Just a side note for all of you who get your political knowledge from the media…
No matter who becomes president the same things will take place! I encourage all of you to do some research about the goals and plans that Bush promises if he is elected, then what Kerry promises if he is elected. You will find they are EXACTLY the same. They talk about all the same points and argue the same side! So what is the difference you ask? The paths they will take to achieve them and nothing more…
Suppose Gore was elected rather than Bush, we would still have entered war. The short term memory of everybody is astounding. A shocking 86% of people supported the war in Iraq and were seeking it. This is the MAIN reason the United States went to war. IF gore was elected, these 86% of Americans would still have wanted the war and we still would have entered it. The popularity of the war dropped about 8 months after we occupied Iraq and everybody wanted to pull out. However, this can’t take place. The American people are easily influenced and quick to change their minds. War is a serious thing with serious consequences. You can’t just enter a war and withdraw 8 months later. It isn’t a game… so everybody that is now opposing the war is ignorant because they are the cause for it. They are the ones who were gung ho about the war and due to their childish thinking.
Don’t blame the man who brought the volume of the stock market up; don’t blame the man creating job opportunities and continuously lowering the unemployment rate; don’t blame the man who regulated inflation when we were about to go into a depression all because you have to pay more for your gas. Instead, read a book, do some research and blame yourselves!
Posted by: Michael_Thoma Posted on: Today at 12:35:43am There is another side to this... If this country were truely about democracy, why do we support terrorism. We put Saddam in power, we put bin Laden in power, we put the Taliban in power. When 13 of the 15 9/11 hijacker are Saudi, how is it we accuse Iraq? Why is Saudi Arabia not on the list of terrorist nations? Why are we not learning from our mistakes, if we look at the present situation, we are now supporting Pakistani dictator Musharraf... We we 'freed' Kuwait, why did we install a dictator there? Why do we allow the Palestinians to get pushed around, why not fight for their freedom? Why is it that when no other country, even in the Middle East recognized the Taliban as legitamite, the United States under Reagan gave them $200 million dollars?
I don't think Americans are stupid, I am one for God's sake... I think a great many people are ignorant and misinformed. Mr. Bush has started something he has no clue how to get out of. The language he uses smacks of holy war - Christian vs. Islam, what makes him any better than the extremists? He lied about WMD. He lied about Saddam, Al-Qaeda ties. This is an honest man?? If he said flat out, I hate Saddam and I want him dead, I would have respected him more. The current move makes me distrust and think him nothing more than a bully.
Any doctrine that got us into the Vietnam War should have been flushed down the toilet. That was the biggest waste of American life in our history. While the US prevent Chile from Communism, it allowed it to swing the other way into fascism. That totalitarian regime is no better.
Nearly 1000 soldiers killed to fight against Al-Qaeda... where the heck is bin Laden?? great, we captured Saddam, too bad he didn't have anything to do with this...
When Bush went to go see Pope John Paul II, I was glad to here the Pope gave him a very strong tongue-lashing about ignoring the Church, his lack of following the Principle's of Just War, ignoring the UN and most of the World...
All these people that were set in power like Saddam and Osama were set in power by the states to combat Communism and the Soviet Union. During the 80s, Afghanistan was attacked by Russia to keep Russia's power up, since it was going down. USA secretly trained Osama and his buddies to combat the Russians, and the succeeded at it.
Saddam was put in power to fight the Iranians. USA also helped the Iranians and the Shah of Iran to combat Irak. The US wanted 1 power to emerge, and install a puppet government to help in combatting the Russians. This is pretty logical since US would be defending against Russia but in a cloaking device, which would be one of the countries that emerged from the Irak-Iran war.
About the whole oil issue, yes, it is true that one of America's motives to attack Irak is the oil. Look at what they also did though. US captured Saddam, they put the Saddam Regime out of operation, and are now working on installing a new democratic governement.
The war in Irak was planned and made official in 2000, but kept away from the presence of the public. Bush did a stupid act by linking Saddam to Bin Laden. They are both very different, yet both must be brought down. Bin Laden is running because he feels guilty he attacked Bush, who was a former friend a very long time ago. That's why he is running alot. A good example is when you break a heirloom vase, and try to run away from it. You just feel guilty, and so does bin Laden.
To conclude, I am not pro-war. I am actually against it, and I do hope Bush gets trialed severly for lying to the public and for being responsible for the many deaths of the US Army and same thing applies to Tony Blair. They both screwed up big time. Everybody here wants wars to stop, but they won't, and the Bible advises of that. I am also not being anti-American or pro-American, I am just stating the logic behind this war politically and historically(20th Century history, ONLY!! lol), so please don't get bad ideas about me :(.
I’m glad to see you know your history. I don’t exactly agree with Bush’s explanation of the correlation between Saddam and Osama; however, I do think that there is a relation between them. Here is my explanation…
The attacks on 9/11 that executed and planned by Osama were quite multifaceted and intricate. We all know that the terrorists gained training for flying single engine planes that supported only about 30 gallons of fuel. A person with aircraft knowledge knows that is a tiny plane; quite insignificant compared to those used during the attacks. So is that all? Did they learn to fly the planes and then go on with the attacks? Absolutely not! Going from a single engine aircraft to a commercial Boeing 747 is like going from a Volkswagen to an 18 wheeler; IMPOSSIBLE. You can’t simply learn to fly a plane that small and then easily fly a commercial jet.
After speaking with the father of a friend of mine who has been flying planes since he was a teenager my ideas were only reinforced. He told me that the precision at which the planes struck the world trade center was astounding. He continued to tell me that even a professional would have difficulties crashing the plane with that amount of accuracy.
To recapitulate, it is impossible that the terrorists only gained training from the flying schools. They had to have flown commercial aircrafts at one point. Afghanistan is a little turd country with no money and absolutely no aviation credibility.
Where could these terrorists go to learn to fly a plane with hundreds of gallons of fuel? What country could finance this and have the airspace to accommodate such an arrangement? What country has a great deal of hatred towards the United States and would have incentive and be eager to participate in this task? None other but IRAQ!
I need not explain anymore, I think you guys can take it from here…
i disagree with you Mark on one point a lot of arab countries hate america and many of them have the ability to fly planes and train terroists and all and Egypt is one of them before i leave Egypt (which was 4 years ago) one of the major terroist mosque was right next to my catholic school in one of the busiest places in cairo terroists are supported by many rich arab and non arab country so just singling it down to just Iraq naaaa at least that is my opinion and my experience from egypt
Granted that all Arab countries hate America however you are wrong to say that any of them could be behind this operation. Take Egypt for example, the vast majority of the terrorists from 9/11 were Egyptian Muslim extremists, however, Egypt could not potentially a country that helped Osama. Did you know America gives Egypt millions of dollars in aid every year? As much as he would like to, Moobarik wouldn’t touch that operation with a 100 foot pole. So although Egypt is capable, it is quite clear Moobarik isn’t stupid enough to take up the job.
You are overlooking something. The leader of the country has to be up to the job. The only leader of an Arabic country who would be willing to partake in this situation is Saddam. Ali Abdullah Saleh wouldn’t dare permit this to take place in his country, its poor enough as it is. The only country that was stupid enough to stand in America’s way was Afghanistan when it harbored Osama, and we all know that happened there.
Who else? Pervez Musharraf had the opportunity to join the coalition of Arabs but wisely declined.
Seyed Mohammad Khatami? Not a chance!
Prince Abdallah? He is perhaps the last person on the face of the earth to think of doing anything against the U.S. and one of the wisest leaders in the Arab nations.
Lets sum this up, any Arab country would like to; but none of them could or would. Except Saddam ofcourse…
Hey Everyone, I am sorry, but you all seem to have fanatically anti-repub views. So what ever. Everyone has a right to their own objections, however, sanity is required when using this right. Oh and by the way, we are a republic, not a democracy. So, in the end Moore made a movie that I think is not needed at this time. A different time (before or after the war) would have been more justified. So, don't get me wrong, and don't try to play the liberal politcal games. So chill out!
Comments
No matter who becomes president the same things will take place! I encourage all of you to do some research about the goals and plans that Bush promises if he is elected, then what Kerry promises if he is elected. You will find they are EXACTLY the same. They talk about all the same points and argue the same side! So what is the difference you ask? The paths they will take to achieve them and nothing more…
Suppose Gore was elected rather than Bush, we would still have entered war. The short term memory of everybody is astounding. A shocking 86% of people supported the war in Iraq and were seeking it. This is the MAIN reason the United States went to war. IF gore was elected, these 86% of Americans would still have wanted the war and we still would have entered it. The popularity of the war dropped about 8 months after we occupied Iraq and everybody wanted to pull out. However, this can’t take place. The American people are easily influenced and quick to change their minds. War is a serious thing with serious consequences. You can’t just enter a war and withdraw 8 months later. It isn’t a game… so everybody that is now opposing the war is ignorant because they are the cause for it. They are the ones who were gung ho about the war and due to their childish thinking.
Don’t blame the man who brought the volume of the stock market up; don’t blame the man creating job opportunities and continuously lowering the unemployment rate; don’t blame the man who regulated inflation when we were about to go into a depression all because you have to pay more for your gas. Instead, read a book, do some research and blame yourselves!
Really Nice Job Mark. Really! ;D ;D
HIGH FIVE FOR YOU!
- Chris
Saddam was put in power to fight the Iranians. USA also helped the Iranians and the Shah of Iran to combat Irak. The US wanted 1 power to emerge, and install a puppet government to help in combatting the Russians. This is pretty logical since US would be defending against Russia but in a cloaking device, which would be one of the countries that emerged from the Irak-Iran war.
About the whole oil issue, yes, it is true that one of America's motives to attack Irak is the oil. Look at what they also did though. US captured Saddam, they put the Saddam Regime out of operation, and are now working on installing a new democratic governement.
The war in Irak was planned and made official in 2000, but kept away from the presence of the public. Bush did a stupid act by linking Saddam to Bin Laden. They are both very different, yet both must be brought down. Bin Laden is running because he feels guilty he attacked Bush, who was a former friend a very long time ago. That's why he is running alot. A good example is when you break a heirloom vase, and try to run away from it. You just feel guilty, and so does bin Laden.
To conclude, I am not pro-war. I am actually against it, and I do hope Bush gets trialed severly for lying to the public and for being responsible for the many deaths of the US Army and same thing applies to Tony Blair. They both screwed up big time. Everybody here wants wars to stop, but they won't, and the Bible advises of that. I am also not being anti-American or pro-American, I am just stating the logic behind this war politically and historically(20th Century history, ONLY!! lol), so please don't get bad ideas about me :(.
Forgive me,
Matt
I’m glad to see you know your history. I don’t exactly agree with Bush’s explanation of the correlation between Saddam and Osama; however, I do think that there is a relation between them. Here is my explanation…
The attacks on 9/11 that executed and planned by Osama were quite multifaceted and intricate. We all know that the terrorists gained training for flying single engine planes that supported only about 30 gallons of fuel. A person with aircraft knowledge knows that is a tiny plane; quite insignificant compared to those used during the attacks. So is that all? Did they learn to fly the planes and then go on with the attacks? Absolutely not! Going from a single engine aircraft to a commercial Boeing 747 is like going from a Volkswagen to an 18 wheeler; IMPOSSIBLE. You can’t simply learn to fly a plane that small and then easily fly a commercial jet.
After speaking with the father of a friend of mine who has been flying planes since he was a teenager my ideas were only reinforced. He told me that the precision at which the planes struck the world trade center was astounding. He continued to tell me that even a professional would have difficulties crashing the plane with that amount of accuracy.
To recapitulate, it is impossible that the terrorists only gained training from the flying schools. They had to have flown commercial aircrafts at one point. Afghanistan is a little turd country with no money and absolutely no aviation credibility.
Where could these terrorists go to learn to fly a plane with hundreds of gallons of fuel? What country could finance this and have the airspace to accommodate such an arrangement? What country has a great deal of hatred towards the United States and would have incentive and be eager to participate in this task? None other but IRAQ!
I need not explain anymore, I think you guys can take it from here…
and Egypt is one of them before i leave Egypt (which was 4 years ago) one of the major terroist mosque was right next to my catholic school in one of the busiest places in cairo terroists are supported by many rich arab and non arab country so just singling it down to just Iraq naaaa
at least that is my opinion and my experience from egypt
You are overlooking something. The leader of the country has to be up to the job. The only leader of an Arabic country who would be willing to partake in this situation is Saddam. Ali Abdullah Saleh wouldn’t dare permit this to take place in his country, its poor enough as it is. The only country that was stupid enough to stand in America’s way was Afghanistan when it harbored Osama, and we all know that happened there.
Who else? Pervez Musharraf had the opportunity to join the coalition of Arabs but wisely declined.
Seyed Mohammad Khatami? Not a chance!
Prince Abdallah? He is perhaps the last person on the face of the earth to think of doing anything against the U.S. and one of the wisest leaders in the Arab nations.
Lets sum this up, any Arab country would like to; but none of them could or would. Except Saddam ofcourse…
I am sorry, but you all seem to have fanatically anti-repub views. So what ever. Everyone has a right to their own objections, however, sanity is required when using this right. Oh and by the way, we are a republic, not a democracy. So, in the end Moore made a movie that I think is not needed at this time. A different time (before or after the war) would have been more justified. So, don't get me wrong, and don't try to play the liberal politcal games. So chill out!