birds that eat roots and leaves

Ask most Americans where NZ is and they think we are a country close to Europe or part of Australia

Now this is the second time you have called me a pommie/Aussie..tsk,tsk! Wouldn't want to stereotype yanks now would we

ok, Butterfly, whatever you say.  I give up 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You can be so "naive" sometimes

Watch "Loose Change - Let's roll" and learn something different

It's pointless to argue anyhow since no side can prove their points, no matter the "experts" ( yeah I also watched that Discovery special on the "falling floors", very convincing and I am sure it was more impressive to watch it live )

Anyone who dare to challenge "official" stories (might it be religious or political or even scientific) are always labelled "loonies" or "nuts". How convenient. For some it might take only a few years to prove them right, some it took 300 years to be proved right, but still at the end those "loonies" saw something that we didn't. For 911, if they are right, then the story is really more crazy than they really are.

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?

Science, Engineering, and Speculation

Thomas W. Eagar and Christopher Musso

Do they have an explanation for WTC 7 ?

(Reminder: no plane hit WTC 7 and still it collapsed like in a controlled demolition, must be the "falling flloors" from the more recent design of the WTC 7)

ok, I didn't google, but now I feel paranoid.  Don't Kiwis come from trees

No - just kidding.  Kiwis are from NZ, right?  If that's the case, I have nothing bad to say about them, but sheep may have a grumble or two 

Plus, NZ also has an inordinate amount of very handsome Maori men 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tena tatou katoa

Kiwis are nocturnal flightless birds that eat roots and leaves

Ask most Americans where NZ is and they think we are a country close to Europe or part of Australia

Now this is the second time you have called me a pommie/Aussie..tsk,tsk! Wouldn't want to stereotype yanks now would we

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I know where NZ is, but how am I supposed to know where you are from if you don't tell me - by NZ slang?

edit: Kiwis are also known as a small, little mushy fruit

ok, Butterfly, whatever you say.  I give up 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You can be so "naive" sometimes

Watch "Loose Change - Let's roll" and learn something different

It's pointless to argue anyhow since no side can prove their points, no matter the "experts" ( yeah I also watched that Discovery special on the "falling floors", very convincing and I am sure it was more impressive to watch it live )

Anyone who dare to challenge "official" stories (might it be religious or political or even scientific) are always labelled "loonies" or "nuts". How convenient. For some it might take only a few years to prove them right, some it took 300 years to be proved right, but still at the end those "loonies" saw something that we didn't. For 911, if they are right, then the story is really more crazy than they really are.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've always challenged official stories, but I don't substitute desperate alternative theories for logic. You think I'm naive for challenging the prevailing leftist conspiracy theory, even though I'm anti-Bush and left? And, this to you proves that I don't question anything?

You have simply countered right-wing dogma with left-wing dogma, which is a crime against thinking. We have enough on Bush to prove apparent political inepitude and possible political complicity. And yet, you are focusing on half-baked theories that no one can prove, and the proof they have are all second-hand sources or questionable sources Wonder why your arguments have such a hard time with proof.

Oh, I know, you talk about the firemen in the building, and uncited references (these people that were there said, etc), but there were survivors of the WTC you know. And yes, there were people there. There were also plenty of people in the building who survived horrendus burns, and others that did not. How does that sum up your theories?

But yes, I want to watch "Loose Change" - do you have it? I have no problem learning "something different", I just don't take everything I hear as the gospel truth, regardless of the source.

But much easier to call me naive, isn't it? And every other scientist, engineer, and structural expert that counters your arguments with scientific proof - naive

But yes, I want to watch "Loose Change" - do you have it?  I have no problem learning "something different", I just don't take everything I hear as the gospel truth, regardless of the source.

But much easier to call me naive, isn't it?  And every other scientist, engineer, and structural expert that counters your arguments with scientific proof - naive 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can upload it somewhere and will send you the link for download. Better have broadband

And yes I also take these "theories" with a grain of salt like I take the "official" story with a grain of salt. Still I like to discuss those "thin" evidence without being discounted automatically as a "conspiracy nut".

Naive might not describe it best, but I think you got "easily" impressed by that live presentation and you are taking it as gospels even though it is not. Their evidence is as "thin" as the loonies ones. It's only an "hypothesis". Having a blue print of the building doesn't give you more credibility. This is ridiculous.

Frankly, I don't even believe that Bush has anything to do with this. He wouldn't have read that memo even if he got it 1 month prior to the bombing. The guy is too incompetent to pull anything right, not even Iraq.

As for logic, I have superior degrees both in Maths and Philosophy (top graduate) so thanks for questioning my logic integrity, but I think I know how to question arguments when they are flawed or don't sound right.

Butterfly, you don't have to defend your credentials to me, I never thought or said you were stupid. *Remember when we met? Well, I wanted to meet you because I like intelligent men

I am also not basing everything I say on one lecture *So please don't resort to the lame a$$ reactionary argument of blaming every American who disagrees with you as naive or stupid.

I am basing my opinons on a varitey of sources combined, including the arguments of the conspiracy theorists; their logic and explanations about the Towers shows the least amount of credible explanations to me, right now.

*edit

I am basing my opinons on a varitey of sources combined, including the arguments of the conspiracy theorists;  their logic and explanations about the Towers shows the least amount of credible explanations to me, right now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And that's exactly the problem. The dramas and the noises in the "conspiracy theorists" give you the wrong impressions. I read so many of those sites and watch so many of those 911 documentaries, they all sound the same after a while. That's why you have to go past the dramatic tones and special effects.

It's like watching Faux News. The "feeble" mind will fall into the tricks of the Faux news cast. Once you removed the noises, that is the special screen effects and sounds, the fake "elevated terror alerts", you can start to "decipher" what they are doing or trying to do and see what logic "flaws" they are using to get their message across.

"Liberals" will ignore Faux News because of its trashy format, and the "feeble" mind would love it because of the entertainment. I love to watch Faux news because it's a great logic and mental excercise. You learn how to ignore the noises and "detect" the logic flaws in a cahotic and emotional environment. Watching Faux news should be a required learning experience for anyone interested in debate logic. The O'Reilly Factor is just amazing.

Yeah, well, we have agreement there.

I am also not basing everything I say on one lecture    *So please don't resort to the lame a$$ reactionary argument of blaming every American who disagrees with you as naive or stupid.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, I didn't, I just singled you out for being "naive" or "easily impressed". I didn't mention "every" American as you already know my opinion about most of them. I think in this particular story, you are being "tricked" into believing something that didn't happen like it did. Hence my questioning. I don't need to blame every american for their "cowardice" to question the truth. Most have surrendered a long time ago. This is public knowledge, no need to remind you or anyone again and I certainly don't associate you with the rest of the American public if that makes you feel better

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?

Science, Engineering, and Speculation

Thomas W. Eagar and Christopher Musso

Do they have an explanation for WTC 7 ?

(Reminder: no plane hit WTC 7 and still it collapsed like in a controlled demolition, must be the "falling flloors" from the more recent design of the WTC 7)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/de...html?page=5&c=y

I am also not basing everything I say on one lecture    *So please don't resort to the lame a$$ reactionary argument of blaming every American who disagrees with you as naive or stupid.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think in this particular story, you are being "tricked" into believing something that didn't happen like it did.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am also not basing everything I say on one lecture    *So please don't resort to the lame a$$ reactionary argument of blaming every American who disagrees with you as naive or stupid.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think in this particular story, you are being "tricked" into believing something that didn't happen like it did.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Leftist statesmanship in a nutshell

Rosenburgs outed and outsmarted by a five-year-old

Leftist statesmanship in a nutshell

Rosenburgs outed and outsmarted by a   five-year-old  

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nice link Boon. Nothing like an Ann Coulter to cut to the chase and tell it like it is.

"As an aside, I note that the main point of the Senate report was to slam the agency for its Mickey Mouse intelligence gathering on weapons of mass destruction. Guess what Wilson's wife does at the CIA? That's right! She gathers intelligence on weapons of mass destruction! No wonder she claims to be "undercover." Her fantasist husband calls the incompetent CIA paper-pusher "Jane Bond." (I'm an astronaut!) "

That little "aside note" had me rotflmao!

I miss RDN. Was this Fred is demise?

you never heard of AQ before 1993

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is there no end to your constant nonsensical mutterings???!!!

Al Quaida is just the latest iteration of arab-wacko and islamo-facist nuttery dating back more than 30 years:

1970 - Munich Airport hostages taken and MURDERED

1972 - Munich Olympics hostages taken and MURDERED

1973 - US Amdassador to Sudan MURDERED

1973 - Rome Airport hostage taking and MURDERS

1974 - US Ambassador to Cyprus MURDERED

1976 - Entebbe aircraft hijacking

1979 - US Ambassador to Afghanistan MURDERED

1979 - US Embassy in Iran invaded and hostages taken

1979 - Grand Mosque in Mecca invaded and hostages taken. I was in Jeddha at that time. All H.ll broke loose then 400 odd dead in The Grand Mosque BTW. Nuff said.

1981 - Egyptian President Sadat MURDERED

1981-2 Sorry forgot the exact year in Q8, 9 bombing in one day nearly the same time each of them, they only used gas cylinders and yes I was there as well. Nuff said.

1983 - US Embassy in Beruit bombed, 63 MURDERED

1983 - US/French barracks in Beruit bombed, 300 MURDERED

1984 - US Embassy diplomat in Beruit MURDERED

1985 - TWA airliner hijacked in Rome, hostages take, US sailor MURDERED

1985 - Beruit, Soviet diplomats kidnapped, one MURDERED

1985 - Achille Lauro ocean liner hijacked, US citizen MURDERED

1985 - Rome/Vienna airports attacked, 13 MURDERED

1986 - Aircraft bombed, Greece, 3 MURDERED

1988 - Lebanon, UN military officer kidnapped and MURDERED

1988 - Naples USO bombed, 1 MUREDERED

1988 - Pan Am 103 bombed, 259 MURDERED

1989 - UTA 102 bombed, 170 MURDERED

It was only at this point, after almost 20 years of attacks and 1000-something murders that Bin Laden and Al Quaida appeared on the screen, and were given an 8-year free pass by the Clinton administration.

How much is enough???

Thank you to Bush for taking the fight to these nutcases, after 8 years of Clintonian namby-pamby pampering and tolerance of these cold blooded killers hiding under the guise of religious fundamentalism.

Libya is a perfect case in point. Reagan held Quadaffi personally responsible for all the terrorist attacks attributed to Libya. He also proactively went in and bombed the living sh*t out of them as an example of what would happen if he didn't get his house in order.

And what to we have 20 years later?? A substantially toned down formerly out of control wacko state, whose leader has smartened up and decided to bring his country into the modern world. He and his people are better off for those decisions.

Iraq will be the same way 10 or 20 years from now, back to it's pre-Saddam state with a solid educational system and prospering non-oil economy.

Iran and Syria are next if they don't shape up and stop exporting terror .... and deservedly so.

There are rules in the modern world. Countries have to play by them or accept the consequences of being outcasts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah no doubt.

Misleading Media Spun Headline:

US B*MBS INNOCENT CIVILIANS ..... AGAIN!!

Actual Facts:

- The head bad guy was indeed supposed to be there. At least one of his wives lives in the village.

- At least 7 of his lieutenants were there (and are now fortunately finding out there are no thousand virgins in the depths of h*ll).

- The US acted properly on good intelligence.

- The locals were and are aiding and abetting the enemy. Therefore they are also the enemy.

- Therefore no innocent civilians, just more dead enemies.

Pakistani has to get off the fence. They are either on our side or the side of our enemies.

Confucious say: He who tries to walk fence .... end up with chopped nuts.

So successful at debunking any evidence with regards to Iraq that any new information supporting any facts will simply be rejected.

“The discovery of the information on jihadist training camps in Iraq would seem to have two major consequences: It exposes the flawed assumptions of the experts and U.S. intelligence officials who told us for years that a secularist like Saddam Hussein would never work with Islamic radicals, any more than such jihadists would work with an infidel like the Iraqi dictator. It also reminds us that valuable information remains buried in the mountain of documents recovered in Afghanistan and Iraq over the past four years”

But perhaps the most important lesson from the information in Stephen F. Hayes' article is the hypocritical manner in which the enemies of the Bush White House and other anti-Americans — yes, that is what they are — operate (notably the mainstream press of Europe).

So successful at debunking any evidence with regards to Iraq that any new information supporting any facts will simply be rejected.

“The discovery of the information on jihadist training camps in Iraq would seem to have two major consequences: It exposes the flawed assumptions of the experts and U.S. intelligence officials who told us for years that a secularist like Saddam Hussein would never work with Islamic radicals, any more than such jihadists would work with an infidel like the Iraqi dictator. It also reminds us that valuable information remains buried in the mountain of documents recovered in Afghanistan and Iraq over the past four years”

But perhaps the most important lesson from the information in Stephen F. Hayes' article is the hypocritical manner in which the enemies of the Bush White House and other anti-Americans — yes, that is what they are — operate (notably the mainstream press of Europe).

Unfortunately, the chances of seeing these facts broadcast and publicized in the mainstream media will never happen, at least not until after the next couple of elections and probably not within our lifetimes.

And it would be spun into misinformation for digestion by the American lemmings anyway. Sometimes people don't believe that people should be told the truth, for their own good. This is case in point where they should. The problem is that it would probably spell D-O-O-M for the Dems in the mid-term and next presidential elections. So it will probably never happen.

you never heard of AQ before 1993

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is there no end to your constant nonsensical mutterings???!!!

Al Quaida is just the latest iteration of arab-wacko and islamo-facist nuttery dating back more than 30 years:

/...long list of attacks performard by 'arabs' [sic!] .../

We could glance over http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_crimes but that would be too obious...

Could re-use this little list:

1953: U.S. overthrows Prime Minister Mossadegh of Iran. U.S. installs the Shah as dictator.

1954: U.S. overthrows democratically elected President Arbenz of Guatemala. 200,000 civilians are killed.

1963: U.S. backs assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem.

1963-1975: The Vietnam War, supported by the U.S. military, kills an est. 4 million people in Southeast Asia.

September 11, 1973: U.S. stages a military coup in Chile. Democratically elected president Salvador Allende died. Dictator General Augusto Pinochet is installed leading to the disappearance and death of 3,500 Chileans.

1977: U.S. backs military rulers of El Salvador. 7,000 Salvadorans and four American nuns are killed.

1980s: U.S. trains Osama bin Laden and fellow Muslim terrorists to kill Soviet soldiers in Afghanistan War. CIA gives them $3 billion.

1981: Reagan administration trains and funds Contras to fight communist government. 30,000 Nicaraguans die.

1982: U.S. provides billions in aid to Saddam Hussein for weapons to kill Iranians.

1983: The White House secretly and illegally gives Iran weapons to kill Iraqis.

1989: CIA agent Manuel Noriega (also serving as president of Panama) disobeys orders from Washington. U.S. invades Panama and removes Noriega.

1990: Iraq invades Kuwait with weapons from U.S.

1991: U.S. enters Iraq. Bush reinstates dictator of Kuwait.

1998: U.S. bombs “weapons factory” in Sudan. The factory turns out to be making aspirin.

1991-date of the film: U.S. planes bomb Iraq on a weekly basis. The United Nations estimates that 500,000 Iraqi children die from bombing and sanctions.

2000-2001: U.S. gives Taliban-ruled Afghanistan $245 million in aid for famine relief.

9/11 comes and Afghanistan is invaded.

And then the US went to war with Iraq under false pretence...

Well, atleast no-one in goverment use the word 'God' in their speeches, huh? What?

you never heard of AQ before 1993

Is there no end to your constant nonsensical mutterings???!!!

Al Quaida is just the latest iteration of arab-wacko and islamo-facist nuttery dating back more than 30 years:

/...long list of attacks performard by 'arabs' [sic!] .../

We could glance over http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_crimes but that would be too obious...

Could re-use this little list:

1953: U.S. overthrows Prime Minister Mossadegh of Iran. U.S. installs the Shah as dictator.

1954: U.S. overthrows democratically elected President Arbenz of Guatemala. 200,000 civilians are killed.

1963: U.S. backs assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem.

1963-1975: The Vietnam War, supported by the U.S. military, kills an est. 4 million people in Southeast Asia.

September 11, 1973: U.S. stages a military coup in Chile. Democratically elected president Salvador Allende died. Dictator General Augusto Pinochet is installed leading to the disappearance and death of 3,500 Chileans.

1977: U.S. backs military rulers of El Salvador. 7,000 Salvadorans and four American nuns are killed.

1980s: U.S. trains Osama bin Laden and fellow Muslim terrorists to kill Soviet soldiers in Afghanistan War. CIA gives them $3 billion.

1981: Reagan administration trains and funds Contras to fight communist government. 30,000 Nicaraguans die.

1982: U.S. provides billions in aid to Saddam Hussein for weapons to kill Iranians.

1983: The White House secretly and illegally gives Iran weapons to kill Iraqis.

1989: CIA agent Manuel Noriega (also serving as president of Panama) disobeys orders from Washington. U.S. invades Panama and removes Noriega.

1990: Iraq invades Kuwait with weapons from U.S.

1991: U.S. enters Iraq. Bush reinstates dictator of Kuwait.

1998: U.S. bombs “weapons factory” in Sudan. The factory turns out to be making aspirin.

1991-date of the film: U.S. planes bomb Iraq on a weekly basis. The United Nations estimates that 500,000 Iraqi children die from bombing and sanctions.

2000-2001: U.S. gives Taliban-ruled Afghanistan $245 million in aid for famine relief.

9/11 comes and Afghanistan is invaded.

And then the US went to war with Iraq under false pretence...

Well, atleast no-one in goverment use the word 'God' in their speeches, huh? What?

Only one who is lost in the far-left fever swamps could interpret history as such…

Wow, that was a solid argument, full of proof.

I can see why no-one would ever distrust you. Or not.

We could glance over http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_crimes but that would be too obious...

Could re-use this little list:

1953: U.S. overthrows Prime Minister Mossadegh of Iran. U.S. installs the Shah as dictator.

1954: U.S. overthrows democratically elected President Arbenz of Guatemala. 200,000 civilians are killed.

1963: U.S. backs assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem.

1963-1975: The Vietnam War, supported by the U.S. military, kills an est. 4 million people in Southeast Asia.

September 11, 1973: U.S. stages a military coup in Chile. Democratically elected president Salvador Allende died. Dictator General Augusto Pinochet is installed leading to the disappearance and death of 3,500 Chileans.

1977: U.S. backs military rulers of El Salvador. 7,000 Salvadorans and four American nuns are killed.

1980s: U.S. trains Osama bin Laden and fellow Muslim terrorists to kill Soviet soldiers in Afghanistan War. CIA gives them $3 billion.

1981: Reagan administration trains and funds Contras to fight communist government. 30,000 Nicaraguans die.

1982: U.S. provides billions in aid to Saddam Hussein for weapons to kill Iranians.

1983: The White House secretly and illegally gives Iran weapons to kill Iraqis.

1989: CIA agent Manuel Noriega (also serving as president of Panama) disobeys orders from Washington. U.S. invades Panama and removes Noriega.

1990: Iraq invades Kuwait with weapons from U.S.

1991: U.S. enters Iraq. Bush reinstates dictator of Kuwait.

1998: U.S. bombs “weapons factory” in Sudan. The factory turns out to be making aspirin.

1991-date of the film: U.S. planes bomb Iraq on a weekly basis. The United Nations estimates that 500,000 Iraqi children die from bombing and sanctions.

2000-2001: U.S. gives Taliban-ruled Afghanistan $245 million in aid for famine relief.

9/11 comes and Afghanistan is invaded.

And then the US went to war with Iraq under false pretence...

Well there is one little hitch here ..... your fabricated spin and the web link you provided are not even remotely related.

And what is wrong with Reagan fighting the spread of communism at the edge of the US border? Communism has been a plague on society for 100 years. Jeezus ... even the &lt;deleted&gt;' Chinese have become capitalists. What is it going to take for you to realize that fighting communisn was and is a good thing. Forgive me, you're probably an avid subscriber to Socialist Worker, so what's the point?

Let's look at some other things. Saddam went into Kuwait with prime motive of forced takeover. The US kicked him out and then gave the country back to the people, just as the US has done for the last 100 or so years. Name one other country in the world with a track record like that!!

But what's the point of trying to rationally discuss things with you. You have obviously gone off the deep end with checking for water, and have cracked your head at the bottom of an empty pool.