Author Topic: America's War on Terrorism: Unravelling before its eyes?  (Read 399 times)

King Tech Quadafi

  • His Royal Highness
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7323
  • Karma: -221
  • i think you betta recognize...
America's War on Terrorism: Unravelling before its eyes?
« on: June 29, 2003, 11:21:40 PM »
Unless the Americans smarten up and realize they need to put double the effort into reconstruction than war, both Afghanistan and Iraq will turn into quagmires.

And they say the Americans did it to liberate the people...lol

Its obvious the Americans dont give a shit about nothing but their own interests. Look at whats going on.

In Afghanistan, the Americans removed the religious intolerance of the Taliban. They also removed the law, order, peace, security, and strong centralized govt of the Taliban. In its place they have offered Muhajideen militias, remnants of the old Communist party and corrupt warlords. Ironically the same situation that occured after America let Afghanistan slip. Ironically the same situation that existed, that led to the arrival of the Taliban.

Hamid Karzai has no power outside the capital. Afghan friends of the family who have recently travelled to Kabul tell me US Special Envoy Zalmay Khalilzad is the true power in the country. The same Northern Alliance that raped, pillaged, robbed and destroyed the capital from 92-95 is now back in power. There is no order or security just independant fiefdoms. Taliban and Al Qaeda remnants still exist and still threaten. But dont worry, they'll be building that pipeline soon......

Look at Iraq. Plans for a interim Iraqi govt have been scrapped. Shit, the Iraqis cant even get a proper parliament or assembly going. Maharajah Bremer is trying frantically to control things. And the body bags keep on coming.

What do yall think of Americas War On Terrorism so far?
"One day Alice came to a fork in the road and saw a Cheshire cat in a tree. "Which road do I take?" she asked. "Where do you want to go?" was his response. "I don't know," Alice answered. "Then," said the cat, "it doesn't matter."

- Lewis Carroll
 

Genius

  • Guest
Re:America's War on Terrorism: Unravelling before its eyes?
« Reply #1 on: June 30, 2003, 12:52:06 AM »
Pros: Removal of Saddam in Iraq and the Taliban's loss of power in Afghanistan

Cons: Everything you said above + an increase in hatred towards America, which leads to more terrorism. If the U.S. had a concrete reason to "liberate" (bomb the shit out of and leave helpless) these countries, then maybe fewer people in the Middle East would have hard feelings towards the U.S.   Plus, most of these ignorant people aren't provided the real reasons for many actions taken by the government, thanks to our corrupt media and government. For example, take the U.S.'s interest in Afghanistan. Was it really for the removal of the Taliban? Hmmm let's see, the CIA helped and trained some of the early Taliban members out in Pakistan, and played a major role in their rise to power. The Taliban started their conquering back in 1994, and you think the U.S. didn't know anything about their laws and policies? Why didn't the U.S. bomb the shit out of them then? Oh yeah, they hoped that the Taliban would be able to create a strong, centralized government after they took control of the whole country, but that obviously never happened. Why you ask did the U.S. want this permanent government in place? Well, the answer to this you will find here:

http://www.mediamonitors.net/stephaniekirmer1.html

Please read this and educate yourself before you make anymore ignorant comments about why the U.S. took the actions it did in Afghanistan.
 

King Tech Quadafi

  • His Royal Highness
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7323
  • Karma: -221
  • i think you betta recognize...
Re:America's War on Terrorism: Unravelling before its eyes?
« Reply #2 on: June 30, 2003, 10:23:55 AM »
Why didn't the U.S. bomb the shit out of them then? Oh yeah, they hoped that the Taliban would be able to create a strong, centralized government after they took control of the whole country, but that obviously never happened.

It did happen.

And as for that link which didnt tell me anything new, if you would skim past my post again, you would see my referral to the gas line that the Americans want built in Afghanistan. This is nothing new. America was in direct negotiations with the Taliban over construction of that pipe line, however the Taliban asked for too much (diplomatic recognition, etc).

You have to understand the context in which I write my posts. The majority of the Americans here have no idea what goes on outside of the world, so I use the benefit of the doubt, and go along with what the US govt says themselves, then I break it down.
"One day Alice came to a fork in the road and saw a Cheshire cat in a tree. "Which road do I take?" she asked. "Where do you want to go?" was his response. "I don't know," Alice answered. "Then," said the cat, "it doesn't matter."

- Lewis Carroll
 

Genius

  • Guest
Re:America's War on Terrorism: Unravelling before its eyes?
« Reply #3 on: June 30, 2003, 12:16:08 PM »
I wasn't referring to you when I made the comment about the ignorant ones who didn't know what was really going on, nor was I disagreeing with what you said. I was actually going a bit more in depth about what you said, and when I saw that phrase about the pipeline, I just felt like I had to put up the link so others could see what was going on.
 

King Tech Quadafi

  • His Royal Highness
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7323
  • Karma: -221
  • i think you betta recognize...
Re:America's War on Terrorism: Unravelling before its eyes?
« Reply #4 on: June 30, 2003, 05:21:40 PM »
I thought u were dissin me, lol. Its all good.
"One day Alice came to a fork in the road and saw a Cheshire cat in a tree. "Which road do I take?" she asked. "Where do you want to go?" was his response. "I don't know," Alice answered. "Then," said the cat, "it doesn't matter."

- Lewis Carroll
 

Woodrow

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4329
  • Karma: 158
Re:America's War on Terrorism: Unravelling before its eyes?
« Reply #5 on: July 05, 2003, 07:56:22 PM »
IMO, most people don't realize that Bush's foreign policy is first and foremost designed to defuse the extreme threat of terrorists getting nuclear weapons.

This was the main reason for ousting Saddam Hussein (Saddam was building a nuclear reactor with Russia's help - a dictator of an oil rich country has no legitimate need for nuclear energy for electricity). Saddam's nuclear ambitions were fueling nuclear ambitions in the neighboring Arab countries and Iran from what they claimed were defensive needs caused by Saddam's aggression.

That's also the main reason Bush is intensely focusing on the peace process between Arabs and Jews, trying to dry up the swamp of state-supported terrorist organizations, and end the daily incitement to murder in the state-controlled Arab press.

By removing the coals that feed the flames of radicalism, and requiring Muslim nations take responsibility for cracking down on terrorist militias in their jurisdiction, Bush hopes to defuse the likelihood of a terrorist nuclear attack on America within the next 20 years.

To leave the region as it was, increasingly spiraling out of control into fanatical hatred and a culture that celebrated murder, was determined to be an unacceptable risk. That's what made "pre-emption" imperative. Most of the U.S. Congress understands this reasoning, with some exceptions. The Europeans and the "No blood for oil" people obviously don't perceive any threat if we let things stay the way they were on September 10, 2001.
 

King Tech Quadafi

  • His Royal Highness
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7323
  • Karma: -221
  • i think you betta recognize...
Re:America's War on Terrorism: Unravelling before its eyes?
« Reply #6 on: July 06, 2003, 12:35:53 AM »
IMO, most people don't realize that Bush's foreign policy is first and foremost designed to defuse the extreme threat of terrorists getting nuclear weapons.

SAID IT YOUR SELF. "EXTREME". NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARE NOT PURCHASED AT CONVINIENCE STORES. HOW ARE TERRORISTS GONNA GET THEIR HANDS ON THEM. THIS IS A MINUTE THREAT EXAGERATED BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IN ORDER TO HAVE PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR WHAT EVER HE DOES.

This was the main reason for ousting Saddam Hussein (Saddam was building a nuclear reactor with Russia's help - a dictator of an oil rich country has no legitimate need for nuclear energy for electricity). Saddam's nuclear ambitions were fueling nuclear ambitions in the neighboring Arab countries and Iran from what they claimed were defensive needs caused by Saddam's aggression.

SADDAMS NUCLEAR AMBITIONS WERENT ENCOURAGING SIMILIAR FEELINGS IN IRAN AND THE REST OF THE ARAB WORLD. ISRAELS'S 100 OR SO NUCLEAR BOMBS ARE. PLUS, THE SYRIANS AND IRANIANS WILL TELL YOU THEMSELVES, THEIR NUKES WILL BE POINTED AT TEL AVIV.

That's also the main reason Bush is intensely focusing on the peace process between Arabs and Jews, trying to dry up the swamp of state-supported terrorist organizations, and end the daily incitement to murder in the state-controlled Arab press.

BUSH IS FOCUSING ON THE SHAM CALLED THE ROAD MAP SO THAT THE ISRAELS WILL BE FURTHER CONSOLIDATED IN THEIR POWER OVER THE ARABS. ISRAELIS WANT THE PALESTINIAN PROBLEM OFF THEIR HANDS, SO MUCH SO THEY'RE EVEN WILLING TO HAND OVER SOME CRUMBS OF LAND. FURTHERMORE, YOU DO REALIZE THAT THE STATES THAT CONTROL THE PRESS ARE AMERICAN ALLIES.

By removing the coals that feed the flames of radicalism, and requiring Muslim nations take responsibility for cracking down on terrorist militias in their jurisdiction, Bush hopes to defuse the likelihood of a terrorist nuclear attack on America within the next 20 years.

HOW ABOUT THE AMERICANS TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MESS THEYVE CREATED? HOW ARE THE AMERICANS GONNA "REMOVE THE FLAMS OF RADICALISM" WITH WARS? AMERICAS FOREIGN POLICY AND ITS CAREFULL NARTURING OF ITS CHILD ISRAEL IS THE COALS THAT FEED THE FLAMES OF RADICALISM. AND BY THE WAY, LMFAO@ TERRORIST NUCLEAR ATTACKS.

To leave the region as it was, increasingly spiraling out of control into fanatical hatred and a culture that celebrated murder, was determined to be an unacceptable risk. That's what made "pre-emption" imperative. Most of the U.S. Congress understands this reasoning, with some exceptions. The Europeans and the "No blood for oil" people obviously don't perceive any threat if we let things stay the way they were on September 10, 2001.

THIS REGION IS A MESS BECAUSE OF AMERICA AND BRITAINS MEDDLING. BRITAIN GAVE BIRTH TO ISRAEL, AND AMERICA HAS NURTURED IT, FUNDED IT, ARMED IT AND TURNED A BLIND EYE TO ITS OPPRESSION OF PALESTINIANS. HOW MANY GOVTS HAS YOUR GOVT TOPPLED IN THE REGION? SUPPORT ISRAEL, OPPRESS THE PALESTINIANS, TORTURE THE MUSLIMS WITH PUPPET ALLIES, AND SUPPRESS MUSLIMS. THATS A GREAT GAME PLAN. YOUR GOVT IS CHOPPING THE BRANCHES OFF A DEAD TREE. TAKE OUT THE FUCKIN ROOT.


"One day Alice came to a fork in the road and saw a Cheshire cat in a tree. "Which road do I take?" she asked. "Where do you want to go?" was his response. "I don't know," Alice answered. "Then," said the cat, "it doesn't matter."

- Lewis Carroll
 

UnstoppableForce

  • Guest
Re:America's War on Terrorism: Unravelling before its eyes?
« Reply #7 on: July 06, 2003, 02:37:49 AM »
You tell him Tech... 8)
 

Jay ay Beee

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4986
  • Karma: -122
  • One of the Greatest Moments in Football History
Re:America's War on Terrorism: Unravelling before its eyes?
« Reply #8 on: July 07, 2003, 07:02:33 AM »
IMO, most people don't realize that Bush's foreign policy is first and foremost designed to defuse the extreme threat of terrorists getting nuclear weapons.

SAID IT YOUR SELF. "EXTREME". NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARE NOT PURCHASED AT CONVINIENCE STORES. HOW ARE TERRORISTS GONNA GET THEIR HANDS ON THEM. THIS IS A MINUTE THREAT EXAGERATED BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IN ORDER TO HAVE PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR WHAT EVER HE DOES.

This was the main reason for ousting Saddam Hussein (Saddam was building a nuclear reactor with Russia's help - a dictator of an oil rich country has no legitimate need for nuclear energy for electricity). Saddam's nuclear ambitions were fueling nuclear ambitions in the neighboring Arab countries and Iran from what they claimed were defensive needs caused by Saddam's aggression.

SADDAMS NUCLEAR AMBITIONS WERENT ENCOURAGING SIMILIAR FEELINGS IN IRAN AND THE REST OF THE ARAB WORLD. ISRAELS'S 100 OR SO NUCLEAR BOMBS ARE. PLUS, THE SYRIANS AND IRANIANS WILL TELL YOU THEMSELVES, THEIR NUKES WILL BE POINTED AT TEL AVIV.

That's also the main reason Bush is intensely focusing on the peace process between Arabs and Jews, trying to dry up the swamp of state-supported terrorist organizations, and end the daily incitement to murder in the state-controlled Arab press.

BUSH IS FOCUSING ON THE SHAM CALLED THE ROAD MAP SO THAT THE ISRAELS WILL BE FURTHER CONSOLIDATED IN THEIR POWER OVER THE ARABS. ISRAELIS WANT THE PALESTINIAN PROBLEM OFF THEIR HANDS, SO MUCH SO THEY'RE EVEN WILLING TO HAND OVER SOME CRUMBS OF LAND. FURTHERMORE, YOU DO REALIZE THAT THE STATES THAT CONTROL THE PRESS ARE AMERICAN ALLIES.

By removing the coals that feed the flames of radicalism, and requiring Muslim nations take responsibility for cracking down on terrorist militias in their jurisdiction, Bush hopes to defuse the likelihood of a terrorist nuclear attack on America within the next 20 years.

HOW ABOUT THE AMERICANS TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MESS THEYVE CREATED? HOW ARE THE AMERICANS GONNA "REMOVE THE FLAMS OF RADICALISM" WITH WARS? AMERICAS FOREIGN POLICY AND ITS CAREFULL NARTURING OF ITS CHILD ISRAEL IS THE COALS THAT FEED THE FLAMES OF RADICALISM. AND BY THE WAY, LMFAO@ TERRORIST NUCLEAR ATTACKS.

To leave the region as it was, increasingly spiraling out of control into fanatical hatred and a culture that celebrated murder, was determined to be an unacceptable risk. That's what made "pre-emption" imperative. Most of the U.S. Congress understands this reasoning, with some exceptions. The Europeans and the "No blood for oil" people obviously don't perceive any threat if we let things stay the way they were on September 10, 2001.

THIS REGION IS A MESS BECAUSE OF AMERICA AND BRITAINS MEDDLING. BRITAIN GAVE BIRTH TO ISRAEL, AND AMERICA HAS NURTURED IT, FUNDED IT, ARMED IT AND TURNED A BLIND EYE TO ITS OPPRESSION OF PALESTINIANS. HOW MANY GOVTS HAS YOUR GOVT TOPPLED IN THE REGION? SUPPORT ISRAEL, OPPRESS THE PALESTINIANS, TORTURE THE MUSLIMS WITH PUPPET ALLIES, AND SUPPRESS MUSLIMS. THATS A GREAT GAME PLAN. YOUR GOVT IS CHOPPING THE BRANCHES OFF A DEAD TREE. TAKE OUT THE FUCKIN ROOT.





Damn....another post of the year candidate.
 

UnstoppableForce

  • Guest
Re:America's War on Terrorism: Unravelling before its eyes?
« Reply #9 on: July 07, 2003, 08:21:22 PM »
Engel loves getting schooled. 8)
 

Woodrow

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4329
  • Karma: 158
Re:America's War on Terrorism: Unravelling before its eyes?
« Reply #10 on: July 10, 2003, 01:05:36 PM »
The current administration is implementing a long term plan to quell dangerous religious fundamentalism and state based power grabs in a volatile and opressed region containing hundreds of millions (billions when you factor in India and Pakistan and the eventual friction these two states will cause as they rub up against China) of people.

This long term plan has as its current center piece an economically viable and relatively democratic Iraq. Why Iraq? - Iraq has both strategic and logical attractions.

-Strategically, it borders Iran to its east. Iran is and has been a hotbed of the exportation of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism (I.E. Hamas and Hizbalah). With the internal pressures in Iran by a young generation demanding more freedom, the hope is that with an example of capatilitic and western success on the countries western border, and with a relatively stable Afghanistan on its North Eastern border (still a work in progress - think decades), and a pro-western Pakistan to its South, the Iranian Islamic government will succumb to the will of its own people and modernize without any future need for military action. Iran is the main exporter of international terrorism. Its economic and diplomatic suppport for Hizbolah has allowed the group to become present in virtually every Middle Eastern, Western, and South American nation on Earth. By adding a catalyst to internal change, America hopes to choke off this state sponsored source of funds.
Futhermore, while this pressure is being placed on Iran, the long term plan is to use Israel as the counter bookstop in order to squeeze Syria (and to a much lesser extent Jordan) into stopping their economic support for regional and international terrorism. With an intelligent leader in Assad, and with far fewer ties between Syria and Russia, the goal is to modernize and desecularize by dangling the carrot of economic expansion (its no coincidence that the free Iraqi oil has stopped flowing - if Syria wants cheap Iraqi oil now, they are going to have to have to take measures to clean up their house) while looming the stick of the US military that will be present in Iraq.
With these initial steps underway, the plan is to hopefully spread modernity and desecularization to Egypt (where the infrastructure for a Western economy has been built by the West over the past 20 years for just this reason). These pressures will hopefully also force the Saudis to make changes.
These goals are fluid and everchangning in their implementation and are hardly altruistic. The intended result is a safer world and thus a safer America. Safe for living and especially safe for trade.

I don't simply dismiss that oil was a factor here. I think some American companies will profit from the Iraq invasion. But the overall point of the oil is that it can be used to pay for the rebuilding of Iraq. Which leads me to Iraq's logical attraction -
As mentioned above, the oil underneath Iraq allows Iraq to pay for its own re-development. The Iraqi people are well-educated (especially for the region) and there is a respectable infrastructure in place. The fact that Sadaam kept the nation secular reduces the chance that Islamic radacalism will sweep through the population. And Iraq is right in the middle of the region.

I agree with you that Afghanistan isn't looking too good at present, but I think that it is most importent to look at where it was headed and compare it to where it is headed.
Firstly, where it was headed:
The nation of Afghanistan was being staged primarily by two groups (not to mention the local warlords who used the land and the people to steal everything, smuggle arms and drugs, and produce raw heroin), the Pakistani army and al-Queda. The Pakastani army, or more precisely the ISI, was the main economic and human resource for the Taliban. It was widely known that the ties were far more than religious. The ISI planned to use Afghanistan as a fall back for the Army's armed forces if and when war broke out with India. Pakistan, knowing that it could not hold off India's superior forces, and mindful than nuclear fallout could leave Western Pakistan proper temporarily uninhabitable, planned to use Southern Afghanistan as a fall back and regrouping base from which to organize a counter-attack against India's tanks and infrantry. The ISI planned to use the mountains and valleys surrounding the tribal areas and Kandahar to wage gurillea warfare against India's superior numbers.
By denying Pakistan this option, the US has greatly reduced the call for war with India from inside the Pakastani Army (note the very positive though incomplete de-escalation of hostilities in Kashmir) and thus has greatly reduced the chances that nuclear war will break out on the Penninsula. Without their Afghanistan fall-back position, the Pakastani army knows that it can not stop Indian forces from swarming over the border and taking the capital and major cities.
Secondly, Al-Queda. Al-Queda planned to use Afghanistan as a staging ground to launch an invasion of Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. With the defeat of the Northern Alliance (assasination of Massoud), and the isolationism that was supposed to engulf America after the attacks, Al-Queda, using Taliban foot soldiers, hoped to quickly take Tajikistan on its way to central Uzbekistan and its nuclear silos. If they could take and hold these weapons, Al-Queda would be a true political and military force to be reckoned with and they could create the Islamic Caliphate that they so desired.
Now, most of the Taliban army has been destroyed and the al-Queda command structure has been swept from Afghanistan.

As, I said earlier, Afghanistan isn't looking too good right now, but it looks terrific compared to the "could have beens." The American presence in Afghanistan is small but committed - and the current US army in Iraq is now within quick reinforcement range in case anything gets too out of hand. Karzai is slowly (very slowly) but surely being given the army and police forces he needs to secure the capital and its surrounding areas. Once done, the plan it to enlarge this secure area until it reaches a majority of the nation's population.
The process will be slow gowing, but it has to be. Afghanistan is not much more than rubble, and the population is very wary of a strong outside force telling them what to do.

While Iraq may look like it is destabalizing right now, I feel that it situation there is only going to get better. The US has undertaken a huge task in trying to re-organize Iraq and it will take time. Bush has committed himself and American forces to stay in Iraq "for as long as it takes." It may take 10 years, but with the right leadership, Iraq can be helped into becoming a stable and free democracy.

I'm going to try and ignore your scapegoating of Britan and America and argue with just my 2 cents.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2003, 01:07:04 PM by Engel-Rock AKA Dances With Bitch »
 

Woodrow

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4329
  • Karma: 158
Re:America's War on Terrorism: Unravelling before its eyes?
« Reply #11 on: July 10, 2003, 05:07:38 PM »
It's interesting that the view you put forward now is extremely different from that which you were putting forward before, during, and for sometime after the war was won.  You now admit that the war on Iraq was fought not to disarm Saddam of his alleged Weapons of Mass destruction but purely for its "strategic and logical attractions".  
Sigh... In this post I was speaking on the BIG picture.

That is 5 - 10,000 civilian lives lost, as well as the lives of soldiers on both sides, for "strategic and logical attractions".  I find it difficult to take when Americans feign ignorance as to why their nation is despised by millions, when the most intelligent and informed pro-American on this board admits that the United States fought a war of mass murder to gain a stronger foothold in a region.
First-
AP Tallies 3,240 Civilian Deaths in Iraq. Not 5 to 10 thousand. Even the Iraqi's didn't dare to say there were 10,000 deaths.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0611-06.htm

Second- Once again, there is a difference between short term benifits and long term binifits. I've spoken on the WMD issue in other posts. I think you know where I stand on that issue. I tried to show what my opinion was regarding the long term goals of the administration in this post.

I would be very interested to see where you got the information from that Al-Queda were planning to take over 3 countries.  Pipe dream maybe, reality no.  Do you honestly think that China, a nation with the largest army in the world by far, would sit back and allow a terrorist organization to take over three nations on its border?  Ditto Russia, who would surely act with Kazakhstan to stop it.  I would also assume that the Western world would unite and make sure that Al-Queda is not allowed to gain a foothold?  Your assertion is PURE FANTASY.
I think you underestimate the strength of the Taliban army pre-October 2001. Estimates put the Taliban strength at about 100,000 soldiers. These soldiers were being massed along the Northern Alliance front in preparation for a push to the north. The Northern Alliance had about 15,000 troops and surely would have fallen to the numerically superior Taliban. The Taliban also controlled numerous armored and artillery brigades made up of captured and purchased outdated Soviet and Russian tanks, APV's and artillery pieces. Also, a quickly forgotten fact, the Taliban did have an air force. Made up of between 30 and 50 MIG fighter jets, the Taliban would have controlled the only air power in a war against the Northern Alliance, and would have dwarfed the number of jets controlled by the Tajiks.

I think your strongest "if" argument is that the Russians would surely have sent troops to stop the capture of the silos. Al-Queda was counting on spontaneous uprisings of Muslims in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan to the call of the Jihad. If the Taliban would have rolled through Tajikistan (which I would argue was likely - there isn't much of a Tajik army) they were counting on popular support in the form of Islamic radicals using guerilla tactics, ala 1979-1989, to temporarily hold off the Russians and perhpas the Chinese while the Taliban made their move on the silos.

Add into the mix that they truly seemed to believe that the US was not going to respond but rather shrink from the world stage, and the Taliban had false hope that the Russians would hesitate to act uni-lateraly long enough that they could accomplish their mission. Even one captured silo could tip the balance of power.

I congragulate you on your progress.  You are now at the point where you admit (you probably knew all along) that the reasons to go to war as presented to the public were false.  Maybe someday you will see why slaughtering civilians by the thousand makes America and Britain no better than Saddam, and only leads to greater hatred of America and the west, which means more terrorist attacks.
I've never said the reasons present to the public to justify the war were false. This topic was about America's War on terrorism going bad, not WMD's and the justification for war. The war was needed and it was fought for the right reasons. I remember the dire predictions coming from people regarding the numerous Suicide attacks that would occur the moment Iraq was invaded. You're still in the mind state that you can negotiate with terrorists and get your way. Attacks will occur no matter what the US does. If we become an isolationist state we'll be attacked because the world’s only super power won't help out the rest of the world. If we decided to do what we think is best we'll be attacked for meddling in others business. America is a convenient scapegoat to the rest of the world. The Dr. Dre of the world IMO. Adored by many, and hated by many others.

All of the talk about WMD and chemical and biological weapons sometimes makes people forget that 3,000 people were killed on September 11th 2001 using American planes, not terrorist bombs.  With terrorism, it is often the case of "where there's a will there's a way'".  If someone is willing to kill themselves to kill others there is little you can do to stop them.  America and Britain, rather than reducing the chance of future terrorist attacks in the west, increased it by creating more orphans and more widowers.
Yes 9/11 was done with planes. Imagine for a second the number of deaths if terrorists had access to WMD's. Sure if somebody want's to kill themselves to kill others it'll be hard to stop. Once again, with WMD's the damage will be MUCH worse. Also Saddam was doing a pretty good job of making orphans widows himself.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2003, 05:09:48 PM by Engel-Rock AKA Dances With Bitch »
 

mauzip

  • Guest
Re:America's War on Terrorism: Unravelling before its eyes?
« Reply #12 on: July 11, 2003, 11:46:47 AM »
jesus christ! are you trying to get an award for who made the longest post or something?
 

Quakaveli

  • Guest
Re:America's War on Terrorism: Unravelling before its eyes?
« Reply #13 on: July 11, 2003, 01:30:10 PM »
jesus christ! are you trying to get an award for who made the longest post or something?

well some ppl have to fight for trivial awards like that...aint everybody thats flamboyant like u with the Gayest Poster on WCC and The Biggest Hater (Jamal), so on so on..
 

UnstoppableForce

  • Guest
Re:America's War on Terrorism: Unravelling before its eyes?
« Reply #14 on: July 11, 2003, 02:16:44 PM »

The Biggest Hater (Jamal)

Sonning you on a constant basis, making you look stupid, and punking your retarded looking ass doesn't make me a hater. Plus, what's to hate on? You? LMAO. Look at your ugly monkey-looking face; shit is disgustingly ugly. You human monkey. You should be glad if you got pussy from a dog or cat, you living female repeller. LMAO.... hating on you...... haha
 

Quakaveli

  • Guest
Re:America's War on Terrorism: Unravelling before its eyes?
« Reply #15 on: July 11, 2003, 06:17:33 PM »

The Biggest Hater (Jamal)

Sonning you on a constant basis, making you look stupid, and punking your retarded looking ass doesn't make me a hater. Plus, what's to hate on? You? LMAO. Look at your ugly monkey-looking face; shit is disgustingly ugly. You human monkey. You should be glad if you got pussy from a dog or cat, you living female repeller. LMAO.... hating on you...... haha

How ironic.

Show us YOUR pic pussy ::)
 

UnstoppableForce

  • Guest
Re:America's War on Terrorism: Unravelling before its eyes?
« Reply #16 on: July 11, 2003, 06:25:31 PM »
How is that ironic? If you don't know what a word means, or how it's used, don't use it smart guy.
 

mauzip

  • Guest
Re:America's War on Terrorism: Unravelling before its eyes?
« Reply #17 on: July 12, 2003, 12:30:45 AM »

The Biggest Hater (Jamal)

Sonning you on a constant basis, making you look stupid, and punking your retarded looking ass doesn't make me a hater. Plus, what's to hate on? You? LMAO. Look at your ugly monkey-looking face; shit is disgustingly ugly. You human monkey. You should be glad if you got pussy from a dog or cat, you living female repeller. LMAO.... hating on you...... haha

How ironic.

Show us YOUR pic pussy ::)

he's got a point right there
 

UnstoppableForce

  • Guest
Re:America's War on Terrorism: Unravelling before its eyes?
« Reply #18 on: July 12, 2003, 01:19:53 AM »
Mauzip, you just wanna see my pic for a whole 'nother reason you homo.
 

mauzip

  • Guest
Re:America's War on Terrorism: Unravelling before its eyes?
« Reply #19 on: July 12, 2003, 01:33:44 AM »
Mauzip, you just wanna see my pic for a whole 'nother reason you homo.

that's because i love you! :-*
 

Woodrow

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4329
  • Karma: 158
Re:America's War on Terrorism: Unravelling before its eyes?
« Reply #20 on: July 12, 2003, 02:08:35 AM »
This is why I don't post here anymore. A fairly decent topic is ruined by beefing and people complaing about too much typing.
 

Bigg AG

  • Guest
Re:America's War on Terrorism: Unravelling before its eyes?
« Reply #21 on: July 12, 2003, 02:15:00 AM »
Mauzip, you just wanna see my pic for a whole 'nother reason you homo.

that's because i love you! :-*

u are gay!!! im out!!!
 

Woodrow

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4329
  • Karma: 158
Re:America's War on Terrorism: Unravelling before its eyes?
« Reply #22 on: July 12, 2003, 02:18:15 AM »
Case and point
 

Woodrow

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4329
  • Karma: 158
Re:America's War on Terrorism: Unravelling before its eyes?
« Reply #23 on: July 13, 2003, 12:25:20 PM »
This topic needs a "Pruning"
 

UnstoppableForce

  • Guest
Re:America's War on Terrorism: Unravelling before its eyes?
« Reply #24 on: July 13, 2003, 12:42:51 PM »