Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

Anybody seen bin Laden????


  • Please log in to reply
104 replies to this topic

#1 AmericanJoe

AmericanJoe

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 52 posts

Posted 02 February 2003 - 08:17 AM

I know my viking friends on this board will disagree with me, and that's okay, cuz we live in America and we get to do that kind of thing.

But I have to say it. I've lost all hope in this presidency. We began well enough, despite the tragedy of 9/11, but the U.S. has since lost all the sympathy it gained and has somehow managed to become more villified than at any time in recent history.

There are complex reasons for this, one of which, of course, is the simple truth of assimilation. We all just have to be okay with that, since it is happening no matter what we say. Whether it's IKEA in Moscow, or Bank of America running much of its IT operation from Bangalore, globalization (burp, I mean, assimilation), is bound to cause resentment, not just among losers like C o c ksack, but among even Americans, including plenty of IT people in the US who are losing their jobs to offshore companies who can pay their IT people 20 US dollars an hour.

There's economic havoc in Latin America (ignored beautifully by the Bush administration), and a host of other issues that America, rightly or wrongly, gets blamed for. In many respects, this is just business as usual. As long as America is the biggest kid on the block, people will resent her.

However, Bush's conduct is sending the United States into a maelstrom of world resentment that will be difficult to assuage. And all for what, exactly? Saddam has been castrated and is no longer a threat, but bin Laden is still on the loose, apparently. This fact has been conveniently shunted aside by Bush. In the meantime, the constant talk of war has the American economy in a tailspin. Companies aren't investing because they're waiting... and waiting... and waiting...

Here in California, the official unemployment rate is nearly 7%, but those official numbers only reflect people who are actually receiving unemployment benefits. Most people I know are out of work, and not receiving benefits. I believe the real number is closer to 20%.

Bush has forgotton what beat his dad. "It's the economy, stuipd." But even worse, he's forgotton who slammed an airplane into the WTC and Pentagon. "It's bin Laden, stupid."

I have no stomach for seeing blood-covered Iraqi children. It's just not necessary. Jimmy Carter said it better than I ever could with his recent statement regarding the Iraqi situation, and I quote it in its entirety here:


Despite marshalling powerful armed forces in the Persian Gulf region and a virtual declaration of war in the State of the Union message, our government has not made a case for a preemptive military strike against Iraq, either at home or in Europe.


Recent vituperative attacks on U.S. policy by famous and respected men like Nelson Mandela and John Le Carr?, although excessive, are echoed in a Web site poll conducted by the European edition of TIME magazine. The question was "Which country poses the greatest danger to world peace in 2003?" With several hundred thousand votes cast, the responses were: North Korea, 7 percent; Iraq, 8 percent; the United States, 84 percent. This is a gross distortion of our nation's character, and America is not inclined to let foreign voices answer the preeminent question that President Bush is presenting to the world, but it is sobering to realize how much doubt and consternation has been raised about our motives for war in the absence of convincing proof of a genuine threat from Iraq.


The world will be awaiting Wednesday's presentation of specific evidence by Secretary of State Colin Powell concerning Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. As an acknowledged voice of moderation, his message will carry enormous weight in shaping public opinion. But even if his effort is successful and lies and trickery by Saddam Hussein are exposed, this will not indicate any real or proximate threat by Iraq to the United States or to our allies.


With overwhelming military strength now deployed against him and with intense monitoring from space surveillance and the U.N. inspection team on the ground, any belligerent move by Saddam against a neighbor would be suicidal. An effort to produce or deploy chemical or biological weapons or to make the slightest move toward a nuclear explosive would be inconceivable. If Iraq does possess such concealed weapons, as is quite likely, Saddam would use them only in the most extreme circumstances, in the face of an invasion of Iraq, when all hope of avoiding the destruction of his regime is lost.


In Washington, there is no longer any mention of Osama bin Laden, and the concentration of public statements on his international terrorist network is mostly limited to still-unproven allegations about its connection with Iraq. The worldwide commitment and top priority of fighting terrorism that was generated after September 11th has been attenuated as Iraq has become the preeminent obsession of political leaders and the general public.


In addition to the need to re-invigorate the global team effort against international terrorism, there are other major problems being held in abeyance as our nation's foreign policy is concentrated on proving its case for a planned attack on Iraq. We have just postponed again the promulgation of the long-awaited "road map" that the U.S. and other international leaders have drafted for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is a festering cancer and the root cause of much of the anti-American sentiment that has evolved throughout the world. At the same time, satellite observations of North Korea have indicated that nuclear fuel rods, frozen under international surveillance since 1994, are now being moved from the Yongbyon site to an undisclosed destination, possibly for reprocessing into explosives. It is imperative that this threat to Asian stability be met with aggressive diplomacy.


Since it is obvious that Saddam Hussein has the capability and desire to build an arsenal of prohibited weapons and probably has some of them hidden within his country, what can be done to prevent the development of a real Iraqi threat? The most obvious answer is a sustained and enlarged inspection team, deployed as a permanent entity until the United States and other members of the U.N. Security Council determine that its presence is no longer needed. For almost eight years following the Gulf War until it was withdrawn four years ago, UNSCOM proved to be very effective in locating and destroying Iraq's formidable arsenal, including more than 900 missiles and biological and chemical weapons left over from their previous war with Iran.

Even if Iraq should come into full compliance now, such follow-up monitoring will be necessary. The cost of an on-site inspection team would be minuscule compared to war, Saddam would have no choice except to comply, the results would be certain, military and civilian casualties would be avoided, there would be almost unanimous worldwide support, and the United States could regain its leadership in combating the real threat of international terrorism.


I don't quarrel with the sentiment that it would be nice to "liberate" Iraq from Saddam. But it would also be nice to liberate a hundred other nations from any number of awful dicatators, including North Korea. And if the United Nations as a whole agrees with the US that a strike is necessary, then perhaps it is. But this needs to be unequivocal. We must not act alone.

To act alone will, rightfully, classify the United States as a belligerent nation. History has shown that nations who start wars tend to lose them. It's time for Americans to demand an answer to the question that Bush's gunslinging escapade has avoided: Where is bin Laden?
  • 0

#2 Saddam

Saddam

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4071 posts

Posted 02 February 2003 - 08:34 AM

Very well written article I must say which contains really mature thinking. If only American government had the same ideas the entire world would be better off. Pity !!
  • 0

#3 Saddam

Saddam

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4071 posts

Posted 02 February 2003 - 08:36 AM

Thanks AmericanJoe !!!
  • 0

#4 Agnostic

Agnostic

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9978 posts

Posted 02 February 2003 - 10:48 AM

If America wants to be SuperGloboCop, it must be prepared to take flak from all sides. Its okay for a while, but bad realpolitik in the long run.
Whether you like it or not, a war in Iraq will spawn more virgin seekers ready to blow themselves up when you least expect it.
America needs to be lucky all the time.
America's opponent need to be lucky only once to cause collateral damage, which I believe, is the technical term.
  • 0

#5 nitemere

nitemere

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3986 posts

Posted 02 February 2003 - 11:12 AM

look at the resources chasing the OBL witch hunts and the man still cannot be found. so you bunch of drunk federial invesgators what is wrong. i agree that the attact used al-queda resourses but remember this the united states B U S H family spear of influence helped coverup their influence in the matter which included command and control. just think a remote control device was used to implode the buildings and this was done off site. the passenger jets that were used also was worked by a remote control divice. so you see the hunt for OBL is the hunt for the truth and nothing else.
  • 0

#6 Oceania

Oceania

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 3615 posts

Posted 02 February 2003 - 11:16 AM

Here He Is!
http://www.toostupid...e/bennyhill.htm
  • 0

#7 Agnostic

Agnostic

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9978 posts

Posted 02 February 2003 - 11:16 AM

Posted Image
  • 0

#8 greyzone

greyzone

    Registered User

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 02 February 2003 - 12:24 PM

welcome back! I knew you would figure this one out.
  • 0

#9 Gospel

Gospel

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 81 posts

Posted 02 February 2003 - 12:57 PM

Howdy American Joe,

A great post. I tried discussing these issues with the Vikings - alas to no avail, other than tired insults and a 'what's happened to Gospel' attitude; where it was simpler to presume that I had the problem, rather than question the actions of their 'elected' administration.

Apparently I'm now officially 'anti-American'?
  • 0

#10 Agnostic

Agnostic

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9978 posts

Posted 02 February 2003 - 01:00 PM

I've seen Gospel get abuse from Boogiedog, now calling himself Imperialistswine for legitimate criticism. After all, the US is dragging the UK into a war, too.
  • 0

#11 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 02 February 2003 - 02:17 PM

Excellent post! I agree ;)
  • 0

#12 Guest_piehunt_*

Guest_piehunt_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 February 2003 - 03:18 PM

AmericanJoe,
Very good post, i agree too! ;)
  • 0

#13 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 02 February 2003 - 03:22 PM

http://www.rense.com.../osamafound.jpg
  • 0

#14 AmericanJoe

AmericanJoe

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 52 posts

Posted 02 February 2003 - 04:50 PM

One of the things the Bush administration doesn't seem to quite understand is that war is wrong on a moral level. The world is changing in so many ways. There was a time when the simplest way to settle a dispute was to bury Carthage. Today, the world is coalescing into a larger voice, bound together by things like the Internet and even, on some levels, a collective conscience.

That conscience says that war is wrong. It's the same conscience that said that Bid Laden's attack on America was wrong, and that the shuttle tragedy was sad.

If America declines to abide by the world's conscience, she will be at war not only with Iraq, but, in a sense, the rest of the world. Today's world wants to give the inspectors more time. The American military doesn't want to wage a summer war in Iraq. I can't blame them. So. Wait till next winter.

Or just come home, and wait for the Iraqi people to Ceausescuize him.
  • 0

#15 Tokyoman

Tokyoman

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2784 posts

Posted 02 February 2003 - 05:04 PM

Osama Bin Laden will more than likely reappear after the war with Iraq.

Unfortunately, I think the next time the US is attacked, the sympathy and grief felt by the world for 911 will have dried up.
  • 0

#16 nitemere

nitemere

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3986 posts

Posted 02 February 2003 - 05:30 PM

the problem is the greef behind the terrorist attack of SEPTEMBER 11,2001 will never go away. not only 3100 victim's died but their families will always remember the way their loved ones died. not only that the city of new york, the city that never sleeps will never forget. not only that the united states of america will never forget because this was an act that was covered up by this current administration naming the sitting president george w.{lies and hype}B U S H....JR. directly involved. not only that this global community will never forget because 35 countries were also represented by the people who worked in the twin towers at the world trade center site.
  • 0

#17 AmericanJoe

AmericanJoe

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 52 posts

Posted 02 February 2003 - 10:19 PM

Originally posted by greyzone
welcome back! I knew you would figure this one out.



I haven't figured out anything. In fact, as I get older, it seems like I know less and less. The only thing I am certain of is that war is serious business. It should be the very last option, and if it means the US needs to wait another year because of the summer conditions, so be it.

One more thing I'm certain of: Despite the rather marvelous morphed image of bin Laden to OJ, bin Laden is apparently still alive, and if he is, you can be sure he's planning his next move. Say what you will about him, he's a clever bastard. I can't help but think that if we used the resources we are using against Iraq to instead find bin Laden, that we'd find the little dirtbag.

Think about how the people of Western Pakistan would feel about us if we funnelled all the money we are spening on military hardware on education and business loans in that part of the world. It's all about hearts and minds, people. Bin Laden is winning this war, because he's winning the hearts and minds of the Arab nation.

A little more butter, please.
  • 0

#18 fu2

fu2

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 25082 posts

Posted 02 February 2003 - 10:27 PM

AmericanJoe said:

Think about how the people of Western Pakistan would feel about us if we funnelled all the money we are spening on military hardware on education and business loans in that part of the world. It's all about hearts and minds, people. Bin Laden is winning this war, because he's winning the hearts and minds of the Arab nation.

My congratulation for this statement AJ. You nail it. This is wy even the Bush-man burped a promise to rebuild Afganistan in the State of Union Speech. Hope he means what he said. But don't forget the Soviets did similar promices too.
  • 0

#19 AmericanJoe

AmericanJoe

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 52 posts

Posted 03 February 2003 - 01:39 AM

Hope you are well on the East Coast!!

My problem with the argument about Saddam being the mastermind of the world's criminals is several fold.

One, he is a heretic in the eyes of true fundamentalist Muslims. They despise him almost as much as they hate us. Iraq has historically been one of the more progressive Arab countries in regards to things like women's rights, etc. The fact that this has changed in recent years to some degree is only because Saddam is a chameleon, something that the smarter boys like bin Laden can see right through.

The other main problem I have with it is that we need to provide a smoking gun, if it is true that he is harboring terrorists. During the Cuban missile crisis we were able to provide satellite recon photos showing the missiles were aimed right at us from lots that Castro now uses to train his baseball players for the NY Yankeees. Surely we can come up with something, among those 600 UN inspectors and our vaunted military spy technology, that puts some teeth into our claims, other than "welp, we cain't find no misiles, so they must steel have 'em."

So far, all they've really found are 9 empty warheads. I'm not convinced that it is worth risking a world war for this.

Third, it is extremely difficult for people, including terrorists, to get in and out of Iraq these days. And it would be pure suicide for the Iraqis to let them in at this point, because if they were caught, Bagdhad would be smoked.

Remember Libya? Colonel Qadaffi was once considered at least as dangerous as Sadaam. Like Sadaam, we knocked him out of the picture. We had to kill one of his kids to do it, but he's been pretty quiet for the last 15 years.

Saddam is finished. We can't just go lobbing missiles around without any specific basis in fact. We know we don't like Saddam, we even know he's crazy (he burned the Kuwaiti oil fields in retreat, which is really madness). But he's been rendered harmless, by and large.

What would happen if, instead of spending billions on mobilizing, we had spent all of that money, ALL of it, on education and economic revitalization in that part of the world??? Suddenly, Arab anger at Sharon would fall apart, and Arabs would be eager to return to the United States. Not to destroy her. But to revel in her magnificence. This is what usually lures them in the first place. Why not play up on that?
  • 0

#20 pilot

pilot

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2007 posts

Posted 03 February 2003 - 01:49 AM

Sure , like the saying " Remember Pearl Harbor" has been forgoten...:)

What a bunch of sore louser Gimmiecrats that are afraid to death that the Irag war will be won while a Republican is power....!

Sure those Republicans just want to starve the old people and children.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru