YADDA yadda yadda. Got to you did I. I'm done with you. too easy. I like a challenge, which your're not. silver spoon for sure.hornyitalian06 said:Why don't you grab a life. Is that all you can do is insult people
9-11: Five Years Later—Where Are We?
- Thread starter xUxJr311fr3P
- Start date
Frontline is generally excellent, one of the few news programs still engaged in serious investigative journalism. They hit hard on both sides; their exposes on Whitewater, Waco, and the Tobacco industry were equally devastating.westwoody said:
Last edited:
Miss_Eight's in need of a sedative, PK. Just add him to your ignore list. No point allowing him to bait another flamewar. He gets off on it, as the lounge is his sex life. I'm sure he's the belle of the ball with blow up dolls.PocketKings said:
This is the same abusive bigot who got banned for several months last year. He hasn't learned a damn thing about how to get along with people.
Seriously though, from the viewpoint of Bush, Cheney, et al is the situation really that bad? They will never have to serve in the forces and risk getting shot, neither will their family members. You will never hear about Jenna Bush being killed by a landmine while driving a truck in Fallujah. And Bush or Cheney will never fly on a commercial airliner, so who cares if some of them get hijacked?
Bush has a family fortune in oil. What was the price of oil before he took office and what is it now?
Finally, no matter how badly the war goes, neither of them can get fired for incompetence, neither of them will lose their pension. Both of them have gold-plated futures, they will be on lots of boards with fat honorariums and will make piles of cash for speaking engagements. While Johnny Lunchbucket serves out his hitch in the reserves and comes home missing a foot or an eye, Bush and Cheney are laughing all the way to the bank.
Bush has a family fortune in oil. What was the price of oil before he took office and what is it now?
Finally, no matter how badly the war goes, neither of them can get fired for incompetence, neither of them will lose their pension. Both of them have gold-plated futures, they will be on lots of boards with fat honorariums and will make piles of cash for speaking engagements. While Johnny Lunchbucket serves out his hitch in the reserves and comes home missing a foot or an eye, Bush and Cheney are laughing all the way to the bank.
They were fantastically rich before the war, Woody. Cheney was formerly CEO of Halliburton, and the Bush family possesses dynastic wealth. Bush didn't do it for personal gain. Cheney probably did, but the biggest beneficiaries were the entire class whose wealth lies in natural resources and land, a class which lagged during the (technology driven) New Economy. Albertans made out nicely under Bush/Cheney.westwoody said:
The main reason for the incompetence is incompetence. Failure to fire Don Rumsfeld for mishandling the post-war occupation and reconstruction. Rumsfeld gave us a Vietnam era lesson in failure to suppress insurgency: disband the Iraqi army, creating a security vacuum, and field only half the number of troops recommended by the Secretary of the Army, Shinseki, meanwhile withdrawing heavy armor. Stick head in ground.
We have no choice but to fight the greater war. Perhaps we choose the battlefields, but there's no way to return to the pre-9/11 state of blissful ignorance. We weren't safe on 9/10; we just didn't know it. Right now, between the incompetence of the Bush administration and the "Islam is maligned/blame the cartoonists" crowd, the only choice we have is to wait and let the terrorists make the next strike. Russian roulette with the world's major cities and seaports. That is a bad place to be.
Agreed, I cannot imagine Bush doing anything on his own initiative. Bush really seems like a follower, definitely not a leader. Throughout this whole disaster he has followed the advice of others with their own agendas. What does Bush himself believe? We'll never know because all his speeches are written for him, in interviews he only spews prefab soundbites. In a lot of videos and photographs he looks like he is confused or daydreaming. And yet he is the man with his finger on the button.rollerboy said:
WHY OH WHY this blind loyalty to Rumsfeld? The guy is a fucking idiot/asshole/smartass/liar and his own inability to follow the advice of men like Shinseki-who actually know what they are talking about-has cost the lives of thousands of Americans. And what happened to Shinseki and a lot of other senior officers who stood up to Rumsfeld and the White House is a crime.
A little sensitive are we,who is calling who names now. I only want to get along with people who are not narrow minded and only see what they want to see through rose coloured glasses. The rest I could care less. As for my sex life. Ive had more ladys in more countries then you have had hot meals. Oh by the way do you live in the castro area of SF or maybe marketrollerboy said:
He often looks blank and vacuous. I think he basically believes what he says, scripted explanations aside. Big picture according to Bush: we're in a war, trust your key advisors, loyalty, reward your friends. It's gotten him far in life. The scripted parts are mostly talking points, details, various arguments to sway particular voter types to support the big picture.westwoody said:
Colin Powell, among them. Powell agreed with Shinseki that we needed many more boots on the ground, and yet Powell was the one axed after Bush's re-election. The objective was too important to screw up. We had two adversaries. We eliminated Saddam, which despite what anyone says was an extremely positive development. But by ignoring a decade of military analysis, Rumsfeld/Bush royally fucked up and created an instability which must be fixed, or Iraq could morph into another Afghanistan. If Al Qaeda hadn't pursued the brilliant strategy of slaughtering Shiites and blowing up Mosques in a predominantly Shia country (the birthplace of Shia Islam), they might have gained a deep foothold in Iraq.
According to Woodward, fmr Chief of Staff Andrew Card, with the support of no less than Laura Bush(!), tried to convince the President to can Rumsfeld. Don must have pictures of Bush and Cheney in a daisy chain or something.
Last edited:
Well you and roll over are clones of each other, its easy to mix you up . Me thinks one ping for work one for home. I think you are one and the same . more then likely roll over was not getting the kudos he felt he deserved so PK was morphed to lend support. Just a thought, but when I slammed PK ,roll over replied. Got a little mixed up in your angry state did we ? You should consider cutting down on the coffee. Oh bye the way you have still not replied about the american army being ordered to murder all people over 10 years old in the phillipines. PS two canadian army died in afganhastan yesterday. Remember the ones you said should step up to the plate. Oh by the way have you ever stepped up to the plate like that? I have.PocketKings said:
Rollerboy,
Going back to the topic of 9/11 five years later, the Bush administration did fuck up royally on many counts. He tries to do too much and getting involved in too many unrelated things. He should have stayed just focused on capturing Bin Laden rather than getting involved in Iraq. Funny thing is that Al-Qeda had nothing to do with Iraq before the Invasion. Now it is using Iraq as a recruiting ground for more terrorists while at the same time fighting other factions. Iraq is heading in the direction of Lebanon from mid-70's to 80's, a civil war between factions.
You gotta agree that 5 years later, the world hates Americans and it doesn't matter if some of these Americans disagree with US foreign policies, they are hated because they are still Americans. The attitude of the whole fucking world toward Americans is like this: "If they agree with Bush, they are warmongers and pieces of shit. If they don't agree with Bush, they are traitors to their country and still pieces of shit."
I disagree with Bush and I think he's a dipshit along with his cabinet. BTW, I am American and I DID NOT FUCKING VOTE for him. However, that doesn't matter because to the rest of the world, all Americans are Shits.
Going back to the topic of 9/11 five years later, the Bush administration did fuck up royally on many counts. He tries to do too much and getting involved in too many unrelated things. He should have stayed just focused on capturing Bin Laden rather than getting involved in Iraq. Funny thing is that Al-Qeda had nothing to do with Iraq before the Invasion. Now it is using Iraq as a recruiting ground for more terrorists while at the same time fighting other factions. Iraq is heading in the direction of Lebanon from mid-70's to 80's, a civil war between factions.
You gotta agree that 5 years later, the world hates Americans and it doesn't matter if some of these Americans disagree with US foreign policies, they are hated because they are still Americans. The attitude of the whole fucking world toward Americans is like this: "If they agree with Bush, they are warmongers and pieces of shit. If they don't agree with Bush, they are traitors to their country and still pieces of shit."
I disagree with Bush and I think he's a dipshit along with his cabinet. BTW, I am American and I DID NOT FUCKING VOTE for him. However, that doesn't matter because to the rest of the world, all Americans are Shits.
Mistakes are expected in war, especially against a hidden enemy unbound by convention. The fault of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld war machine lies in its inability to recognize key mistakes in assumptions and strategy. The administration consistently refuses to listen to experts, and fails to correct errors.JMBrowning said:
Sometimes there are no good choices. Either way we would have fought a major war with Al Qaeda, with much of our forces tied up containing Iraq. Fighting Al Qaeda with our back turned to Saddam isn't as good an idea as it sounds. He surely would have fucked us at the worst possible moment. There have been significant successes: Saddam's capture and the establishment of an elected Iraqi Parliment. In spite of death threats, Iraqis displayed a strong desire to vote, while the Constitutional process revealed latent political savvy.
The first President Bush left an extremely dangerous, unpredictable and homocidal enemy wounded and waiting for his opportunity for revenge. War is a situation where you must finish what you start. Achieve true peace, the utter defeat of the enemy, or both. The failure to properly conclude WWI led to an even greater war two decades later. We still face the repercussions of the Korean War ending in stalemate. The ghosts of unfinished wars return to haunt us.
A Lebanon type situation is ominous, but thus far theoretical. We should avoid self-fulfilling prophecies. The political process in Iraq shows surprising resiliency: the factions build coalitions and adopt compromise. Iraqi Shiites receive little credit for their patience and restraint. Without that, the country would have already imploded. Zogby's polling data shows that Al Qaeda is unpopular in Iraq; perhaps they use Iraq as a propaganda issue elsewhere, but within Iraq they lack popular support. Al Qaeda has expended much of its resources in Iraq with little to show for it. One of the ablest terrorist masterminds, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, died accomplishing nothing, and intercepted letters show dissension within the ranks and dispair throughout his organization.
At the height of the Cold War, the very people we defended from Communism despised America. They shouted obscenities, burned our flag, even blamed us for provoking the Cold War. We were leading them to certain doom. There will always be appeasement monkeys, no matter how badly we get burned by passivity. If only we give Stalin a small concession (Eastern Europe), Hitler will be satisfied with Checkoslovakia, let Iran enrich Uranium, the Pope should resign, don't let the cartoonists doom us all! The world hates us for defending ourselves, and to that extent I say, "Fuck 'em."
The double standard is tragic comedy. Truly evil enemies whom they fear get a free pass. They are simply too cowardly to confront Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, Edi Amin, etc. As a consequence, genocide unfolds unchecked. The most egregious examples might garner "tsk tsks" and pious finger wagging, after the fact. So rather than stand up to Islamic extremists and defend freedom of expression, the appeasers naturally turn to the writers and artists and chastise them, "How dare you insult Islam! Revoke her passport."
All it proves is that Machiavelli clearly perceived human nature when he observed, "It is better to be feared than loved."
Last edited:
Roller boy you truly are a toy soldier. The americans have brought on their own problems by stomping around the world with a big stick. The additude that might is right . Didn't you learn a lesson in Veitnam. The polls show the american people are not behind the war in Irag,just as they were not behind the war in SEA. The war in Irag is one election from ending in civil war, if not before. When will you ever learn that you can not go into other countries and expect to win when the people hate you. Irag will evole into something similar to what was there before your fake hunt for oil ,oh WMD. Wake up and smell the cordite. Your BS is not being swallowed anymore. You talk about leaving unfinished wars, korea ,WW!, never mind that lets go back to the crusades, its the same fukkin thing. Wars do not stop hatred that goes back centuries. the sooner the american people understand that the less body bags will be shipped home. Muslims hate the amercians and all the bombs in the world is not going to change that. If you think you will be able to hunt down all the radical muslims in the middle east be prepared to be there for the rest of the century. I just get so tired of hearing the same BS over and over. It not going to work no matter how many ways you try to spin it.
OK I can't let this one slide. First of all, America has been a rogue state since it spat in the face of the UN upon invading Afghanistan. Secondly, don't talk about us benefiting from America when you owe us billions of dollars for our fresh water and electricity, not to mention raping us in the ass over softwood lumber and the Free Trade bullshit. The only benefit we currently get from having the US below us is a few dollars in tourism... oh oops and my job. (I work in the film industry...) Ah wait. The American movie producers just pulled my union seniority, so they are messing with my job too. Perhaps I sound anti American... I am not against the US citizenry - they are being led around by the nose and are not aware that they are slaves. But what the neo-con government is doing is nothing short of being greedy robber barons. Why can't they send proper armour for the troops? Why can't they properly handle emergency situations in their own country, and for their own people? (Katrina). And most importantly, why is the most well fed, well educated nation on earth squandering its power in the middle east, a place that has been a religious and social powder keg for 3000 years?
Speaking for Canadians, just let me remind you all one thing. We are bigger and we are on top... if this was prison, America would be our bitch.
M8- your statement is not factual. Muslims are actually a very peaceful and generally kind group of people. I think you probably meant radicals who call themselves Muslims.mick_eight said:
These radicals do not just hate Americans, they hate infidels and you likely fall into that category.
There is a long list of countries these radicals hate enough to murder innocent people.
These radicals were plotting their strike against the US long before W ever took office, so it is not Bush and his policy they hate. What is it? What would it take for the violence to stop and there to be peace in the world.
The only thing that would stop them is if all infidels (you included) were dead.
So you subscribe to the Neville Chamberlain appeasement approach to fighting the enemy. If we would just leave them alone they will leave us alone. His peace at any price cost hundreds of thousands of lives in Europe, but the Nazis never attacked Britain while Neville was the PM. It was only when Churchill attacked Germany did Germany strike back.mick_eight said:
How can you label us a "rogue state" for a military campaign where your *own* troops fought side-by-side with ours? The NATO military committee voted unanimously to support the US in Afghanistan, under Article V (mutual defense). All of NATO must therefore be considered "rogue states," including Canada.Truckah said:
Hamid Karzai is the most legitimate leader in Afghan history, his government universally recognized by the international community. By contrast, Taliban rule over Afghanistan drew recognition from only three countries: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the United Arab Emrites. After 9/11, all three cut diplomatic ties with the Taliban. The Taliban and Al Qaeda were joined at the hip, two faces of the same movement. Even the Iranian theocracy saw the Taliban as extremist! When Ayatollah Khamenei condemns you for taking Islamic militancy too far, your train has long since departed for Crazy Town.
UN mandate has never been the standard by which the United States, or any other nation, entered into war. There have been over 200 armed conflicts since the founding of the UN, only a handful officially blessed by the UN. President Clinton never took the Kosovo action to the UN, because he knew that Russia would veto any military action against Serbia. Instead, he went through NATO, and on the basis of that authorization bombed the Serbs. At any rate, UN Security Council Resolution 1368 contradicts your claim.
Ok... Just your job, anyone who works for a company which exports to America, uses electric lights rather than candles at night, surfs the Internet for news, porn and hookers...
In 2000, exports contributed 46% of Canada's GDP. Even six years ago, that amounted to over $2 Billion a day! 85% of Canadian exports go to the United States. 59% of Canadian imports came from the United States. Your blase attitude towards the better part of a trillion dollars in annual trade, reminds me of Geiko's talking gecko, "No thanks. I'm so rich, I think I'll keep my seat."
You'll never need allies, just as you don't need trade, because Canada can stand alone.
How could *that* be considered anti-American? Narcissistic and delusional, but anti-American, never.
Well, that's a complicated question. Bad luck? A mixture of greed, apathy, and incompetence? Let's stay focused on the topic at hand.
That's an important question. It's why we're talking about it in the first place, if we could get past the name calling and straw man arguments. Set aside the idea that the most powerful nation in human history is a legion of mindless zombies, enthralled to Princes of Darkness. You're fucked, because you can't talk zombies and Dark Princesses out of doing evil. As a zombie, I can know no fear, but I hate to see the living suffer needless anxiety. Constant worry wilts the brain, leaving it insipid and unappetizing. Brains...brains...
Canadian super-brains are nature's tastiest. There's nothing as satisfying as munching on a pineal gland which can peer into alternate, ideal universes. Bursting with distinct flavor, they never follow a herd mentality or parrot empty stereotypes ("Americans are so ignorant, always led by the nose and incapable of analyzing facts. If only they were smart like us. They're so smug, I hate that!")
Don't think you can sweet talk me with all that prison sex talk. I ain't that kind of zombie! The cheap kind that is.
Last edited:
Fine... tell your politicians to stop being trading partners with the US until it pays back. Tell your politicians to put an embargo on all US products and stop importing all US products until the US pays back.Truckah said:
If I recall correctly, Indonesia under Sukarno told the US to "fuck off".
There are plenty of countries that you can be big business partners with... China, Japan, Russia and the rest of Europe.
Go ahead and tell your politicians to pull out of NAFTA. What is stopping you, eh?
I do not have any answer for world peace,if I did I would be a beauty contest consultant. mankind has been at war since they picked up the first stick millions of years ago. Darwin explained the reasons why. Its all about being able to stick their dick in more women. In the basic sense that is what this board is about, except now men use money instead of a club. I have no answers, people a lot smarter then me have tried and failed. I will not presume to have any magic answer for world peace. I doubt very much if their is one. You are right it was a typo, I don't group all muslims as radicals. A s for the WW2 england had a pact with France and when france was attacted england entered the war, But hitler had already shown that his promises were not to be taken as truth anyway. To the amercians who say canada didn't step up to the plate, in canada during the WW2 time a joke in vogue at the time was " Acall went out to america in 1939 and they never heard it till 1941" We all have made mistakes thats what makes us humans. In the past few months I have met some of the nicest people in my life in my tour of the USA. I have been invited to eat catfish at a big family gathering in missouri, Buffalo ribs in mississippi [ its a fish ] The goodness of people will always prevail. Its too bad the young have to die to make it that wayluckydog71 said:
Got news for you LD!
General Rick Hillier, Chief of the Canadian Defence Staff, said today to the media that there have been talks, on and off, with the Taliban for quite some time. Mostly between the Afghan government and the Taliban, but nevertheless there have been talks.
Referring to appeasement is a trick that has been well woren out by Republican types. Be it Afghanistan or Iraq, neither are accurate examples of political/military situation in Europe from 1933 to 1939. I suggest to you that people you play this silly appeasement card are people WITHOUT a sound arguement to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The Taliban government may have not been allies of the US, but they were most certainly not enemies of the US. At least until George Bush and his fellow Republican chickenhawks started that war.
And brutal dictator Saddam Hussien with the blood of thousands and thousands of innocent people on his hands was still on America's good side until after he attacked Kuwait. On in the weeks following that invasion did American make any moves against him. Indeed the US ambassador to Iraq made it clear the US was not interested in getting itself tangled up that particular Middle East issue.
luckydog71 said:
General Rick Hillier, Chief of the Canadian Defence Staff, said today to the media that there have been talks, on and off, with the Taliban for quite some time. Mostly between the Afghan government and the Taliban, but nevertheless there have been talks.
Referring to appeasement is a trick that has been well woren out by Republican types. Be it Afghanistan or Iraq, neither are accurate examples of political/military situation in Europe from 1933 to 1939. I suggest to you that people you play this silly appeasement card are people WITHOUT a sound arguement to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The Taliban government may have not been allies of the US, but they were most certainly not enemies of the US. At least until George Bush and his fellow Republican chickenhawks started that war.
And brutal dictator Saddam Hussien with the blood of thousands and thousands of innocent people on his hands was still on America's good side until after he attacked Kuwait. On in the weeks following that invasion did American make any moves against him. Indeed the US ambassador to Iraq made it clear the US was not interested in getting itself tangled up that particular Middle East issue.
mick_eight said:
A major fact those who play the appeasement card like to neglect is the general feeling throughout Europe was to avoid a repeat of WW1. The astromonical losses suffered in the Great War were at the foundation of politicians, from all sides of the political spectrum, to avoid another massive conflict. Hitler preyed upon that sentiment to great effect, gambling that France and Britain would not force Nazi Germany's hand. I don't see any legitimate similarities between that and what has transpired in the Middle East since 9/11.
Canada did not have the giantic industrial complex to crank all sorts of military weapons like the US. Nor did Canada have the 12 million soldiers in uniform like the US. However on a per capita basis I do believe Canada gave just as much, if not more, than the US.mick_eight said:
Also, the Canadian population was not blinded by the ignorance of isolationism (something just as bad a appeasement) as the US population had been at the time. I don't hesitate for a moment that if FDR could have taken the US into war on the side of Allies in Sept/39 he would have done so.
