West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: jeromechickenbone on October 29, 2004, 03:15:01 PM
-
A video was released on Friday that showed Bin Laden speaking on a variety of subjects. He basically took full responsibility for Sept. 11, saying that he had wanted to do something like that since 1982. He also said it doesn't matter if Kerry or Bush is president, that America is unsafe with either of them. He even spoke about how Bush sat there with the little girl for several minutes after he learned of the attacks, and says that it gave them more time to execute the plan. I'm sure there was much more, but thats all i can remember off top.
On a side note, i think this will help Bush. It reinforces that Bin Laden is still alive, and i think some people question whether or not Kerry would go after him. Then again, it could help Kerry because it could be interpreted that Bush has had 3 years to get the guy and he hasn't succeeded. Drop some thoughts. Peace
-
If Bush "captured or killed" Usama Bin Laden as he promised the American people he would this tape never would have aired. Instead, after promising to "capture or kill" Bin Laden, Bush reneged on his promise and told reporters "I'm not really concerned with him. I don't think he is an issue."
Today as we can all see Bin Laden is alive and well. Certainly bad news for Bush and more proof that GWB is bad for America.
-
If Bush "captured or killed" Usama Bin Laden as he promised the American people he would this tape never would have aired.
Then the 2nd man of Al Quada would have released a video tape. Idiot.
-
exactly anyone who votes for Bush because Bin Laden is still free & alive is a retard.
-
If Bush "captured or killed" Usama Bin Laden as he promised the American people he would this tape never would have aired. Instead, after promising to "capture or kill" Bin Laden, Bush reneged on his promise and told reporters "I'm not really concerned with him. I don't think he is an issue."
Today as we can all see Bin Laden is alive and well. Certainly bad news for Bush and more proof that GWB is bad for America.
why hasn't kerry caught him? he's got millions of dollars and he also has more companies campaigning for him than bush does
-
It's funny how this turned into a "Bush" thread instead of a Bin Laden thread.
-
how come we cant find this guy
-
HERE ARE SOME EXCERPTS FROM THE NEWS STORY:
"Your security is not in the hands of Kerry, Bush or al-Qaida. Your security is in your own hands," bin Laden said, referring to the president and his Democratic opponent. "Any state that does not mess with our security, has naturally guaranteed its own security."
Bin Laden also said the Bush administration was like repressive Arab regimes "in that half of them are ruled by the military and the other half are ruled by the sons of kings and presidents."
He said the resemblance became clear when Bush's father was president and visited Arab countries.
"He wound up being impressed by the royal and military regimes and envied them for staying decades in their positions and embezzling the nation's money with no supervision," bin Laden said.
"He passed on tyranny and oppression to his son, and they called it the Patriot Act, under the pretext of fighting terror. Bush the father did well in placing his sons as governors and did not forget to pass on the expertise in fraud from the leaders of the (Mideast) region to Florida to use it in critical moments."
I think I'm going to e-mail Bin Laden a link to TOT, and ask him to post here.
-
If Bush "captured or killed" Usama Bin Laden as he promised the American people he would this tape never would have aired. Instead, after promising to "capture or kill" Bin Laden, Bush reneged on his promise and told reporters "I'm not really concerned with him. I don't think he is an issue."
Today as we can all see Bin Laden is alive and well. Certainly bad news for Bush and more proof that GWB is bad for America.
why hasn't kerry caught him? he's got millions of dollars and he also has more companies campaigning for him than bush does
Are you being sarcastic? I'm not sure.
-
It's funny how this turned into a "Bush" thread instead of a Bin Laden thread.
Actually the original poster was curious whether we felt this video would help Kerry or Bush. Below you can find one of the many reasons it will help Kerry.
http://homepage.mac.com/njenson/movies/notconcerned.html
-
i'm saying that it doesn't matter who's in office, we'll catch him when we catch him... it's not likfe kerry is going to take the stage, look at some aerial photographs, do some CSI shit and come to a conclusion that he's in this one exact area... shit he has the biggest legal reward on his head and no one has cashed in yet....means he's surrounded by his closest people and he's doing shit right
-
I agree. If we catch Bin Laden it most likely will not be the direct result of the Presidents actions. However my comments were about who this news is good/bad for and its bad for Bush.
The new Bin Laden video symbolizes why Bush is bad for America. After running his whole campaign on the basis that he is strong on the terrorists we end with this reality:
+ GWB spent 150 billion dollars in Iraq. A country that had no ties to Al Queda, and no WMD.
+ State Department reports state that terrorists incidents have increased every year since Bush began his War on Terror. Terrorist recruitment is up as well.
+ GWB stated in his own words "i'm not really concerned with him (UBL)"
So after running around for 4 years pretending his is "tough on terrorist" he has no success stories. Usama is still at large and still able to direct his organization. Al'Queda is growing every year. Iraq was a total failure. 360 tons of explosives are missing. The FBI is investigating Halliburton. And the US is left with record deficits - 500 billion a year almost.
-
If Bush "captured or killed" Usama Bin Laden as he promised the American people he would this tape never would have aired. Instead, after promising to "capture or kill" Bin Laden, Bush reneged on his promise and told reporters "I'm not really concerned with him. I don't think he is an issue."
Today as we can all see Bin Laden is alive and well. Certainly bad news for Bush and more proof that GWB is bad for America.
Ant, you really show your ignorance about the war on islamic terrorism with your comments.
You didn't know that Zarqawi was active in Iraq LONG before the US invasion, now you really think that terror will just dry up and dissaper if this one guy is caught?
Since you're so keen on posting articles, here's one about somebody with ties to al queda donating money to John Kerry, then bragging about "getting "paid back" in future favors from the presidential candidate."
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41072
Here's an article about terrorists trying to influence the elections by their actions in Iraq:
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20041027-121030-7792r.htm
Here's a quote from one of them: "We've got to work to change the election, and we've done so. With our strikes, we've dragged Bush into the mud."
If you think that having kerry in the white house will change these people mind, you are absolutely wrong. Islam the middle east has moved away from a religion, twards an ideology.
Here's a letter from the Prime Minister of Malaysia urging American Muslims to vote for kerry.
http://www.islamicity.com/articles/Articles.asp?ref=IV0410-2488
Remember, this is the same guy that came out saying that Jews secretly run the world. He's made MANY anti-Semitic comments in the past.
It's clear from Kerry’s actions in the past, that like you, he doesn't really understand the global conflict that we are engaged in.
A John Kerry Presidency would be “Dhimmi” Carter Part 2.
-
So after running around for 4 years pretending his is "tough on terrorist" he has no success stories. Usama is still at large and still able to direct his organization.
LOL! Have you done ANY research on this or are you just spouting the party line? So killing and capturing 3/4 of the major al queda leadership is not a success story? No terrorist attacking in the US since 9/11 isn't a success story? Damn man, don't let your hate for Bush cloud your common sense.
360 tons of explosives are missing.
You post so many articles up, it seems absurd you haven't seen the news today. Step your game up.
-
Here's a nice article from arabnews.com on Kerry... I'll bold the imporant parts.
WASHINGTON, 1 August 2004 — During John Kerry’s speech accepting his party’s nomination at the Democrat’s National Convention in Boston, he spent a great deal of time defining himself by the four months he spent in Vietnam 30 years ago. Old comrades were trotted out, old war stories were told, old pictures shown as evidence of his fitness to be Commander in Chief of the US military.
Kerry spoke only three sentences regarding the 20 years he spent in the US Senate and did not mention his consistent pattern of voting to remain unengaged internationally.
The majority of John Kerry’s speech dealt with domestic issues. His stated foreign policy objective consists of rebuilding America’s relationships with her traditional Western allies. This he believes will provide greater security for Americans from Al-Qaeda and like-minded jihadiis.
Kerry did not mention the Middle East at all, except on US reliance on the region for its energy needs. Kerry stated he prefers to rely on “ingenuity and innovation”? During the hour-long speech, neither “ Israel” nor “ Palestine” escaped from his lips while words were plentiful about domestic environmental concerns, tax issues, health care and educational opportunities.
On some issues America is a firmly divided nation. As Bill Clinton noted at the Convention, “Democrats and Republicans have very different and deeply held ideas about what choices we should make. They’re rooted in fundamentally different views.” There is no issue that demonstrates this fissure more clearly than Iraq — a national Rorschach test.
Many of the convention delegates sported green stickers saying “ the Occupation of Iraq.” The American anti-war movement and many Kerry supporters see the invasion of Iraq as a fiasco, a personal financial burden, and a national embarrassment. They believe it has created terrorists. Kerry’s seeming opposition to President Bush’s Iraq policy has drawn many supporters to his camp, although Kerry voted for the Senate resolution authorizing unilateral military force. Kerry later voted against the 87 billion funding that military force. Now he supports a continued military presence.
It is difficult to discern Kerry’s thinking on the validity of the war, and more importantly, his plans and goals going forward. The New York Times notes in an editorial: “Kerry’s history on the critical Iraq issue has been impossibly opaque.” Kerry has alternately said he would “do whatever it takes” and he would withdraw US forces as soon as Iraq was stable. “I don’t think we should be opening firehouses in Baghdad and closing them here,” Kerry states in one of his most frequently run TV advertisements.
In his speech in Boston, Kerry said he knows what to do in Iraq —share the military and financial burden internationally. This will be possible he believes once he restores Western alliances and respect for the US . Opening the convention, former President Jimmy Carter stated, “The dominant international challenge is to restore the greatness of America.”
Republicans see the greatest challenge elsewhere. Vice President Cheney articulates their vision that “the enemy America faces today is every bit as intent on defeating us as were the Axis powers were in World War II or as the Soviet Union in the Cold War.” This view holds that the goal of the jihad is not to change US foreign policy but to destroy the US itself in a quest to establish a global caliphate. The 3/11 massacre in Spain they see as part of a larger effort to reclaim Al-Andalus. Republicans believe Al-Qaeda terrorists understand better than Democrats the historic stakes in Iraq and the major blow that would be dealt to their ideology by a self-governing Iraq.
Republicans, contrary to the prevailing international view, are not comprised of a cabal of neocons, Evangelicals, Zionists, oil barons and warmongers. Rather a portion of Bush’s base consists of ex-Democrat voters, prior liberals and other middle Americans disgusted with the Democrats reaction to the challenges America faces from radical Islamists.
Many Bush supporters disagree strongly with President Bush’s domestic policies and are extremely disheartened by chaos of the reconstruction of Iraq. Cringing at the president’s handling of the Greater Middle East Initiative, they agree on its goals of reform, economic development, greater literacy, and individual rights in the Middle East.
John Kerry offers these voters little global vision beyond restoring alliances in Europe.
The emphasis on the participation of the militarily weak and overtly hostile French and Germans in Iraq has little logic to the Republicans who see in the Democrats a Eurocentric view that dismisses the sacrifice of the Poles, El Salvadorans, Mongolians, thirty other nations and, most importantly, the valiant Iraqis.
Today’s Republicans see an Islamic democracy in the heart of the Middle East as the linchpin of American security that may forestall generations of terrorists. They believe in the domino theory — a strategy that relies on the hope of democracy, presented in a region of autocrats, to spread over borders and from heart to heart. This pattern of human behavior, they say, has demonstrated its strength and consistency over time in Latin America , Eastern Europe and South East Asia. For these Republicans, to paraphrase James Carville, “It’s the war, stupid.” Many Americans, hopeful and committed to success in both Afghanistan and Iraq , are unsure if Kerry shares their determination.
Those around the world who were hoping for a coherent Middle East policy from John Kerry have had their hopes dashed. Many in America are disappointed that the Democrats have not learned the lesson of 9/11, that the Middle East does affect American children mightily. As Americans, Muslims and innocents everywhere are endangered by radical Islamists, as nations globally are threatened, John Kerry’s mantra of “Stronger at Home, Respected in the World” offers little substance. And the question remains, is “Anybody But Bush” the best choice for the American electorate?
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=49248&d=1&m=8&y=2004&pix=opinion.jpg&category=Opinion
-
It's funny how this turned into a "Bush" thread instead of a Bin Laden thread.
Actually the original poster was curious whether we felt this video would help Kerry or Bush. Below you can find one of the many reasons it will help Kerry.
http://homepage.mac.com/njenson/movies/notconcerned.html
I bet Bush will win now.
-
If Bush "captured or killed" Usama Bin Laden as he promised the American people he would this tape never would have aired.
Is your sentence a joke i missed? Damn man, you are paranoid with Bush! If Clinton "captured or killed" Saddam Hussein as he promised the American people he would this war never would have fought. Ok? Lol.
-
Englewood. Are you really serious? Your citing a random Op/Ed piece as your rational for why Bush needs to be re-elected? As it stands today over 35 newspapers that endorsed Bush in 2000, "flip flopped" and decided to instead endorse Kerry. Kerry has recieved about 40% more newspaper endorsements than Bush.
The most impressive to date is the recent endorsement from The Economist. The well-regarded Economist typically leans slightly republican and enjoys a large republican readership.
Additionally, editors from the American Conservative have also endorsed Kerry.
If you want to post random quotes about Bush being good, and Kerry being bad I suggest you look for credible sources. I've already posted plenty of credible sources explaining why Bush is bad for America including well respected academics, newspapers, magazines, and even well-regarded members of the Republican Party. The reason you can't find any is simple: your side is wrong.
-
If Bush "captured or killed" Usama Bin Laden as he promised the American people he would this tape never would have aired.
Is your sentence a joke i missed? Damn man, you are paranoid with Bush! If Clinton "captured or killed" Saddam Hussein as he promised the American people he would this war never would have fought. Ok? Lol.
I was quoting Bush, while you were making up a quotation from Clinton. I don't recall Clinton ever promising he would "capture or kill" Saddam Hussein.
-
Englewood. Are you really serious? Your citing a random Op/Ed piece as your rational for why Bush needs to be re-elected? As it stands today over 35 newspapers that endorsed Bush in 2000, "flip flopped" and decided to instead endorse Kerry. Kerry has recieved about 40% more newspaper endorsements than Bush.
The most impressive to date is the recent endorsement from The Economist. The well-regarded Economist typically leans slightly republican and enjoys a large republican readership.
Additionally, editors from the American Conservative have also endorsed Kerry.
If you want to post random quotes about Bush being good, and Kerry being bad I suggest you look for credible sources. I've already posted plenty of credible sources explaining why Bush is bad for America including well respected academics, newspapers, magazines, and even well-regarded members of the Republican Party. The reason you can't find any is simple: your side is wrong.
LOL @ YOU chastising ME for posting a random op-ed piece. Just because you haven't heard of the author, doesn't make her points any less valid or credible. It's funny that you're talking about ME being close minded, but you dismiss the article I posted simply because you aren't familiar with the author, Why don't you respond to my points about how our sworn enemies (their words) support John Kerry???
Just because more newspapers support Kerry than Bush, does that make him the better candidate? Does the fact that 35 newspapers changed their views 4 years down the road make John Kerry the better candidate?
If you think so...
-
Englewood. Are you really serious? Your citing a random Op/Ed piece as your rational for why Bush needs to be re-elected? As it stands today over 35 newspapers that endorsed Bush in 2000, "flip flopped" and decided to instead endorse Kerry. Kerry has recieved about 40% more newspaper endorsements than Bush.
The most impressive to date is the recent endorsement from The Economist. The well-regarded Economist typically leans slightly republican and enjoys a large republican readership.
Additionally, editors from the American Conservative have also endorsed Kerry.
If you want to post random quotes about Bush being good, and Kerry being bad I suggest you look for credible sources. I've already posted plenty of credible sources explaining why Bush is bad for America including well respected academics, newspapers, magazines, and even well-regarded members of the Republican Party. The reason you can't find any is simple: your side is wrong.
LOL @ YOU chastising ME for posting a random op-ed piece. Just because you haven't heard of the author, doesn't make her points any less valid or credible. It's funny that you're talking about ME being close minded, but you dismiss the article I posted simply because you aren't familiar with the author, Why don't you respond to my points about how our sworn enemies (their words) support John Kerry???
Just because more newspapers support Kerry than Bush, does that make him the better candidate? Does the fact that 35 newspapers changed their views 4 years down the road make John Kerry the better candidate?
If you think so...
I quoted Nobel Laureates, prominent Republicans, former members of the Bush Administration, and conservative magazines. You quoted a random op/ed piece. Jane Novak is a noname republican partisan and yes that does make her opinions less credible. If we valued everyone's opinion equally we would be overwhelmed by a swarm of idiots. If you want Op/Ed peices supporting Bush I can offer you a dream come true. It's called The National Review. At least they have some credibility.
http://www.nationalreview.com/
Go there, read, and enjoy.
-
I quoted Nobel Laureates, prominent Republicans, former members of the Bush Administration, and conservative magazines.
So you're telling me all these people are non-partisan??!!!
LOL!
I subscribe to the print version of NR...
-
Let me explain something to yall, especially Ant's immature, childish mind.
George Bush, a supposed simpleton, after 9/11 invaded Afganistan, brought the taliban to their knees like a crippled little league softball team... a job Russia in all it's glory couldn't do. How did he do it? Mainly by enlisting the locals to fight the taliban, and then 3 years later, has turned Afganistan into a democratic nation, full of flaws and in a fledgeling state....... but still a democratic nation which had previously been in civil war for 20 years. George Bush did that.
It's one of the most resounding military successes of all time; and as I said, he did it with a minimal investment of troops on the ground, and he did it by enlisting the local tribes and warlords to help storm the caves and the towns that the American G.I.'s knew nothing about. That's excellent strategy, and it shows that Bush and of course the American Armed Forces are extremely efficient.
Now; John Kerry, since this is a political election year; has somehow turned that amazing victory, into a failure in his mind. Why? ... because we 'outsourced' the capture of Bin Ladin in the mountains of Tori Bori Kaka PeePee.
What is Kerry's fault with the Iraqi war, which we're currently engaged in? Not enough of a coalition.
So, I ask you. What is the difference in wanting a coalition in Iraq; and talking shit because Bush formed a coalition with the warlords in Afganistan? As usual, Kerry is on whatever side of the issue makes him sound better politically; have you noticed he agrees with not one fucking thing Bush did? That's the sign of someone disagreeing to disagree.
The man is for a coalition when we're in Iraq. He's against a coalition when we're in Afganistan. He calls the great nations that did choose to support our efforts in Iraq the coalition of the "coerced and bribed". What does that make Tony Blair and the good people of England, who are dying beside our own Soldiers in Iraq? Was Tony Blair bribed? Do you actually fucking believe the shit that comes out of his mouth? It's disgusting.
He says the United States shoulders 80 percent of the casualties in Iraq. No, Senator Kerry, your heartless political accusations fail to account the incredible work the strong people of Iraq have done for themselves. THEY have shouldered 50 percent of the casualties, and have suffered far greater losses to their country than America has invested in it. It's just like Kerry to ignore the suffering of the Iraqi people in this war; if it were up to him, Saddam would still be sitting on thousands and thousands of tons of weapons...... but he wasn't a threat, right? Kerry said two days ago that "That's why you have inspectors" and that Saddam was required to destroy these weapons by the inspectors. Senator Kerry, Saddam wasn't destroying these weapons. Any fool can see that Saddam had turned his country into a weapons cache, and wasn't doing a fucking thing the U.N. had resolved him to do.
Kerry says he wouldn't have went to war without 'the world understanding' why we were doing it. Guess what, Senator Kerry? The World DID Understand why we were doing it, some of the world didn't agree with it. That's the real crux of the issue; if the world didn't agree with it, Kerry wouldn't have done it. He says he would never let another country veto our right to go to war; what the hell do you call it when you put our lives in the hands of the United Nations? I'm supposed to let Libya, France, and Germany help decide if we can fight for something we believe in? The difference between Bush & Kerry on this matter is Bush tried to get a coalition, and tried to get people to support our cause. Whereas Kerry would have stopped when he received minimal support, Bush had the tenacity and the Balls frankly, to go ahead anyways, because it was a concept he believed in, and that Congress had already voted to go along with. The entire legislation was behind this war, not just Bush and his baddies.
Kerry wants to have us join the world criminal court, so our soldiers and elected officials can be brought to trial, disregarding the constitution of the united states which allows everyone the right to a fair trial. Bush is against joining this court, and would rather see the United States trial it's own citizens, instead of putting them at the mercy of some world body. I fully support him in this, there's no way in hell an American G.I. should be put to task by fucking Iranians or whoever has a political vendetta against our country at the time.
So; post all you want about Bush, but the truth is in Afganistan, we have a historically positive election going on, the same in Iraq, we've got two fledgling democracies on our hand in a region that hasn't known peace in forever. This isn't a failure, it's an amazing success... and I hope after Kerry loses tuesday, that you'll at least be able to function under the rule of an evil cowboy from texas for another 4 years.
It's just politics, some of yall sound like a 9th grader who just left their American History class.
-
If Bush "captured or killed" Usama Bin Laden as he promised the American people he would this tape never would have aired.
Is your sentence a joke i missed? Damn man, you are paranoid with Bush! If Clinton "captured or killed" Saddam Hussein as he promised the American people he would this war never would have fought. Ok? Lol.
I was quoting Bush, while you were making up a quotation from Clinton. I don't recall Clinton ever promising he would "capture or kill" Saddam Hussein.
Did you recall that's the main reason why USA failed in Iraq? Cause they didnt think about killing Saddam and cleaning the area. They just won the battle, saved Kuwait and left Iraq like that, with Saddam alive and with all the innocent people killed by Saddam's people as a revenge. Did you recall that? Did you recall Kerry wants to do the same now? I'm not talking about the war, but the after-war.
-
damn 100,000 innocent dead? that sounds worse than saddam. Damn, bin laden mocking bush. maybe if bush didnt go to iraq bin laden would be dead. Hopefully we get a leader who can lead out country better then bush, and not sit in a room for 7 minutes full of children while we are under attack.
-
damn 100,000 innocent dead? that sounds worse than saddam. Damn, bin laden mocking bush. maybe if bush didnt go to iraq bin laden would be dead. Hopefully we get a leader who can lead out country better then bush, and not sit in a room for 7 minutes full of children while we are under attack.
What did you expect him to do in them 7 minutes? To save the world by saying something on the TV?
-
When the homie Laden makes his promisses for some reason I tend to believe he'll do everything in his power to fullfill them,
His speach is more believeable than the pre-elections speaches of the U.S condidates for the presedential duty... :D
-
If Bush "captured or killed" Usama Bin Laden as he promised the American people he would this tape never would have aired.
Is your sentence a joke i missed? Damn man, you are paranoid with Bush! If Clinton "captured or killed" Saddam Hussein as he promised the American people he would this war never would have fought. Ok? Lol.
I was quoting Bush, while you were making up a quotation from Clinton. I don't recall Clinton ever promising he would "capture or kill" Saddam Hussein.
Did you recall that's the main reason why USA failed in Iraq? Cause they didnt think about killing Saddam and cleaning the area. They just won the battle, saved Kuwait and left Iraq like that, with Saddam alive and with all the innocent people killed by Saddam's people as a revenge. Did you recall that? Did you recall Kerry wants to do the same now? I'm not talking about the war, but the after-war.
Do you recall that wasn't Clinton. That was George H. W. Bush who left Iraq without finishing the job.
Kerry does not intend to do the same thing now. If you watch his speeches, or the debates that would be clear.
-
I quoted Nobel Laureates, prominent Republicans, former members of the Bush Administration, and conservative magazines.
So you're telling me all these people are non-partisan??!!!
LOL!
I subscribe to the print version of NR...
No I'm telling you they are partisan, but usually for the other side. I would assume a magazine called "The American Conservative" is partisan. And I would assume former Republican Govenors & Senators are partisan.
But it doesn't matter if an idea is republican or democrat. It matters if it is a good idea. It doesn't matter if an argument is republican or democrat. What matters is if it can stand up to criticism. GWB can't stand up to criticism. He operates the same way you do. Ignore and discredit the other side, and assume those that agree with you are the only intelligent voices in the country.
-
So after running around for 4 years pretending his is "tough on terrorist" he has no success stories. Usama is still at large and still able to direct his organization.
LOL! Have you done ANY research on this or are you just spouting the party line? So killing and capturing 3/4 of the major al queda leadership is not a success story? No terrorist attacking in the US since 9/11 isn't a success story? Damn man, don't let your hate for Bush cloud your common sense.
360 tons of explosives are missing.
You post so many articles up, it seems absurd you haven't seen the news today. Step your game up.
When GWB says he captured or killed 3/4 or al-queda leadership he is referring to "known" leadership. He has not captured or killed 3/4 of al-queda leadership because new leaders emerge when old ones are captured. A state department report shows terrorism growing every year and terrorist recruitment up. Sorry, but this is just another example of GWB misleading and you falling for it.
Another example Trauma mentioned of a GWB success was afganistan. Yes we went into a tiny lil country and took over, no one ever suggested that would be a difficult challenge. I bet we could take over a few other random countries, but actually we have in some ways strengthened global terrorism by our mismanagement of Afganistan. You may have read that Afgahnistan now produces 70% of the world's opimum. Under taliban rule opium production was grinded to a virtual halt, but the new Afgan government, and the US have allowed production to begin again. Terrorism and the drug trade are linked together closely.
-
You post so many articles up, it seems absurd you haven't seen the news today. Step your game up.
Isnt it ironic, dont u think? 8)