Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

Anybody seen bin Laden????


  • Please log in to reply
104 replies to this topic

#81 AmericanJoe

AmericanJoe

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 52 posts

Posted 10 February 2003 - 02:24 AM

When asked if they thought Iraq posed an immediate threat to the United States, 39 percent of respondents said yes. Forty-seven percent of those polled said they didn't think Iraq posed an immediate threat, and 13 percent said they didn't think Iraq was a threat at all.

Most of those polled saw potentially dire consequences if U.S. forces invade Iraq. Seventy-seven percent of respondents said they thought there would be more terrorism in the United States, 68 percent said they thought there would be suicide bombings in the United States and 64 percent said there would be an attack similar to those carried out on September 11, 2001.

In addition, 90 percent of those polled said they thought a U.S. attack on Iraq would result in higher oil prices, and 59 percent said the U.S. economy would experience a serious recession.
  • 0

#82 Floatingsky

Floatingsky

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 114 posts

Posted 10 February 2003 - 02:31 AM

Finally, I re-emphasize my position that the US faces a moral crisis in the way it conducts its foreign affairs that, if not addressed, is going to lead to continued animosity and vilification.



Maybe I'm being obtuse, but where's the moral crisis? Allowing a man who has killed millions, who took captive 10% of the population of Kuwaiit, to remain in power? Please explain.
  • 0

#83 AmericanJoe

AmericanJoe

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 52 posts

Posted 10 February 2003 - 02:47 AM

Originally posted by Floatingsky
Maybe I'm being obtuse, but where's the moral crisis? Allowing a man who has killed millions, who took captive 10% of the population of Kuwaiit, to remain in power? Please explain.



The moral crisis exists in the general conduct of American foreign policy and its inconsistency in "promoting democracy". It's okay that the Saudis don't let women drive cars and cut out the tongues of dissidents, because they are "our friends", meaning that they have lots of oil and we have easy access to it. It's okay that dictators in Africa make Saddam look like Jesus, because, well, who cares about a bunch of niggers? Especially in Nigeria, where, again, there's lots of Oil. As long as Royal Dutch Shell is happy, the rest of the world should be.

It's okay that the Turks have killed 35,000 Kurds with Cobra helicopters, even though the US acts exasperated that Saddam would do the same. We need the Turks, after all.

It's okay that Islamic reactionaries bomb buses full of children in the Punjab, because we need Pakistan's help in Afghanistan.

It's good that we have essentially blockaded Cuba from international trade because the Miami Cuban population can swing an entire election in tight races (please refer to the 2000 election for reference).

Ariel Sharon.

The list is really pretty long. It's time for the United States to start promoting peace for real, instead of brandishing the sword in the name of peace.

As I've said in other posts, more bread, more butter, less violence. It would have an effect, if our fearless leaders would have the balls to try it.
  • 0

#84 AmericanJoe

AmericanJoe

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 52 posts

Posted 10 February 2003 - 02:59 AM

Originally posted by d0lfins0ng
Are we having fun yet?



WE ARE!!!!!!!!!!!!

{{{massive hug }}}
  • 0

#85 AmericanJoe

AmericanJoe

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 52 posts

Posted 10 February 2003 - 03:01 AM

Originally posted by d0lfins0ng
Are we having fun yet?



And don't forget, I'm still on OUR side, when push comes to shove!
  • 0

#86 Floatingsky

Floatingsky

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 114 posts

Posted 10 February 2003 - 07:47 AM

AJ, good reply...except;

It's okay that dictators in Africa make Saddam look like Jesus, because, well, who cares about a bunch of niggers?



There you go again. Do you think for one moment that Colin Powell and George Bush are operating on such a premise!?

Your logic here appears to be flawed, conflicting, and at odds with reality. You seem to be saying that if we do anything, we should do everything. Logistics prevent us from that, so...the reverse, by your logic is to do nothing. Give them food as a reward for wrecking the economy and the landscape. Oh, but by your logic, since we can't feed the world, we can morally feed nobody, so that won't work either. This type of logic may be employed to determine whether or not to serve eight children seven cookies at a birthday party, but is inadequate for the complexities of international politics.

Prioritzing is simpler logic; threat assessment followed by conflict resolution in descending order by the degree of magnitude of the threat.

Iraq was number 2 on the list of supporters of terrorism against the United States. You will find out soon the list is right. The money trail leads to Saddam.

Ariel Sharon.



You really must explain this to me. Forgive me if I've misinterpreted, but are you saying if we invade Iraq we should also invade Israel?
  • 0

#87 fabius

fabius

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts

Posted 10 February 2003 - 08:08 AM

American Joe's post on foreign policy should be the next Democratic Party platform if they have the guts to do it.

Invade Israel? Could we even beat them? Heck no, just cut off funding. Hahahahaha fat chance.

Interesting when the parties are almost at a deadlock how those tiny constituencies - forementioned Cuban expatriates and those of the Jewish persuasion - have so much influence on policy.
  • 0

#88 Floatingsky

Floatingsky

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 114 posts

Posted 11 February 2003 - 06:42 AM

AJ, I await your reply.
  • 0

#89 Gandu

Gandu

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 113 posts

Posted 11 February 2003 - 11:26 AM

LINK - OSAMA FOUND AT LAST!
  • 0

#90 Gandu

Gandu

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 113 posts

Posted 11 February 2003 - 04:55 PM

>the world needs to be concerned about Iraqi ties to terrorism. <

I can make a better case for powell's ties to criminals and terrorists than Iraq's.
  • 0

#91 Missouri Mule

Missouri Mule

    Boogiein' along. . .

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 511 posts

Posted 11 February 2003 - 05:03 PM

Senate hearing going on now. Tenet asked about the "new" bin Laden tape. He says he hasn't seen it yet or knows its contents. Stay tuned.:confused:
  • 0

#92 Tokyoman

Tokyoman

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2784 posts

Posted 11 February 2003 - 05:07 PM

Basically Bin Laden is against the US (infidel) military`s presence in Saudi Arabia and what is perceived as the US and other foreign countries monopolisation of oil and wealth in the Middle East. This especially includes the support for the corrupt Arab states propped up by the US. I don`t think it makes much difference if the US invades Iraq or not whether Osama attacks again. Either way it will be used as a justification.

Take the US bogeyman away and Osama would more than likely end up like Abu Nidal.
  • 0

#93 nitemere

nitemere

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3986 posts

Posted 11 February 2003 - 05:34 PM

sure there are resources within the IRAQI government that might have contacts with the OBL ran al-queda but that contact is only used when it is beneficial to the people who are in control of the news events that shape this global community. see that's the problem with this current united states adminstration who president george w.{lies and red-rick}B U S H....JR. is part of the this highly protected organsiantion that is in control of this global community we live in.

so what if OBL is in hiding like i said he is in a N.O.R.A.D style bunker that was built in the late seventys around the coastle area of SUDAN north west of the city of port of sudan. now the sudaneese government will coverup the fact this place actually exists but well it does. that's the problem with people who can update a place like that and keep it hidden from modern resources. now in retrospect the location is near a costal area for a quick get away and possibulity an old W.W. II bunker.
  • 0

#94 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 11 February 2003 - 06:18 PM

d0lfins0ng,

If the US does exactly as you suggest, then we have given into terrorism.



It depends on how it is done. You can look at it from a different angle. We could be removing any legitmacy to OBL's cause. If we take away some of the supposed 'reasons' he uses as an excuse to justify terrorism and gain new recruits, then we can effectively expose him as a fraud.
  • 0

#95 nitemere

nitemere

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3986 posts

Posted 11 February 2003 - 06:19 PM

thats the problem is the united states have given into the drug dealers, the terrorists, the kid-dy porn providers and their backed not only with federal authority but also by this current presidential administration naming current united states president george w.{lies and red-rick}B U S H....JR. who is currently involved with these people who murdered innocents on our very own soil to enforce their will on the this global community.

now as for the united states backing down from a war that they are already posted military personal in that area. well lets see that only a moral person in charge of this country would back down from making a blunder in going to war in iraq for personal gain.

now as a piece of current information that is released about OLB might be false and produced to enforced a delusional apathy to enforce a response to the united states congressional community about the legally of the proposed war in iraq which is in-fact a illegal action. so only time will tell in a matter of days if the united states go to war in this global community.
  • 0

#96 Tokyoman

Tokyoman

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2784 posts

Posted 11 February 2003 - 06:27 PM

Dolphinsong,
That kind of logic is why 57,000 Americans died in some Godforsaken South East Asian jungle which no one gives a rats arse about any more. When the US no longer needs to rely on Middle East oil, it will vacate that area faster than you can blink.

Well, there is always Israel, so maybe not.
  • 0

#97 nitemere

nitemere

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3986 posts

Posted 14 February 2003 - 08:53 PM

Originally posted by Tokyoman
When the US no longer needs to rely on Middle East oil, it will vacate that area faster than you can blink.

Well, there is always Israel, so maybe not.
________________________________________________


well put and of course your wright when all the money and all the oil reserves are used up and the sky's are turned to a charcoal grey haze then the united states will pull out of the middle east region no sooner no later.
  • 0

#98 AmericanJoe

AmericanJoe

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 52 posts

Posted 14 February 2003 - 10:59 PM

Originally posted by Floatingsky
AJ, good reply...except;



There you go again. Do you think for one moment that Colin Powell and George Bush are operating on such a premise!?



Do I think Bush is? Sure. Why not? I can't explain Powell's motives. He is in the wrong party anyway. Why he is in a Republican administration steeped in conservativism is beyond me. He seems to publicly disagree with almost every position. Why he's playing the fall guy now is beyond me. He must have some weird loyalty thing going with Bush Sr.


Your logic here appears to be flawed, conflicting, and at odds with reality.


The reality of the situation is that the entire world is against the US position.


You seem to be saying that if we do anything, we should do everything. Logistics prevent us from that, so...the reverse, by your logic is to do nothing. Give them food as a reward for wrecking the economy and the landscape. Oh, but by your logic, since we can't feed the world, we can morally feed nobody, so that won't work either. This type of logic may be employed to determine whether or not to serve eight children seven cookies at a birthday party, but is inadequate for the complexities of international politics.


This is one of the weakest arguments I've had the pleasure to foil. I never said we shouldn't feed the world, I think we should. If we increased our aid budget to $50 billion, do you think that would have no effect? Where does that money come from? Well, that was the cost of the Gulf deployment. If we had simply directed the money in a humanitarian way, do you think the world would not sit up and take notice? Are you living on the same planet as I am, or not?



The money trail leads to Saddam.


Prove it.



You really must explain this to me. Forgive me if I've misinterpreted, but are you saying if we invade Iraq we should also invade Israel?



I'm saying we should be consistent. A dictator is a dictator, even if he is elected. I'm tired of watching headlines about Palestinian children getting rocket shells up their ***. Aren't you? Of course we shouldn't attack Sharon. But we shouldn't support him, either.
  • 0

#99 AmericanJoe

AmericanJoe

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 52 posts

Posted 14 February 2003 - 11:02 PM

Originally posted by d0lfins0ng
WASHINGTON (Feb. 11) - The al-Qaida terrorist network remains a ''resourceful, merciless'' foe dedicated to committing more attacks against the United States and its interests around the world, the head of the FBI told Congress Tuesday.



EXACTLY!!!! Thank you dOlfin, for reiterating my point so eloquently. Where, indeed, is the real enemy, bin Laden? Well, we now know he's alive, don't we? His tape aptly demonstrated it. The Euros are busy making arrests, while we're massing troops in the Gulf.

Really brilliant strategy. For a guy with a 93 IQ.
  • 0

#100 nitemere

nitemere

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3986 posts

Posted 14 February 2003 - 11:31 PM

the money trail leads to saddam hussein



everyone knows when a nation like the united states is after a leader of a country like iraq things can be falsified to show that a money trail was possible. so in this respect the united states could be wrong but who cares ok. things happen in geo-political areas that the public does not find about.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru