Where do we go from here? Deficits, wars and a world on the edge

We don't HIDE under rocks, silly-face! We ROCK.

uhhh... what's uhROCK??? Isn't that a country? LOL I bet they have nukuler weapons too.

1. Yes, some of them did.

Care to put a percentage on that? How much "collateral damage" is acceptable to you?

-20%

2. We didn't kill all of them. Once again terrorists blowing up people waiting to join the Iraqi police/military or people waiting to vote, or people just minding their own business get a free pass from you, Chip.

Uh, somehow I think the "shock and awe" carpet bombing took out a hell of a lot more innocent people that the car bombers have so far... and why are they car bombing again? Oh that's right... because we invaded their country!

-Care to put a percentage on how many of those bombs killed civilians? And, let me see if I've got this straight-you're justifying the killing of innocent civilians by these terrorists because of our presence there? AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO DOESN'T THINK THAT MAKES SENSE!? Moreover, the majority of these terrorists killing these innocents are themselves foreigners (Syrians, Iranians) but I don't see you up in arms about them. But to recap-it's ok for people to murder their fellow country men (assuming the bomber isn't Syrian or Iranian) as long as the country is under occupation?

3. I see you, too are a 9/11 apologist, I should have known.

I'm so sick of hearing this kind of bullshit. It's more of the old "you either buy the party line in its entirety or you're with the terrorists!" I'll give you more credit than you may be due and assume that you're not actually that simple minded.

-It's not about the party line. It's about being a patriot. I don't care which side of the aisle you're on-if you're going to excuse the actions of the terrorists on 9/11 by saying we somehow *deserved* what we got-I take issue.

-Kiamat Dusk
Self repeater

I had help. Half credit to Misnomer!

A PATRIOT always questions the government. The government is supposed to answer to the PEOPLE, not the other way around. I don't know about you, but someone who claims to uphold the Constitution and then makes so many things happen to DESTROY it is NOT a patriot, but a despot. When someone says "you are either with us or with the terrorists", how is that not a party line??

here's some interesting historical quotes to fill your heads with, good bad and ugly:
http://www.yankeedoodles.net/quotes1.htm

I like this one best:
"The basis of our political system is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government."
- George Washington's Farewell Address, September 17, 1796

Key word: ALTER not ALTAR LOL

Hahaaa nice. So MSNBC, the Bipartisan 9/11 Commission and Donald Rumsfeld himself are all liars, even though they actually said those things and came to those conclusions?

Wow, and 4 out of 5 Dentists recommend Dentyne for their patients who chew gum.

...cuz it's time to take some Libs to school....

1. I have repeatedly maintained that I believe in the right of citizens to question their government-the ability to do so is the surest indication of freedom. What I disagree with, however, is the use of half truths, obfuscation, and straight up lies to do it. If you have a problem with this administration give me some *facts* not some rhetoric. I am not impressed with cries of "Bush is a terrorist! Bush is a facist!"

2. Here is the quote from Rummy from your BBC article.

"To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two," he said, though he later issued a statement saying he was misunderstood.

Now try to stay with me here because I'm gonna get into some 4th grade English. See the part where he says "I have not seen any strong eveidence..."? Yeah, that's not a denial. That means he...well...hasn't "seen any strong evidence".

3. As for your MSNBC article (did you even bother to *read* these?) it says:

"The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday that Osama bin Laden met with a top Iraqi official in 1994 but found “no credible evidence” of a link between Iraq and al-Qaida in attacks against the United States. "
Now here we go again with that 4th grade English. Note the last few words there: "...in attacks against the United States." That's what the administration has been saying ALL ALONG. No one said that Saddam had a hand in 9/11.

However, your MSNBC article *did* go on to say the following:

"the panel said that bin Laden made overtures to toppled Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein for assistance, as he did with leaders in Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere as he sought to build an Islamic army.

The report said that bin Laden explored possible cooperation with Saddam at the urging of allies in Sudan eager to protect their own ties to Iraq, even though the al-Qaida leader had previously provided support for “anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan.”

Bin Laden ceased that support in the early 1990s, opening the way for a meeting between the al-Qaida leader and a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in 1994 in Sudan, the report said. At the meeting, bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps in Iraq as well as Iraqi assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded, the staff report said. "

Let me break this down for you. Indeed there were ties between Saddam and bin Laden but they did NOT play a role in 9/11.

4. As for your other sources-you might as well quote the Tom Daschle as far as credibility goes in this instance.

5. Check out the articles in my previous post for a fuller report on just how wrong you are.

-Kiamat Dusk
De ja vu all over again

Quick and serious question. Using this logic, couldn't one argue that the U.S. and bin Laden had ties, as we worked together in Afghanistan?

And if that can be established, is that the rationale for why we're invading ourselves?

HAHAHAHAHA Taco, I take back any bad thing I ever said about you!

I take back the benefit of the doubt. You are actually that simple minded. I never said that I in any way condoned the actions of the terrorists. Does being a "patriot" include assuming anyone who's against the war automatically excuses the actions of the terrorists? If that's the case I'm damn glad I'm not one under your definition. You truly scare me Kiamat. When I said earlier that I see little difference between you and a jihadist what I meant to say is that I see no difference. Are you even capable of independent thought?

Saddam was not allied with the Taliban!!! We had more strings to both those bad boys than either ever had with one another. Saddam = secular dictator Taliban = mujahadeed, jihad ect. Your point has been invalidated over and over. Saddam and Bin Laden hate each other.
Jebudallishna when the hell are the pubs gonna stop with that pos propoganda. You couldn't be further from the truth if you started at it and took a 40 day and 40 night hike into the desert in the opposite direction.

Saddam was not affiliated with the Taliban, Al Queda or the Mujahadeed
Saddam did not have WMD's
We did not give the Iraqi people democracy
This war was and is based upon fallacious terms
End of story
Find a new line of anti-reason

what? some of it was legitimate!

I lost my damned lighter

How the hell do you expect to flame now ???

Tis my problem....good thing I'm not a shoe bomber pfft. Still looking though...Do you really think I flame?

LOL no sorry 'twas kidding

Phew. I was gonna cry and god knows I would never find my lighter through the tears.

*Kisses Lecktor on the forehead* Thank you

I never said *you* did. You did however, say the following:


-Kiamat Dusk
Unforgiven

Sorry, Isis, but my point has been *validated* by no less prestigious a source than the 9/11 commission. In case you missed them the last TWO TIMES I posted them, here are the links.



Looks like you're the one who needs to come up with a new "anti-reason".

-Kiamat Dusk
Right again!

Hmmm seems to me that the only link was to a portion of Iraq which was known to be out of the control of Saddam. I have seen your "proof" it is very thin and weak. Our own ties to both regimes is far stronger than any that you have offered up. So it still doesn't hold water for me sorry. You still have not answered to the continued Taliban control of Afghanistan or the fact that the Islamic Republic of Iran now has control of Iraq via the Shiites...but I'll let that pass seeing as how the truth is not very visable from the bum of the president.

Unfortunately, this is very true. It's a shame that we dirtied our hands with such human filth, but I'm glad that we are doing something about it now.

-Kiamat Dusk
Washes his hands

Now that it is convenient? Now that we need that pipeline to run through..now that we need those bases to protect it? Please Kiamat give your fed-co a bit more credit as far as foresight is concerned.

That's right, I finally did it. I already know what he's gonna say, and it doesn't matter if I read it or not since any reply I have will only be twisted by him into some wierdass thing he says supports his argument. So after reading all of this thread and seeing that no one has changed anyone else's mind, I advise you all stop banging your heads against a brick wall.

(A red brick wall )

Let me to clarify my position on Afghanistan... I think invading was the wrong choice. I think our entire reaction post 9/11 was wrong. 9/11 created an unprecendented level of empathy towards the United States from the rest of the world. Everyone universally condemned the actions of the terrorists that attacked the WTC. Had we expressed remorse for our fallen and for our actions that have led so many in the middle east to hate us with such passion (even if we didn't mean a word of it!) and then did nothing but rebuild and bury our dead we'd have been a thousand times more secure than we are now, and here's why... any further attack against us would have incited swift retribution from not only us, but the rest of the civilized world. If you think that's pie in the sky idealism, I'd say it's far more realistic and would have been far more effective than the Bush doctrine. Now no one wants to help us no matter what happens. Bush blew it. Callously using the tragedy of 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq was the nail in the coffin. We're on our own now and the rest of the world is fresh out of empathy. The terrorist attack on 9/11 was carried out by 19 people who are now all dead, with the aid of at most a couple of hundred more. Invading two countries in retribution was like trying to take care of a cockroach problem by using a nuclear weapon... and missing!